Liberals say "it's ok to steal from the feds"

[Tomorrow]

Is there a problem RJ?

Though my post may be lacking in words, its much better then that atrocity you just posted.

And whats "By the way, didn't you come to AH just after MacSomething left?! LOL."? Very classy.

Call me crazy, but when someone like Craig writes a thorough post like that and you quote 3 lines, it doesn't make you look very good.

SheepStar

(Oh shoot, I forgot. You're also too young to vote.)

I was talking about his post...not yours lacking anything.

Sheep, sometimes I think you wouldn't know humor if it came up and bit you on the funny bone.

 

[Sheep]

(Oh shoot, I forgot. You're also too young to vote.)

I was talking about his post...not yours lacking anything.

Sheep, sometimes I think you wouldn't know humor if it came up and bit you on the funny bone.

I wasn't defending my post, but Craigs.

I can assure you I can vote (and have), but RJ, not everything gets better with age. Why, soon you'll be losing your drivers liscence.

(Laugh it off)

SheepStar

 

[cyberbri]

Nice post, Craig234.

 

[Matt34]

Quick, everyone quite their days jobs and become political activist!

I vote but I look at it like this, which one of these turds is the lesser of two evils? You tell me there's a honest politician and I have some swamp land in Arizona I'll sell you.

Maybe a congressman is rationalizing a vote which will give a donor a great tax refund and cutting children's nutrition to pay for it. You may think that's black and white wrong, and that YOU don't rationalize - but that's because you are in a different situation. How much attention and concern did YOU personally pay to the fact that YOUR government had sanctions which killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi children? How personally concerned and worried were you about that compared to your own children dying slowly of diseased water? Not at all, if you are like most and yet you have responsibility, unfilled responsibility, because the politicans YOU elected used YOUR tax dollars to force those policies for not the reasons they told you to make you accept it easily when you were not bothering to find the real reasons, but for the sort of reasons the cow owners have, turning on Saddam after having supported him when he served their interest, citing his war crimes long after they had decreased but having supported him when they were going on the worst. You rationalize your lack of being a responsible citizen for those hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children and many other things. The congressman knows that he's going to get 50 times the aid for children by getting re-elected compared to his evil opponent, to his action is ok, and you can't handle the truth so of course he doesn't tell you. Not a bad rationalization.

There is nothing black and white in politics, that's pretty much a given.

There were sanctions on Iraq because Saddam was not letting the U.N inspect his weapon facilities, quite turning the tables making us look like the bad guys. Do you think if we sent aid that it would have made it to the people that needed it the most? Saddam and the Iraqi government was responsible not the American people. Did Iraqi children suffer, yes and they still suffer today. That's because Saddam put all the money towards the military and the top 5% of the wealthy. This country is so messed up you just have no idea. There train of thought is so different from ours it really is hard to believe sometimes.

Nice post cyberbri, but what would all those poor lobbyist do?

 

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

Did Iraqi children suffer, yes and they still suffer today. That's because Saddam put all the money towards the military and the top 5% of the wealthy. This country is so messed up you just have no idea.

Well thats true of every country.

 

[Tomorrow]

Nice post, Craig234.

Bah! (Oh wait. That's what Sheep would say.)

Moo! (Yeah. According to Craig234, that's what I should be saying to you so you can understand. )

 

[cyberbri]

There were sanctions on Iraq because Saddam was not letting the U.N inspect his weapon facilities, quite turning the tables making us look like the bad guys. Do you think if we sent aid that it would have made it to the people that needed it the most? Saddam and the Iraqi government was responsible not the American people. Did Iraqi children suffer, yes and they still suffer today. That's because Saddam put all the money towards the military and the top 5% of the wealthy. This country is so messed up you just have no idea. There train of thought is so different from ours it really is hard to believe sometimes.

Like R&R Ninja said, that sounds just like the US, now that we've had the "Pearl Harbor" event the PNAC was looking for to launch us into a "new American century" of American domination of land, sea, air, Internet, and airwaves. We have to have an enemy for the government to build up the military to protect us against and a "long" never-ending war to keep the (no-bid) contracts flowing.

 

[Tomorrow]

Like R&R Ninja said, that sounds just like the US

Right. We're just like Iraq.

I think I'll go out and drown my government caused poverty and misery with a new subwoofer and practice some free speech. How about you, bri? You have it bad, too? But don't worry, Matt's out there making it safer for you to live your life of American misery.

 

[Tsunamii]

Matt, well said. I vote for who is going to hurt my wallet and the constitution the least. Once you realize both parties in our 2 party system suck then you are on the right road.

 

[cyberbri]

Right. We're just like Iraq.

I think I'll go out and drown my government caused poverty and misery with a new subwoofer and practice some free speech. How about you, bri? You have it bad, too? But don't worry, Matt's out there making it safer for you to live your life of American misery.

I was referring to this, which I put in bold on purpose:
"put all the money towards the military and the top 5% of the wealthy"
We're in the middle of record deficits (when the President inherited a huge surplus), and tax cuts, which are mostly for the very rich, are paid for by cutting programs that are supposed to help children and the poor.

I notice you ignored the rest of my post, and even R&R Ninja when he said not just America, but "all countries," and instead chose to come after me. We shouldn't complain, be critical, or expect more from our "elected" leaders, because it's not as bad as Iraq, I guess. Isn't that right? Hey, at least there was no civil war or al Qaeda in Iraq under Saddam...

BTW, how is Matt making it safer for me in America? Is he in Iraq? What does that have to do with America? Iraq was about regime change, getting rid of a dictator because it suited their interests. And because of that policy decision (and Abu Graib/Guantanimo Bay, and Haditha, etc.), Iraq has become the recruiting poster for al Qaeda, mobilizing formerly moderate Muslims to fight to push out the Western invaders/occupiers, and there is more terrorism in the world today as a result. I support the troops and respect them very much (I send care packages and letters), but I don't support the way the decisions made by the policy makers, nor do I support the way the war is being handled. Actually, only about a third of the country does.

 

[cyberbri]

Matt, well said. I vote for who is going to hurt my wallet and the constitution the least. Once you realize both parties in our 2 party system suck then you are on the right road.

So you're voting Democrat for the time being?

 

[b_panther_g]

IMO, with all the back and forth fighting going on here, this quote seems fitting for this thread.

"Left and Right are monolithic ideas - colossal, abstract, and, as their religious origins suggest, cosmic. They are part of the darker side of humanity that replaces the specific with the general, the personal with the impersonal.

If you wanted to find a way of making certain that people would have as little as possible in common, there would be no better way than to divide them, not into ten or three or four, but into two. Dual division turns the largest possible sections of humanity against one another, often causing neighbors and compatriots to have nothing to say to one another.

No regeneration of community can begin without a careful demolition of Left and Right; nor can this tearing down be relinquished to academic abstraction, technical philosophy, government, corporations, or ideology.

Nothing can be built without a new politics - least of all with a politics that refers outward to ideas of Heaven and Hell rather than inward to the experience of daily life."

– unknown​

Enjoy,
Panther

 

[Tomorrow]

I was referring to this, which I put in bold on purpose:
"put all the money towards the military and the top 5% of the wealthy"
We're in the middle of record deficits (when the President inherited a huge surplus), and tax cuts, which are mostly for the very rich, are paid for by cutting programs that are supposed to help children and the poor.

I know quite well what you were referring to. It's the same, tired, old, pure bogus liberal agenda call to arms. What is needed is to get beyond this type of diatribe and move to a positive improvement of government...not this ceaseless liberal whining. At least R&R Ninja recognizes that both liberals and conservatives are cut from the same cloth...just two sides of the same tarnished coin. Let's hear some of your positive suggestions for an improved American society. And while you're at it...be very specific with your definitions about just WHO are the rich and WHO are the poor. Tell us what you would do if you were king.

Hey, at least there was no civil war or al Qaeda in Iraq under Saddam...

And you would know this how? Have you been there? Have you been involved in military intel meetings? Read the UN's Iraq position statement before the invasion? Been to Iraq? Know of al Qaeda's operations? And no civil war?? What is Saddam on trial for?...for mass murdering thousands of Shiites who were 'uprising'.

BTW, how is Matt making it safer for me in America? Is he in Iraq? What does that have to do with America? Iraq was about regime change, getting rid of a dictator because it suited their interests. And because of that policy decision (and Abu Graib/Guantanimo Bay, and Haditha, etc.), Iraq has become the recruiting poster for al Qaeda, mobilizing formerly moderate Muslims to fight to push out the Western invaders/occupiers, and there is more terrorism in the world today as a result. I support the troops and respect them very much (I send care packages and letters), but I don't support the way the decisions made by the policy makers, nor do I support the way the war is being handled. Actually, only about a third of the country does.

Well, bri, your "care letter" support for the troops just fell a bit flat with Matt, who is indeed in Iraq. Yeah, Matt is a "Western invader/occupier" who you suggest is causing more terrorism in the world today (which you personally measured, natch). Here's a novel suggestion. Why don't you just ask Matt how the people feel about the "invasion" instead of putting forth your 'truths' about which I suspect you have little personal experience. Perhaps you're right. Perhaps not. But an open mind is a good thing. Fear it not.

 

[jaxvon]

Just a quick correction for Cyberbri...

The "huge surplus" that GW inherited was a projected surplus. None of the extra money existed. If we had stayed on the same budget plan with similar economic conditions, a surplus would've developed years down the road. That said, I still think that the current administration did a terrible job of budgeting, and has just done a terrible job all around.

 

[cyberbri]

rjbudz,

You're calling me on facts? Haha.
Open mind?

Okay, show me proof there was civil war, sectarian violence, whatever you want to call it, in Iraq before we invaded in 2003. Show me proof al Qaeda was performing terrorist operations in Iraq before we invaded in 2003.

And I didn't say "Matt is causing more terrorism." I said "because of that policy decision" (the invasion). I make a distinction between the policy makers, the "deciders," and the troops on the ground following orders given to them by those "deciders."


"At least R&R Ninja gets it" that left/right are the same? Meaning I don't?
Maybe you missed my post here:
http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=186816&postcount=16
And instead wanted to pigeonhole me into some pre-conceived mold you have for people who express certain opinions?

 

[Tomorrow]

rjbudz,

You're calling me on facts? Haha.
Open mind?

Okay, show me proof there was civil war, sectarian violence, whatever you want to call it, in Iraq before we invaded in 2003. Show me proof al Qaeda was performing terrorist operations in Iraq before we invaded in 2003.

A wise person here on AH used to bitterly complain about the evasion technique of answering direct questions with questions. That's all it is with you...diversion. You won't answer. Why? Because you have no 'proof' beyond what you get out of the nightly news.

And by the way, I made no such testament of truth, as did you. I just challenged yours. There is a big difference between you and me, bri. I question ideas (because I'll never know enough) while you pontificate about so-called 'facts' (willy-nilly it seems) and 'truths'. This is also the problem I have with Craig234. You both seem to believe you have ALL the answers. You do not. And you believe in the totality of your wisdom. Yet you do not question. Instead, you just make personally biased statements. There is nothing wrong with personal opinions, bri. Just state them as such rather than as fact.

I see you still haven't asked Matt about the conditions there. Doesn't that seems a more prudent approach to acquiring facts? Oh, never mind. Just go watch Katie Couric. (EDIT: She's cuter, anyway. ;-))

 

[Matt34]

(EDIT: She's cuter, anyway. ;-))

Very much so.

[/IMG]

 

[Tomorrow]

Very much so.

[/IMG]

MY EYES!! MY EYES!!!!

 

[cyberbri]

A wise person here on AH used to bitterly complain about the evasion technique of answering direct questions with questions. That's all it is with you...diversion. You won't answer. Why? Because you have no 'proof' beyond what you get out of the nightly news.

And by the way, I made no such testament of truth, as did you. I just challenged yours. There is a big difference between you and me, bri. I question ideas (because I'll never know enough) while you pontificate about so-called 'facts' (willy-nilly it seems) and 'truths'. This is also the problem I have with Craig234. You both seem to believe you have ALL the answers. You do not. And you believe in the totality of your wisdom. Yet you do not question. Instead, you just make personally biased statements. There is nothing wrong with personal opinions, bri. Just state them as such rather than as fact.

There was no civil war or large scale sectarian violence in Iraq. Saddam ruled with an iron fist. There is now - it's chaos. If you claim otherwise, then prove it.

There was no terrorism in Iraq. No IEDs blowing people up, no suicide bombers. The invasion and subsequent war opened up the flood gates.

...complain about the evasion technique of answering direct questions with questions. That's all it is with you...diversion. You won't answer. Why? Because you have no 'proof' beyond what you get out of the nightly news.

Will you now answer?
Or will you divert and ask more questions?


For al Qaeda, here is one report where they had some labs in the outskirts of northern Iraq - so there could have been certain al Qaeda people in Iraq. But they weren't there committing acts of terrorism against Iraqis within Iraq before the invasion, as there is now -- no different than America's involvement if there are al Qaeda cells in the US:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/

Avoiding attacking suspected terrorist mastermind
Abu Musab Zarqawi blamed for more than 700 killings in Iraq

By Jim Miklaszewski
Pentagon Correspondent
NBC News
Updated: 4:14 p.m. PT March 2, 2004

With Tuesday’s attacks, Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant with ties to al-Qaida, is now blamed for more than 700 terrorist killings in Iraq.

But NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself — but never pulled the trigger.

In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.

The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.

“Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn’t do it,” said Michael O’Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.

Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe.

The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.

“People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of preemption against terrorists,” according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.

In January 2003, the threat turned real. Police in London arrested six terror suspects and discovered a ricin lab connected to the camp in Iraq.

The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it.

Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.

The United States did attack the camp at Kirma at the beginning of the war, but it was too late — Zarqawi and many of his followers were gone. “Here’s a case where they waited, they waited too long and now we’re suffering as a result inside Iraq,” Cressey added.

And despite the Bush administration’s tough talk about hitting the terrorists before they strike, Zarqawi’s killing streak continues today.

The invasion of Iraq was all about regime change, despite the excuses that were made to sell the war.


From the 2nd Presidential debate in 2000:

BUSH: (Somalia) Started off as a humanitarian mission and it changed into a nation-building mission, and that's where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price. And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow the dictator when it's in our best interests. But in this case it was a nation-building exercise, and same with Haiti. I wouldn't have supported either.

(What are we doing in Iraq now, if not nation building?)


http://downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

...

It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

 

[majorloser]

The choice is yours...........