Wish I could vote for...
 

On 11/16/2013 8:09 AM, John H wrote:
On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 07:57:12 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 11/16/2013 1:09 AM, wrote:


On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 14:41:06 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


So all those reports that stated bin Laden was ****ed because G.H.W.
Bush put troops in holy Saudi Arabia, and that G.H.W. was targeted by
bin Laden were just more obfuscation put out by Dubya and his
administration? Sure.



You can't bring up HW without implicating Clinton, since he did not
reverse any of those policies and actually started the "drive by
shootings" with stand off weapons that ****ed off so many people in
the islamic community.
He also kept the Iraq war going for 8 years. That wasn't free.



I thought that was an interesting comment by Harry (above). I wonder
if he realizes what the implications are.


Please explain, What about Harry's comment provoked this interest. He's made up more bull**** to
support his asinine attacks on Bush.

Stay tuned, it'll happen a dozen more times over the weekend.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!


The dummy was actually vindicating the Bushes. But, as you say, we can
look forward to more same ol' same ol' from Krause. If nothing else,
he's consistently inconsistent, and increasingly incognizant.

--
Americans deserve better.

Wish I could vote for...
 

On 11/16/2013 9:17 AM, wrote:
On Friday, November 15, 2013 9:48:54 AM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:
Bernie Sanders:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq-xjwgol4Q

--

Religion: together we can find the cure.

I'll bet that even Sanders pays his federal taxes. Unlike you, eh Krausebag?


You just love opening up Krause's wounds and pouring Kosher salt in
them, don't you.

--
Americans deserve better.

Wish I could vote for...
 

iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says...

On 11/15/2013 4:25 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 4:02 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 3:17 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 3:08 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 2:06 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/15/2013 12:24 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:48:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

Bernie Sanders:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq-xjwgol4Q

Bernie uses a lot of platitudes that are not exactly true in his
tirades against the job makers.

The Clinton "surplus" was mostly projections based on the dot com
bubble never ending.

The cost of the Iraq war is inflated. We were already in an Iraq war
when Bush came in and it wasn't cheap then. Pension costs are going to
be there no matter what.

The tax cuts were across the board, not just for the rich. That is why
almost half of the people pay no income taxes at all.



Clinton's "surplus" was also a result of excess Social Security revenues
that were transferred to the General Fund. The excesses were the result
of a robust but artificial economy based on dot.com companies that never
produced a product. The transfer of excess SS revenues to the General
Fund is legal but it's a bit of creative accounting to claim it erased
the deficit and produced a surplus.


I'm sorry, I must have missed the off budget accounting for the two
wars Bush started.


Actually, they were wars Clinton was involved in, and Bush just continued.


Oh, right, because Clinton dispatched so many troops into Iraq and
Afghanistan. Right, I get it...Bush just "continued" the wars.



How much was that Naval carrier groups and bombing and missile firing
costing? Nothing? Not likely! How much did the Balkans cost? Somalia?
All Clinton failures!


You were discussing Bush's "continuation" of Clinton's
non-troop-involvement-on-Iraqi-Afghani soil. But I can play along with
stupid. How much did our involvement in the Balkans cost in terms of
American deaths and expenditures and time and our involvement in Somalia,
in the same terms, compared to Bush's misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Oh, and our involvement in the Yugoslav wars was a restoration of peace
mission. It succeeded. In the Battle of Mogadishu, 18 U.S. troops were
killed. In the attack on the Beirut barracks during the Reagan
Administration, about 300 U.S. and French service personnel were killed.
You know, I don't recall any "Benghazi" bull**** claims against Reagan
from the Dems back then.


Clinton failed in getting those 18 killed. Neglected to supply the men on
the ground with adequate equipment. Just because it is an air war, does
not mean it is free. Nor that the war can be won. More likely, just means
lots of people get killed, and nothing is resolved. 1920s, an Italian
general named Giulio Douhet had the theory of massive air bombardment
would win wars without ground troops. Did that work in WW2? Viet Nam?
Iraq? Clinton just farted around with 8 years of spending and killing, and
accomplished nothing. Should Bush have sent in massive ground troops. In
my opinion, NO. He should have sent in a couple Delta Teams to kill
Saddam, or instead of bombing the radar sites, drop bombs on all known
Saddam abodes.


Nice wiggling and subject changing. I'm sure that works at your tea bagger socials.


No wiggling and subject changing. You tried to say Iraq was Bush's fault.
He had enough guilt, but so did Clinton. Al Gore is probably very happy he
did not have to deal with 9/11 or Katrina.


Al is perfectly happy living on the fears of the chattering class and
the warm earthers....

"Warm earthers". Scotty and O'Reilly are one of the very few that still
thinks despite science, that global warming isn't happening and isn't
directly related to greenhouse gases.

We have been in a warming cycle since the last major ice age 13,000 years
ago, except for couple minor ice ages.

Wish I could vote for...
 

iBoaterer wrote:
In article 695309550406246518.467254bmckeenospam-
, says...

"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 4:25 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 4:02 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 3:17 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 3:08 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 2:06 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/15/2013 12:24 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:48:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

Bernie Sanders:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq-xjwgol4Q

Bernie uses a lot of platitudes that are not exactly true in his
tirades against the job makers.

The Clinton "surplus" was mostly projections based on the dot com
bubble never ending.

The cost of the Iraq war is inflated. We were already in an Iraq war
when Bush came in and it wasn't cheap then. Pension costs are going to
be there no matter what.

The tax cuts were across the board, not just for the rich. That is why
almost half of the people pay no income taxes at all.



Clinton's "surplus" was also a result of excess Social Security revenues
that were transferred to the General Fund. The excesses were the result
of a robust but artificial economy based on dot.com companies that never
produced a product. The transfer of excess SS revenues to the General
Fund is legal but it's a bit of creative accounting to claim it erased
the deficit and produced a surplus.


I'm sorry, I must have missed the off budget accounting for the two
wars Bush started.


Actually, they were wars Clinton was involved in, and Bush just continued.


Oh, right, because Clinton dispatched so many troops into Iraq and
Afghanistan. Right, I get it...Bush just "continued" the wars.



How much was that Naval carrier groups and bombing and missile firing
costing? Nothing? Not likely! How much did the Balkans cost? Somalia?
All Clinton failures!


You were discussing Bush's "continuation" of Clinton's
non-troop-involvement-on-Iraqi-Afghani soil. But I can play along with
stupid. How much did our involvement in the Balkans cost in terms of
American deaths and expenditures and time and our involvement in Somalia,
in the same terms, compared to Bush's misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Oh, and our involvement in the Yugoslav wars was a restoration of peace
mission. It succeeded. In the Battle of Mogadishu, 18 U.S. troops were
killed. In the attack on the Beirut barracks during the Reagan
Administration, about 300 U.S. and French service personnel were killed.
You know, I don't recall any "Benghazi" bull**** claims against Reagan
from the Dems back then.


Clinton failed in getting those 18 killed. Neglected to supply the men on
the ground with adequate equipment. Just because it is an air war, does
not mean it is free. Nor that the war can be won. More likely, just means
lots of people get killed, and nothing is resolved. 1920s, an Italian
general named Giulio Douhet had the theory of massive air bombardment
would win wars without ground troops. Did that work in WW2? Viet Nam?
Iraq? Clinton just farted around with 8 years of spending and killing, and
accomplished nothing. Should Bush have sent in massive ground troops. In
my opinion, NO. He should have sent in a couple Delta Teams to kill
Saddam, or instead of bombing the radar sites, drop bombs on all known
Saddam abodes.


Nice wiggling and subject changing. I'm sure that works at your tea bagger socials.


No wiggling and subject changing. You tried to say Iraq was Bush's fault.
He had enough guilt, but so did Clinton. Al Gore is probably very happy he
did not have to deal with 9/11 or Katrina.


Bush invaded Iraq, Clinton did not. That makes Bush 100 times more
guilty. I don't play Greg Fretwell's game of "same-same."




I guess someone is not attacking you at your house, if they do not break
down the front or rear door, and just lob bullets or explosives at your
house from a distance. You do not have a right to shoot your shotgun at
them as they are not breaking in.

Holy ****, that's about as stupid as it gets!

Engage your brain, Dumbass.

Wish I could vote for...
 

iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says...

On 11/15/13, 4:02 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 3:17 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 3:08 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 2:06 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/15/2013 12:24 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:48:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

Bernie Sanders:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq-xjwgol4Q

Bernie uses a lot of platitudes that are not exactly true in his
tirades against the job makers.

The Clinton "surplus" was mostly projections based on the dot com
bubble never ending.

The cost of the Iraq war is inflated. We were already in an Iraq war
when Bush came in and it wasn't cheap then. Pension costs are going to
be there no matter what.

The tax cuts were across the board, not just for the rich. That is why
almost half of the people pay no income taxes at all.



Clinton's "surplus" was also a result of excess Social Security revenues
that were transferred to the General Fund. The excesses were the result
of a robust but artificial economy based on dot.com companies that never
produced a product. The transfer of excess SS revenues to the General
Fund is legal but it's a bit of creative accounting to claim it erased
the deficit and produced a surplus.


I'm sorry, I must have missed the off budget accounting for the
two wars Bush started.


Actually, they were wars Clinton was involved in, and Bush just continued.


Oh, right, because Clinton dispatched so many troops into Iraq and
Afghanistan. Right, I get it...Bush just "continued" the wars.



How much was that Naval carrier groups and bombing and missile firing
costing? Nothing? Not likely! How much did the Balkans cost? Somalia?
All Clinton failures!


You were discussing Bush's "continuation" of Clinton's
non-troop-involvement-on-Iraqi-Afghani soil. But I can play along with
stupid. How much did our involvement in the Balkans cost in terms of
American deaths and expenditures and time and our involvement in Somalia,
in the same terms, compared to Bush's misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Oh, and our involvement in the Yugoslav wars was a restoration of peace
mission. It succeeded. In the Battle of Mogadishu, 18 U.S. troops were
killed. In the attack on the Beirut barracks during the Reagan
Administration, about 300 U.S. and French service personnel were killed.
You know, I don't recall any "Benghazi" bull**** claims against Reagan
from the Dems back then.


Clinton failed in getting those 18 killed. Neglected to supply the men on
the ground with adequate equipment. Just because it is an air war, does
not mean it is free. Nor that the war can be won. More likely, just means
lots of people get killed, and nothing is resolved. 1920s, an Italian
general named Giulio Douhet had the theory of massive air bombardment
would win wars without ground troops. Did that work in WW2? Viet Nam?
Iraq? Clinton just farted around with 8 years of spending and killing, and
accomplished nothing. Should Bush have sent in massive ground troops. In
my opinion, NO. He should have sent in a couple Delta Teams to kill
Saddam, or instead of bombing the radar sites, drop bombs on all known
Saddam abodes.


Nice wiggling and subject changing. I'm sure that works at your tea
bagger socials.

More like Scotty every day!

Yes you are, Dumbass.

Wish I could vote for...
 

In article 1282941398406319299.788059bmckeenospam-
, says...

iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says...

On 11/15/2013 4:25 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 4:02 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 3:17 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 3:08 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 2:06 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/15/2013 12:24 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:48:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

Bernie Sanders:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq-xjwgol4Q

Bernie uses a lot of platitudes that are not exactly true in his
tirades against the job makers.

The Clinton "surplus" was mostly projections based on the dot com
bubble never ending.

The cost of the Iraq war is inflated. We were already in an Iraq war
when Bush came in and it wasn't cheap then. Pension costs are going to
be there no matter what.

The tax cuts were across the board, not just for the rich. That is why
almost half of the people pay no income taxes at all.



Clinton's "surplus" was also a result of excess Social Security revenues
that were transferred to the General Fund. The excesses were the result
of a robust but artificial economy based on dot.com companies that never
produced a product. The transfer of excess SS revenues to the General
Fund is legal but it's a bit of creative accounting to claim it erased
the deficit and produced a surplus.


I'm sorry, I must have missed the off budget accounting for the two
wars Bush started.


Actually, they were wars Clinton was involved in, and Bush just continued.


Oh, right, because Clinton dispatched so many troops into Iraq and
Afghanistan. Right, I get it...Bush just "continued" the wars.



How much was that Naval carrier groups and bombing and missile firing
costing? Nothing? Not likely! How much did the Balkans cost? Somalia?
All Clinton failures!


You were discussing Bush's "continuation" of Clinton's
non-troop-involvement-on-Iraqi-Afghani soil. But I can play along with
stupid. How much did our involvement in the Balkans cost in terms of
American deaths and expenditures and time and our involvement in Somalia,
in the same terms, compared to Bush's misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Oh, and our involvement in the Yugoslav wars was a restoration of peace
mission. It succeeded. In the Battle of Mogadishu, 18 U.S. troops were
killed. In the attack on the Beirut barracks during the Reagan
Administration, about 300 U.S. and French service personnel were killed.
You know, I don't recall any "Benghazi" bull**** claims against Reagan
from the Dems back then.


Clinton failed in getting those 18 killed. Neglected to supply the men on
the ground with adequate equipment. Just because it is an air war, does
not mean it is free. Nor that the war can be won. More likely, just means
lots of people get killed, and nothing is resolved. 1920s, an Italian
general named Giulio Douhet had the theory of massive air bombardment
would win wars without ground troops. Did that work in WW2? Viet Nam?
Iraq? Clinton just farted around with 8 years of spending and killing, and
accomplished nothing. Should Bush have sent in massive ground troops. In
my opinion, NO. He should have sent in a couple Delta Teams to kill
Saddam, or instead of bombing the radar sites, drop bombs on all known
Saddam abodes.


Nice wiggling and subject changing. I'm sure that works at your tea bagger socials.


No wiggling and subject changing. You tried to say Iraq was Bush's fault.
He had enough guilt, but so did Clinton. Al Gore is probably very happy he
did not have to deal with 9/11 or Katrina.


Al is perfectly happy living on the fears of the chattering class and
the warm earthers....

"Warm earthers". Scotty and O'Reilly are one of the very few that still
thinks despite science, that global warming isn't happening and isn't
directly related to greenhouse gases.

We have been in a warming cycle since the last major ice age 13,000 years
ago, except for couple minor ice ages.

Oh, holy **** you are stupid! Can you read a graph without the help of
Rush Limbaugh?

http://tinyurl.com/llgydx8

http://tinyurl.com/mlsxum9

Wish I could vote for...
 

In article 2054671826406319265.822334bmckeenospam-
, says...

iBoaterer wrote:
In article 695309550406246518.467254bmckeenospam-
, says...

"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 4:25 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 4:02 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 3:17 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 3:08 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 2:06 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/15/2013 12:24 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:48:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

Bernie Sanders:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq-xjwgol4Q

Bernie uses a lot of platitudes that are not exactly true in his
tirades against the job makers.

The Clinton "surplus" was mostly projections based on the dot com
bubble never ending.

The cost of the Iraq war is inflated. We were already in an Iraq war
when Bush came in and it wasn't cheap then. Pension costs are going to
be there no matter what.

The tax cuts were across the board, not just for the rich. That is why
almost half of the people pay no income taxes at all.



Clinton's "surplus" was also a result of excess Social Security revenues
that were transferred to the General Fund. The excesses were the result
of a robust but artificial economy based on dot.com companies that never
produced a product. The transfer of excess SS revenues to the General
Fund is legal but it's a bit of creative accounting to claim it erased
the deficit and produced a surplus.


I'm sorry, I must have missed the off budget accounting for the two
wars Bush started.


Actually, they were wars Clinton was involved in, and Bush just continued.


Oh, right, because Clinton dispatched so many troops into Iraq and
Afghanistan. Right, I get it...Bush just "continued" the wars.



How much was that Naval carrier groups and bombing and missile firing
costing? Nothing? Not likely! How much did the Balkans cost? Somalia?
All Clinton failures!


You were discussing Bush's "continuation" of Clinton's
non-troop-involvement-on-Iraqi-Afghani soil. But I can play along with
stupid. How much did our involvement in the Balkans cost in terms of
American deaths and expenditures and time and our involvement in Somalia,
in the same terms, compared to Bush's misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Oh, and our involvement in the Yugoslav wars was a restoration of peace
mission. It succeeded. In the Battle of Mogadishu, 18 U.S. troops were
killed. In the attack on the Beirut barracks during the Reagan
Administration, about 300 U.S. and French service personnel were killed.
You know, I don't recall any "Benghazi" bull**** claims against Reagan
from the Dems back then.


Clinton failed in getting those 18 killed. Neglected to supply the men on
the ground with adequate equipment. Just because it is an air war, does
not mean it is free. Nor that the war can be won. More likely, just means
lots of people get killed, and nothing is resolved. 1920s, an Italian
general named Giulio Douhet had the theory of massive air bombardment
would win wars without ground troops. Did that work in WW2? Viet Nam?
Iraq? Clinton just farted around with 8 years of spending and killing, and
accomplished nothing. Should Bush have sent in massive ground troops. In
my opinion, NO. He should have sent in a couple Delta Teams to kill
Saddam, or instead of bombing the radar sites, drop bombs on all known
Saddam abodes.


Nice wiggling and subject changing. I'm sure that works at your tea bagger socials.


No wiggling and subject changing. You tried to say Iraq was Bush's fault.
He had enough guilt, but so did Clinton. Al Gore is probably very happy he
did not have to deal with 9/11 or Katrina.


Bush invaded Iraq, Clinton did not. That makes Bush 100 times more
guilty. I don't play Greg Fretwell's game of "same-same."




I guess someone is not attacking you at your house, if they do not break
down the front or rear door, and just lob bullets or explosives at your
house from a distance. You do not have a right to shoot your shotgun at
them as they are not breaking in.

Holy ****, that's about as stupid as it gets!

Engage your brain, Dumbass.

You post the above lines of complete stupidity, then tell someone else
to engage their brain.....

Wish I could vote for...
 

iBoaterer wrote:
In article 2054671826406319265.822334bmckeenospam-
, says...

iBoaterer wrote:
In article 695309550406246518.467254bmckeenospam-
, says...

"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 4:25 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 4:02 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 3:17 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 3:08 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 2:06 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/15/2013 12:24 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:48:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

Bernie Sanders:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq-xjwgol4Q

Bernie uses a lot of platitudes that are not exactly true in his
tirades against the job makers.

The Clinton "surplus" was mostly projections based on the dot com
bubble never ending.

The cost of the Iraq war is inflated. We were already in an Iraq war
when Bush came in and it wasn't cheap then. Pension costs are going to
be there no matter what.

The tax cuts were across the board, not just for the rich. That is why
almost half of the people pay no income taxes at all.



Clinton's "surplus" was also a result of excess Social Security revenues
that were transferred to the General Fund. The excesses were the result
of a robust but artificial economy based on dot.com companies that never
produced a product. The transfer of excess SS revenues to the General
Fund is legal but it's a bit of creative accounting to claim it erased
the deficit and produced a surplus.


I'm sorry, I must have missed the off budget accounting for the two
wars Bush started.


Actually, they were wars Clinton was involved in, and Bush just continued.


Oh, right, because Clinton dispatched so many troops into Iraq and
Afghanistan. Right, I get it...Bush just "continued" the wars.



How much was that Naval carrier groups and bombing and missile firing
costing? Nothing? Not likely! How much did the Balkans cost? Somalia?
All Clinton failures!


You were discussing Bush's "continuation" of Clinton's
non-troop-involvement-on-Iraqi-Afghani soil. But I can play along with
stupid. How much did our involvement in the Balkans cost in terms of
American deaths and expenditures and time and our involvement in Somalia,
in the same terms, compared to Bush's misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Oh, and our involvement in the Yugoslav wars was a restoration of peace
mission. It succeeded. In the Battle of Mogadishu, 18 U.S. troops were
killed. In the attack on the Beirut barracks during the Reagan
Administration, about 300 U.S. and French service personnel were killed.
You know, I don't recall any "Benghazi" bull**** claims against Reagan
from the Dems back then.


Clinton failed in getting those 18 killed. Neglected to supply the men on
the ground with adequate equipment. Just because it is an air war, does
not mean it is free. Nor that the war can be won. More likely, just means
lots of people get killed, and nothing is resolved. 1920s, an Italian
general named Giulio Douhet had the theory of massive air bombardment
would win wars without ground troops. Did that work in WW2? Viet Nam?
Iraq? Clinton just farted around with 8 years of spending and killing, and
accomplished nothing. Should Bush have sent in massive ground troops. In
my opinion, NO. He should have sent in a couple Delta Teams to kill
Saddam, or instead of bombing the radar sites, drop bombs on all known
Saddam abodes.


Nice wiggling and subject changing. I'm sure that works at your tea bagger socials.


No wiggling and subject changing. You tried to say Iraq was Bush's fault.
He had enough guilt, but so did Clinton. Al Gore is probably very happy he
did not have to deal with 9/11 or Katrina.


Bush invaded Iraq, Clinton did not. That makes Bush 100 times more
guilty. I don't play Greg Fretwell's game of "same-same."




I guess someone is not attacking you at your house, if they do not break
down the front or rear door, and just lob bullets or explosives at your
house from a distance. You do not have a right to shoot your shotgun at
them as they are not breaking in.

Holy ****, that's about as stupid as it gets!

Engage your brain, Dumbass.

You post the above lines of complete stupidity, then tell someone else
to engage their brain.....

You really are a Dumbass.

Wish I could vote for...
 

iBoaterer wrote:
In article 1282941398406319299.788059bmckeenospam-
, says...

iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says...

On 11/15/2013 4:25 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 4:02 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 3:17 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 3:08 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 2:06 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/15/2013 12:24 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:48:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

Bernie Sanders:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq-xjwgol4Q

Bernie uses a lot of platitudes that are not exactly true in his
tirades against the job makers.

The Clinton "surplus" was mostly projections based on the dot com
bubble never ending.

The cost of the Iraq war is inflated. We were already in an Iraq war
when Bush came in and it wasn't cheap then. Pension costs are going to
be there no matter what.

The tax cuts were across the board, not just for the rich. That is why
almost half of the people pay no income taxes at all.



Clinton's "surplus" was also a result of excess Social Security revenues
that were transferred to the General Fund. The excesses were the result
of a robust but artificial economy based on dot.com companies that never
produced a product. The transfer of excess SS revenues to the General
Fund is legal but it's a bit of creative accounting to claim it erased
the deficit and produced a surplus.


I'm sorry, I must have missed the off budget accounting for the two
wars Bush started.


Actually, they were wars Clinton was involved in, and Bush just continued.


Oh, right, because Clinton dispatched so many troops into Iraq and
Afghanistan. Right, I get it...Bush just "continued" the wars.



How much was that Naval carrier groups and bombing and missile firing
costing? Nothing? Not likely! How much did the Balkans cost? Somalia?
All Clinton failures!


You were discussing Bush's "continuation" of Clinton's
non-troop-involvement-on-Iraqi-Afghani soil. But I can play along with
stupid. How much did our involvement in the Balkans cost in terms of
American deaths and expenditures and time and our involvement in Somalia,
in the same terms, compared to Bush's misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Oh, and our involvement in the Yugoslav wars was a restoration of peace
mission. It succeeded. In the Battle of Mogadishu, 18 U.S. troops were
killed. In the attack on the Beirut barracks during the Reagan
Administration, about 300 U.S. and French service personnel were killed.
You know, I don't recall any "Benghazi" bull**** claims against Reagan
from the Dems back then.


Clinton failed in getting those 18 killed. Neglected to supply the men on
the ground with adequate equipment. Just because it is an air war, does
not mean it is free. Nor that the war can be won. More likely, just means
lots of people get killed, and nothing is resolved. 1920s, an Italian
general named Giulio Douhet had the theory of massive air bombardment
would win wars without ground troops. Did that work in WW2? Viet Nam?
Iraq? Clinton just farted around with 8 years of spending and killing, and
accomplished nothing. Should Bush have sent in massive ground troops. In
my opinion, NO. He should have sent in a couple Delta Teams to kill
Saddam, or instead of bombing the radar sites, drop bombs on all known
Saddam abodes.


Nice wiggling and subject changing. I'm sure that works at your tea bagger socials.


No wiggling and subject changing. You tried to say Iraq was Bush's fault.
He had enough guilt, but so did Clinton. Al Gore is probably very happy he
did not have to deal with 9/11 or Katrina.


Al is perfectly happy living on the fears of the chattering class and
the warm earthers....

"Warm earthers". Scotty and O'Reilly are one of the very few that still
thinks despite science, that global warming isn't happening and isn't
directly related to greenhouse gases.

We have been in a warming cycle since the last major ice age 13,000 years
ago, except for couple minor ice ages.

Oh, holy **** you are stupid! Can you read a graph without the help of
Rush Limbaugh?

http://tinyurl.com/llgydx8

http://tinyurl.com/mlsxum9

Graphs? Like the famous "Hockey Stick Graph"? The debate is still on
about what is causing global warming. Mt. Pinatubo let loose more warming
gases than man did in years. Krakatoa almost killed off settlers in the
Midwest. July snow storms in the 1880's. Crop failures. Global warming,
yes. Science behind the warming? In debate. We have had years of low sun
spot activity. The big fusion engine in the sky, has a hell of a lot more
influence than man. But you are intellectually lays, or just a dumbass.

Wish I could vote for...
 

On 11/16/2013 11:30 AM, Hank© wrote:
On 11/16/2013 8:09 AM, John H wrote:
On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 07:57:12 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/16/2013 1:09 AM, wrote:


On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 14:41:06 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


So all those reports that stated bin Laden was ****ed because G.H.W.
Bush put troops in holy Saudi Arabia, and that G.H.W. was targeted by
bin Laden were just more obfuscation put out by Dubya and his
administration? Sure.



You can't bring up HW without implicating Clinton, since he did not
reverse any of those policies and actually started the "drive by
shootings" with stand off weapons that ****ed off so many people in
the islamic community.
He also kept the Iraq war going for 8 years. That wasn't free.



I thought that was an interesting comment by Harry (above). I wonder
if he realizes what the implications are.


Please explain, What about Harry's comment provoked this interest.
He's made up more bull**** to
support his asinine attacks on Bush.

Stay tuned, it'll happen a dozen more times over the weekend.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!


The dummy was actually vindicating the Bushes. But, as you say, we can
look forward to more same ol' same ol' from Krause. If nothing else,
he's consistently inconsistent, and increasingly incognizant.



There is an often forgotten and minimized (in terms of importance)
timetable of events that occurred between the first Gulf War in 1990
under GHWB and the invasion and overthrow of the Iraqi government in
2003 by a coalition led by the USA under GWB.

The two events are separated by 13 years and two terms of Bill Clinton
as POTUS.

During those 13 years two people harbored mutual resentment for actions
taken primarily by the USA in the months leading up to and following the
first Gulf War in 1990. One was Saddam Hussein obviously. The other was
Osama bin Laden. As Harry pointed out, bin Laden was "ape ****" because
we had beefed up our military presence in Saudi Arabia (at the Saudi's
request) due to concerns that it may have been Hussein's next invasion
target after Kuwait. Saudi Arabia, being bin Laden's home and the fact
that he had become disgusted with the Royal Family's close ties with the
USA was an important element leading to the 9/11 attacks.

So, for 13 years we have two influential leaders bound by a hatred for
the USA living within commuting distance of each other. Do you
seriously think they never talked of their hatred for the USA and future
goals?

That's why Clinton was lucky, IMO. Neither of them knew GWB would
become POTUS in 2000. Hell, even *we* didn't know he had been elected
for a month after the voting.

Would 9/11 have occurred if Gore had won? Of course it would have. It
was in the planning stages for years.