Thread: House Speaker Pelosi calls Bush 'a total failure'

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 56
  1. #31  
    John
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by AmPat View Post
    Let's also not forget that it makes it easier to kill the SOB's now when they congregate in one area.
    Wow. What the hell is wrong with you? Sure it's easier to kill Al Qaeda when they are drawn like moths to a flame. Does the ease justify the expense? Hell no. Just my humble 30 years of experience on this earth dictates that what is easy is seldom right. By your thinking it's acceptable to displace and disrupt the lives of 50 million people for the sole purpose of dragging our enemies into confrontation? Are you insane? The simplest of facts remains. Al Qaeda had no foothold in Iraq before we invaded. Saddam had no love for them. Now they have a presence there and the American taxpayer/voter has to deal with it. The taxpayer/voter can thank G.W. Bush for that. Sure, we may not be taxed specifically for this war effort, but the devaluation of the currency is a tax unto itself that every American is paying. Seriously, was there a minimum intelligence test when you signed up for the G.W. cheer & flag squad! The man's an idiot, get over it.

    Quote Originally Posted by AmPat View Post
    What difference does it make to you that Al Quakis die in Iraq instead of us killing them in several different countries? The answer is the cost.
    You must have been raised by bloodhounds, because you are very perceptive. I'm surprised you aren't a global real estate tycoon given your dominance in R&D Vs. Reward Of course the problem lies within the cost! How very perceptive of you! What sort of naivety does it take to expect otherwise? Don't you realize that out of 113 million actual taxpayers in the U.S.* this 'war on terror' bullshit has cost each of us about 13 grand! That's 13 thousand dollars which are solely represented by my time on this earth. That means I've labored for about two months time, which I will not get back in my mortal life, to pay for this ineffectual absurdity.

    When the government goes to war, they pay for the costs by borrowing money from the Federal Reserve. That's money you and I are law bound to pay back at some point! Money is only earned by laboring for a certain amount of time. Therefore the federal government, with it's stupid ass war on terror is spending our precious time on this earth for very little gain. The gain is to make Iraq 'safe for democracy'. Fuck Iraq's democracy! If I'm spending my time, my mortal time, than I want America to be 'safe for democracy' not some fuck off backwater.

    Quote Originally Posted by AmPat View Post
    You make it clear cost is important so ask yourself what the cost would be if:
    1. We took no action at all?
    Now you are talking! Let's pretend that there was no FAA. No Federally Regulated mandates that state how a man or a board should run their assets. If the government had taken no action, and thus let Americans be Americans, there would have been no 9/11. It's pretty simple reasoning actually. If I was a business owner, responsible for multi million dollar aircraft, plus incalculable liability you can bet your sweet candy ass I would have armed, no nonsense, guards on my flights.

    The above is what happens when no action is taken. So, in the wake of 9/11 had we sought no vengeance, and had we realized that the government is not capable of personal protection, we would have come to the right solution. That solution is every single person, business or organization has the absolute right to defend itself from mortal danger from any threat that presents itself. If this sort of ideal hadn't been fucked over by the idea of government 'protection', the landscape of New York would be accented by two towers standing in triumph of western ideology over middle eastern mysticism.

    Plainly put, your ass is too busy worrying over symptoms to look for a cure.

    Quote Originally Posted by AmPat View Post
    2. We took Klintoon style action with the same net effect as in 1 above?
    Um...yeah.. So Clinton's style of action was a style of involvement and taxing the people of the United States in order to pay for said involvement. Bush's style of involvement is to cut taxes, increase spending, and obtain the value of his involvement through inflation of the currency. Way to go genius, considering they are one and the same. The net result is that Americans shoulder the burden of defending the same plots of extra-US land they've been paying to defend for decades.

    Quote Originally Posted by AmPat View Post
    3. We answer with force and determination regardless of cost as in our two present wars?
    Regardless of cost? Are you stupid? Deranged? Mad? What the fuck good does it do to spend America into poverty? What good does it do to sacrifice American rights and values to defeat an enemy? If the terrorists are dead and gone, leaving American streets in Detroit and Philadelphia looking something out of an eastern block 1991 country, who won? If the American currency is so devalued and debased that we no longer attract illegal immigrants, who can claim victory? To put in bluntly how far do you think this little 'war on responsible government' can go before it has to answer to hungry, angry, armed people?

    Government owns nothing that is hasn't taken by consent or force. I sure as hell haven't willingly given my wealth or time to securing Iraq, Israel, or even the Saudi's. As far as I'm concerned, my wealth and time that have been put into these goals have been taken by force, against my will. There's a lot of Americans who see things my way, but just can't explain it as well. Yet they feel as I feel, and it will become apparent to politicians very soon.

    Quote Originally Posted by AmPat View Post
    The better alternative is to declare (and undertake) all out total war. No country safe that assists or harbors the murderous bastards!
    Uh...yeah!...Duh. If you are going to go, then go like hell is following. If you're mind isn't made up.. ...restrict your spurs.


    Uh, could it be that the attack was planned and executed on schedule? PUHLEEEEZE, Attacks against US interests were rampant before 9/11. Don't try that weak crap about "on US soil." What difference does that make? Klintoon was a weak coward reacting only when his legacy was threatened or when he needed a distraction from the attention his uncontrolled penis attracted. He FAILED and is revered. Bush reacted and is castigated.

    Bush may have made mistakes but he acted like a leader and a man.


    Pelosi and Reid ARE in charge and all they do is whine. THEY don't catch the brunt of the attacks though. Our President has that reserved entirely for him. Our Congress is the WORST in the history of the country and yet they presume to denigrate the Iraqi legislature.[/QUOTE]
    Last edited by John; 07-19-2008 at 07:07 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #32  
    John
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by AmPat View Post
    Let's also not forget that it makes it easier to kill the SOB's now when they congregate in one area.
    Wow. What the hell is wrong with you? Sure it's easier to kill Al Qaeda when they are drawn like moths to a flame. Does the ease justify the expense? Hell no. Just my humble 30 years of experience on this earth dictates that what is easy is seldom right. By your thinking it's acceptable to displace and disrupt the lives of 50 million people for the sole purpose of dragging our enemies into confrontation? Are you insane? The simplest of facts remains. Al Qaeda had no foothold in Iraq before we invaded. Saddam had no love for them. Now they have a presence there and the American taxpayer/voter has to deal with it. The taxpayer/voter can thank G.W. Bush for that. Sure, we may not be taxed specifically for this war effort, but the devaluation of the currency is a tax unto itself that every American is paying. Seriously, was there a minimum intelligence test when you signed up for the G.W. cheer & flag squad! The man's an idiot, get over it.

    Quote Originally Posted by AmPat View Post
    What difference does it make to you that Al Quakis die in Iraq instead of us killing them in several different countries? The answer is the cost.
    You must have been raised by bloodhounds, because you are very perceptive. I'm surprised you aren't a global real estate tycoon given your dominance in R&D Vs. Reward Of course the problem lies within the cost! How very perceptive of you! What sort of naivety does it take to expect otherwise? Don't you realize that out of 113 million actual taxpayers in the U.S.* this 'war on terror' bullshit has cost each of us about 13 grand! That's 13 thousand dollars which are solely represented by my time on this earth. That means I've labored for about two months time, which I will not get back in my mortal life, to pay for this ineffectual absurdity.

    When the government goes to war, they pay for the costs by borrowing money from the Federal Reserve. That's money you and I are law bound to pay back at some point! Money is only earned by laboring for a certain amount of time. Therefore the federal government, with it's stupid ass war on terror is spending our precious time on this earth for very little gain. The gain is to make Iraq 'safe for democracy'. Fuck Iraq's democracy! If I'm spending my time, my mortal time, than I want America to be 'safe for democracy' not some fuck off backwater.

    Quote Originally Posted by AmPat View Post
    You make it clear cost is important so ask yourself what the cost would be if:
    1. We took no action at all?
    Now you are talking! Let's pretend that there was no FAA. No Federally Regulated mandates that state how a man or a board should run their assets. If the government had taken no action, and thus let Americans be Americans, there would have been no 9/11. It's pretty simple reasoning actually. If I was a business owner, responsible for multi million dollar aircraft, plus incalculable liability you can bet your sweet candy ass I would have armed, no nonsense, guards on my flights.

    The above is what happens when no action is taken. So, in the wake of 9/11 had we sought no vengeance, and had we realized that the government is not capable of personal protection, we would have come to the right solution. That solution is every single person, business or organization has the absolute right to defend itself from mortal danger from any threat that presents itself. If this sort of ideal hadn't been fucked over by the idea of government 'protection', the landscape of New York would be accented by two towers standing in triumph of western ideology over middle eastern mysticism.

    Plainly put, your ass is too busy worrying over symptoms to look for a cure.

    Quote Originally Posted by AmPat View Post
    2. We took Klintoon style action with the same net effect as in 1 above?
    Um...yeah.. So Clinton's style of action was a style of involvement and taxing the people of the United States in order to pay for said involvement. Bush's style of involvement is to cut taxes, increase spending, and obtain the value of his involvement through inflation of the currency. Way to go genius, considering they are one and the same. The net result is that Americans shoulder the burden of defending the same plots of extra-US land they've been paying to defend for decades.

    Quote Originally Posted by AmPat View Post
    3. We answer with force and determination regardless of cost as in our two present wars?
    Regardless of cost? Are you stupid? Deranged? Mad? What the fuck good does it do to spend America into poverty? What good does it do to sacrifice American rights and values to defeat an enemy? If the terrorists are dead and gone, leaving American streets in Detroit and Philadelphia looking something out of an eastern block 1991 country, who won? If the American currency is so devalued and debased that we no longer attract illegal immigrants, who can claim victory? To put in bluntly how far do you think this little 'war on responsible government' can go before it has to answer to hungry, angry, armed people?

    Government owns nothing that is hasn't taken by consent or force. I sure as hell haven't willingly given my wealth or time to securing Iraq, Israel, or even the Saudi's. As far as I'm concerned, my wealth and time that have been put into these goals have been taken by force, against my will. There's a lot of Americans who see things my way, but just can't explain it as well. Yet they feel as I feel, and it will become apparent to politicians very soon.

    The better alternative is to declare (and undertake) all out total war. No country safe that assists or harbors the murderous bastards!

    Uh, could it be that the attack was planned and executed on schedule?
    By all means, please, try your best and hardest to paint me as some sort of conspiracy theorist. I'll give you a dollar...or ten dollars. You may not know this, but I'm the guy who's sent several cons;piracy theorists packing. So, go ahead, try to make me into a conspiracy theorists. I'll make you into confused onslaught of sound bites. I beg you, explore this argument further.


    PUHLEEEEZE, Attacks against US interests were rampant before 9/11. Don't try that weak crap about "on US soil." What difference does that make? Klintoon was a weak coward reacting only when his legacy was threatened or when he needed a distraction from the attention his uncontrolled penis attracted. He FAILED and is revered. Bush reacted and is castigated.
    So, attacks against Americans were 'rampant' before 9/11 eh? After all, if all these 'attacks' were rampant before 9/11 how did any politician stay in office between the rampant pre-9/11 attacks and 9/11? If 'attacks' were commonplace, how did any republican take the idea of 9/11 seriously?


    Well, when idiocy is on parade, one can ex;pect statements such as "Clinton caused 9/11". It doesn't' make it any more factual.

    In all actuality, America straying from the American founding father's vision government is what made America vulnerable to hard times.

    Bush may have made mistakes but he acted like a leader and a man.


    Pelosi and Reid ARE in charge and all they do is whine. THEY don't catch the brunt of the attacks though. Our President has that reserved entirely for him. Our Congress is the WORST in the history of the country and yet they presume to denigrate the Iraqi legislature.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #33  
    Senior Member Molon Labe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Jihad Me At Hello
    Posts
    4,748
    [QUOTE=AmPat;21814]
    The better alternative is to declare (and undertake) all out total war. No country safe that assists or harbors the murderous bastards!
    Do you completely understand the implications of the U.S. being on an all out total war footing? There are few on this board who can even remember what it was like in the 1940's. I think you're just talking...and don't really mean what you say. This country is so spoiled rotten that we would have no idea the type sacrifices that would mean. That's another reason why I dispise the comparison between this war and WW2. If this is really a similar struggle..then why aren't every American having trouble finding food stuffs, and going on rubber drives and planting victory gardens? Because it's not the same thing.

    Your'e going to have to wage total war on about a dozen more countries if you want keep the promise of "no country being safe who harbors "terrorists". Are you up for it?
    Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown


    The problem is Empty People, Not Loaded Guns - Linda Schrock Taylor
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #34  
    Senior Member marinejcksn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Penn State
    Posts
    1,820
    I'm forced to steal a classic line from "Way of the Gun":

    Someone shut this C*** up before I ****-start her face.

    :D
    "Don't vote. It only encourages the bastards." -PJ O'Roarke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #35  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    no-man's land in Texas
    Posts
    2,168
    Quote Originally Posted by LogansPapa View Post
    Only cheap/uncompetitive Californians move to Texas. Most are transplants anyway.:p
    Yeah, building those 15 million dollar dairies everywhere sure shows how cheap they are...



    :D
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #36  
    Senior Member Molon Labe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Jihad Me At Hello
    Posts
    4,748
    Quote Originally Posted by John View Post
    Now you are talking! Let's pretend that there was no FAA. No Federally Regulated mandates that state how a man or a board should run their assets. If the government had taken no action, and thus let Americans be Americans, there would have been no 9/11. It's pretty simple reasoning actually. If I was a business owner, responsible for multi million dollar aircraft, plus incalculable liability you can bet your sweet candy ass I would have armed, no nonsense, guards on my flights.
    You can pretty much bet that if the government had never gotten involved with regulating the airline industry 40 years ago, there would have been common sense procedures like..pilot's with guns way back when terrorism on planes became the norm in the 70's.
    Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown


    The problem is Empty People, Not Loaded Guns - Linda Schrock Taylor
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #37  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    11,970
    Quote Originally Posted by LogansPapa View Post
    Only cheap/uncompetitive Californians move to Texas. Most are transplants anyway.:p
    Dream on cause it's only going to get worse with higher taxes and higher cost of living coming out the yang yang. Arnuld Swartzzinger & the Democraptic legislature will see to it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #38  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    IN
    Posts
    235
    Quote Originally Posted by lacarnut View Post
    Dream on cause it's only going to get worse with higher taxes and higher cost of living coming out the yang yang. Arnuld Swartzzinger & the Democraptic legislature will see to it.
    I have a coworker that just transferred back to the midwest after living in the CA for 12 years. His taxes and cost of living were constantly increasing to the point that there was no way he could contunue to live there without losing financial ground. It was also an unfriendly enviroment for parents with fairly traditional values. The school systems are always trying to undermine such things. Since his daughter is 12, it was a good time to get out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #39  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,639
    [QUOTE=Molon Labe;21868]
    Quote Originally Posted by AmPat View Post

    Do you completely understand the implications of the U.S. being on an all out total war footing? There are few on this board who can even remember what it was like in the 1940's. I think you're just talking...and don't really mean what you say. This country is so spoiled rotten that we would have no idea the type sacrifices that would mean. That's another reason why I dispise the comparison between this war and WW2. If this is really a similar struggle..then why aren't every American having trouble finding food stuffs, and going on rubber drives and planting victory gardens? Because it's not the same thing.

    Your'e going to have to wage total war on about a dozen more countries if you want keep the promise of "no country being safe who harbors "terrorists". Are you up for it?
    I am. It's my job.

    Americans aren't sacrificing in this war because no one has tried to mobilize the public the way that it was done during WWII, but that's not entirely a bad thing. Often, that mobilization is accompanied by massive power grabs by the federal government. The claims that the Bush administration have somehow taken on unprecedented executive powers flies in the face of the actions of the Roosevelt and Wilson administrations, which imposed wartime socialism under the aegis of the war effort, accompanied by very real attacks on dissent and basic constitutional rights. People who questioned US entry into WWI were often jailed, and thousand of Americans of German descent were interned. During WWII, the internment of Japanese-Americans, regardless of citizenship, was only the most famous example of Roosevelt's crackdowns. German and Italian-Americans were also interned, although at a lesser rate, and their property was confiscated as well. Opposition to the National Recovery Act could result in government-orchestrated boycotts of any business and even violence against its employees.

    There's a lot of room between a full-scale mobilization of the American public and a committed administration using its legitimate authority to fight a war against enemies who have no compunction against the murder or enslavement of millions of Americans in order to advance their global order on us.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #40  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Woodland Park, Colorado, United States
    Posts
    8,563
    [QUOTE=Molon Labe;21868]
    Quote Originally Posted by AmPat View Post

    Do you completely understand the implications of the U.S. being on an all out total war footing? There are few on this board who can even remember what it was like in the 1940's. I think you're just talking...and don't really mean what you say. This country is so spoiled rotten that we would have no idea the type sacrifices that would mean. That's another reason why I dispise the comparison between this war and WW2. If this is really a similar struggle..then why aren't every American having trouble finding food stuffs, and going on rubber drives and planting victory gardens? Because it's not the same thing.

    Your'e going to have to wage total war on about a dozen more countries if you want keep the promise of "no country being safe who harbors "terrorists". Are you up for it?
    Then you are totally mistaken. I don't believe in half hearted war anymore than half-stupid. I also don't believe in sitting back and waiting for the inevitable. You take the fight to the enemy. You pound him until he is no longer a threat. You do not half step or "Hope" he sees reason. The war is the end of negotiation and diplomacy and the beginning of the punishment phase. Trying to equate this war with the past static/classic wars isn't possible. We have to find and kill the enemy wherever he is. There can be no safe haven. I don't see salvaging rubber and victory gardens for all Americans any more necessary in this war as blitkreig lights and ramparts. This is a different ind of war.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •