On 11/15/13, 2:34 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/15/2013 2:07 PM, 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.



Clinton lucked out in the respect that bin Laden and the organizers of
the 9/11 attacks weren't ready a year earlier. They didn't care if it
was Clinton or Bush.



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.

--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

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.

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!

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.

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.

On 11/16/2013 7:57 AM, 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.


He can't help himself lately. He obviously needs a medication adjustment.

--
Americans deserve better.