Ok. I've had enough...

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Iraqis 'will forgive jail abuse'



Bush has Saddam gun as souvenir







Oh stop it, STOP IT! I'm getting dizzy!



«1345

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 97
    faust9faust9 Posts: 1,335member
    Neo-Cons this is directed at you: Like it or not this admin is in full-blown coverup mode.
    • * They blew it in Iraq (they don't even know who will be in charge come Jun 30).

      * They blew it with AQ (our mission into Iraq was an AQ recruiting commercial--remember the Soviet occupation in Afghanastan and all the foreign figherters).

      * They blew it with medicare reform (drug card=big buisiness handout and folks know this).

      * They blew it with NCLBA (warranted or not the "underfunding" by the admin has made this act an albatross for the admin).

      * 911 (the admins strongest event happens to be a tragedy: the admin resisted the 911 commission and current polls show Kerry catching up if not surpassing on this topic).

      * They blew the opportunity to quash world terrorist organizations because of the rush to Iraq.

      * They are seen as unwilling or unable to control deficits.

      * They are seen as unable to stimulate good job growth not MBA's working as a manager at McD's.

    So, let the Shrub keep is momento sidearm--when he's on his way back to Taxas.



    Anybody but Bush in 2004!!! McCain in 2008!!!
  • Reply 2 of 97
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Artman @_@

    Iraqis 'will forgive jail abuse'





    Noone can say that those they mistreated will forgive them. Thats a lesson learned the hard way on this continent. The Germans didn´t say in 1945 "Bad luck. Well in 15 years our neighbours will have forgiven us". No they asked for forgiveness and it was given to them. And Germany is now just another country in europe with its own special history but not with a special burden of guilt different from other countries. Then same with post apartheid South Africa. You ask and then its up to those you hurt to grant you it. NEVER TAKE IT FOR GRANTED! The special exchange of forgiveness requires someone who knows that they need to ask for it for the others to deliver it, Its a twoway street and it never starts with one taking it for granted to be forgiven. Its a sociological classic.
  • Reply 3 of 97
    faust9faust9 Posts: 1,335member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Anders

    Noone can say that those they mistreated will forgive them. Thats a lesson learned the hard way on this continent. The Germans didn't say in 1945 "Bad luck. Well in 15 years our neighbors will have forgiven us". No they asked for forgiveness and it was given to them. And Germany is now just another country in europe with its own special history but not with a special burden of guilt different from other countries. Then same with post apartheid South Africa. You ask and then its up to those you hurt to grant you it. NEVER TAKE IT FOR GRANTED! The special exchange of forgiveness requires someone who knows that they need to ask for it for the others to deliver it, Its a two-way street and it never starts with one taking it for granted to be forgiven. Its a sociological classic.



    Good point; however, this administration has shown a pension for never admitting a mistake. You can't ask for forgiveness if no mistake was ever mad.
  • Reply 4 of 97
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by faust9

    Good point; however, this administration has shown a pension for never admitting a mistake. You can't ask for forgiveness if no mistake was ever mad.



    And thats why the war could be lost still. The French, US, british etc side of WW1 lost because their actions after the war was one of the leading reasons why WW2 broke out.
  • Reply 5 of 97
    I hate Bush.
  • Reply 6 of 97
    naplesxnaplesx Posts: 3,743member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Artman @_@

    Iraqis 'will forgive jail abuse'



    Bush has Saddam gun as souvenir







    Oh stop it, STOP IT! I'm getting dizzy!







    I was holding back my judgment about you, but I am afraid I was right.



    You do realize that the soldiers that captured SH presented him with the gun. This no doubt was a decision made by commanders over in Iraq. It was A GIFT.



    I am not sure what the whole point of this thread is in light of that fact. And what does that picture have to do with anything?



    What a crock.
  • Reply 7 of 97
    naplesxnaplesx Posts: 3,743member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by faust9

    * They are seen as unable to stimulate good job growth not MBA's working as a manager at McD's.



    http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news...Pys&refer=home

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121273,00.html

    http://www.thestreet.com/markets/the...0162879_3.html



    how about what they were saying last month:



    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm499.cfm



    Yeah I guess it is so because you say so.
  • Reply 8 of 97
    jubelumjubelum Posts: 4,490member
    Enightened Ones- this is directed at you: Like it or not the former admin also blew it.

    * They blew it in Somalia

    * They blew it with AQ (Clinton could have had him multiple times)

    * They blew it with medicare reform (Clinton never tried).

    * They blew it with helping to slash intelligence.

    * 911 (Clinton and Co had eight years, during which was WTC Vol One and OKC and Kobar Towers and USS Cole).

    * They blew the opportunity to quash world terrorist organizations.

    * Monica blew it. Taking national attention away from terror, budget, etc.




    And the "anybody but Bush" thing? Between PolPot and Bush you'd choose Pol Pot? What an insanely short-sighted and laughable proposition.



    8)
  • Reply 9 of 97
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    I'm voting for Bush just because I want to watch Artman and several others go into literal crying, screaming world is ending full blown hissyfits!



    Bush in 2004. Watch Artman, and several others go completely insane!!



    Nick
  • Reply 10 of 97
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    I'm voting for Bush just because I want to watch Artman and several others go into literal crying, screaming world is ending full blown hissyfits!



    Bush in 2004. Watch Artman, and several others go completely insane!!



    Nick




    Bush will probably beat Kerry in November, I agree.



    For some reason, John Kerry won't actually make a campaign strategy out of the fact that George Bush lied to start a war and his administration is corrupt. He really should. Right now he's not saying a damn thing, as far as I can tell. I saw Al Gore speaking on ABC news and he was great. Why won't Kerry say it?
  • Reply 11 of 97
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah

    Bush will probably beat Kerry in November, I agree.



    For some reason, John Kerry won't actually make a campaign strategy out of the fact that George Bush lied to start a war and his administration is corrupt. He really should. Right now he's not saying a damn thing, as far as I can tell. I saw Al Gore speaking on ABC news and he was great. Why won't Kerry say it?




    I think the reason he might not be saying it, is because there is still potential between now and November for things to work out OKish in Iraq. He's going to look pretty stupid, if he spends the next 3 months bitching about Iraq, if it suddenly comes good in October.
  • Reply 12 of 97
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NaplesX





    I am not sure what the whole point of this thread is in light of that fact. And what does that picture have to do with anything?



    What a crock.




    Gift shmift. Show off the spoils AFTER you win the war. "Lookee here Daddy I got his gun! Heyuck, heyuck."



    Fark.com asked their posters to Photoshop this recent photo of Arbusto. Here are the goofy and creative results. Thought maybe we'd start one here...guess not.



    Now, to fuel the flames again...



    Happy Memorial Day.



  • Reply 13 of 97
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Jubelum

    [B][B]Enightened Ones- this is directed at you: Like it or not the former admin also blew it.



    * They blew it in Somalia



    They = the military, right?



    Quote:

    * They blew it with AQ (Clinton could have had him multiple times)



    A myth.



    Quote:

    * They blew it with medicare reform (Clinton never tried).



    Nope, they sure didn't ever try did they?



    Quote:

    * They blew it with helping to slash intelligence.



    Slash intelligence? What does this even mean?



    Quote:

    * 911 (Clinton and Co had eight years, during which was WTC Vol One and OKC and Kobar Towers and USS Cole).



    WTC in '93 did happen on Clinton's watch, but do me a favor: try to find a reference to AQ in a public speech between '91 and '93.



    9/11 didn't happen on Clinton's watch. By all accounts, AQ was high on his list of priorities (he'd delivered a RAFT of speeches about AQ after '93) and he told the Bush admin to keep an eye out. They didn't. Not that this was stoppable, at any rate. Clarke describes over the course of several pages how any retaliation against AQ for the USS Cole was tabled by the Pentagon brass, who, of course, loved Clinton with all their hearts and would just plain do anything for him. Khobar (and don't forget the bombings in Riyadh, too)? You're suggesting that we invade or bomb somewhere in Saudi Arabia? Are you nuts?



    OKC: We hunted down and eradicated militias all over the country. The whole time, the right wing in this country went batshit.



    Quote:

    * They blew the opportunity to quash world terrorist organizations.



    They did well with the domestic ones, but you're right. They failed to eliminate all terrorist organizations throughout the world. You do realize that's an impossibly high standard, right? I could just as easily claim that the President Bush has blown it by consistently failing to walk on water.



    Quote:

    * Monica blew it. Taking national attention away from terror, budget, etc.



    Clinton retaliated against AQ/attempted to take out their leadership by bombing Afghanistan in the middle of the Lewinsky scandal. The right wing went batshit and claimed he was trying to deflect attention. Clinton and the Republican Congress balanced the budget and there were surpluses when Bush came into office. Whether or not the Lewinsky scandal diverted national attention is immaterial. The jobs were getting done. It was the attack dogs on the right who wouldn't let it out of their teeth.



    Quote:

    And the "anybody but Bush" thing? Between PolPot and Bush you'd choose Pol Pot? What an insanely short-sighted and laughable proposition.



    I think the proper analogy is between a Pol Pot and a not Pol Pot.
  • Reply 14 of 97
    rageousrageous Posts: 2,170member
    Does this thread have any direction or is it just a bunch of crying?
  • Reply 15 of 97
    Ok. I gotta get to my job soon...I meant no disrespect to soldiers and all...All I'm getting at is we are getting one report and then another reversing that one and then another spin here and another spin there...here's another example of the reports that miss the radar...



    Cheney Office 'Coordinated' Halliburton Deal







    "No news here! Moving on now! Bye!"



  • Reply 16 of 97
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Yeah. The admin is really, really having trouble with message discipline--which they were stunningly good at for over two years. Hell, it wasn't uncommon to see Admin folks on the talk shows using the *exact same phrasing* as one another. They had a serious, serious breakdown lately (probably because they're trying to govern and get re-elected at the same time and fight two wars).
  • Reply 17 of 97
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah

    Bush will probably beat Kerry in November, I agree.



    For some reason, John Kerry won't actually make a campaign strategy out of the fact that George Bush lied to start a war and his administration is corrupt. He really should. Right now he's not saying a damn thing, as far as I can tell. I saw Al Gore speaking on ABC news and he was great. Why won't Kerry say it?




    He doesn't need to. The nightly news is doing all that work for him. And he can't come out and rant like Gore can unless he wants to go the way of Howard Dean.
  • Reply 18 of 97
    Quote:

    Originally posted by midwinter

    He doesn't need to. The nightly news is doing all that work for him. And he can't come out and rant like Gore can unless he wants to go the way of Howard Dean.



    Heading out the door for work...but before I go...



    Kerrys loyal "opposition" to Bush



    Socialist Worker Online

    May 21, 2004 | Page 3



    DOES THE Bush administration have to implode completely before John Kerry moves ahead in the polls? The failure of the presumed Democratic presidential nominee to emerge as an alternative to George W. Bush has party leaders scrambling to explain his awful campaign.



    They say that the fact that Kerry is only neck-and-neck with Bush today is nothing to worry about, since Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan were in the same position at similar points in their presidential campaigns and went on to win the White House.



    Yet given Bushs catastrophe in Iraq, Kerry should be far ahead. Instead, he is actively shoring up Bushs position by promising to send more troops to Iraq--and refusing to "cut and run."



    Kerry is still courting the pro-Bush camp--even after a Pew Research Center poll found that 51 percent of respondents believe the Iraq war isnt going well. This reflects the strategy of the Democratic Party over the past 20 years--take the unions, African Americans, liberals and the left for granted while trying to win over conservative "swing voters." But Kerrys rightward tilt goes beyond electoral calculations.



    As a 20-year senator, hes just as dedicated to the interests of U.S. imperialism as George W. Bush--and shares the establishment consensus that Iraq is far too important to lose. Thats why Kerry doesnt so much oppose Bushs strategy as promise to implement it better, with more troops and greater international involvement--steps that the Bush White House has already promised to take.



    The dynamic is similar on domestic issues. By vowing to cap increases in federal spending other than national security and education to the rate of inflation, Kerry would lock in the inequities of the Bush budgets and require huge cuts in social programs--Social Security or Medicare, for example.



    Kerrys election platform boils down to this: more troops and more money for an imperial war in Iraq, and budget cuts to please Wall Street. Hardly inspiring stuff--unless youre the Pentagon brass or an investment banker.



    Despite Kerrys incompetence, theres a chance that Bush could still be driven from office as the outrage against him grows. But if Bush slips back into the White House next January, its because Kerry opened the door.







    /Kerry = Bush Lite
  • Reply 19 of 97
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Of course the Socialist Worker Online is going to be hard on Kerry.
  • Reply 20 of 97
    gilschgilsch Posts: 1,995member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    I'm voting for Bush just because I want to watch Artman and several others go into literal crying, screaming world is ending full blown hissyfits!



    Yeah, the fact that you're fanatical about Bush has nothing to do with your choice of president right?



    Come on Artman, Socialist Worker Online? Oooook..
Sign In or Register to comment.