35%
POSTED BY: Mockromancer
UPDATED: Friday, April 22, 2011 14:03
VIEWED: 3249
PAGE 2 of 3
Plan ? shit, they don't have a CLUE.
And despite the billions and BILLIONS we spend on folks who's job it is to supposedly know these things - they're every bit as clueless despite joe schmoe with an internet connection being able to figure it out in half an hour.
I so want my money back.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
I'm so done with Libya, those rebels don't have a plan, we don't have any business being there. I was open to it if the rebels wanted us, before I found out that they had no plans whatsoever and now we're mired down in another war. I came up with this two-wars-at-a-time limit idea before, now we're in three. Errrrrrrg. What happened to him getting us out of Iraq?
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
You knew before we went into Iraq that there was no "getting us out", didn't you? Why do you think so many of us were so against going in in the first place?
The U.S. embassy in Iraq is now set to be the largest in the world, and the staff will number over 20,000. That's a small city in itself, just for one country's embassy in a country that's hostile to it for murdering so many of its people. How many of those 20,000 do you suppose will be combat soldiers?
There is no "getting us out" of Iraq. Or Afghanistan. MAYBE we can get out of Libya, by not going in in the first place, but already there are generals putting the idea out there on Capitol Hill that we might have to send in ground forces. As I said before, when Obama said "no boots on the ground", he left off the "yet" part of that statement.
I've been chastised for suggesting that Ron Paul would have spent trillions on foreign military adventurism, and it was even suggested that I should retract that statement. I won't, and here's why: Ron Paul is a Republican. He might call himself a libertarian, or claim to be independent, but he runs on the GOP ticket. If he were President, he'd be beholden to the GOP in Congress to get anything pushed through (because it's a safe bet that as a Republican President, he wouldn't get automatic support and endorsement of his ideas from the Democrats in Congress). Ergo, if the GOP wanted another war, he'd either acquiesce and give it to them, or he'd be out in one term. Ask George H.W. Bush how it works out when you don't give Congress the war it wants.
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
If Ron Paul ever magically got in the chair, he'd never, ever get more than one term.
Look at his voting record, which is pretty darn consistent.
If there was ever a man who'd commit political suicide to pursue his beliefs, there he sits. There's a reason his very limited success was remarkable, and there's a reason the Republicans have fallen all over themselves to buy the Tea Party out from under him.
The man actually believes in something, and that makes him dangerous as sin in a world where every ideal is supposed to be for sale.
The Tea Partiers now see him as the quaint uncle who was well-intentioned, but too naive to get anything done. Second term in the oval office? The man has enough trouble sitting right where he's at.
--Anthony
_______________________________________________
“If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all”
Jacob Hornberger
“Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.”
Mahatma Gandhi
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
He is what he is, a spiritual leader for a political movement, like Ralph Nader. I think that whoever wins the GOP nomination is losing the election because the powers that be have it rigged: They have been stoking the fires of a three way split with two conservative candidates for some time. Whatever gripes the NWO might have with Obama, he's definitely their man, and they won't risk losing him to an unknown. They'll try to find a more charismatic splitter than Sarah Palin, it's looking right now like it will be Donald Trump, and the result will be a second term for Obama. If Ron Paul runs, he'll lose, but he'll have a loyal following of what if wishful thinkers, like AuH2O
That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Whoops, I meant Federal Debt, Federal Budget Deficit when I said Income Tax.
Sorry. Made an edit in the post as well.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh yes i get them confused all the time.
And i wouldn't consider FDR's "Quarrentine Speech" to be Isolationist.
"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:
Whoops, I meant Federal Debt, Federal Budget Deficit when I said Income Tax.
Sorry. Made an edit in the post as well.
Still doesn't help your post, or your claims of "historical recall". As I pointed out to DT a few weeks ago, this nation was BORN in debt. From the very first day of our nation, we have been in debt, and never had a day without it.
Lincoln gets a lot of praise from "conservatards", too, despite the historical FACT that he increased spending an astronomical proportional amount, even compared to FDR, whom you seem to have a special place of hatred for. He also ran enormous deficits.
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I personally think FDR was a good president looking back, was he perfect? By no means, but none of them are and he's better than many, despite his flaws. I call myself an independent though so what I think doesn't really bolster either side, or does it? :?
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
FDR is one of the great instigators of WWII, and deliberately exacerbated the situation on several accounts. He also created the national debt.
To say the US was a debtor nation, Mike, is as I responded to you before, precisely the same as to say all humans are slaves because they will pay bils next money. I don't consider myself in debt just because I have electricity or auto insurance. Those are moneys which have to be paid, but it's a matter of scale: They are neither long term nor unfathomable liabilities.
FDR created a debt so huge, nothing else before even registers on the graph. It exceeded his GDP, and it is still with us today, 75 or so years after its inception.
He was the agent of a terrible economic model that plunged the US into permanent servitude to the FED and its member banks, JP Morgan, Chase, et al, while intentionally building and restructing the entire US economy and workforce into a centrally planned unit that could easily be turned into a war machine.
That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Gotta call in some history on u DT.
Saying this nation was born with debt is precisely accurate. Alexander Hamilton' central banking plan was the glue that held the colonies together after the failure of the Articles of Confederation.
The primary carrot for each indiviual colony to band together was that the new nation created under the consitition agreed to assume each colonies' debt.
By tying their credit worthiness togehter, Hamilton ensured that the colonies were hugely incentivized to make the constitution model of a nation work, because if they split after that, no one had much idea of how they would each be able to raise the revenue needed to meet their individual debts.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME