The Watering Hole

Hook...The most important question. Gonna answer that one?

charger — Aug 14, 2010Cool, Hook, so now are you going to vote for a candidate who promises to cut defense, social security, and medicare, and raise taxes, right?  Because you care so much about deficit reduction?  

Or are you going to vote for the person who promises to cut your taxes, or at least never raise them, to cut "welfare spending," and kick out all the illegals?

And which do you think will actually have an effect on the deficit?
Also, look at the reasons... what do you think?  Who was president when this shit happened?
http://www.greatreality.com/DebtFAQ.htm#OweGenerations
hint:
Most of that debt was not incurred generations ago. The biggest chunks were incurred as a result of tax cuts in the early 1980s, and in the early 2000s.

O.K. Trip.

Lets just take this one. You have a problem with me not wanting to give money to Pakistan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban

"From 1994 through 2001, Pakistan was the Taliban's main sponsor. It provided military equipment, recruiting assistance, training and tactical advice that enabled the band of village mullahs and their adherents to control the country. Officially Pakistan denied supporting the group, but its 1998 aid was an estimated US$30 million in wheat, diesel, petroleum and kerosene fuel, and other supplies, amounting to approximately $1 per capita. Conversely, the Taliban's "unprecedented access" among Pakistan's lobbies and interest groups enabled it to "play off one lobby against another and extend their influence in Pakistan even further. At times they would defy" even the powerful ISI.[141"

Now go to page 2 close to the bottom and find where Pakistan aid was misused. I don't feel the need to repost the link since I usually don't provide evidence anyway.

Now, after doing the suggested reading, you'll discover that it would make perfect logical since NOT to give Pakistan any money at all. That is, if you take into consideration the HISTORY and all, as you suggest I know nothing about.

Do you honestly think we would stop giving money to Pakistan while we're still over there?

Do you think we're getting out anytime soon?

No. As I've said in other post, i'd bring all troops home from Pakistan, Afgan, and Iraq, and consider other troops in other countries as well.

So the answer is, bring our troops home and cut off all money, in that order.

pickmaster60 — Aug 17, 2010Hook...The most important question. Gonna answer that one?

[quote author=charger link=1280462265/175#186 date=1281757133]Cool, Hook, so now are you going to vote for a candidate who promises to cut defense, social security, and medicare, and raise taxes, right?  Because you care so much about deficit reduction?  

Or are you going to vote for the person who promises to cut your taxes, or at least never raise them, to cut "welfare spending," and kick out all the illegals?

And which do you think will actually have an effect on the deficit?
Also, look at the reasons... what do you think?  Who was president when this shit happened?
http://www.greatreality.com/DebtFAQ.htm#OweGenerations
hint:
Most of that debt was not incurred generations ago. The biggest chunks were incurred as a result of tax cuts in the early 1980s, and in the early 2000s.

Yeah, I'll answer it. Just not now. I've got to read all the stuff first. Now.....isn't a good time. 8-)

Yeah but,

It seems what we are doing is trying to stop the influence of the taliban there.

In a poor and destitute place like that people will latch onto who are helping them. If we(US,aus,scott,uk ect.) were not....who would be there to do it? yep the Taliban. And Pakistan has nukes. Want the Taliban to have acess to those?
Are you thinking about the ramifications of what you suggest?

But we can give them electricity and schools ect.

Isn't the point of all this... to try and get rid of the Taliban and the influence they have?

If you were pres. we would have no foreign policy. just fuck everybody.  Do you not see the danger in that?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,712060,00.html

Hookbender — Aug 17, 2010O.K. Trip.

Lets just take this one. You have a problem with me not wanting to give money to Pakistan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban

"From 1994 through 2001, Pakistan was the Taliban's main sponsor. It provided military equipment, recruiting assistance, training and tactical advice that enabled the band of village mullahs and their adherents to control the country. Officially Pakistan denied supporting the group, but its 1998 aid was an estimated US$30 million in wheat, diesel, petroleum and kerosene fuel, and other supplies, amounting to approximately $1 per capita. Conversely, the Taliban's "unprecedented access" among Pakistan's lobbies and interest groups enabled it to "play off one lobby against another and extend their influence in Pakistan even further. At times they would defy" even the powerful ISI.[141"

Now go to page 2 close to the bottom and find where Pakistan aid was misused. I don't feel the need to repost the link since I usually don't provide evidence anyway.

Now, after doing the suggested reading, you'll discover that it would make perfect logical since NOT to give Pakistan any money at all. That is, if you take into consideration the HISTORY and all, as you suggest I know nothing about.

i've already picked out the most beautiful one and am ordering now. :D

Hookbender — Aug 17, 2010No. As I've said in other post, i'd bring all troops home from Pakistan, Afgan, and Iraq, and consider other troops in other countries as well.

So the answer is, bring our troops home and cut off all money, in that order.

I don't disagree.  I don't think we should be in either war.

However, the thing I don't understand is why you think a Republican would do that better than Obama.  He's got the best chance of accomplishing these objectives.  The Republicans love the war.  They started it and they have no problem with continuing it.  They'll make their deficit cuts on our people, but they'll spend $835 billion (to date) on Iraq, a country of 30 million people.  With priorities like that, I can't understand your positions at all.

charger — Aug 17, 2010[quote author=Hookbender link=1280462265/200#203 date=1282020146]No. As I've said in other post, i'd bring all troops home from Pakistan, Afgan, and Iraq, and consider other troops in other countries as well.

So the answer is, bring our troops home and cut off all money, in that order.

I don't disagree.  I don't think we should be in either war.

However, the thing I don't understand is why you think a Republican would do that better than Obama.  He's got the best chance of accomplishing these objectives.  The Republicans love the war.  They started it and they have no problem with continuing it.  They'll make their deficit cuts on our people, but they'll spend $835 billion (to date) on Iraq, a country of 30 million people.  With priorities like that, I can't understand your positions at all.

Hold up. I never said I thought a Republican....... anything. I said I'd vote Republican if my choice were Obama, or a Republican. That should clear up some questions for ya right there. And Obama is following in Bush's foot steps in Afghanistan. Which is surprising to me. Kinda must be important for us to continue this shit.??

Pick...what makes you think the taliban isn't getting that money? The terrorist? We don't know, do we? And if the Taliban is there, why don't we just go get them and get it over with? Surely the Pakistan people would love to have the taliban out of their country.They've been fucking around over there for years. They use to love them for sure. But their still there, and we can't go get them....why?  

charger — Aug 14, 2010Cool, Hook, so now are you going to vote for a candidate who promises to cut defense, social security, and medicare, and raise taxes, right?  Because you care so much about deficit reduction?  

Or are you going to vote for the person who promises to cut your taxes, or at least never raise them, to cut "welfare spending," and kick out all the illegals?

And which do you think will actually have an effect on the deficit?
Also, look at the reasons... what do you think?  Who was president when this shit happened?
http://www.greatreality.com/DebtFAQ.htm#OweGenerations
hint:
Most of that debt was not incurred generations ago. The biggest chunks were incurred as a result of tax cuts in the early 1980s, and in the early 2000s.

Not sure I'd vote for either of those, that is a option.

I don't care about Bush and what he did, I care about Obama and what he's doing and what he intends to do.

Hookbender — Aug 18, 2010[quote author=charger link=1280462265/200#208 date=1282079408][quote author=Hookbender link=1280462265/200#203 date=1282020146]No. As I've said in other post, i'd bring all troops home from Pakistan, Afgan, and Iraq, and consider other troops in other countries as well.

So the answer is, bring our troops home and cut off all money, in that order.

I don't disagree.  I don't think we should be in either war.

However, the thing I don't understand is why you think a Republican would do that better than Obama.  He's got the best chance of accomplishing these objectives.  The Republicans love the war.  They started it and they have no problem with continuing it.  They'll make their deficit cuts on our people, but they'll spend $835 billion (to date) on Iraq, a country of 30 million people.  With priorities like that, I can't understand your positions at all.

Hold up. I never said I thought a Republican....... anything. I said I'd vote Republican if my choice were Obama, or a Republican. That should clear up some questions for ya right there. And Obama is following in Bush's foot steps in Afghanistan. Which is surprising to me. Kinda must be important for us to continue this shit.??






That is incorrect, sir.  He made Afghanistan the priority that Bush never did.  Troops are way up.  Drone attacks are way up. Bush's priority was always Iraq.  

I think it's too late for what he wants to do and I think the war should end, but to say that Obama is doing the same thing Bush did in Afghanistan, or, for that matter, Iraq, is not correct at all.

Hookbender — Aug 18, 2010Pick...what makes you think the taliban isn't getting that money? The terrorist? We don't know, do we? And if the Taliban is there, why don't we just go get them and get it over with? Surely the Pakistan people would love to have the taliban out of their country.They've been fucking around over there for years. They use to love them for sure. But their still there, and we can't go get them....why?  

Umm, because Pakistan is a country of 1.3 billion people, and they have a nuclear arsenal?

Do you really think invading another country is smart?

charger — Aug 18, 2010[quote author=Hookbender link=1280462265/200#209 date=1282092764][quote author=charger link=1280462265/200#208 date=1282079408][quote author=Hookbender link=1280462265/200#203 date=1282020146]No. As I've said in other post, i'd bring all troops home from Pakistan, Afgan, and Iraq, and consider other troops in other countries as well.

So the answer is, bring our troops home and cut off all money, in that order.

I don't disagree.  I don't think we should be in either war.

However, the thing I don't understand is why you think a Republican would do that better than Obama.  He's got the best chance of accomplishing these objectives.  The Republicans love the war.  They started it and they have no problem with continuing it.  They'll make their deficit cuts on our people, but they'll spend $835 billion (to date) on Iraq, a country of 30 million people.  With priorities like that, I can't understand your positions at all.

Hold up. I never said I thought a Republican....... anything. I said I'd vote Republican if my choice were Obama, or a Republican. That should clear up some questions for ya right there. And Obama is following in Bush's foot steps in Afghanistan. Which is surprising to me. Kinda must be important for us to continue this shit.??






That is incorrect, sir.  He made Afghanistan the priority that Bush never did.  Troops are way up.  Drone attacks are way up. Bush's priority was always Iraq.  

I think it's too late for what he wants to do and I think the war should end, but to say that Obama is doing the same thing Bush did in Afghanistan, or, for that matter, Iraq, is not correct at all.

Come on man. He invaded Iraq and took over the country. Captured the countries leader. He had no choice but to put Iraq first at that point. He made the wrong decision in the first place, yes. Iraq was almost finished when Obama got in office. If credit is deserved, it damn sure doesn't go to Obama.

Now we are in Afghanistan. kinda Obama's war. We need to leave both places. I hate to say it, but the fuckers just ain't worth the trouble. We can't change years and years of ignorance in short enough time to maintain our own country. Money wise. I wish Regan could come in and close this deal for us. Then let Clinton fix the economy.  

charger — Aug 18, 2010[quote author=Hookbender link=1280462265/200#210 date=1282094843]Pick...what makes you think the taliban isn't getting that money? The terrorist? We don't know, do we? And if the Taliban is there, why don't we just go get them and get it over with? Surely the Pakistan people would love to have the taliban out of their country.They've been fucking around over there for years. They use to love them for sure. But their still there, and we can't go get them....why?  

Umm, because Pakistan is a country of 1.3 billion people, and they have a nuclear arsenal?

Do you really think invading another country is smart?

Never said I'd invade any country. Be kinda stupid to say that after I just said I'd bring home all troops from Afgan and Iraq....as well as other countries.....don't ya think?

Hookbender — Aug 18, 2010[quote author=charger link=1280462265/200#213 date=1282100803][quote author=Hookbender link=1280462265/200#210 date=1282094843]Pick...what makes you think the taliban isn't getting that money? The terrorist? We don't know, do we? And if the Taliban is there, why don't we just go get them and get it over with? Surely the Pakistan people would love to have the taliban out of their country.They've been fucking around over there for years. They use to love them for sure. But their still there, and we can't go get them....why?  

Umm, because Pakistan is a country of 1.3 billion people, and they have a nuclear arsenal?

Do you really think invading another country is smart?

Never said I'd invade any country. Be kinda stupid to say that after I just said I'd bring home all troops from Afgan and Iraq....as well as other countries.....don't ya think?

And if the Taliban is there, why don't we just go get them and get it over with?

Your quote, man.

Hookbender — Aug 18, 2010[quote author=charger link=1280462265/200#212 date=1282100710][quote author=Hookbender link=1280462265/200#209 date=1282092764][quote author=charger link=1280462265/200#208 date=1282079408][quote author=Hookbender link=1280462265/200#203 date=1282020146]No. As I've said in other post, i'd bring all troops home from Pakistan, Afgan, and Iraq, and consider other troops in other countries as well.

So the answer is, bring our troops home and cut off all money, in that order.

I don't disagree.  I don't think we should be in either war.

However, the thing I don't understand is why you think a Republican would do that better than Obama.  He's got the best chance of accomplishing these objectives.  The Republicans love the war.  They started it and they have no problem with continuing it.  They'll make their deficit cuts on our people, but they'll spend $835 billion (to date) on Iraq, a country of 30 million people.  With priorities like that, I can't understand your positions at all.

Hold up. I never said I thought a Republican....... anything. I said I'd vote Republican if my choice were Obama, or a Republican. That should clear up some questions for ya right there. And Obama is following in Bush's foot steps in Afghanistan. Which is surprising to me. Kinda must be important for us to continue this shit.??






That is incorrect, sir.  He made Afghanistan the priority that Bush never did.  Troops are way up.  Drone attacks are way up. Bush's priority was always Iraq.  

I think it's too late for what he wants to do and I think the war should end, but to say that Obama is doing the same thing Bush did in Afghanistan, or, for that matter, Iraq, is not correct at all.

Come on man. He invaded Iraq and took over the country. Captured the countries leader. He had no choice but to put Iraq first at that point. He made the wrong decision in the first place, yes. Iraq was almost finished when Obama got in office. If credit is deserved, it damn sure doesn't go to Obama.

Now we are in Afghanistan. kinda Obama's war. We need to leave both places. I hate to say it, but the fuckers just ain't worth the trouble. We can't change years and years of ignorance in short enough time to maintain our own country. Money wise. I wish Regan could come in and close this deal for us. Then let Clinton fix the economy.  


Iraq was almost finished when Obama got into office?  Did Bush ever make any move at all to reduce troops and get out of Iraq?  
Are you even aware of the news?

Afghanistan is Obama's war?  
Are you Michael Steele?  Obama's been president for 1.5 years.   We have been in Afghanistan for almost 9 years.

There is one person responsible for the hailstorm of shit we are in, and it certainly ain't Obama.
Get your facts straight.

By the way, you have said in this very thread that you would vote for Bush again over Obama.  I think we know where you stand.  Pretty much anything Obama does is wrong.  Do you have an argument other than that?

When I look through this thread I feel like I am arguing with someone who doesn't have a position in the argument except to oppose everything anyone else says.

His position is the shifty BS that gets repeated by the "most concerned" people in the nation, the expublican nu-indys.

charger — Aug 18, 2010[quote author=Hookbender link=1280462265/200#215 date=1282102423][quote author=charger link=1280462265/200#213 date=1282100803][quote author=Hookbender link=1280462265/200#210 date=1282094843]Pick...what makes you think the taliban isn't getting that money? The terrorist? We don't know, do we? And if the Taliban is there, why don't we just go get them and get it over with? Surely the Pakistan people would love to have the taliban out of their country.They've been fucking around over there for years. They use to love them for sure. But their still there, and we can't go get them....why?  

Umm, because Pakistan is a country of 1.3 billion people, and they have a nuclear arsenal?

Do you really think invading another country is smart?

Never said I'd invade any country. Be kinda stupid to say that after I just said I'd bring home all troops from Afgan and Iraq....as well as other countries.....don't ya think?

And if the Taliban is there, why don't we just go get them and get it over with?

Your quote, man.

No, No No. No need to invade, as we are and did. No troops on the ground kind of go get them. Quick strikes with planes and shit. Not anything like we're doing now.

charger — Aug 18, 2010When I look through this thread I feel like I am arguing with someone who doesn't have a position in the argument except to oppose everything anyone else says.

Not true. I think I agreed with tripper on 1 paragraph.

charger — Aug 18, 2010When I look through this thread I feel like I am arguing with someone who doesn't have a position in the argument except to oppose everything anyone else says.

Seems we agree on pulling out of the wars but you want to continue the argument around the little details of the thoughts, of the opinions, of the BS, Bush started. If we agree, drop it. Who gives a fuck about how we get to that point?

BINGEWOOD — Aug 18, 2010His position is the shifty BS that gets repeated by the "most concerned" people in the nation, the expublican nu-indys.

I guess your short little smart ass comments are limited that way because it pains you to complete a sentence. To much of your opinion would require you to take a stance in the argument and exercise your brain. And, add to the discussion.

Hookbender — Aug 18, 2010[quote author=charger link=1280462265/200#218 date=1282103315]When I look through this thread I feel like I am arguing with someone who doesn't have a position in the argument except to oppose everything anyone else says.

Seems we agree on pulling out of the wars but you want to continue the argument around the little details of the thoughts, of the opinions, of the BS, Bush started. If we agree, drop it. Who gives a fuck about how we get to that point?



Personally, I feel like Obama gives us the best chance of getting out of that war.  It's certainly not going to be a Republican priority to end the war... hell, those are the only votes they even show up for anymore.  You've said you would "only vote for a Republican if he is running against Obama."  So, reconcile it for me.  Apparently, Republicans are magical spendthrifts who always push for peace and have nothing to do with the nightmare state of the economy and the shitstorm our country is in.  18 months of a centrist Democrat and you're crying in your bong.  I just can't follow your arguments... or, I can, but I just can't assign them any credence, because you don't seem to have a clue what you believe or why you believe it.  Like that Frankenstein Phil Hartman used to play on SNL--"Obama bad.  Obama bad."  You are a one-note symphony, playing out of tune.  

Hookbender — Aug 18, 2010[quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1280462265/200#219 date=1282104142]His position is the shifty BS that gets repeated by the "most concerned" people in the nation, the expublican nu-indys.

I guess your short little smart ass comments are limited that way because it pains you to complete a sentence. To much of your opinion would require you to take a stance in the argument and exercise your brain. And, add to the discussion.


Oh, but your Tea Party Bullshit® is somehow "adding to the discussion" and "exercising our brains?"

Come on, man.  Do you really think this is an intellectual exercise of some sort?  You have to show up to a battle of intellects with something besides a tea party sign slogan, or it's not really a battle.  I've heard Obama fault and Obama Bad and Obama Created Evil Deficit and Obama One-Man Gulf Wrecking Crew, Yet We Must Drill, and my favorite, of course, Obama's War, and all the rest of your pithy slogans, and very little in the way of you thinking through anything--why we are doing what we are doing, how we got to where we are, what we have to do to fix it.  

charger — Aug 18, 2010[quote author=Hookbender link=1280462265/200#222 date=1282104842][quote author=charger link=1280462265/200#218 date=1282103315]When I look through this thread I feel like I am arguing with someone who doesn't have a position in the argument except to oppose everything anyone else says.

Seems we agree on pulling out of the wars but you want to continue the argument around the little details of the thoughts, of the opinions, of the BS, Bush started. If we agree, drop it. Who gives a fuck about how we get to that point?



Personally, I feel like Obama gives us the best chance of getting out of that war.  It's certainly not going to be a Republican priority to end the war... hell, those are the only votes they even show up for anymore.  You've said you would "only vote for a Republican if he is running against Obama."  So, reconcile it for me.  Apparently, Republicans are magical spendthrifts who always push for peace and have nothing to do with the nightmare state of the economy and the shitstorm our country is in.  18 months of a centrist Democrat and you're crying in your bong.  I just can't follow your arguments... or, I can, but I just can't assign them any credence, because you don't seem to have a clue what you believe or why you believe it.  Like that Frankenstein Phil Hartman used to play on SNL--"Obama bad.  Obama bad."  You are a one-note symphony, playing out of tune.  

Well, I guess you would be happier if the choices were among two democrats instead of a democrat or repub. I don't have that choice. If I don't vote for Obama, my only choice is a republican. Man, that's pretty hard to understand for you california folk.

Hookbender — Aug 18, 2010[quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1280462265/200#219 date=1282104142]His position is the shifty BS that gets repeated by the "most concerned" people in the nation, the expublican nu-indys.

I guess your short little smart ass comments are limited that way because it pains you to complete a sentence. To much of your opinion would require you to take a stance in the argument and exercise your brain. And, add to the discussion.


Charge hits most of the points.  

Waddaya wanna talk about, getting out of the war?

I don't think we're leaving the area for a long time.  It's easier to get it started under BamBam because we can get out without a clear "win" or whatever reason we're fighting.  We can START leaving, but how long will we really be there?

How long have you wanted us out of the 'stan n' the 'raq?

Do you want us out in a Paul way or a Sanders way?

 

Hookbender — Aug 18, 2010[quote author=charger link=1280462265/200#224 date=1282105591][quote author=Hookbender link=1280462265/200#222 date=1282104842][quote author=charger link=1280462265/200#218 date=1282103315]When I look through this thread I feel like I am arguing with someone who doesn't have a position in the argument except to oppose everything anyone else says.

Seems we agree on pulling out of the wars but you want to continue the argument around the little details of the thoughts, of the opinions, of the BS, Bush started. If we agree, drop it. Who gives a fuck about how we get to that point?


Personally, I feel like Obama gives us the best chance of getting out of that war.  It's certainly not going to be a Republican priority to end the war... hell, those are the only votes they even show up for anymore.  You've said you would "only vote for a Republican if he is running against Obama."  So, reconcile it for me.  Apparently, Republicans are magical spendthrifts who always push for peace and have nothing to do with the nightmare state of the economy and the shitstorm our country is in.  18 months of a centrist Democrat and you're crying in your bong.  I just can't follow your arguments... or, I can, but I just can't assign them any credence, because you don't seem to have a clue what you believe or why you believe it.  Like that Frankenstein Phil Hartman used to play on SNL--"Obama bad.  Obama bad."  You are a one-note symphony, playing out of tune.  

Well, I guess you would be happier if the choices were among two democrats instead of a democrat or repub. I don't have that choice. If I don't vote for Obama, my only choice is a republican. Man, that's pretty hard to understand for you california folk.




It's hard to understand how you would vote for a complete unknown...I mean nobody has heard of this person...

charger — Aug 18, 2010[quote author=Hookbender link=1280462265/200#223 date=1282105192][quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1280462265/200#219 date=1282104142]His position is the shifty BS that gets repeated by the "most concerned" people in the nation, the expublican nu-indys.

I guess your short little smart ass comments are limited that way because it pains you to complete a sentence. To much of your opinion would require you to take a stance in the argument and exercise your brain. And, add to the discussion.


Oh, but your Tea Party Bullshit® is somehow "adding to the discussion" and "exercising our brains?"

Come on, man.  Do you really think this is an intellectual exercise of some sort?  You have to show up to a battle of intellects with something besides a tea party sign slogan, or it's not really a battle.  I've heard Obama fault and Obama Bad and Obama Created Evil Deficit and Obama One-Man Gulf Wrecking Crew, Yet We Must Drill, and my favorite, of course, Obama's War, and all the rest of your pithy slogans, and very little in the way of you thinking through anything--why we are doing what we are doing, how we got to where we are, what we have to do to fix it.  

I don't have to do anything. And if you don't want an opposing view, don't respond. If your above thoughts are obtained by my post, then your reading skills are really horrible.

What did I say was Obama's fault?

When did I say Obama was bad?

Show me where I claimed Obama created the deficit?

When did I say the oil spill was Obama's fault?

Obama campaigned on the thought that he would continue the war in Afgan and he is. He made a decision that this is something he supported doing and is doing it, continuing it. He doesn't have to. He decided to. So it's inherited, and it's now his.

You ask me point blank what I would do to fix it and I gave you a short answer. Can't help it if you don't like it.

You know my stance, less government, cut government spending. Not sure if I ever stated my opinion on taxes or the Bush tax cuts though. I would be in favor of letting all tax cuts for the rich, above 250k, or whatever, expire. leave the rest alone and focus on more important things like the housing market, ending the wars, healthcare....at least 2 things there that can really reduce the deficit. Cut government spending as Obama said he would do. Pretty simple.

I think you make good points. I hear ya. I think your defending Obama to the end no matter what, and I see ya doing it. Obama isn't some evil fucker, but he is spending a shit load of money and getting very little results. If any. He is gambling. I hope he wins and even with all my disagreement with some of his actions, I hope I'm wrong, not him. And, there is a huge chance that could be true.  

BINGEWOOD — Aug 18, 2010[quote author=Hookbender link=1280462265/225#226 date=1282109090][quote author=charger link=1280462265/200#224 date=1282105591][quote author=Hookbender link=1280462265/200#222 date=1282104842][quote author=charger link=1280462265/200#218 date=1282103315]When I look through this thread I feel like I am arguing with someone who doesn't have a position in the argument except to oppose everything anyone else says.

Seems we agree on pulling out of the wars but you want to continue the argument around the little details of the thoughts, of the opinions, of the BS, Bush started. If we agree, drop it. Who gives a fuck about how we get to that point?


Personally, I feel like Obama gives us the best chance of getting out of that war.  It's certainly not going to be a Republican priority to end the war... hell, those are the only votes they even show up for anymore.  You've said you would "only vote for a Republican if he is running against Obama."  So, reconcile it for me.  Apparently, Republicans are magical spendthrifts who always push for peace and have nothing to do with the nightmare state of the economy and the shitstorm our country is in.  18 months of a centrist Democrat and you're crying in your bong.  I just can't follow your arguments... or, I can, but I just can't assign them any credence, because you don't seem to have a clue what you believe or why you believe it.  Like that Frankenstein Phil Hartman used to play on SNL--"Obama bad.  Obama bad."  You are a one-note symphony, playing out of tune.  

Well, I guess you would be happier if the choices were among two democrats instead of a democrat or repub. I don't have that choice. If I don't vote for Obama, my only choice is a republican. Man, that's pretty hard to understand for you california folk.




It's hard to understand how you would vote for a complete unknown...I mean nobody has heard of this person...


Not really. And I haven't voted for a unknown. I don't have to vote. Or, I can throw it away on a 3rd party or something. Until we get our deficit under control, I'll vote against spending, or the spender. And, shit, I guess I really don't know if I'd vote for Palin. That would be tough. ;D I got carried away. ;D Maybe it's because I'd hit it in a heart beat and like her silly little comments. I'd love to hear her in a run against Obama though. Be kinda funny to see Obama shit on her in a debate.

h eh heh

I guess the idea is that we don't know who that person is yet.  

I think the point Charger was making is that you ARE going to have someone telling you that they will reduce the deficit through spending cuts and smaller gov etc...that's what they've been warming you up to cheer for like a congressman at the state of the union...will they have a clear plan or just the repeatable rhetoric?  Will it end up just being repeal and impeach?

Getting back to the war...

I know you like to think of it as Obama's war instead of Bush's war but what role do you see the generals playing in the amount of time we spend there?  What will "leave" mean for us?


Do you guys think India will let anything completely crazy go down in Pakistan?

This cat is making money by bussing people to Tea Party rallies and selling them books n' merch along with a lil "hope and change":

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-august-17-2010/exclusive---dick-armey-extended-interview-pt--1

"And you BUY IT!"

Hookbender — Aug 18, 2010[quote author=charger link=1280462265/200#216 date=1282102859][quote author=Hookbender link=1280462265/200#215 date=1282102423][quote author=charger link=1280462265/200#213 date=1282100803][quote author=Hookbender link=1280462265/200#210 date=1282094843]Pick...what makes you think the taliban isn't getting that money? The terrorist? We don't know, do we? And if the Taliban is there, why don't we just go get them and get it over with? Surely the Pakistan people would love to have the taliban out of their country.They've been fucking around over there for years. They use to love them for sure. But their still there, and we can't go get them....why?  

Umm, because Pakistan is a country of 1.3 billion people, and they have a nuclear arsenal?

Do you really think invading another country is smart?

Never said I'd invade any country. Be kinda stupid to say that after I just said I'd bring home all troops from Afgan and Iraq....as well as other countries.....don't ya think?

And if the Taliban is there, why don't we just go get them and get it over with?

Your quote, man.

No, No No. No need to invade, as we are and did. No troops on the ground kind of go get them. Quick strikes with planes and shit. Not anything like we're doing now.


You want to drop bombs in Pakistan??

Palin won't run.  She has something between 12% and 16% of the vote in generic balloting.  No matter how much the press loves to repeat her every made-up word, she's not popular.

I would love to get out of both wars.  Unfortunately we can't "win" either of them.  So Obama is really between a rock and a hard place: pull out, and get the "cut and run" label, or stay in, and get slammed for continuing an unpopular war.  

Sure would have been nice if Florida could have got those votes right in 2000...  

Bammer could take the "cut and run" label, after all, he's a "radical leftist" to the people who want the war to continue.  It would not be possible for a McPalin to do so...but if they could, their people would find an excuse to drop the "cut and run" or at least make it more palatable like "those ancient sand niggers aren't capable of having or worthy of our freedom"

BINGEWOOD — Aug 18, 2010h eh heh

I guess the idea is that we don't know who that person is yet.  

I think the point Charger was making is that you ARE going to have someone telling you that they will reduce the deficit through spending cuts and smaller gov etc...that's what they've been warming you up to cheer for like a congressman at the state of the union...will they have a clear plan or just the repeatable rhetoric?  Will it end up just being repeal and impeach?

I can check their voting record and get some idea of whether they are for reducing government and the deficit. But pretty much, I'll have to go with what they say, or promise. If they run on those two things, which I'm sure whoever will, I'd probably vote for them. Depends on who it is. But I won't vote for Obama unless there is a huge turn around in the economy and a decision to attack this deficit we have. Quit spending. I can only go by what they say and hope they actually do it.

charger — Aug 18, 2010Palin won't run.  She has something between 12% and 16% of the vote in generic balloting.  No matter how much the press loves to repeat her every made-up word, she's not popular.

I would love to get out of both wars.  Unfortunately we can't "win" either of them.  So Obama is really between a rock and a hard place: pull out, and get the "cut and run" label, or stay in, and get slammed for continuing an unpopular war.  

Sure would have been nice if Florida could have got those votes right in 2000...  

I think you'd see a decent amount of support for pulling out. People are sick of the shit.

If he would come up with a good plan, other than have troops their, and explain the cost of the war or wars and tie that in with the current situation of our economy, he may be alright. Just explaining the money we save by ending the shit may do the trick.

If I were President, I'd do what's best for our country and let the chips fall where they may. Fuck it. Every decision made as President is no different than gambling. Hope to win, be happy to break even, and expect to lose some.

Do I want to drop bombs on Pakistan? No.

I do want to drop bombs on our enemy though. I understand we can't just go around dropping bombs all over the country. But from what I read last, and it's been a while....things may have changed....but AlQaida is suppose to be operating in the most remote places in Pakistan. Fucking bomb the hell out of em if that's the case.

Hookbender — Aug 18, 2010[quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1280462265/225#231 date=1282113155]h eh heh

I guess the idea is that we don't know who that person is yet.  

I think the point Charger was making is that you ARE going to have someone telling you that they will reduce the deficit through spending cuts and smaller gov etc...that's what they've been warming you up to cheer for like a congressman at the state of the union...will they have a clear plan or just the repeatable rhetoric?  Will it end up just being repeal and impeach?

I can check their voting record and get some idea of whether they are for reducing government and the deficit. But pretty much, I'll have to go with what they say, or promise. If they run on those two things, which I'm sure whoever will, I'd probably vote for them. Depends on who it is. But I won't vote for Obama unless there is a huge turn around in the economy and a decision to attack this deficit we have. Quit spending. I can only go by what they say and hope they actually do it.

They are going to tell you all sorts of shit, and it will all be lies.  I mean, you cannot reduce taxes, or keep the current tax cuts, and get us out of the deficit issue.  But... I guarantee you you would vote for the tax cutter.  And there are simply not enough budget cuts out there to make the kind of headway you want to.  Defense never gets cut.  Medicare never gets cut.  Social Security is supposed to be a separate trust fund, and is therefore irrelevant to the deficit, but it can never get cut either.  What's left? Education?  As if we're not dumb enough already?

Here's an easy read...

http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/17/federal-budget-spending-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html

charger — Aug 19, 2010[quote author=Hookbender link=1280462265/225#237 date=1282172213][quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1280462265/225#231 date=1282113155]h eh heh

I guess the idea is that we don't know who that person is yet.  

I think the point Charger was making is that you ARE going to have someone telling you that they will reduce the deficit through spending cuts and smaller gov etc...that's what they've been warming you up to cheer for like a congressman at the state of the union...will they have a clear plan or just the repeatable rhetoric?  Will it end up just being repeal and impeach?

I can check their voting record and get some idea of whether they are for reducing government and the deficit. But pretty much, I'll have to go with what they say, or promise. If they run on those two things, which I'm sure whoever will, I'd probably vote for them. Depends on who it is. But I won't vote for Obama unless there is a huge turn around in the economy and a decision to attack this deficit we have. Quit spending. I can only go by what they say and hope they actually do it.

They are going to tell you all sorts of shit, and it will all be lies.  I mean, you cannot reduce taxes, or keep the current tax cuts, and get us out of the deficit issue.  But... I guarantee you you would vote for the tax cutter.  And there are simply not enough budget cuts out there to make the kind of headway you want to.  Defense never gets cut.  Medicare never gets cut.  Social Security is supposed to be a separate trust fund, and is therefore irrelevant to the deficit, but it can never get cut either.  What's left? Education?  As if we're not dumb enough already?

Come on Charger. They all lie. There're politicians. There is no way of knowing if whoever will be telling lies. No use speculating, I hate that. Huge waist of time. And your wrong. Because you assume to damn much and speculate way to much. We can't cut taxes. Not now or anytime soon. So we are in agreement there it seems also. And, Clinton cut defense and look at the results he got. A surplus. Of course, he didn't have 2 wars going on at the time. But lets just bring our troops home and hope for similar results, at least cutting the deficit by a large number.

We agree not to cut education, I'll assume you feel the same way on this. But not just from a wild guess, but from actually reading your post and paying attention to what you say.

We can get rid of this healthcare thing and really fix what needs to be fixed, for free....like no pre-existing conditions, in addition to a few other changes. The cost of this healthcare thing is gonna fuck us down the road. Why, because the government was involved, that's why. Then we can take our time and really re-work the whole damn system the correct way. In a perfect world I guess. ;D

charger — Aug 19, 2010Here's an easy read...

http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/17/federal-budget-spending-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html

Makes good sense. I can see where my concerns may be a little to much. If 38% of money government spends has a possibility of being cut 10% a year, that would be good. But what about continued spending after you realize the huge problem we have now? Obama is adding to the deficit. If he can't cut spending, he can surely not add more to it. Like 26 billion to Pakistan, for example. Are you saying the great one lied when he said he wanted to go over the budget line by line and cut unnecessary spending? If this is true, why even bother mentioning cutting the budget? Why even look at it? Why give a damn? Why not just spend like crazy as hard and fast as possible? Now....that answer to that question should make one question how accurate this guy is.

As much as this guy, at first read, seems to make sense, the more I want to read about government spending and budgets/deficits/surplus. It will take a lot of time but what the hell. I'm curious now to get deeper into this and get a better understanding. I just can't get my head to understand how huge deficits don't weigh down our growth, economy, etc. And why do spending increases need to continue? Maybe I'm looking at this as a business kinda thing to much and can't see the huge picture or something. I'll do some reading, some more reading.    

Stop thinking of the US as an average Joe middle class guy and think of it more like the rich guy up on the hill...after all, we are the richest and best right?

You do some reading and get back to us with your thoughts on these matters based on your research.

Hookbender — Aug 19, 2010Come on Charger. They all lie. There're politicians. There is no way of knowing if whoever will be telling lies. No use speculating, I hate that. Huge waist of time. And your wrong. Because you assume to damn much and speculate way to much. We can't cut taxes. Not now or anytime soon. So we are in agreement there it seems also. And, Clinton cut defense and look at the results he got. A surplus. Of course, he didn't have 2 wars going on at the time. But lets just bring our troops home and hope for similar results, at least cutting the deficit by a large number.

We agree not to cut education, I'll assume you feel the same way on this. But not just from a wild guess, but from actually reading your post and paying attention to what you say.

We can get rid of this healthcare thing and really fix what needs to be fixed, for free....like no pre-existing conditions, in addition to a few other changes. The cost of this healthcare thing is gonna fuck us down the road. Why, because the government was involved, that's why. Then we can take our time and really re-work the whole damn system the correct way. In a perfect world I guess. ;D

So you'll settle for repeal and impeach.

BINGEWOOD — Aug 19, 2010Stop thinking of the US as an average Joe middle class guy and think of it more like the rich guy up on the hill...after all, we are the richest and best right?

You do some reading and get back to us with your thoughts on these matters based on your research.

I can assure you I don't think the U.S. to be a average Joe. ::)

Hookbender — Aug 19, 2010
We can get rid of this healthcare thing and really fix what needs to be fixed, for free....like no pre-existing conditions, in addition to a few other changes. The cost of this healthcare thing is gonna fuck us down the road. Why, because the government was involved, that's why. Then we can take our time and really re-work the whole damn system the correct way. In a perfect world I guess. ;D

No, we really can't.  If we want to get rid of pre-existing condition clauses, and assure that even sick people can get health insurance, or continue to get it, we have to stick with this plan.  The only reason the insurance companies signed on was because they were assured that almost anyone would have to buy insurance.  If we remove that requirement, but still force them to insure everyone, then every insurance company will go broke and we will have to resort to actually paying what it costs when we get sick.  The fact that most people don't get critically ill is what allows the critically ill to get care.  If we don't require them to buy insurance, or create a government insurance plan (which, by the way, we have not done--medicare still exists, but was not created or even extended by this bill) then we have to give the insurance companies a way to remain solvent and still do what we want.  

If you can name the actual parts of the bill you want to repeal--it's not really enough to say "get rid of it but keep the parts I like" then you might have an argument.  I'm still not sure you even know what is in it.

I'm still not sure you even know what is in it.

Me ether....but Fox says it'a so.

Yewu know its .trueth. BARAK obooma husaine II  waiste moony. he spendy. batard 8-) :-[ :-X :-/ :-* :'( ;D ;D :D

he is muslamic. not amerikan.

why dont we know who pre issidant is

Rush says .y

Doesn't matter whats in the healthcare bill. The government was involved and it will cost way more than expected. Just like social security, just like medicare, just like taxes, etc.

Sit back and watch the deficit grow. Watch as we approach a 14 trillion dollar national debt. Watch it grow. Cute ain't it. But it don't fuckin matter. Because that guy in Chargers link said so, kinda. We always have debt. It's normal, (for governments only), to manage their money in a much more careless way than any rooty poot business would. The same principles just don't fuckin apply.

I bet Obama was sittin around the whitehouse one late afternoon and said to his pals...

Hey, Clinton, yeah you bitch....get me another beer and come here. Get yourself one too, whore. ;D
Here's what I want you to do in the mornin. Hold up, pass that shit over here one time. 8-)
Call up China. I need 26 billion asap. Tomorrow. Got it? Hell know you ain't got it...you can't handle Bill. ;D
Send the shit to Pakistan. All of it whore. Don't keep shit for ya self either. (whore)  ;D
Fuckin repubs. That will piss em off. Motherfuckers. ;D Fuck Oreily to and his bald head ass.
Hmmmmm, that's some good shit right there.  8-)
I'm fuckin hungry.

;D ;D