Wash. Times adopted GOP's inflated cost-per-job calculation for recovery bill
SUMMARY: Echoing a GOP press release, The Washington Times asserted of the economic recovery bill: "[A]t [the Congressional Budget Office's] best-case scenario of 3.6 million extra jobs at its peak in 2010, that works out to nearly $220,000 per job." However, this claim disregards tangible benefits of the stimulus package besides job creation, and economists have estimated that given predicted economic growth the actual cost per job is less than $70,000.
In a February 17 article, The Washington Times asserted of the final version of the economic recovery bill: "[A]t [the Congressional Budget Office's] best-case scenario of 3.6 million extra jobs at its peak in 2010, that works out to nearly $220,000 per job." As Media Matters for America has documented, numerous media figures have similarly claimed that the recovery plan will cost more than $200,000 per job created, echoing a January 15 press release issued by the Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee. However, such claims disregard tangible benefits of the stimulus package besides job creation, such as infrastructure improvements and education, health, and public safety investments.
Moreover, the cost-per-job figure the Times cited is inflated for another reason, according to Center for Economic Policy Research co-director Dean Baker and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman. As Media Matters has noted, both Baker and Krugman have pointed out that if the stimulus bill strengthens the economy as predicted, this will lead to higher tax receipts that should be accounted for in cost-per-job estimates, meaning that the true cost per job is less than $70,000.
From the February 17 Washington Times article:
Mr. Obama also is taking steps to make sure that as the money's spent, it matches his pledge of accountability.
His team is preparing a basic version of www.recovery.gov, which the president has been touting for weeks and will allow anyone to track the spending.
A senior administration official familiar with the site's launch said it will start with a basic framework but over time will become more sophisticated as the money is spent on construction and other projects.
"It's not just going to be a pretty graph. We will be providing the data and saying here's how we've decided to present these numbers, and some basic source files so you can present it your own way," the official told The Washington Times, requesting anonymity because the site has not launched.
The site will allow people to flag items, comment and participate in the conversation about how the economy has affected them and how the recovery package might help, the official said.
Republicans have balked at the price of the stimulus package, and even at CBO's best-case scenario of 3.6 million extra jobs at its peak in 2010, that works out to nearly $220,000 per job.
"Imagine how many jobs could be created if the legislation was focused on meaningful economic growth rather than special-interest spending," said Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, as the bill came before the Senate for a final vote late last week.
The Iraq war, so far, has cost us about $5 million per dead Iraqi.
Which is the better use of our money?
I just read in our local morning newspaper that our state officials (overwhelmingly Republican) are expecting an increase of 50,000 jobs as a result of the stimuus bill. Once the individual states start realizing the benfits of the stimulus bill I am sure everyone will forget these contrived numbers of alleged cost per job.
BTW, our governor, Bobby Jindal, has become an absentee governor. He is flying all over the country giving speeches at fundraisers. Apparently he is gearing up for 2012...although he denies it.
Bobby Jindal scares me.
Just to show you what kind of guy he is, his chief of staff is a young guy without a college degree who was homeschooled and whose prior experience was working for homeschooling lobbyists in D.C.
Isn't he a Muslim who does not have a birth certificate? Do you think that could work against him?
No he's a Christian, with a capital "C" and THAT'S why he scares me.
Typical Republican hypocrite that he is, he said if he were still a Congreesman he would vote against Obama's jobs bill, but as Governor, he will accept Federal funds.
That only works against you if you have a D in front of your name.
If the market turns this summer, the economy improves and we don't have any bad terrorist attacks, Obama will be seen as having established a new Pax Americana and Jindal won't have a prayer...and that's why Jindal is out beating the drums against the stimulus, so that if things don't turn around, he can say "I said it the whoooollle time."
It really is a gamble by the GOP. Miserable failure the next 4 years is the only thing that can keep the GOP alive in its current ideological state. They've lost my support regardless....I will never be a moonbat, but pragmatic moderate dems like my states' most recent and current gov's Warner and Kaine (and increasingly, Obama) I will stand behind.
Hear, hear.
This is the whole problem with the two-party system. There's an inherent conflict of interest between serving the public and furthering your party. Republicans have a vested interest in seeing the stimulus fail, since that would be politically disastrous for Democrats. But at the same time, such failure would be catastrophic for the American people.
There's always been some level of this, I think, but it seems like you could get a "time-out" from playing the game when it was really necessary. Now it seems like there are countless homes and jobs that hang in the balance, and all Republicans are thinking about is maximizing their chances for 2010 and 2012.
I think the Repubs look at history and shudder. The last time a Dem got the country out of a slump (FDR) the Dems held executive power for 20 years (and even then it took a unpopular Truman and a pragmatic war hero to turn the tide).
It's a huge gamble for the unpopular Repubs, it really is Rovian and BushieCo-like. Yet it seems to be their only strategery. Good night and good luck.
I think a HUGE fact you left out (certainly not intentionally) was that there was no Reagan until Reagan, and even Reagan wasn't "REEEEEAAAGAAAAN!!!!" until the ascension of Hannity and Limbaugh when a Repub finally did win the office again. Even Nixon would've been a "rhino" to Limbaugh. The GOP is just as scared about this.
......as do kittens, bunnies and rainbows. Boo!
Well, I AM more of a dog-person, and bunnies do have those BIG TEETH...
But I think its CONSERVATIVES who are afraid of RAINBOWS.
The Washington Times is not a newspaper. Like fixed noise, it's a gop-slop progaganda outlet.
Way to stay on-topic!! At least it took 3 posts before one of you liberals whined about something off-topic. At least nerzog attempted an on-topic statement, only he forgot to provide proof of his statement. And, is he including Iraqi deaths or only American deaths. I would also like him to provide cost per death in Viet Nam, Korea, WWII and WWI as cost comparisons. Just to verify if his attempt at sarcasm is accurate. Irony stayed on topic just long enough to whine about a politician going out fundraising. I was surprised he couldn't find something to whine about concerning Palin.
From what the article says, the cost per job will either be $220,00 or $70,000. The article also says both are posible. However, mmfa is whining because someone had the gall to provide possible results of this giant gamble with the American public's money by a democrat. But, it's ok when a democrat gambles with our money. Using the 'best case scenerio' of each job costing the American public $70,000... is that good or bad to have each job cost that much? How much in taxes are these 70K jobs supposed to produce? Probably no taxes under Obama's plan. He isn't producing that type of job. He wants to produce lower income labor jobs...the ones where no taxes are paid. Good (typical) thinking from another example of liberalism.
The joke, that goes by the name of Sarah Palin, admires Greta Van Susteren, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/16/bristol-palin-interview-t_n_167409.html
Satisfied...?
BTW, who appointed you hall monitor. I thought that was David Vitter's job...
There you go thinking again!
I've got more...but you're not going to like it.
Are you going to tell me that your admiration of Frank, Clinton (the perverted one) and Murtha is better?
HaHa. Funny that our friend called Bill Clinton a pervert, but when you mention your Senator "Diaper" Dave Vitter he clams up.
I guess one man's senator is another man's pervert.
Have you heard that a porn entertianer, Stormy Daniels, is going to run against Vitter. She said something to the effect that at least she is not a hypocrite about what she is. ;>)
Great. If she does, I'll donate to her campaign.
Well...
http://draftstormy.com/
Have you heard that a 'hooker' is now called a 'porn entertainer'. There's liberalism for you.
Not as bad as a pervert like Vitter being called Senator...
Or a pervert like Frank being called a senator...
Only you would conflate the two. Being homosexual (to sane people), is not perverted. Sleeping with hookers (to many people), IS perverted.
Not only me. Many people feel one deviant behavior is the same as another. At least you're able to admit Clinton (Mr) is a pervert. His escapades with hookers is well documented.
His escapades with hookers? Please, post some of that proof...
Philib is so wound up today that he thought I was referring to Clinton. I was obviously referring to Vitter.
Frank isn't a Senator numbnuts.
numbnuts; isn't that the word the winning kid had to spell at the most recent national spelling constest?
You're pathetic.
"Have you heard that a 'hooker' is now called a 'porn entertainer'"
Not all porn entertainers are hookers and not all of them are female. One term used for "hookers" is sex worker. Not all sex workers are entertainers and not all of them are female.
And, I'm sure you believe that with all your heart.
"And, I'm sure you believe that with all your heart"
Much better than that...I know them to be FACTS.
not all of them are female.
Just ask Jeff Gannon/Guckert.
yes im sure dick morris is just livid about it.
no Vitter's job is to guide you to the best hooker's available or to dick morris who will do the same thing.
It's hardly a gample. Kenseyan ecenomics has been a well used, well known and well understood theory and practiove for 34 of a centruy now. It's been used by Republican's and Democrats alike. To call it a "gamble" is absurd.
Will $700B get us out of recession? Who knows. What it WILL do, and this is KNOWN, is it will leave our economy $700B better off than it would be if we did nothing. That much is guarenteed. Although we'd have gotten more bang for the buck if we just spent and didn't waste any of it on tax cuts that will amount to about $8 dolars per week per tax payer. I heard that figure on this morning on NPR BTW, and while I did some roungh math and came up with $24 myself, (my numbers may have been off) either way, it's a senseless waste when you cosider how many more JOBS could have been created. What's going to help the economy more - me haveing another $500 bucks this year, or my neighbor being employed for the whole year, wtih all the productiona dnc osumption that that implies. (Not to mention the future benefits of improved infrastructure.) If there are flaws in the bill, the biggest ones were concession to Republicans. 100 people having another $500 will NOT help recovery better than 1 person with a $50,000 salary he would otherwise not have had.
And BTW... it's equally absurd to compare the Iraq War to WWI or WWII. Even Vietnam, as senselss as that war was, could be argued to have been a bigger threat to US security than Iraq. The "Domino theory" was bu!lsh*t anyway, but it was still better than ANY justification (that panned out) for the Iraq War.
"Will $700B get us out of recession? Who knows."
But you say it is NOT a gamble? So tell us if it will get us out of a recession! Another thing guaranteed is that the public debt will double during this attempt to screw the American public.
BTW so comparing one war to another is absurd? Why? Either the war cost money or it didn't. Either the war caused excessive injury/death or it didn't. We've lost around 4500 soldiers during this 7 year war. Can either of the other wars make that claim of deaths per year???? And to think you liberals are only thinking of how much the war CO$T$. You don't care about the safety of America military or public, unless it co$t$ too much, then you whine...whine...whine.
Lib: "And to think you liberals are only thinking of how much the war CO$T$"
You can't possibly be serious. Have you not been paying attention for the last six years? I see you post on this web site constantly and you never read what people were writing about this war? The number one complaint was the LIVES, not the money.
Good grief...
No, number one is the cost. Don't be another denyer, like the rest of the libs who post here.
"Don't be another denyer, like the rest of the libs who post here."
"You can't have a discussion with a liberal unless you agree with everything they say."
Very good barbs. Now do some actual discussing, instead of denying.
The point would be that you're chastising someone for not agreeing with you.
The "r" comes before the "a" in my name, by the way.
Babra. Sorry, I'll use the correct spelling from now on.
You could be a mature adult, or you could try to provoke people. It's all up to you.
You could answer questions I ask, instead of answering questions I don't ask with made up differences and assumptions. It's all up to you
I don't remember you answering my questions on that last thread. Meanwhile, I haven't made up anything. I'm genuinely trying to figure out what the hell you're talking about.
Let's simplify it for your sake:why did we invade Iraq?
I commend you for putting up with that psycho.
How about we simplify it even more... will jobs that cost $70K to create get that kind of return on them to make this gamble worth it?
You seem lost. I haven't said anything on that part of the thread.
I know, I'm trying to get you to talk about something on-topic.
I guess you should have thought of that before you started accusing people of hypocrisy off-topic, then.
Um, your misdirected blame is missing again. Eddie took this part of the thread to the war topic and it was zog who started this entire topic off with a rant about the cost of the war, not me. Check the very FIRST post. Is it on-topic? Then irony took it to some jindal guy who has presidential-hopeful problems.
My first statement mentioned their off-topic rants, then asked a related (to the topic) question. Which, whether you think it is a good question or not, was more on-topic than ANY at the time.
"The Iraq war, so far, has cost us about $5 million per dead Iraqi...Which is the better use of our money?"
That is the "rant" you're referring to, in full. Why is it off-topic? It's saying that the cost of the stimulus is worthwhile. It's hard to take your judgment seriously when you say a comment about the Washington Times is off-topic (see headline).
I think I've made clear that I don't care about on-topic or off. Not only is it a fine line at times, but it's excessively restrictive. My point is that if you really have a problem with it, then let it go instead of taking it further off course looking for some lame excuse to falsely accuse people of hypocrisy.
It says the stimulus is worthwhile? Hmmm, I didn't see the word stimulus in that statement or any connection to it. What I saw was an opportunity to whine about the cost of the war, without any comparisons to the current economic situation. That's fine that you don't care about on-topic discussions. Many other posters hate it when I discuss off-topic, but have no problems when they take it off-topic. Then get more mad when I respond to their off-topic rants. It's actually kind of funny watching liberals work that way. It only reinforces my belief that liberals are hypocritical.
But, I guess if I had to answer the question he asked, I would say the Iraq war would be better use of our money. I don't know if this country can sustain constant destruction of major buildings from terrorists who freely travel to and within our borders. Does anyone know how much the twin towers cost or were worth? How much are those lives worth? How much were the airplanes worth? Now, add it all up and give us a TRUE cost comparison... think you can do that nerzog?? Or do you just compare ONE-SIDED offerings?
"But, I guess if I had to answer the question he asked, I would say the Iraq war would be better use of our money."
Better than what? What are you comparing it to?
Obviously, I'm comparing it to the stimulus package, are you blind? You're the one who claimed the rant by nerzog was about the stimulus package, TRY to follow along. Unless you now change your mind and are confused about what nerzog was talking about. At which point I would be correct about him being off-topic. Which is it, we don't have all day!!
Well, if you understand that his question was about the stimulus, then you see the connection between his question and the topic of the thread.
"It says the stimulus is worthwhile? Hmmm, I didn't see the word stimulus in that statement or any connection to it."
Well, then, you should have known what I was comparing it to. Now reframe your question accordingly, please.
Then when you said you didn't know what the connection was, you were lying? Of course I knew what you were comparing it to. I was pointing out that you contradicted yourself.
And what does that have to do with nerzog commenting on the war in Iraq and your complaint that I took this off-topic, yet, you haven't spoken on topic yet.
Pointing out your dishonesty doesn't rely on relevance to that. Did I say you took it off-topic, or did I say that you were accusing people of hypocrisy off-topic? Try to comment on what is said, not what you imagine is said.
"Try to comment on what is said, not what you imagine is said."
Now there's the POT calling the KETTLE black!!! You haven't held a conversation longer than 2 posts without changing your story/mind. How's your "fighting al queda is ok as long as you don't fight them in Iraq" beliefs going?
"fighting al queda is ok as long as you don't fight them in Iraq"
My side of it's going fine. When you comprehend the difference between "side effect" and "justification for invasion", maybe it will go better for you.
What will be the "side effect" of invading Pakistan? I think when you comprehend the difference between fighting al queda and removing a murderous dictator it will go better for you.
What will be the "side effect" of invading Pakistan? You tell me. Getting al qaeda would be the primary objective.
We supported that dictator while he was murdering people. It doesn't give us a lot of moral authority to get more Iraqi citizens killed to remove him.
We supported the taliban, also. What's your point?
Osama was in Afghanistan. That was a valid reason to go in there.
There are plenty of reasonable conservatives around to debate with. Most are very opinionated and capable of holding up their end of any debate on just about any topic.
And then you have the blind followers like this guy. He should just go back to being an autopsychic.
uh guess what....im not liberal...im a conservative Republican....what you are philib, is one of these neo cons who has taken my pary.....give. it. back.
You may disagree with me (well, you do disagree with me), Lib, but you are not telling the truth. I am concerned - as are probably 99% of liberals and conservatives - with the human cost first and foremost.
By the way, what is a "denyer?"
It's absurd to compare the COSTS without regard to the value of the CAUSE. In WWII we were fighting for the survival of the free world. In Iraq we were settling a familiy grudge. The comparison is absurd. It's not about the COST, it's about the CAUSE. And no americans were kept safe by invading Iraq. You'd have to be a complete idiot to believe that. We'd have have been better off in every possibl way (financially, militarily, security-wise, politically, diplomatically, moraly and strategically) if the Iraq war had never happened.
The only beneficiaries have been the Democrats, and (for now) the Iraqi's - and we'll see how long they hold THAT together. It might work out, but it was still NONE of our business, and had NO justification.
But you say it is NOT a gamble? So tell us if it will get us out of a recession! Another thing guaranteed is that the public debt will double during this attempt to screw the American public.
Umm... ECONOMIC RECOVERY will get us out of the recession. Whether on not this will do that IN AND OF ITSELF is a matter unknown. But the unkown here is how BIG the recession is! This is a $700B down payment, and adds $700B to the recovery. That means, many times over, that amount of jobs, income, relief, etc... It will make thigns $700B better then we would be otherwise.
HOW exactly does that "screw the American public"? It seems to me that those who would do nothing, and worse - those who contributed to this mess, are the ones who are "screw[ing] the American Public." The only ones getting "screwed" here are the Republicans and that's only because they chose NOT to be part of the solution, after being the larger part of the problem. Everyone else will BENEFIT from this. If the Republicans want to obstruct eceonomic recovery, then go right ahead. They'll be down 5 more senate seats in 2010, and maybe the blue dogs (with fleas) will start drinking their cups of STFU.
If you have a hole in the ground and you can't see how deep it is, but you say 'this much dirt' will fill it in. After that dirt is put in the hole, you still can't see how deep it is, so you put more dirt in. You still can't see how deep the hole is. How long do you do this till you figure out you never knew how much dirt it takes to fill the hole?
What if the "unknown" ends up being $300 trillion? Should we keep pumping $700 billion stimulants in until the hole finally fills up?
If this recession is goingt o last unitl our economy has lost $300 Trillion Dollars then we are so screwed that the debt/taxes/etc... are the least of our worries. If the hole is that deep then it's basically all over for us anyway. But if that's what it took to restore us to prosperity... Well, then can you really give me any reason why we should not do what must be done?
I can't give a reason why it shouldn't be done, now. We've only dumped $1.5 Trillion into the hole, so far. It may actually work. However, does Obama have a plan for 'when' it works, or only if it doesn't work? Is there anyone who can say with certainty that no more money is needed? Is there anyone who KNOWS how much it WILL take? Without answers to those questions we are simply pumping money into a hole that no one can see the bottom to.
I think Obama should have taken this seriously, and vetoed the bill until all pork was taken out. He should have stood his ground and demanded serious money for a serious problem. But, he decided to yank our chains and let the democrats/republicans take as much money as they wanted. If he had whittled the stimulus down to ONLY stimulus projects, he would have earned more respect. But, he didn't. If there is ANYONE who can say there is NO pork in the stimulus (and prove it) now is a good time to speak up.
P.S. Don't say the US is "screwed", I'm going through several posters whining about me saying the American public got screwed with this (and the last) stimulus. It would look very bad if you say it too and nobody whines about it.
I think Obama should have taken this seriously, and vetoed the bill until all pork was taken out.
This statement prooves that you have no idea idea what your talking about! Take the PORK out of a stimulus bill? Pork IS stimulus!!! Pork is spending and spending is stimulus!!! "Pork" is just a nasty soudning word that your lot uses when they don't like someting. (LIke, for example the Domcrats fixing everything you fouled up!) SPENDING (yes, even pork) stimulates the economy!!! Taking ANY spending out of a stimulus bill is like looking for shortcuts to take along your jogging route!!! It undermines the whole purpose of doing it in the first place! Calling it PORK is nonsense. As far as I'm concerned, if your running a deficit TAX CUTS are every bit as much PORK as anything else.
Cut the pork out of a stimulus bill.
You people are hilarious - or you would be if your ideology wasn't so dangerous.
Don't let brabs see you say "you people". He railed against me for using that phrase. All the rest of your rant; well, that's why you vote democrat and I vote otherwise. Did you notice, I choose who to vote for, you just do what you're told?
Eddie was pretty clearly talking about people with your ideology, and saying your ideology was dangerous. Since it doesn't apply to anyone outside of that criticism, it doesn't unfairly generalize.
And I clearly talk about people with your ideology. Since there is no difference in the way he or I used the phrase you're being a nut-case for defending his use of 'you people' while crying about my use of 'you people'. You sure cry a lot: call me brab...quit saying you people...I don't change my story. What was it you said?... you can't buy laughs better than this!!!
Your use of "you people" was only part of your post, it wasn't the entire thing. He didn't say "all conservatives", so you don't know he isn't just talking about radicals like you. You, on the other hand, attribute horrific motives and ignorance to all liberals.
"You, on the other hand, attribute horrific motives and ignorance to all liberals."
After discussing on this thread all week, how am I wrong?
Because all you've done is misrepresent what I've said.
Actually, what I've done is try to figure out what you believe from post to post, since it changes each time you're shown to be wrong.
It's never changed. All you do is take things out of context and attribute meanings to my words that aren't there. I answer your question, you then act as if it's not in the context of the question you asked. You're not fooling anyone.
Take things out of context?!? Wow. Example you asked me a "what should they say" question. I answered it almost immediately. The next post you say I didn't answer the "why should they explain themselves" question. HOW is that taking you out of context?
"The assertion that people are criticizing soldiers because they criticize the invasion is absurd. What are people supposed to say, "the war in Iraq is wrong, except for fighting back against the terrorists that are attacking us". It should go without saying."
"Say what you believe to be true."
That's the context. The "why should they explain themselves" meaning is quite clear. You claimed you answered "the first question", but you changed the meaning by cutting it in half. The multiple question marks and capital letters are very persuasive, though.
I'm sure MMFA can direct you to many posts about payroll and sales taxes. And aren't lower income labor jobs more likely to drive consumer spending than covering bank losses?
Let's see...low income = increased drug/alcohol use + higher crime rates. Sure it will drive consumer spending...on lawyers, judges, rehab centers.
Why do you hate poor people so much?
So, you don't deny that poor = higher criminal activity? I didn't think you would (could). Besides, I hate the lifestyle, not the people.
Yea, poverty is a lifestyle...
Yes, that's why so few try to make it out of poverty. How many 'success stories' do you hear concerning those who rise from inner city (or anywhere else) poverty? You know why they call them success stories? Because so few actually try.
Actually, filthy rich = unpunished criminal activity. At least the little guy is made to answer for his crimes. Your heroes raid pensions, layoff thousands of workers, down size and outsource jobs to boot their quarterly profits and justify obscene bonuses.
You're a disgusting hypocrite.
boot = boost
Oh yeah? Hmmm, name the republicans who own ALL companies. You're the hypocrit trying to say democrats are not laying people off and raiding pensions and outsourcing jobs.
Typical evasion from you. You'll find no mention of Party affiliation in the post you responded to, only an attack on your sycophantic lust for the privilege of wealth.
You can't deny your affinity for a ruling class of wealthy elitists, so you fabricate some unrelated nonsense and call it an attack as a diversion.
You are so transparent and shallow that it's pathetic.
"Typical evasion from you. You'll find no mention of Party affiliation in the post you responded to, only an attack on your sycophantic lust for the privilege of wealth."
Ha ha ha, that's funny. Who is "Your heroes"?
Mother Jones, Cesar Chavez, MLK... And all the union organizers who fought and bled to bring you a better living standard.
You didn't really say that did you? I asked who "your heroes" is from your post which said this: "Your heroes raid pensions, layoff thousands of workers, down size and outsource jobs to boo(s)t their quarterly profits and justify obscene bonuses.". Who is "your heroes" that you whine about ??? And that would be the political affiliation that you denied mentioning. I don't care in the slightest about whether you like unions or not, that wasn't what I asked. But, being the brilliant liberal you are, you knew that.
Got me there ya did. Misunderstood your clear as mud post. Thought you were asking a question in your typical butchered english.
So, who is, "your heroes?"
Basically anyone who will go to any length to get a buck. Those are your heroes..the con jobs who seek gravity free markets, no taxes on the wealthy and radical privatization of the commons.
Sorry, they're not MY heroes. But you'll most certainly continue that missinformation, huh?
You mean the way you try to demolish the great American upward mobility story with your emptied headed misinformation that the impoverished in our country love and deserve their poverty?
Whatevs, homeboy.
You know you revere the vile corporate Marxists as the symbol of American success. You know the families who have worked their way from the working poor to the middle class are out here in abundance. But they aren't good enough for you because they didn't screw enough of their neighbors on the way up. In short, your measure of success seems to be tallied by grand fortunes amassed, not the attainment of well being. Were you impressed by success stories of the working poor, you wouldn't so ham-fistedly reject the notion that there are indeed such success stories out there. You would seek them out and use them as examples. But as you demonstrate above, with other posters, you are stuck in your paleoconservative Reagan stereotypes about the poor.
You're a pathetic independent, if you really are an independent, you are only able to spout hard right conservative dogma.
And you're an idiot if your claiming that corporate ownership isn;'t overwhelmingly Republican. If any money was given to Democrtas, it's only because they saw the writing on the wall this year and throw in with the winners early. But their interests (that would be self-interest, and short-term interests) are represented more by Republican principals then Democratic ones. Of course... if they weren't so greedy and short-sighted, they'd realize that they'd have just as much money if the COUNTRY AS A WHOLE did better, and that if EVERYONE had more money, then so would they... But then, what's the fun of being rich and surrounded by the middle class when you can be just as rich (although not MORE rich, actually) and everyone else be poor?
"And you're an idiot if your claiming that corporate ownership isn;'t overwhelmingly Republican."
You've got to be kidding right? Are you seriously whining that democrats don't own companies? Well, no wonder you people keep whining all the time, because no one wants to hire you since none of you are smart enough to run a business. Oh that's right, it wasn't long ago that you people were whining when republican radio stations kept firing liberal hosts. As if liberals aren't smart enough or rich enough to buy their own stations. You must absolutely depend on republicans for all your needs, right? But, of course, that would be why you want to continually raise taxes, since none of you pay any you figure that republicans will support you throughout your lifetime. Good plan. Now go whine somewhere else.
So how do we fix that stupid stereotype, phil? Raise wages for the working poor? Nah, that would only serve to interrupt the conservative ethic of something for nothing. That's right, you ignorant cons would rather allow the big crime of working a man to the day he dies for dirt wages, no pension, no healthcare. no retirement plan.
You're the poster boy for the the typical lazy Republican, you're always wanting something for nothing. You want a civil society, yet you don't want to chip in for it. You want your betters to make insane profits, yet you don't want them to give anything in return.
It's no wonder you disgusting conservatives have devolved into a bitter regional minority Party. You people truly suck at life.
Well said.
NO ONE has a sense of entitlement that rivals that of the wealthy.
Except the poor. They feel entitled to everything they want (not need...want).
Is that more independent thought? Because it sure smacks of hard right conservative dogma.
philib have you ever heard of something called the multiplier effect. This is the amount of new money that is the equivialant of being put into circulation for each dollar people earn. This effect is is much higher for those that earn the least just off of necessities of life. The last I saw it was over $5 per $1 dollar earned by th lowest 25% of incomes in the USA whils the top 2% were equivalant of taking money out of the economy. Witch is better for the Economy.
and who pray tell are the politicians driving to cut out good paying manufacture jobs in detroit and so forth? what bunch are spearheading that movement?
oh and lets not forget all the outsourcing of jobs from this country by companies to india and china and so forth to cut labor cots....what group were putting that in place?
You really are a souless bastard, aren't you?
More UNEMPLOYMENT = more POVERTY = increased drug/alcohol use + higher crime rates. Which drives spending (mostly government BTW, not private) on lawyers, judges, rehab centers.
Low income jobs... IOW: jobs that anyone can get, with or without a $500K degree, and make any kind of a living at, can only mean LESS unemployment, poverty, drug/use, crime, etc... The best of these (becuase they pay fairly decently, relatively speaking) are manufacturing jobs. But your lot wants to send all of those overseas, throwing people out of work just because they want to make a living while their Republican managers live in luxury.
You're insulting the intelligence of the posters here.
"You're insulting the intelligence of the posters here."
Intelligence has to be present before I can do that.
Your lot are the ones who send the jobs overseas, throw people out while their democratic managers live in luxory.
Small "d" for Democratic and an "o" where a "u" ought to be in luxury. Yeah, you're the smart one standing in judgment of this confederacy of dunces.
Please, kid. Throw away the pill bottle.
You must really be old to call me kid. ;)
Make up your mind. First you say I'm an angsty teen, now I'm older than dirt.
Fact is, you went after another's lack of intellect while displaying a shameful personal ignorance. You are an immense hypocrite.
"You must really be old to call me kid. ;)"
-------
5: He's following us again.
Lucy: GO ON HOME!
Sally: STOP FOLLOWING US!!
5: We don't want any little kids tagging after us! Go on home!
Sally: You heard us! Go on home! We don't like little kids! Stop following us!
Lucy and 5: YEAH! STOP FOLLOWING US, LITTLE KID!
[The "little kid" to which Lucy, 5, and Sally refer is not shown until the last panel, when it is revealed to be Charlie Brown.]
Charlie Brown: Actually, I'm bigger than any of them... what they're referring to is my emotional immaturity!
Phlibber, we only have "estimates" to work with, but the cost of the Iraq War so far is estimated at about $500 billion, and Iraqi deaths have been estimated at about 100,000.
No exact figures are available, hence my use of the word "about".
I didn't include American deaths because we didn't use our tax dollars to kill them.
As for Viet Nam, you'll get no argument from me that it was a waste of lives and money. However, most of the current Republicans who are currently whining about the cost of the stimulus bill weren't involved in rubber stamping that war.
And the Republican administration and media whores who sold us the present war, like Bush, Cheney, O'Reilly and Limbaugh, were too busy evading that war.
I think the republicans are whining about the additional costs within the stimulus that are NOT stimulus projects. That stimulus could be cut by a third and still do what Obama wants it to do. But...NOOOO... Obama says there is no time to talk about it, this bill must be rushed through.
Screw that nonsense. Get the bill passed and evaluate what is working and what isn't has always been the plan. Not to mention, you are welcome to lend your voice, too. This is about being open and accountable. You are used to being told what to do and how to think. You don't understand a government that works for the people at the consent of the people, but that is what the new era is about, so get on board or get out of the way.
"You don't understand a government that works for the people at the consent of the people, but that is what the new era is about, so get on board or get out of the way."
Bush said the same thing (my way or the highway), and you considered that threatening and dispicable. Now, it's ok to say my way or the highway?
Are you stupid or what? Bush was pushing totalitarianism.
I have no problem telling you to stop impeding open, accountable democratic government. You must have so internalized right wing fascist crap that you wouldn't know democracy and American values if they bloodied your pouty face.
When we get "open, accountable" government get back with me. He hasn't followed through on his promise to be an open government or an accountable one. Believe me, I know what democracy is. I just don't see it from the "do what I say, or else" group of democrats now in power.
You're simply a damn liar. Not only are you invited to scrutinize every detail of the recovery bill on whitehouse.gov, you can give your input at recovery.gov.
And don't give us that, "do what I say..." line. Not when Republicans have been, quite graciously, given their radical minority status, included in the construction of this recovery bill every step of the way. Instead, the right wing has deferred to Limbaugh, Palin and Joe the Plumber by impeding progress and insisting on even more of the same corporate tax cuts and deregulation that have gotten us here. You righties are not going to be taken seriously until you offer something besides more of the same old failures.
See, the problem is you keep considering me to be a republican. I'm an independant. So, while you often complain about me being hostile towards you, you are hostile towards me by applying the assumption that I follow every step of the republican plan. Republican and liberal plans are both generally bad for the entire nation, IMHO. The both seek to screw the other side. I know your political standings (you've let it be known several times), you (and most others) appoint my political standings for me and carry on every conversation as if it were true. When you treat me as an equal, I'll do the same. Until then, I'll say what I want, to whoever I want. Just like you do. ("You're simply a damn liar")
I'm an independant (sic)
You sound like O'Leilly.
Do you consider yourself conservative? Is your vision for the country to the right or left of what's come from the Republican party?
Yes. Independant conservative. Most of my beliefs are near republican, but NOT all. Some are even in the region of the left. The rest are closer to the middle. How about yours?
Socially left, outside of that whatever works. If some of your beliefs are in the region of the left, why do you spend so much time making wholesale condemnations of the left?
Because their core beliefs are too radical. And they refuse to compromise...at all. I would give you a 'for instance' but I don't want to change the topic.
I mentioned one near the bottom of all this. Someone mentioned the banker people who recieved tarp money should be drug tested also. I agreed. See? I'm not a supporter of bankers or banker type people like many claim I am.
Is that it?
Do you want me to write them all down and post each one with an explanation of each and what my life experiences were that lead me to those opinions?
A list would suffice.
I'll bet it would. Stay right there, I'll get right on it. You should see that list within hours. Stay close to your computer and be ready to reply.
Conservative... Republican, boohoo. Same thing. You are a conservative, stop being a sissy with that independent masquerade and own it. It's hard to be a conservative today, you should be proud to be one. So don't give us this independent bs and certainly don't attempt to play yourself as centrist. You missed the boat, the center has shifted left.
Also.
You complain about hostility? Pishaw. You come into our neighborhood, throw dogsh*t at our houses and expect to be invited in for punch and cookies? You're stupid. Period.
The funniest piece of your post is in your assumption that your schlock makes a difference on this end. You say, "When you treat me as an equal, I'll do the same. Until then, I'll say what I want, to whoever I want. Just like you do. ("You're simply a damn liar")" Poor mistreated, Phil. God you're weak in your resolve. Thin skinned much? Doesn't matter over here what or how you comport yourself on your end. Fire away, lame-o.
"You complain about hostility? Pishaw. You come into our neighborhood, throw dogsh*t at our houses and expect to be invited in for punch and cookies? You're stupid. Period."
So, stop complaining about me throwing dogsh*t at your house if you're so thick skinned. I wouldn't eat your infested cookies or drink your poisoned punch anyway. The problem with you (roundhouse) is that you talk sooo tough on the computer. You're probably a little skinny HS kid who goes around wearing black coats all the time. People like you make this nation a dangerous place to live. Nobody respects you, they only put up with you because you 'toe the line' for every liberal ideal present and every one planned for the future. You have no personal opinions, your opinions are what everyone tells you to have, and you're jealous that I can think for myself. Certainly not perfect, but I think for myself. When you can say that, get back with me. Until then continue spouting the typical liberal mantra. I hear it all the time, the record never changes. But, in your mind, if you say it enough times and threaten enough people, eventually everyone will do as you say. And, you whine about Christians being bad people!
Still too ashamed to call yourself a conservative Republican then?
Yeah, but what Bush said only matched what he did from the POV of an Orwellian mental patient.
Gee, I hate to confuse ya with the facts, little fella, but the Washington Times and their parroting of factually-challenged gop-slop nonsense if the topic.
I do not mind these empty suits making all of these assertions about the Spending Bill! Remember, these are the same people that allowed an alcoholic to take us to war in the wrong country, lose billions of dollars over there because of poor planning and theft, allow our citizens to be killed because they took their eyes off of the target, even after the 9-11, we had a number of people killed with a poisonous powdery substance (then they claim they have kept us safe..B.S!)! They have lost the last two elections...so let them continue their drum beat, it is a losing HAND!
Obama promised to attack Pakistan, if elected. Looks like he'll get his opportunity real soon. Is that the right country or wrong country to fight a war?? Besides, Ted Kennedy was not the one to take us to war. He vehemently supported it, but wasn't the one to take us there. Why would you even bring up Teddy during your rant about ??? What IS your rant about? Oh, BTW...Bush won the election before this one.
Obama promised to attack Pakistan, if elected.
You are an absolute fool for repeating that Sean Hannity nonsense. Have you ever listened to what Barack Obama actually said about going after ALQaeda in the autonomous regions of Pakistan?
Yes. Have YOU?!?
Yes, I have...and what Obama said bears no resemblance to the Sean Hannity nonsense you have repeated. Take off your official Sean Hannity filter and listen again to what Obama actually said.
Bring it! You insist he didn't call for an attack on Pakistan...prove it. Bring real proof of your claims. That's what you people demand of me, now it's your turn.
You are the one claiming Obama "promised to attack Pakistan." Sorry, but I can't find any record of Obama ever saying that. I do know, however, that Obama has said that if we come into possession of actionable intelligence regarding the location of Osama Bin Laden or other ALQaeda leadership in the mountainous, autonomous regions of Pakistan along its border with Afghanistan and if Pakistan is unwilling or unable to act against them that we will. That is a matter of public record...look it up.
Hmmm... "actionable intelligence". Is he still using the same intelligence gathering companies that Bush relied on? Oh, thanks for providing the quote saying Obama will attack Pakistan when he wants to.
Let us hope not....Besides, DickCheney writes here and no longer has time to create any intelligence.
Do you know the difference between Pakistan and AlQaeda? Obama said we would go after AlQaeda, not attack Pakistan. You must be yanking our chains because no one could actually be this dense...
Is he going to use the same intelligence gathering departments Bush used? I think that would be the ultimate irony for you irony101. But, you won't touch that question, will you?
Is he going to use the same intelligence gathering departments Bush used?
Of course he is. He just won't cherry pick. And he won't use the itelligence to support the policy. He'll form policy FROM the itelligence, which every other president has done (except one).
I just love the act as if Bush didn't really want to go to war. It's the fault of the intelligence community, Bush was just following what they gave him. He didn't pick and choose what he thought helped any sort of cause. As if the entire world doesn't know better.
Act? Tell us how you KNOW all this, mr mindreader.
Because the evidence is cherry-picked, for starters. It's not objective. Also the Downing Street Memo, the words of Paul O'Neill, and the Plame affair are all consistent with the idea that Bush wanted to invade Iraq whether it could be justified or not.
Let's go with that. If he 'wanted' to invade Iraq, was it to fight al queda? Or did he know al queda would appear and they fell into his 'plan'? I only ask that because you seem to know what Bush is thinking at all times. From all you've told me, everyone else knew al queda was NOT in Iraq when we invaded.
So, again, is the current fight against al queda in Iraq justified? If not, how is the fight in Afghanistan with al queda justified? Then how would an incursion into Pakistan to fight al queda be justified?
You keep confusing low-level members of al qaeda with leadership. They aren't the same thing. If Bush's plan was to draw in some terrorists by overthrowing a sovereign nation, that is insane. Not only does that do nothing to undermine the organization, but it boosts terrorist recruitment and dampens American military recruitment. So hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens and thousands of American soldiers die so that we can fight the 3-5% of our enemies who are random, inconsequential terrorists which are multiplying because of our actions?
Brilliant!
So, again, the side effect of fighting terrorists is justified. Invading a country to draw in terrorists is not justified. Invading a country because that's the only way to capture someone like Osama is justified.
"If Bush's plan was to draw in some terrorists by overthrowing a sovereign nation, that is insane."
Right. So we can be fairly certain he didn't plan that one.
" Invading a country to draw in terrorists is not justified."
Of course if you believe he did plan it that way then we really have nothing more to talk about. If you can't understand reality, then...well...there's nothing more to say other than liberals don't compromise.
"So we can be fairly certain he didn't plan that one."
"I only ask that because you seem to know what Bush is thinking at all times."
Notice that you weren't asking because that was the only explanation for how he might want to invade Iraq. So don't pretend that because that plan doesn't make sense that he didn't want to invade Iraq regardless of justification.
I don't believe that was the main idea behind the invasion. I think part of it was hatred for Saddam, but most of it was a horribly misguided effort to change the dynamics in the Middle East.
Also notice that you're the one who brought up this theory. I said if that was Bush's plan it was insane, not that it was his plan. But then after I address what you say, you attribute the idea to me. Why?
Again (how many times do I need to ask this) try to comment on what IS said not what you think is said. I said "IF you believe...", never did I say you DID believe that or say you believed that. Please...please, try to read what is written, not what you see in you mind.
"Of course if you believe he did plan it that way then we really have nothing more to talk about. If you can't understand reality, then...well...there's nothing more to say other than liberals don't compromise."
There's no basis for suggesting that I might believe that, since you're the one who brought up the theory. Besides, you just now said:"Show me that Bush said 'we will attack Iraq because I want to fight al queda in Iraq' or you are simply doing what I am doing with Obama's retoric." That clearly suggests that I believe Bush invaded for that reason, otherwise it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
Try reading the post BEFORE that one (your post). WHO developed that theory? You might want to let irony take over for you. Oh wait, he got lost when I asked; is Obama going to use the same intel companies that Bush used. Of course you can't seem to answer it either.
Which post are you referring to, specifically?
I already said the problem isn't the intelligence, it's how it was interpreted.
"If Bush's plan was to draw in some terrorists by overthrowing a sovereign nation, that is insane." Posted by Brabantio in reply to philib Posted Tuesday February 17, 2009 8:01:41 PM EST
That doesn't mean I think that was his plan. You brought up the idea in the post previous to that:"If he 'wanted' to invade Iraq, was it to fight al queda? Or did he know al queda would appear and they fell into his 'plan'?"
Ok, you obviously have reading problems. We'll leave this discussion alone, if you want. If you want to continue; read/study/answer questions...not; read/develop your own conclusions/not answer questions.
I read just fine. I read your post previous to mine, which brought up the idea.
"Let's go with that. If he 'wanted' to invade Iraq, was it to fight al queda? Or did he know al queda would appear and they fell into his 'plan'?"
Is that the quote you mean? HOW is that bringing up the idea that Bush wanted to draw al queda into Iraq for us to fight them? How am I suggesting rather than asking if Bush invaded Iraq to fight al queda when you and others consistantly claim al queda wasn't even IN Iraq? Of course if you read the post just before that one, you'll see YOU say he "wanted to invade Iraq". So, no, you do not read just fine.
If he knew al qaeda would follow us and fall into his "plan", then his "plan" was to draw in al qaeda by invading Iraq. I didn't say you believed that was the truth either, I just said you brought up the idea.
The idea that Bush "wanted to invade Iraq" is separate from the idea that he did it just to draw in terrorists.
Another basic english lesson for Philib. The word "if" denotes conditions. "If" they have actionable intelligence means it's not a "promise to attack Pakistan". It relies on other factors, which is completely different from what you said.
Sarah Palin agreed, as she should. It's true of any country that if you have actionable intelligence and the government of that country will not cooperate, then military action is justified. That would apply to Canada, Israel, Madagascar, whoever, so it's not a promise for invasion.
After the last time you couldn't understand english, you're going to be hardpressed to teach english to anyone.
You cut and run from that thread, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.
Lib, as the old saying goes, when you are in a hole, stop digging!!
I was there till the end. So, you know what I'm talking about.
No, you were required to answer questions to support your point. Without that, your interpretation was invalid. You tell liberals to support their arguments, so you have to do it too.
Umm, I supported my stance with the constitution. You (and others) said the constitution wasn't good enough because you didn't agree with what it said. Get a life barbs.
No, you didn't, but I'll give you another chance. Why are Taft, Hoover and LBJ considered presidents when they took flawed oaths? We agree with the Constitution, we don't agree with your interpretation, because your interpretation does not match up with history.
Are you menally incapable of spelling my name?
Are you menally incapable of spelling mentally? Get over it
Every now and then I miss a letter, like just about everyone (and not nearly as often as you). The point is that if you don't make an effort to treat others with respect, you don't give anyone motivation to respect you.
Few, if any actually spell my name out. Why is yours so important?
Some call you "phil", but that's part of your name. "Barb" is not part of my name.
Is 'few' much different than 'some'?
I don't care about the quantifying, but I didn't say that was the only alternative to "philib". Some call you "Phil", and few call you "philib". That's not inconsistent.
That's not the point, anyway. If someone called you "phyllis", I doubt you would appreciate it.
I wouldn't whine about or care what people I don't know call me online. They will do it no matter what I say. The simple fact that I don't agree with them turns them into grizzly animals who demand comformity.
How would you know? You've always attacked people here. I've never seen you try to have a rational conversation, all you do is to stereotype, smear and lie. Take this very thread. You lie when you say that Obama promised to invade Pakistan, but when you're corrected you stick to your guns and attack even more.
So take your victim act and go shove it. Most of us appreciate those who disagree rationally and politely, especially me. You have never attempted to fit into that category.
"You've always attacked people here. I've never seen you try to have a rational conversation, all you do is to stereotype, smear and lie."
Using words like "always" , "never" and "all" is quite inclusive. Can you give me an example of when I smeared or attacked anyone without provocation? Although I will admit to stereotyping all you liberals into one group. But, you all make that so easy with your consistantly derogatory remarks aimed at anyone and everyone who ISN'T a liberal.
I didn't lie when I said Obama will attack Pakistan when he is elected. http://www.greenchange.org/article.php?id=474 Even the starting paragraph says his intent is to attack Pakistan. What reason he uses is irrelevant, he promised to attack Pakistan.
Stereotyping is attacking without provocation. How many times have you gone off on tangents and attributed things like a desire to kill babies to all liberals? How often do you use the term "typical liberal" and fill in the blank with some ridiculous accusation?
Here's your very first post from the "nazism" thread on Friday:"Shows how much history you people know. Obama didn't use a Bible when he was officially sworn in. But, you liberals who are so 'up' on facts already knew that, huh? Too bad you can't even keep facts straight when they concern your new president."
Who "provoked" that? The comment you responded to didn't make any derogatory remarks about anyone who isn't a liberal.
Where does it say his intent is to attack Pakistan? "Would possibly" is dependent on the condition already noted. That is not a "promise".
"How many times have you gone off on tangents and attributed things like a desire to kill babies to all liberals?"
Show me a liberal who doesn't agree with abortion and I'll apologize. Do YOU agree with abortion?
Because I said "you people" that is considered derogatory? Wow, then you people are more thin skinned than I am claimed to be (by you people). Your attempt at bringing an old closed thread back to life in a topic on newspapers is a waste of all of our time. Mine and you people's.
You are truly a blind follower of whatever you are told, right? How can you NOT see he calls for the invasion of Pakistan as soon as he gets his intelligence committee to tell him what he wants to hear. Sounds quite a LOT like your constant complaints about Bush. Obama WANTS to attack Pakistan and will use any information found to authorize it. He's already move 17,000 more troops to the neighboring country. Obama WANTS this war to go into Pakistan and your denial sounds like every republican who said Bush DIDN'T want the Iraq war. I wonder if irony101 has caught that irony yet.
Supporting abortion has nothing to do with "a desire to kill babies". That's the whole problem. You attribute bloodlust or some nonsense to people who disagree with you.
Suggesting that all liberals are ignorant is derogatory, yes. As for bringing up an old thread, you asked for an example, remember?
Show me the connection between saying we might invade a country if certain conditions exist and "what he wants to hear". You have nothing to show that Obama wants anything of the sort. We've already been in Afghanistan, so that doesn't prove anything about a desire to invade Pakistan. When we see cherry-picked intelligence to justify going to war there, then you can compare it to Bush and Iraq.
"Tell us how you KNOW all this, mr mindreader."
Show me that Bush said "we will attack Iraq because I want to fight al queda in Iraq" or you are simply doing what I am doing with Obama's retoric. Show me the "cherry picked intelligence" that he used and show me the intelligence that YOU KNOW he ignored. You assumptions of Bush's thoughts are lacking any evidence, mr mindreader.
You're confused. The point isn't that Bush invaded Iraq to fight al qaeda. The point is that there was no evidence of WMDs or any connection to 9/11, whatever reason he had to actually invade. It's not the same thing as what you're doing because that is in the past. We know about the aluminum tubes, the yellowcake, the attempts to link Saddam to Osama. You're making an assertion about the future, which is obviously not the same thing.
"The point is that there was no evidence of WMDs"
Oh? Then what were all the leading democrats (Clinton-both, Kennedy, Kerry, ect...) worried about in '98 when they consistantly (publically) whined that Saddam is a danger to his neighbors and possesses WMD's? Did they use the same intel that Bush used, or did they have different intel?
The last time I checked, 1998 is not the same year as 2003. You do realize that through the course of time, things do change.
"You do realize that through the course of time, things do change."
Yeah, like Saddam had 5 years to dispose of his WMD's, too bad he couldn't dispose of his ego. And we entered Iraq on the intel that said he did have them. What overwhelming intel do you have that says differently? A lot of the dems proclaimed we need to 'discuss' the issue further, Bush said 'time for talk is over, time for action is now'. That sounds awful famiiliar to Obama saying the same thing, just last week. I hope you support Obama's war for drugs as much as you despise Bush's war for oil. Anything different would be an exhibition of liberalism that isn't hypocritical.
You mean like the intelligence that the aluminum tubes could only be used for WMDs while the actual study showed that they couldn't? We had people searching at the time we invaded, why didn't we let them continue the search?
Obama isn't starting a war in Afghanistan. It was already started, and it was neglected. You can't possibly attribute motives to that.
What war is started in Pakistan? If fighting al queda in Iraq is unjust, then fighting al queda in Pakistan is unjust. How can you attribute motives to attacking Pakistan if the war isn't with Pakistan?
I didn't say there was a war already in Pakistan. Going after harbored terrorists would be justified, but that's not the same as what happened in Iraq. Therefore Iraq doesn't have to be justified simply because another war would be.
"How can you attribute motives to attacking Pakistan if the war isn't with Pakistan?"
That doesn't even make sense. Can you rephrase that?
"I didn't say there was a war already in Pakistan. Going after harbored terrorists would be justified, but that's not the same as what happened in Iraq."
And how is fighting terrorists that come after us different than fighting terrorists who we go after?
Rephrase: How is fighting al queda in Pakistan justified when our war is in Afghanistan? How is fighting al queda in Iraq unjustified when our war is in Afghanistan?
You already said that wasn't the purpose of the war, so why is the side effect supposed to justify the invasion? Drawing in low-level, random terrorists is not the same as going after leadership and people who have planned and are planning attacks against us.
"Rephrase: How is fighting al queda in Pakistan justified when our war is in Afghanistan? How is fighting al queda in Iraq unjustified when our war is in Afghanistan?"
You're making two contradictory points. Pakistan is not justified because our war is in Afghanistan, while our war in Iraq is justified because our war is in Afghanistan. Pakistan would be justified under the hypothetical because it's its own situation. There is nothing about Iraq which makes the invasion legitimate.
"You already said that wasn't the purpose of the war, so why is the side effect supposed to justify the invasion?"
The side effect isn't supposed to justify the "invasion", I never said it did. But, when al queda entered into Iraq to fight us, it gives us justification to fight them back. I think you equate 'invasion' with 'fighting al queda in Iraq'. We didn't invade Iraq to fight al queda, did we?
"You're making two contradictory points."
I know. I'm going on the assumption that you think fighting al queda in Pakistan is justified (do you?) and the assumption you think fighting al queda in Iraq is not (do you?). That's why I'm having a hard time following your line of thought. Especially when you refuse to answer the question posed to you about that.
"We invaded Afghanistan to get Osama. We invaded Iraq to conduct a political experiment. Al qaeda came into Iraq to fight us. Now, if you say that we went into Iraq to remove Saddam and his WMDs, then you're starting to get the point. Saddam was not a threat, and there were no WMDs. So the cause was unjust. It has nothing to do with al qaeda being there because of us, because that's not the reason anyone is opposed to the invasion."
Nobody cares about "fight(ing) them back". You're talking about an invasion of Pakistan. If you're not talking about the invasion of Iraq then there's nothing for you to compare in order to find it to be hypocritical. You're the one who's been equating the two things the entire time.
I've answered your questions. Go back through the thread if you don't remember.
"You're talking about an invasion of Pakistan. If you're not talking about the invasion of Iraq then there's nothing for you to compare in order to find it to be hypocritical."
What do you call it when our military goes into a country (uninvited) to fight a war? Obama has said he will enter Pakistan to fight al queda with or without permission from the Pakistan government (using intel that says he can).
I'm not questioning the term "invasion". Read it again.
Alright, let me try again. Do you think the war against al queda in Iraq is justified? Did we invade Iraq? Do you think a war against al queda in Pakistan would be justified? Would we have to invade Pakistan?
Again, fighting back against al qaeda is justified. That's as far as that goes. This is why you can oppose the Iraq invasion while supporting other invasions. Is that clear now?
Yes, we invaded Iraq.
Under the hypothetical in question, a war against al qaeda in Pakistan would be justified.
We would have to invade, but not necessarily topple the entire government.
"Again, fighting back against al qaeda is justified."
Well, there you go. You agree with me. Fighting al queda is justified, whether it's in Iraq or Pakistan. So, are you now going to change your stance that 'our war in Iraq is unjust' after you just admitted fighting back against al queda is justified?
The point has never been whether fighting back is justified or not. "Fighting back" doesn't justify an invasion, so you can't accuse those who would support an appropriate invasion of Pakistan of hypocrisy. They're different situations.
No, I'm not going to change my stance. "Our war in Iraq is unjust" because we had no reason to invade.
There's your hypocrisy! We had reason to invade and all major dems declared those dangers while Clinton was president in '98. The same people declared the same dangers up till just before we invaded TO REMOVE SADDAM in '03. You can be against the invasion and not be hypocritical, but if you think our fight against al queda in Iraq is unjustified but a fight against al queda in Pakistan is justified, you ARE being hypocritical. Because you JUST admitted fighting back against al queda is justified. We didn't enter Iraq TO fight al queda. In fact YOU and many others say al queda wasn't even IN Iraq until after we invaded.
No, there was no legitimate reason to invade. There were no WMD's, there was no connection to 9/11.
Nobody objects to our soldiers fighting back against terrorists who followed us to Iraq. Unless you have some examples to the contrary, then you've abandoned your argument that liberals are being hypocritical. We opposed the invasion, which as you say, is not hypocritical.
"Unless you have some examples to the contrary, then you've abandoned your argument that liberals are being hypocritical."
Every time you (or anyone else) claim the war in Iraq is unjust but say a potential war in Pakistan is justified you have your example. I take it you are now changing your story to say you think there are two distinct seperations to our actions in Iraq; one-invasion, two-fighting al queda. If you ever lump them into one campaign by generically calling it the "war in Iraq" and claim no justification then you are being hypocritical.
How am I changing my story? I said already that any fighting with terrorists is a side effect, and we've both said that al qaeda was not the reason for the invasion.
Obviously there's a separation between troop actions and government actions. Soldiers are going to defend themselves from anyone who attacks, so that's always justified. An invasion is a government decision. I don't know how you can possibly think of them as the same thing.
The assertion that people are criticizing soldiers because they criticize the invasion is absurd. What are people supposed to say, "the war in Iraq is wrong, except for fighting back against the terrorists that are attacking us". It should go without saying.
So, when (if) Obama invades Pakistan that's just a "side effect"?
"What are people supposed to say"
Say what you believe to be true. Don't change your story every time you get called on it.
No, and that's the difference between the two situations. If it's just the "flypaper theory", then you don't know who you're going to get or how many people you're going to get. Also an illegal invasion boosts terrorist recruitment, so killing terrorists doesn't gain anything. You're just making more. On the other hand, if you are targeting people, you know who you're trying to get, and how important they are. You know that they've either attacked already or are planning to attack. That isn't a side effect, that is the objective of the mission.
You didn't answer the question. Why are people supposed to explain something that should be taken for granted? Do you really think anyone expects soldiers to die because it's wrong to kill a terrorist or something?
I haven't changed my "story".
"You didn't answer the question."
I answered the first question, now you propose a new question and complain that I haven't answered it yet? Forget you.
"I haven't changed my "story". "
example 1: 3 posts ago: you said; "How am I changing my story? I said already that any fighting with terrorists is a side effect, "
example 2: 2 posts ago I asked; "So, when (if) Obama invades Pakistan that's just a "side effect"? ". You answered (last post): "No, and that's the difference between the two situations. "
You changed from yes fighting terrorists is a side effect to NO it isn't.
Give everyone a hint.... which is it? yes or no And, how many more times will you change your story?
Unbelievable.
You didn't answer the question. The question was about why people are supposed to make some detailed explanation of their position when it should be understood already. It wasn't about anyone supposedly changing their story.
"I said already that any fighting with terrorists is a side effect,"
That's Iraq. I notice you cut off after the comma, where I clearly refer to that invasion.
"No, and that's the difference between the two situations."
Right, because that's Pakistan. I was describing the difference between two scenarios, not changing my story.
Is that it, or do you have any other quotes you'd like to take out of context?
Your exact question: "What are people supposed to say, "the war in Iraq is wrong, except for fighting back against the terrorists that are attacking us". "
WHERE is the WHY? I don't think I took anything out of context. I'm glad you're done, I can't handle your constant 'story changing'. Because it doesn't make any difference if I cut off the quote at the comma, it doesn't change the meaning of your statement. If we invade Pakistan to fight terrorist or if we invade Iraq to fight terrorists, you said it is a justifiable reason as long as we are fighting terrorists.
"The assertion that people are criticizing soldiers because they criticize the invasion is absurd. What are people supposed to say, "the war in Iraq is wrong, except for fighting back against the terrorists that are attacking us". It should go without saying."
So why are people supposed to have to say all that, when it goes without saying? That's clearly the thrust of the question, which shouldn't be that hard to grasp.
"If we invade Pakistan to fight terrorist or if we invade Iraq to fight terrorists, you said it is a justifiable reason as long as we are fighting terrorists."
No, I most certainly did not say that. I said as a side effect it's fine in Iraq, but that it didn't justify invasion there. It does justify it in Pakistan if we have actionable intelligence about specific targets.
Only you could take a comment that's clearly about Iraq, then a comment about Pakistan, and act as if I'm contradicting myself as I'm creating a distinction between the two situations. Do you have any sense of morality at all?
"So why are people supposed to have to say all that, "
Ok, we're getting somewhere. You now admit that you changed the question.
"Again, fighting back against al qaeda is justified. That's as far as that goes. This is why you can oppose the Iraq invasion while supporting other invasions. Is that clear now?"
That's what YOU said. Did you quantify a difference between Iraq or Pakistan in that statement? You specifically said the invasion is different than the fight against al queda. I agree you can oppose the invasion of Iraq for whatever reason you choose, but you specifically said fighting back against al queda IS justified.
"You now admit that you changed the question."
No, it's the same question. Why don't you try answering it?
You:"Do you think the war against al queda in Iraq is justified?"
Me:"Again, fighting back against al qaeda is justified. That's as far as that goes. This is why you can oppose the Iraq invasion while supporting other invasions. Is that clear now?"
More problems with context. You asked about Iraq, so my answer was about Iraq. I don't have to explain to you that I'm not talking about Pakistan when you established the context of my answer.
Iraq wasn't about "fighting back against al qaeda". The hypothetical about Pakistan would be. Again, they are two different scenarios.
"No, it's the same question. Why don't you try answering it?"
Ok, if it's the same question then I did answer it as soon as you asked it:
you; "What are people supposed to say"
me; "Say what you believe to be true."
"Iraq wasn't about "fighting back against al qaeda". "
The invasion wasn't about "fighting back" against al queda and I gave you that one. After al queda moved INTO Iraq and started attacking our troops, fighting back against al queda happened. You admitted it and now you don't admit it. Changing your story again? There is no different scenerio when we fight al queda. The only difference is in your mind where you equate 'invasion' with 'fighting back'. You even admit your answer was about Iraq. That means you feel one way about the invasion and another about the fight against al queda. But, when asked the difference between fighting al queda in Iraq and fighting al queda in Pakistan you go loopy and can't make up your mind. Mainly because you're a liberal and liberals can't compromise. You admit fighting al queda is ok, but say fighting al queda in ONE particular country in the world to be not ok. Then go on to say that since we invaded Iraq for the wrong reason we can never fight al queda there because it would continue an unjust war. You, my freind, are a true liberal. I think everyone on this board is very proud of you for the way you change your answers and questions to fit your feelings any given moment.
"Say what you believe to be true."
That's a non sequitur. It has nothing to do with the question.
"The invasion wasn't about "fighting back" against al queda and I gave you that one. After al queda moved INTO Iraq and started attacking our troops, fighting back against al queda happened. You admitted it and now you don't admit it. Changing your story again?"
Admit what, that we fought back against terrorists sniping at us? Of course I admitted that, and I haven't said anything to the contrary. When I say "Iraq wasn't about fighting back" that means the invasion. It's about the reasons for going in.
"There is no different scenerio when we fight al queda. The only difference is in your mind where you equate 'invasion' with 'fighting back'. You even admit your answer was about Iraq. That means you feel one way about the invasion and another about the fight against al queda."
Because the invasion wasn't about al qaeda, so of course I feel differently about it. And there certainly are differences between drawing in terrorists and targeting specific people, as I explained earlier. If you want to refute that, be specific.
"But, when asked the difference between fighting al queda in Iraq and fighting al queda in Pakistan you go loopy and can't make up your mind. Mainly because you're a liberal and liberals can't compromise. You admit fighting al queda is ok, but say fighting al queda in ONE particular country in the world to be not ok."
I haven't changed my mind on anything. I'm saying that attracting terrorists through invasion does not justify the invasion. Pakistan would be a different set of circumstances.
"Then go on to say that since we invaded Iraq for the wrong reason we can never fight al queda there because it would continue an unjust war. You, my freind, are a true liberal. I think everyone on this board is very proud of you for the way you change your answers and questions to fit your feelings any given moment."
Where did I say that, precisely?
"I haven't changed my mind on anything. I'm saying that attracting terrorists through invasion does not justify the invasion. Pakistan would be a different set of circumstances."
Amazing, simply amazing. You have specialized denying your stated stances. WHEN did I ever say we are fighting al queda by "attracting" them? When did YOU ever say that? Your liberal mentallity purposely ignores that we just figured out that you think the invasion and the fight against al queda are two seperate things. Now, you go back to whining that they are connected. It's all right in front of everyone to see what you say. So stop playing like your an idiot and accept you don't know what the heck you're talking about. You simply want to argue. You say fighting al queda is justified then whine that we invaded Iraq for the wrong reason while trying to say you didn't say fighting al queda is justified. What a typical liberal you are. I really pray you have no position of authority, because you have no clue to reality.
"You admit fighting al queda is ok, but say fighting al queda in ONE particular country in the world to be not ok."
"I'm saying that attracting terrorists through invasion does not justify the invasion. Pakistan would be a different set of circumstances."
It's in response to your nonsense about how we can't fight them in ONE particular country. I didn't say you said we were fighting them by attracting them, I'm responding to your misrepresentation of my position.
"Now, you go back to whining that they are connected."
Where did I say that? What are you babbling about?
"You say fighting al queda is justified..."
In one set of circumstances.
"...then whine that we invaded Iraq for the wrong reason..."
Or no legitimate reason, but close enough.
"...while trying to say you didn't say fighting al queda is justified."
Where did I say that? I said it didn't justify the Iraq invasion. These aren't difficult distinctions to understand.
"Pakistan would be a different set of circumstances."
Let's try a simple hypothetical to test your theory. Suppose Obama goes into Pakistan to kill al queda's #2+3 men. He knows they are there and Pakistan says 'no, we're not able to get them'. Our troops kill the two guys, but kill their wives and kids at the same time...18 dead in all. The country goes berserk and starts rioting and lashing out at the US for this act of invasion. Suddenly, terrrorists who "weren't there before" start attacking US soldiers. The US must defend themselves and fights back, killing thousands and our casualties are in the hundreds. Many of the dead Pakistani's are civilians (women/children). Because of the danger, Obama leaves our troops in Pakistan in order to quell the overwhelming terrorist actions.
Is the invasion justified? Is staying in Pakistan justified?
If a country is harboring terrorists and refusing to cooperate, that has to be dealt with. I don't feel sympathy for people who would take the side of terrorists and riot because of that.
You could use the same rationale for any war. Things might go badly, that's always true. That's why you need a solid rationale for military action in the first place.
"I don't feel sympathy for people who would take the side of terrorists and riot because of that."
Except for those in Iraq. You have great sympathy for those taking the side of the terrorist there, don't you? After all, you call fighting al queda in Iraq unjustifiable. Hypocrit!
"That's why you need a solid rationale for military action in the first place."
That's funny. I don't remember hearing Obama say he would act only if there is a "solid rationale" to invade Pakistan. Didn't he say he would invade if given acceptable intelligence showing individuals are in Pakistan. He didn't offer any solice that he wouldn't invade if things might go wrong, just that he would invade if he felt like it.
"Except for those in Iraq. You have great sympathy for those taking the side of the terrorist there, don't you? After all, you call fighting al queda in Iraq unjustifiable. Hypocrit!"
We didn't invade Iraq because of al qaeda, remember? So what does that have to do with the scenario you presented?
"Didn't he say he would invade if given acceptable intelligence showing individuals are in Pakistan."
Actionable intelligence, which means reliable enough to act upon. In other words, a solid rationale. He also did not say he would invade if he felt like it.
actionable intelligence = what Obama will act on.
$#!+ he made up = what Bush acted on.
Irony, he will never find it because DA Limbaugh or SeannieTheSissy Boy never said it.
After reading the "Nonsense of a Con" a book of postings, by philib, all of the footnote are to radio shows. He is lying about the Pakistan quotes by his mind will not allow an IDEA or FACT to invade it. Can't have a discussion with philib just an arguement, Example, his first post above about being off-topic...in the second paragraph he states that Obama is creating jobs that don't pay taxes. Not so sure philie understands working, jobs and taxes...only SeannieBoy knows.
You can't have a discussion with a liberal unless you agree with everything they say. If you don't agree, then you are arguementative. However, if a liberal disagrees with a conservative then it is considered natural curiosity and protected by free speech laws.
Yea, phil...life is not fair. Just keep whining and everything will get better.
I will quote you concerning you.."You can't have a discussion"...NO, you can't.
OMFG! Project much? You are describing CONSERVATIVES!!!
You can't even understand an argument with a conservative unless your willing to put your head up your @s$ and just accept everything they say as gospel.
OTH... You can't have an argument with a Liberal unless you understand economic principals, basic ethical philosphy, and American civics beyond ignorant right-wing talking points, the BEST of which take a very narrow view point of each and manage to distort even that. The average Liberal is too educated to buy your BS. We do things like read, think, questions, and analyze. Your lot just clings to dogma. You don;t even really cling to principalks, because you've shown over and over how those can be abandoned once they become inconvenient.
"basic ethical philosphy,"
That is unrealistically funny! A liberal trying to say I don't have ethics. Explain what ethics a liberal has? Wait let me answer for you; kill the unborn, kill the elderly, kill the handicapped, promote the criminals, promote sexual deviancy.
"trying to say I don't have ethics"
You REALLY need to good course in reading comprehension and the meaning of words.
First of all there's nothing in stating "unless you understand...basic ethical philosphy" that says, or even implies that you don't have ethics.
Problem is, though, that ethics are not carved in stone...and just like your faulty interpretation of the Constitution, we are not obligated to accept that what YOU consider "ethical" IS ethical, or vice versa...especially when you list examples that of unethical behavior or actions that are so over the top as to be ridiculous.
And what is ethical in one circumstance may be completely unethical in another. I think it's safe to say that virtually all sane people consider killing an innocent person to be not only unethical, but immoral. But, here's an example that MAYBE will get you thinking: ever heard of the Johnstown Flood in PA? That was a horrible disaster and one of the things that made it horrible is that houses with living people still in them were washed down the river and piled up in a huge stack against a bridge. And that stack caught fire. One rescuer found a women hopelessly trapped and very close to the flames. She BEGGED him to kill her, rather than let her suffer and burn to death. And no, I don't know what he did...but IF he killed her, was that "unethical" behavior?
"And what is ethical in one circumstance ...blah..blah..blah"
Yeah, we've heard your reasons for allowing your beliefs. We don't need to hear them again.
You want to talk ethics an illeagal unethical war. The Genieva Convetions prohibit aggressor wars and The Constitution requiers the US to obay all international treaties it is part of. Releasing the name of a cover CIA operative. Funding a war off the books (not as part of the budget). How are any of these ethical.
Are you one of those people who claim the Afghanistan war is unethical? How do you get away with differing from ALL you are taught at liberalization school?
Your version of ethics: Do everything I tell you to. Live the way I tell you to. Love the way I tell you to. Vote the way I tell you to. Seemes to me that forcing everyone to habe your "values" accues an awful lot of power to you and your lot. Hardly a principaled stance.
And what's with kill the elderly, kill the handicapped and promote the criminals? I at least recognize the BS talking points that the other two represent (the Republican desire to force pregnancy on all women, whether or not they want it and your knuckledradding ignorance regarding all issues homosexual) but those other three threw me - and I thought I was pretty well versed in conserva-speak, as my immediate family and most of my circle of friends lean that way.
Evidently, you're new in these parts and are unfamiliar with the US Constitution, our system of justice and the way we do things in this country, so let me try to break it down for ya,little fella.
Ya see, it's like this. You made the allegation. It's up to you to make your case. Neither me or anyone else is obligated to disprove a case you've failed to make.
That burden is on you. Clearly, you're not up to the task.
Feel free to check. Look it up. Learn something.
Actually, you're wrong about the constitution. I, recently, had a good conversation with brabs and another. I used the constitution to prove my case and they said the constitution counts for nothing when proving a case. But, you're welcome to deny Obama said he'd attack Pakistan any time he wants with or without the Pakistan government approval. Yeah, go ahead...look it up. Learn something.
I dare you to find anything that anyone said in the realm of "the constitution counts for nothing when proving a case." We disagreed with your interpretation, because you are not God. You don't change reality at your whim.
If you answer the question about Taft, Hoover and LBJ, it would help a lot.
"But, you're welcome to deny Obama said he'd attack Pakistan any time he wants with or without the Pakistan government approval."
Dependent on actionable intelligence, of course. I like that phrasing too, as if it's customary to get approval from a country to attack them.
Yeah, as if. Of course Obama still said it doesn't matter if he has approval or not...he will go in to get whoever he wants to get.
Dependent on actionable intelligence. There's nothing to indicate desire to do so.
What a denier! He said he'd go in "with or without" permission. That obviously means he wants to invade Pakistan to get al queda. If he didn't mean that, he would have said he would only go in with permission. There's another aspect of Obama where he is the same as Bush.
No, because it relies on the condition that there's actionable intelligence. That doesn't mean he wants to invade, it means he would want to under those conditions.
Who the hell would say they would only invade a country that's harboring terrorists and not cooperating with us if that country gave us permission to do so? That is insane.
Yeah, he'll "create" that actionable intel just to go in (just like you people whine Bush did). He's already stressed he will invade with or without permission.
And you'll go out tomorrow and molest small children. You have no basis for making that assumption. We would have to go in without permission, as I've explained. That proves nothing.
I am sure you did. You just didn't understand it...
Actually Palin said much the same thing which shows that Phil isn't being honest.
Palin couldn't even find Pakistan on a map if her life depended on it.
Palin couldn't find EARTH on a map.
Why am I not being honest? I never said attacking Pakistan was a bad thing, I say liberals are being hypocrits because they think invading a nation (Pakistan) to get al queda is ok, but fighting al queda in Iraq is not ok.
Not all countries are the same. Al qaeda wasn't in Iraq when we invaded. Invading Pakistan to get those who have attacked or who are plotting attacks is a different matter.
If you learn to think outside of binary terms, maybe things will be easier to understand.
We didn't go into Iraq to get al queda. Al queda brought the fight to us, just like in New York. Now, you are whining because we are fighting in Iraq. If al queda hadn't gone there, the original effort would have taken a year or two. So, what you are saying is that it's ok to invade another country to get al queda but it is not ok to fight al queda in another country without first invading it TO fight al queda?
"We didn't go into Iraq to get al queda."
"...but it is not ok to fight al queda in another country without first invading it TO fight al queda?"
If we invaded Iraq TO fight al qaeda, then didn't we go into Iraq to get al qaeda?
Most of the enemies in Iraq have been insurgents, so I have to question the assertion that it wouldn't have taken so long without al qaeda's involvement. And how is it "just like in New York" when we went to Iraq? If we did it with the purpose of fighting terrorism, then we obviously brought the fight to them.
In any event, there's many countries we could invade where we would end up fighting terrorists. That doesn't justify an invasion. Having solid intelligence that Osama was in Pakistan, on the other hand, would justify military action if no other recourse was available.
Barbs, you actually believe what you write? We did not invade Iraq to fight al queda, al queda went into Iraq to fight us. And, it's just like NY because al queda attacked us in Iraq just like they did in NY. Oh, and how is Obama's intelligence more solid than Bush's if they use the same people to gather it??? But, I like the way you twist the question around and avoid answering it.
"...but it is not ok to fight al queda in another country without first invading it TO fight al queda?"
"We did not invade Iraq to fight al queda..."
The first time, you say we invaded TO fight al qaeda. So which is it? If the purpose wasn't to fight al qaeda, then what is the comparison between Iraq and a hypothetical invasion of Pakistan? I'm not twisting anything, I'm asking how what you're saying makes any sense.
The New York/Iraq comparison is idiotic. We invaded Iraq, of course we were going to attract terrorists. I thought that was a big part of the whole idea. Have you ever heard the phrase "flypaper theory"? Yet somehow an uninvited terrorist attack is like an effort to draw in terrorists.
The question isn't just the people, it's the intent. Our intelligence regarding the aluminum tubes, for instance, did not suggest they were being used for any WMD purposes. Yet, that was used as evidence to go to war. Remember, the facts were being fixed around the policy, and that was the problem. Unless Obama has some vested interest in invading Pakistan, the situation is not similar.
"The first time, you say we invaded TO fight al qaeda."
I did? Please point that one out for me.
"We invaded Iraq, of course we were going to attract terrorists."
And when we invaded Afghanistan, of course we attracted terrorists. Now, Obama has the opportunity to invade Pakistan. As he stated he would. But, the situation is different, so you approve of invading a soveriegn nation. Hypocritical thinking achieves nothing.
I directly quoted you:"...but it is not ok to fight al queda in another country without first invading it TO fight al queda?" How do you miss that?
He didn't state that he would invade anyone. It was conditional, again.
"But, the situation is different, so you approve of invading a soveriegn nation."
If the situation is different, then it's not hypocrisy. You get a different conclusion when you evaluate different situations. Are you sure you know what that word means?
See what I mean about you not being able to answer questions. Try reading that again. It's obvious I asked (not stated as fact) if it's ok to fight al queda without first invading the country. We invaded Afghanistan to fight al queda...do you agree? We invaded Iraq to remove Saddam and WMD's... do you agree? Al queda fought us in Afghanistan...do you agree? Al queda went into Iraq to fight us...do you agree? You should answer yes to each, since you claim al queda wasn't in Iraq before we invaded. Let's see if you do. BTW, going back to read my statement I find you missquoted (purposely) to change my question into a statement. But, you forgot to remove the question mark and remove my statement. Now all can see what was said. I hear mmfa is hiring. They need more people with the ability to missquote and confuse.
Now answer the question that is posed to you. Or avoid it... it's up to you.
Holy crap.
When you ask that question, you base it on an assertion. "...but it is not ok to fight al queda in another country without first invading it TO fight al queda?" That asserts that we invaded Iraq TO fight al qaeda. It's your emphasis, even. If you don't think we invaded TO fight al qaeda, then your question makes no sense. See the problem?
"But, you forgot to remove the question mark and remove my statement."
I didn't forget to do anything. What does "remove my statement" mean?
We invaded Afghanistan to get Osama. We invaded Iraq to conduct a political experiment. Al qaeda came into Iraq to fight us. Now, if you say that we went into Iraq to remove Saddam and his WMDs, then you're starting to get the point. Saddam was not a threat, and there were no WMDs. So the cause was unjust. It has nothing to do with al qaeda being there because of us, because that's not the reason anyone is opposed to the invasion.
So where is the hypocrisy in opposing Iraq while supporting a war that would be justified?
"So, what you are saying is that it's ok...." You left out that part of the statement. I ASKED "are you saying", and you changed it into "I said". That's right... Holy crap!
Then we are in agreement. We went into Afghanistan to get al queda, we went into Iraq to get Saddam and al queda went into Iraq to get us. So, how is fighting al queda in Iraq 'unjust', but fighting them in Afghanistan 'just'? Perhaps you mean our reason to go into Iraq was unjust, but the actual fighting of al queda is ok. Is that what you mean? If so...quit whining about an unjust war. That part of it was over years ago.
How does leaving that out that change the assertion?
"Why am I not being honest? I never said attacking Pakistan was a bad thing, I say liberals are being hypocrits because they think invading a nation (Pakistan) to get al queda is ok, but fighting al queda in Iraq is not ok."
See, if we didn't invade Iraq in order to fight al qaeda, then the two things aren't comparable. You're comparing a cause with a side effect. Moreover, fighting random members of al qaeda does nothing to weaken the organization, any more than losing 20 people in an attack weakens them. There's no structural change that comes from that. Invading to take down key members and organizers is a different story.
I didn't say fighting al qaeda in Iraq was unjust. I said the cause was unjust. You might find that cause and reason have similar meanings, if you think about it.
I didn't bring up the war. I'm just pointing out that you can criticize going into Iraq and defend an effort to get al qaeda at the same time. It is not hypocritical.
"See, if we didn't invade Iraq in order to fight al qaeda, then the two things aren't comparable."
So is it justified to fight al queda in Iraq? Or is the "reason" we are in Iraq make it justified to fight al queda? Since your assertion is that fighting al queda is justified.
"How does leaving that out that change the assertion?"
Because I asked you, not told you. Seriously, you don't understand the difference between a statement and a question? About those english lessons....
None of those questions have anything to do with the point, although they've been answered. It's a strawman. People oppose the war because it's unjust, not because some small percentage of our enemies are terrorists.
Your question relied on an assertion.
I'd say that makes it.......game, set, match in favor of Brabantio.
"People oppose the war because it's unjust"
Match? You mean you people think this war is unjust simply because barb said so? What part of the war is unjust? Removing Saddam and regime or fighting al queda where they are? Fighting al queda in Afghanistan and Pakistan is ok, right? But, fighting al queda in Iraq is not ok? Hmmm,
The vast majority of the world thinks the war is unjust. It doesn't matter anyway. You were accusing people of hypocrisy, which is saying something you don't really believe. In this case, people can clearly believe that invading a country for one cause is appropriate, while invading a country for another reason is wrong. The situation is different. Therefore there's no basis for claiming that anyone doesn't believe what they say they do.
The vast majority of the world doesn't have al queda attacking them at every chance they get. And, the ones that do probably support our efforts to reduce al queda's influence.
What the hell are you talking about? You were just saying that we didn't invade Iraq because of al qaeda, now you're saying that being attacked by al qaeda is supposed to influence our opinion on whether invading Iraq was justified or not?
How do you get that out of what I said? Stick to the questions and you'll do much better.
"The vast majority of the world doesn't have al queda attacking them at every chance they get. And, the ones that do probably support our efforts to reduce al queda's influence."
"We did not invade Iraq to fight al queda, al queda went into Iraq to fight us."
You don't see the inconsistency? If we didn't invade to fight al qaeda, why should being attacked by them make any difference in whether anyone thinks invading Iraq was justified or not? It's totally irrelevant to the matter.
I don't see what you get out of my statement, even after your explanation. Perhaps you should try reading things over and over until you figure it out. That way you don't look stupid for commenting on something you have no clue on.
It's not complicated. If I'm misreading you, you're welcome to correct me. Otherwise your assertion that I "look stupid" counts for nothing.
Uhhh, riiiight. Whatever you say. Do you mind if I ask you how old you are? It would be a real joke on me that I try to have a normal discussion with a 12 year old. If you are 12 you don't have to answer.
I'm 36. Is that how you explain how I'm misreading you?
Did you graduate HS? Are you on any government assistance programs? Now, try to answer the question that you've avoided all week: If al queda was not in Iraq when we attacked, how can the Iraqi war be unjust when we are fighting al queda there? If we attack Pakistan to fight al queda, how would that be justifiable?
Yes I graduated HS, and no I'm not on any assistance programs. Why am I obligated to repeat my answer to your question when you won't answer mine at all?
But again, it wouldn't be justified to invade a country to draw in terrorists. It would be justified to go where we know al qaeda already is and where the government will not cooperate in bringing those who have attacked us to justice.
There you go again... assuming that Bush went into Iraq to "draw in terrorists". Any evidence to back that up?
I assumed no such thing.
"If al queda was not in Iraq when we attacked, how can the Iraqi war be unjust when we are fighting al queda there?"
Your question specifically relies on the idea that we drew al qaeda into Iraq. "If" they were not there when we attacked, "how can the war be unjust?" In other words, since they followed us there, the war must be acceptable. The fact that we drew some terrorists there does not justify the war.
Yeah, it relies on the idea that YOU brought forward (a hypothetical idea). So, answer the question that you keep ignoring.
I didn't make you type those words. I was responding to what you said.
I answered your questions. Which one are you referring to now?
The hypocrisy comes when you whine about our current fight against al queda in Iraq. How they got there isn't the point. The point is they ARE there. Are we supposed to let them stay? Perhaps you would prefer we give al queda in Afghanistan and Pakistan free travel to Iraq. Afterall, fighting al queda in Iraq is unjust. It's only justified if we fight them anywhere else...except in Iraq.
How they got there most certainly is the point. There is a huge difference between drawing in lower-level terrorists to snipe at us and invading to capture or kill leaders.
If they came to Iraq to kill our soldiers, why would they stay after we leave?
And why would they stay in Pakistan after we leave there, or Afghanistan? Because they hate the US and all it stands for. They will go where we are to fight us. If fighting al queda is justified in Afghanistan then it is justified fighting them in Iraq and justified fighting them in Pakistan.
Again, you're comparing going somewhere to fight al qaeda and fighting them as a side effect. It's not justified to invade Iraq for the purpose of drawing in terrorists. If that automatically comes with the territory, then of course we have to engage in that fight. That doesn't mean the Iraq war is the same as an effort to fight al qaeda.
Brabantio you have the patience of a saint, but as you can see philib and PC are not hear to present reasoned arguments their here to disrupt just like their party. Have you seen A.Pelosi's documentary on HBO its called "Right America: Feeling wronged " she followed the McCain/Palin campaign around to different cities and recorded the people who attended those rallies and their views. They were not rational but steadfast in their ignorance and proud of it. How do you reason with people like that? They throw "socialism" and words around without understanding them,but just repeating like parrots what talk radio and Fox tells them.
I told him before that philib is mental but he likes wrangling with him/her.
Exactly Brab. It seems Philib would find it justifiable to invade Lithuania since we know Al Queda would probably come there to snipe at us. I have to give it to you on this one. You have completely taken him to the woodshed. His @ss has got to be blistered.
Thanks! I think the line about Barney Frank being a Senator is a classic, but this line says it all:" But, the situation is different, so you approve of invading a soveriegn nation. Hypocritical thinking achieves nothing." I just love that. It's like saying "You all whine about O.J. killing his wife, but then some guy shoots his wife while she's coming at him with a chainsaw and you don't say anything. The situation is different so you think it's OK! Hypocrits!"
That sort of line is exactly why I wrangle with him. You can't buy laughs like that.
Call me brab!!! Call me brab!!! My name is brab!!!
You can't buy laughs like that.
It's a simple request. No exclamation points coming from here.
I think that was Phlibby's death rattle. His strongest argument seems to be that you notice he can't spell your name, and that makes him laugh.
Better than trying to argue that using cocaine (that isn't prescribed) isn't drug abuse, like you do. Irony dropped the ball when I asked him that, you picked it up and fell flat on your face. Now, you whine about my intellect because I bruised your ego. That makes me laugh, also.
"They will go where we are to fight us"
Really? Here's a plan: We fly all our troops to a deserted Pacific island. When Al Qaeda follows us there, we sneak our troops out at night, then nuke the island. Problem solved.
You're so smart.
Tell that to Bush 43 because that was one of the reasons he used after the WMD fell apart.
Obama wasn't talking about an invasion, he was speculating on camps. Much like Clinton in Sudan in 1998. Here Palin says the same until McCain takes her out back to the woodshed.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Republican-Sarah-Palin-Makes-Pakistan-Gaffe-Saying-She-Would-Support-Terror-Strikes-On-Country/Article/200809415109630?lpos=World_News_Second_Home_Page_Article_Teaser_Region_4&lid=ARTICLE_15109630_Republican_Sarah_Palin_Makes_Pakistan_Gaffe%2C_Saying_She_Would_Support_Terror_Strikes_On_Country
The was no Al-Quaeda in Iraq before we attacked, you dolt!
And just recap... Nor were there WMD's, nor was there an Islamic State, Nor was there any connectection whatsoever to 9/11, nor was there ANY principled justification AT ALL!
Just lots of oil.
Hey nerzog, you know why Obama is attacking Afghanistan (17,000 more troops)? Because his war is a 'war for drugs'. He wants full and complete controll over all those poppy fields. And you people think he quit using drugs! It was quoted earlier that he only used cocaine 'when he could afford it'. Well, how much is he worth now? I think he can afford it. So, that's 3 drug addict presidents in a row. 2 dems, 1 rep.
Dude, whatever your smoking... I'd want some, but I think it moght be a little to strong for me. From what I can see the only drug user in this conversation is you. Scary, dude. Scary.
You sound like every republican who finds a way to authenticate the Iraq war (you know...the one most liberals call Bush's war for oil). Now the shoes on the other foot and your hero is sending a surge of troops over to the worlds largest drug producing country in the world. I haven't heard him say he is going to stop the production of those plants. That means he is protecting them. His war is the war for drugs. And, you wait a little while and Obama will have all the drugs you want flowing into America. He is, afterall, an admitted drug abuser. They probably worked a deal in Afghanistan...wink, wink.
That has to be a joke.
What?!? Facts are hard to swallow. Oh, yeah...you're a liberal, you don't believe in facts.
I welcome you to demonstrate how the idea that Obama must want to protect poppy fields because he didn't talk about them at all is a fact.
That's right...no al queda when we went in to remove Saddam. What happened afterward? Who suddenly appeared? What were we supposed to do? Let them kill civilians at their will? I think the proper course of strategy wasn't followed, but the reason we went into Iraq is different than the reason we are there.
Using that logic, are you claiming fighting al queda in Iraq is unjust, but fighting them in Afghanistan is justified? How do you come to that conclusion?
Never doubt that a conservative will always miss the point.
That's right...no al queda when we went in to remove Saddam. What happened afterward? Who suddenly appeared?
So... what pray tell was the "war on terror" reason that we went and toppled the SECULAR, SOVEREIGN government in the first place? Remember now - no WMD's (so what UN sanstions were they even violateing then?), No Al-Quada, No Islamic State, no link to 9-11. So be careful with you answer if you want to be taken seriously.
Why should we have gone in in the first place? You've now said yourself that Al-Q expanded their operations once we toppled Saddam. You call that PROGRESS in the War on Terror? I'd call it... COUNTERPRODUCTIVE. And so would anyone with the ability to actually THINK.
"what pray tell was the "war on terror" reason that we went and toppled the SECULAR, SOVEREIGN government in the first place?"
That sovereign nation's ruler only murdered hundreds of thousands of civilians. His sons and brothers only tortured who knows how many more. Gased neighboring countries. Threatened to nuke other sovereign nations and refused to follow UN directives. And that's only some of the reasons (besides the ones you won't accept).
Was I supposed to be careful because you people are so sensitive to the truth or because you wanted me to repeat your liberal rhetoric?
Never post honestly, Phil. We won't know you.
Obama promised to attack Pakistan, if elected.
No. He. Did. Not. You. Idiot.
But to answer your question - no it's not teh wrong country. Al Quaeda is hiding there. Saddam went to great lengths to keep them OUT of Iraq. They only got there AFTER we dismantled his security forces. The difference is we'd only attack the camps, as oppose to topple the governement. You see, we'd be HELPING THEM, not ATTACKING THEM.
Look... You right wingers have lost credabilit on the economy, foreign policy, national security AND (thanks to foley, craig, gingrich, vitter, etc...) family values as well. So why don't you go drink a hot steaming cup of STFU, lick your wounds, and try to form a reasonable, principled party. We'll welcome you back once you kick out the nutcases and rely on logic and reason to win the argument rather than stupidly transparent propaganda.
"Obama promised to attack Pakistan, if elected..." Provide the quote where Obama promised this or STFU and admit your talking out your butt.
Who is the most out of touch? The Republican Governors, like Christ, and Schwartzenager, or Republican Reps. like Va. Rep Eric Cantor?
Cantor represents the city with the worst rental vacancy rate (23.7%) in the country and he's one of those most against stimulating the economy.
He should read up on French History.
The french history where they whine about this and that...then find their country had been taken over by another? I don't think America would benefit from following French history. Or if we would, then you should give examples of what you are talking about.
Yea, French history is so lame...like when they funded the American Revolution against the British.
The enemy of my enemy is my freind. That's your french history! How many native Americans did they butcher?
How many native Americans did WE butcher?
A LOT! But you're talking about french history. Don't try changing the subject now!
funny thing about the French whinning.....im a historian and i know alot about this so believe me i know im talking about.
there was a little event after USA was founded called the French Revolution. basically the French had enough of whining and did something. not only did they topple Louis XVI and his government, but they also spread their bloodlust to imbue their revolutionary principles in all of France. they butchered innocent men, and women who had nothing to do with their problems. one of the closest friends of Marie Antoinette was raped repeatedly and then literally torn to pieces and her head placed on a pike for show, and she did nothing. the governor of the Bastille, fearing for his life had secured promises that he would not be harmed, was slaughtered the second he opened the door.
and lets not forget the September Massacres, when Robspierre took power. he and George Danton ordered, ORDERED, that those in prisions right now all over France are traitors and must be killed. on his orders at least 100k people in prisions who were there for minor and petty things were butchered to the last. inlcuding (and when i read this i became ill) some 5000 boys of ages 12-18. children. were slaughtered for no reason at all.
so as you can see the French didn't just whine......they did somethign, and they went over the edge, way over the edge.
I think the notion of the French as "sissies" may come from our English heritage. The French and the English have been fighting off and on for centuries, and I don't think the English always won.
Certainly, the French were easily overwhelmed by the Germans in WWII, but I think it's safe to say that all of Europe was caught flat footed by Hitler's blitzkrieg.
Well... to be fair their enemies were also french.
Didn't France also send about 70,000 men, women and children to Germany to be exterminated during WWII?
No.
You're right mary. It was 76,000 men/women/children. I'm surprised you chimed in on something so easily verified. Even more surprised you denied it. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7893127.stm
You are so dishonest. The Vichy government in collaboration with the German occupying army did this horrible thing. The Vichy government was composed of German appeasers; however there were many brave French men and women who hid Jews and the French resistance was heroic in the face of such horrific odds and certain death and/or torture if caught.
You are cowardly, typing such things behind an annonymous facade, to condemn a whole country in such a way. You're disgraceful behavior is so Un-Christ-like that you should be ashamed of yourself.
"The Vichy government was composed of German appeasers;"
Was the Vichy government French or German?
Please explain to me what your version of "Christ-like" is. Do you believe abortion is acceptable? Do you believe homosexuality is acceptable? Now whine about MY lack of Christ-like behaviors.
You don't understand the difference between a puppet government which the people don't support, and a democratically elected one?
There isn't anything that you've demonstrated here that is following a Christ-like example. You're arrogant: you set a tone of disrespect whenever you start posting. You hide behind "issues" as if it exempts you from humility, charity and service.
What does it matter what kind of government was in place (puppet/democratic), the FACT remains that France sent 76,000 Jews to be slaughtered and you claimed they did NOT.
Yes, I am arrogant (who, here, isn't?). Even you exhibit arrogance by demanding that I'm wrong and say I'm "dishonest" when facts show I'm right about something as simple as whether the French government sent Jews to be killed. It's very disrespectful to claim I am NOT Christ-like, while suggesting that I should be, when you demonstrate you aren't either. How am I acting any different than you, or anyone else here? Did you see the very first post? Where's the humility in that one? I see much disrespect in it towards our government. How about the second post, disrespectful towards "Bobby Jindal".
Why are you demanding I be Christ-like yet let others skate free and clear?
It matters a lot, because you were trying to cast aspersions on the French people. You retreat into your own warped sense of judgment, then say it was a "fact" as if that excuses you.
I'm calling you out as a hypocrite because you parade yourself around here and call yourself a Christian. Your behavior and attitudes don't follow this declaration at all.
That's fine. You call me what you want. You claim to be Christian, also, yet believe homosexuality is ok and abortion is ok. How does that behavior sit with your God? I'll tell you one thing, it isn't you that I have to explain myself to when I die. And, I have no doubts I'm going to Heaven. I do have doubts about many others, but not myself. I am saved.
I'll tell you something that will scare the hell out of you...heaven is right here, and you'll be shaking hands with a lot of us when you get "there."
That doesn't scare me. Because IF any of you are saved then I'll be glad to meet you in Heaven. I seriously doubt many of you are going there, but the good news is that it doesn't take a lot to get there. You just refuse to accept the conditions set by God to make it.
I seriously doubt that you even know what I'm talking about. But have a good day.
French history has been intertwined with our's since the beginning.
There would be no United States of America without France. There would be no France without The United States of America.
But then again, I guess you're one of those freedom fries lovin' kind of people.
You do know how to read, right? Or is that to much of a liberal academic exercise for you?
(Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck... college dropouts and/or drug users the lot. You wonder why they always whine about liberal bias in academia?)
What college did Ted Kennedy graduate from? How many murders has he performed lately? Quit whining about individual cases, when there is an EQUAL number of transgressents in the liberal side of things.
Ted Kennedy graduated from Harvard and earned a law degree from University of Virginia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kennedy
Well, complete the answers. How many murders has he performed lately?
None and Bush??
None, also. But Kennedy has one on his record though. Along with his alcoholism and drug use.
Sure another Harvard grad. They're as common as University of Virginia grads.
Not as if he went to a reel colidge like Liberty, Bob Jones or Regent University.
How many people has George Bush killed...including abortions of the women he knocked up?
Uhhh, zero? Course you gotta remember, abortion is not murder. So you can't use them as proof of murder.
YOU remember that...it is written. So don't try to lie next time you want to discuss abortion..or are you just trying too be cute?
And since when are killed and murdered the same...that should give you 5 more posts..go ahead.
And don't try to lie when asked if murdering a live-born baby is murder or not. Hypocrit!!
Is murdering anything live a crime? Don't we have laws against that already?
Back to the question, how many has Bush been responsible for killing?
None
Oh you're right... I won't risk my credability on the Democrat's ability to get things done or keep their noses clean. BUT we're not being bombarded every day by Liberal talking points and Left Wing propaganda. If we were, you can bet I'd be arguing against any demonstrable falsehoods and conflicts of interests and hypocrasy on that side as well. But the loudest moutchs these days ALL belong to conservatives, and NONE of them has ANYTHING principled or intelligent to say.
You see... I'm not bothered to find out that someone who wants to legalize pot has at one point smoked it. But when the loudest mouth speaking about how we need the harshest possible sentences on drug abusers, calling them scum and vermin, turns out to be an addict himself? That frosts me more than anything. The only "zero-tolerance policy" I have is for hypocrasy. And while there's hypocrasy of the left as well, it's voive is not being given the stage as often as that of the right is.
Don't forget, your current president is an admitted cocaine user/abuser. Are you going to lump him in with the other drug users that you whine about??
I don't believe Barack Obama ever said he "abused" cocaine or anything suggesting a cocaine problem. What he said was that when he was in college he smoked a little pot and, when he could afford it, did a little "blow"...but that he stopped when he began taking life more seriously. On the other hand, Rush Limbaugh, for example, has an addiction to Oxycontin, which is, essentially, synthetic heroin. Methodone is the treatment for Oxyxontin addiction. Now THAT is a serious problem...
Gee, what is 'blow'?? Did the doctor prescribe it to him? No? Well, then he ABUSED it! Rush isn't president, so his drug problems aren't of national risk issues, like Obama's drug abuse problems may be. Heck, he can't even stop smoking cigarettes, what makes you think he can stop using drugs?
Actually, cigarettes are one of the most addictive things out there, about on the same level as heroin. It's probably a hell of a lot easier to quit cocaine.
When I meet Obama I'll ask him which one he can quit first.
Is the President visiting your mental institution soon? That's nice, show him how you blow your own nose, Philib.
Hey, that's good. So, you'll avoid the issue also? Did Obama have a cocaine prescription?
I don't believe it's legal to prescribe cocaine, Philly.
Are you just typing random half-thoughts here? Do you have some sort of Cyber-Tourettes syndrome? You really haven't posted anything here that's close to coherent.
I'd suggest focusing on one ideag, whittle down the number of comments and try to make at least one that's not ridiculous, then work from there.
Good luck.
"I don't believe it's legal to prescribe cocaine, Philly."
Then he abused it.
"I'd suggest focusing on one ideag,"
I would, but you people are too confused to stay on-topic and I feel abliged to follow your misguided thought patterns.
Again, I hate to keep confusin' ya with the facts, little fella, but you're the one who went off-topic in the first place by claiming that I was off-topic for citing the topic of the thread.
Unfortunately, ya really went down hill from there with the standard spew of shovel-ready gop-slop nonsense.
Clearly, your next thought will be your first, little factose-intolerant fella.
What?! You mean a liberal talked about something on-topic! This must be the 'end days' if a liberal talks about something on-topic.
Gee you did say gopslop in your "on topic" sentence whining about a newspaper, so that kept you on-topic. If the title of the newspaper hadn't been in the article you wouldn't have known who to whine about.
If you follow along, you'll notice I FIRST asked a good question about how the job/cost will benefit the economy. Then just followed along with the people who choose not to stay on topic. Kind of like what YOU do. Do YOU have a comment which is on topic (for this thread) YET??
I commented about the topic about 4 hours ago. Since then, there's about a hundred posts trying to explain very simple concepts to you.
Your question about how jobs will benefit the economy could only be considered a "good" question by one of those special ed. teachers who insist there are no stupid questions.
Your other position, that drug abuse is defined by the legal status of the specific drug, is equally dim-witted.
Your other position, that drug abuse is defined by the legal status of the specific drug, is equally dim-witted. col
You're being too charitable.
No. Becuase he's not calling for more draconian penalties for drug users. So there's no hypocrisy there. It's never the vice I hate, it' the hypocrisy.
Figures don't lie, ...
It's no wonder we're in the fix we're in if the GOP has really been using their divide-your-hat-size-by-your-ass-size method of figgrin' whut stuff costed.
I'd hate to see what the per-yard cost of stimulus-related concrete would be if the total quantity were used as the only denominator in this idiotic formula.
Or, using this moronic method, we'd all be shocked to see how much it cost per soldier, sailor and marine if the defense budget were used as the numerator.
.... but liars figure.
The statistic is completely ridiculous, Drafted. The "cost per job"? WTF does that have to do with anything? A job is an investment, involving all sorts of costs and benefits that can be measured a thousand ways, none of them meaning anything outside of the end result and overall effect of that job.
But the drooling zombies who get all of their info. from the mainstream media like a nice number with some zeroes to toss around. It makes them feel "informed" without doing much actual thinkin'.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Missing_Iraq_billions_could_be_greatest_0216.html
A few more numbers to throw back to those newly selfidentified, fiscal conservatives.
Interesting, EW. But I guess there were no small rodents involved, or jobs created, so we won't hear any squawking from the wingnuts about that.
Clearly another case of impacted priorities.
Gad those falling safes play hob with my sinuses.
Of course, we did create a lot of jobs for Iraqi insurgents by paying them not to attack us. Wonder how much that cost? I haven't seen any figures on how much Petraeus had to dole out to all those "terrorists" to convert them into allies.
Since this bill is so good, should we not see improvement soon? How soon do you think the economy will come back? I do think if you are going to get any type of welfare from the government, those same individuals should be open to drug testing. Since they cannot afford food or other items to support themselves, how could they afford to buy drugs?
I do think if you are going to get any type of welfare from the government, those same individuals should be open to drug testing. Since they cannot afford food or other items to support themselves, how could they afford to buy drugs? markbfoot199
Line up those executives of the banks/insurance companies/wall street firms that received TARP money and have them p in a cup.
I agree with that one. See, I can side with the left every now and then.
Looks like MarkyB got the same email my co-workers did, the anonymous construction worker from anytown USA who has a good idea about drug testing for welfare recipients.
My question was, if it turns out that the testing costs more than the savings from knocking off the drug users from the welfare rolls, how much of a tax increase would they be willing to take to pay for it.
I don't think it even seemed possibe to them that there are people on assistance who aren't drunk and stoned all day. But then, they get most of their information from right wing propaganda emails.
Oh, Mark, in answer to your first question; The economy will be all fixed in 2-3 weeks. Otherwise, I expect you to hold the Obama administration fully accountable.
Col. 2-3 weeks ????? Shoot I was looking for my check next week? Gotta support my poverty lifestyle!?!?
The Republican whiners aren't even willing to pony up and pay for their unnecessary war. No way will they be willing to pay for drug tests.
If Rush takes a drug test so will Henrietta. My money is one her to pass and the King of the Republican Party to fail.
And markbfoot, after we test the welfare people, I expect anyone with a lower income than myself to be tested.
Phlibber is in rare form today. A third of the posts are his, and he whines at us for taking the thread "off topic".
Rush would be proud of his acolyte.
Considering the way phil has veered the whole topic with his nonsense, makes me miss Tommy even more, where is he btw?
I didn't steer anywhere. My posts are in reply to other's. If the topic changes, others take it there. But, I won't ignore those replies and continue them.
"who is he talking to, and how does he make his voice do that?"
I don't know how he makes his voice do that. But I like "I didn't steer anywhere" How true.
then, "If the topic changes, others take it there. But, I won't ignore those replies and continue them." Brilliant reversal in the same sentence, and without any self reflection whatsoever. Perhaps we're actually conversing with W hisself?
I have to talk to myself. Talking with you and others who deny factual history seems to be a waste of time. But, at least you have a popular miss-information web site where you can take all your frustrations out on others. Too bad the web site is the source of miss-information instead of being one to expose miss-information. Did you read up on your french history, mary? No? Well neither has any other liberal who finds out one of their prideful country's is a nazi loving country that sent nearly a hundred thousand innocent victims to the gas chambers. But, you live in denial, so all is good.
Shall we dig up everyone who collaborated with the Nazi's? Every country who said they'd support a national group,in WWll, who then left them to twist in the wind, or worse? The last victim of the Nazi death machine was killed for eugenics reasons. Completing a horrid circle of sorts. And as some of you noted we were used as a defense of their eugenics program. How many of our own did we needlessly delete from the human gene pool?
Authority and scapegoats have always been a heady mix.
"Shall we dig up everyone who collaborated with the Nazi's?"
No. But denying that France had an integral role in the murder of thousands of innocent Jews doesn't support the liberal position of always being correct. If you people can't accept fact then how can you carry on a discussion?
There were Nazi collaborators in this country, too. Check out what the Bush family was doing to help fund the Nazi war machine.
the war profiteers throughout history are the real criminals and you enable them.
http://www.georgewalkerbush.net/bush-nazilinkconfirmed.htm
How did I enable them? I wasn't even born until '58. Then I voted for Perot, not Bush Sr. If you got something on Perot, then bring it, otherwise, you have no complaint against MY part in war crimes.
1. You try to broad brush an entire country because it was OVERRUN by the Nazis and some of the people were enablers for them. Most of the French fought with US. This is why I brought up the fact that Nazi enablers were not confined to one country.
2. You are a war profiteer enabler by supporting the invasion of Iraq, in which 4,000 and up of our soldiers have died, countless others are wounded mentally and physically, millions of Iraqis displaced or murdered, and the country and its economy is in shambles. Not to mention the waste, fraud and abuse of our tax dollars.
1 So I "enabled" Bush to support nazism by "broad brush(ing) an entire country in a conversation about the Jews killed in WWII?
2 Did you pay taxes that year? You are an enabler too. I did not invade, my country did. So if you paid your taxes then you enabled them as much as I did.
Wow. Get well soon, and Have a good day.
Thanks, you too. God bless you
I don't remember seeing any denial of France's actions. I don't see why you'd think so, except to hurt any try at a discussion.
Posted by philib in reply to thejbomb65: Didn't France also send about 70,000 men, women and children to Germany to be exterminated during WWII? Posted Tuesday February 17, 2009 7:36:08 PM EST /
Posted by mary59 in reply to philib: No. Posted Wednesday February 18, 2009 1:56:03 AM EST
I guess you missed that one. Perhaps you should actually read what is being said before you pipe in. Maybe facts hurt your feelings, but that's just the way it goes.
You acting so doltish. NO. NO. NO. You were implying by your snarky post that France "en masse" did this horrible thing. They were being occupied by the NAZIS.
You speak ill of that which is far beyond the reach of your thought. And only little wit can excuse you. *Tolkien
I implied nothing! Your interpretation of my words give you want to read....skipping words here and there to produce your whine about no French connection with nazis. So, you still deny that the French government sent 76,000 men/women/children to the gas chambers?
Skipping words here and there? This from the same guy who cut a question in half and answered it as if the second half didn't have any bearing on the thrust of it. That is actual hypocrisy right there.
That coming from the guy who specializes in hypocrisy. So, I guess you would know it when you see it.
You've changed your tune. Now it's "no French connection with nazis." Before, it was FRANCE and a blanket insinuation for the entire French nation. Like I said before, there were many very brave French during this period, some who gave their lives rather than betray the underground.
You've dishonored their memories in order to play a cheap political game on the internet.
Mary, there are millions of Americans who want to stop you liberals from exterminating millions of unborn humans, yet we are called cowards. So much for your dream of protecting lives, since you support killing these babies.
A bait and switch. You picked on the French, trying to score a cheap shot, and got called on it. Maybe the Washington Times will hire you to write innacurate blog posts for them. Good luck.
I think I know. Email me at Brabantio2@gmail.com if you want my insight.
Not a big deal, just wondering. You can tell us here if you know, although the way you two went at it I'd be surprised if you knew? Although I rarely agreed with him, and more often agreed with your point of view, I found his posts interesting.
No, it can't be discussed here. It's not a matter of choice, really.
This slightly off topic but I found this on Washington Monthly, and couldn't help but notice how what MB was saying has been picked up and parroted by the certain conservatives here. Anyway, check it out:"
IDIOCY WATCH.... A friend passed along an item from the weekend, with an audio clip of Michele Bachmann chatting with a conservative talk-show host in Minnesota. In the ongoing debate as to which member of Congress is the single most ridiculous, this interview is very compelling evidence that Bachmann is, at a minimum, near the front of the pack.
The whole interview is about 13 minutes long, but it's worth listening to, if only to appreciate just how truly disturbed some far-right members of Congress have become.
Bachmann "explained" to the host and Minnesota audience:
* ACORN is "under federal indictment for voter fraud," but the stimulus bill nevertheless gives ACORN "$5 billion." (In reality, ACORN is not under federal indictment and isn't mentioned in the stimulus bill at all.)
* many members of Congress have "a real aversion to capitalism."
* the stimulus bill includes a measure to create a "rationing board" for health care, and after the bill becomes law, "your doctor will no longer be able to make your healthcare decisions with you."
* the recovery package is part of a Democratic conspiracy to "direct" funding away from Republican districts, so Democratic districts can "suck up" all federal funds. Bachmann doesn't think this will work because, as she put it, "We're running out of rich people in this country."
* the "Community-Organizer-in-Chief" is also orchestrating a conspiracy involving the Census Bureau, which the president will use to redraw congressional lines to keep Democrats in power for up to "40 years." When the host said he was confused, noting that congressional district lines are drawn at the state level, Bachmann said Obama's non-existent plan is an "anti-constitutional move."
There's no point in trying to fact-check such unhinged stupidity, but I should note that none of this is in anyway grounded in reality. I should also note that we're not talking about some strange nut screaming on a street corner; this is all coming from an elected member of Congress.
At one point, Bachmann told the host, "We are literally losing our country."
Congresswoman, you've literally lost something, but I don't think it's your country.
—Steve Benen 9:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (51)That's just creepy, Plowedcon. It's like you're actually dressing up in a strawman costume.
Very retro-cool,though, with the red-scare pictures cleverly juxtaposed against the Obama poster, and the 70s variety show comedy style.
Seriously, you look like you're investing a whole lot of time into the sort of idiocy that some of the other wingnuts can be done with in a line or two. Simplify. Unless it's just something to keep you away from the bottle or the playground (I don't know what your Jones is), then carry on.
Bachman is psychotic. Is this is the same nutcase that actually involked McCarthy during her run for relection? ('We need to investigate the less american members of congress' or something like that?)
Yep the same one and it seems her madness is spreading. Read the the conservatives who post here!! YIKES!!