| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Wish I could vote for...
Bernie Sanders:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq-xjwgol4Q -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
Wish I could vote for...
On 11/15/2013 10:48 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: Bernie Sanders: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq-xjwgol4Q I enjoy listening to his views. Doubtful I'd ever vote for him though. Here's another YouTube for your viewing pleasu http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coVE0PDGSw4 |
Wish I could vote for...
On 11/15/13, 11:09 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/15/2013 10:48 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: Bernie Sanders: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq-xjwgol4Q I enjoy listening to his views. Doubtful I'd ever vote for him though. Here's another YouTube for your viewing pleasu http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coVE0PDGSw4 He handles assholes, such as the fellow from Human Events, very well. :) -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
Wish I could vote for...
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. -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
Wish I could vote for...
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. |
Wish I could vote for...
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. |
Wish I could vote for...
"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. |
Wish I could vote for...
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. -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
Wish I could vote for...
"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! |
Wish I could vote for...
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. -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
Wish I could vote for...
In article 2056083870406239244.194704bmckeenospam-
, says... "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! Sure, Scotty. |
Wish I could vote for...
"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. |
Wish I could vote for...
iBoaterer wrote:
In article 2056083870406239244.194704bmckeenospam- , says... "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! Sure, Scotty. Dumbass, You are really showing you are a Dumbass. |
Wish I could vote for...
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. -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
Wish I could vote for...
"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. |
Wish I could vote for...
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." -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
Wish I could vote for...
"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. |
Wish I could vote for...
"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." Clinton attacked Iraq hundreds, probably thousands of times! |
Wish I could vote for...
On 11/15/13, 5:17 PM, Califbill wrote:
"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." Clinton attacked Iraq hundreds, probably thousands of times! *invade* Bill. *invade* U.S. Troops on the ground in Iraq. And for no good reason aside from Bush's ego and his administration's lies. Q. Why did George W. Bush invade Iraq? A. Because he failed to capture Osama bin Laden, and he needed something really dramatic to convince the American voters he had what it took to be re-elected., -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
Wish I could vote for...
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 5:17 PM, Califbill wrote: "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." Clinton attacked Iraq hundreds, probably thousands of times! *invade* Bill. *invade* U.S. Troops on the ground in Iraq. And for no good reason aside from Bush's ego and his administration's lies. Q. Why did George W. Bush invade Iraq? A. Because he failed to capture Osama bin Laden, and he needed something really dramatic to convince the American voters he had what it took to be re-elected., Invade, attack with planes and bombs is also war! Why did Bush attack Iraq. Do not know the major reasons, but doubt if it was Osama. Was stupid, as I have stated before. Major reason Saddam had to go was to prevent a USA catastrophe that is probably coming sooner than we expect. That is loss of World Reserve Currency for the US dollar. Saddam was functionally doing that when he wanted a basket of different currency for the Petrodollar. And with the debtor status of this country, we are going to see economic woes of at least or worse than 1929! When we lose WRC status! |
Wish I could vote for...
|
Wish I could vote for...
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! |
Wish I could vote for...
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? |
Wish I could vote for...
In article 28082405406242094.190790bmckeenospam-
, says... iBoaterer wrote: In article 2056083870406239244.194704bmckeenospam- , says... "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! Sure, Scotty. Dumbass, You are really showing you are a Dumbass. Sure, Scotty. |
Wish I could vote for...
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! |
Wish I could vote for...
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! |
Wish I could vote for...
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. |
Wish I could vote for...
On 11/16/13, 9:27 AM, 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. Scotty was socially promoted out of high school and retains only what he hears or sees on right-wing extremist media. What do you expect? -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
Wish I could vote for...
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. |
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:06 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com