It's about time it was said

[Soggy in NOLA]

I know I used to vacation in Iraq before Bush and Cheney messed it all up... ah... it had everything.... sand.... and, uh.. sand. And the Kurds are a hoot!

 

[Rinata]

forgive me for recycling this one, diveshit:

that's golden, divecon. nevermind presenting a sensible argument or a response to other's arguments. just declare it so. oh, and spew a gradeschool pejorative at anyone who doesn't think you bear any more credibility than a goat on the topic.

see my previous post

Why do you keep arguing with people that know what they are talking about?? Your little one line responses are pathetic!!! Once again, you look like a chump!!!!

 

[DiveCon]

forgive me for recycling this one, diveshit:

see my previous post

Why do you keep arguing with people that know what they are talking about?? Your little one line responses are pathetic!!! Once again, you look like a chump!!!!

you are the one that has no fucking clue you pathetic moronic bitch
now fuck off

adults are talking

 

[Rinata]

see my previous post

Why do you keep arguing with people that know what they are talking about?? Your little one line responses are pathetic!!! Once again, you look like a chump!!!!

you are the one that has no fucking clue you pathetic moronic bitch
now fuck off

adults are talking

 

[maineman]

divecon...again... you need to answer this or admit that you cannot.

my statement from the very beginning was the Saddam stopped sunnis and shiites from SLAUGHTERING ONE ANOTHER. THat is a completely factual statement.

And, I said that he kept Islamic extremists from using Iraq as a base of operations. That is ALSO a completely factual statement.

and you contiunue to be unable to show how shia or kurd slaughtered any other factions.

my statement stands correct. Saddam prevented sunni and shiite from slaughtering one another.

The Iraqi government, under Saddam, did, in fact, act ruthlessly towards both shiite and kurd, but they prevented the wholesale slaughter of one another by the general populace which was my point all along.

 

[DiveCon]

divecon...again... you need to answer this or admit that you cannot.

my statement from the very beginning was the Saddam stopped sunnis and shiites from SLAUGHTERING ONE ANOTHER. THat is a completely factual statement.

And, I said that he kept Islamic extremists from using Iraq as a base of operations. That is ALSO a completely factual statement.

and you contiunue to be unable to show how shia or kurd slaughtered any other factions.

my statement stands correct. Saddam prevented sunni and shiite from slaughtering one another.

The Iraqi government, under Saddam, did, in fact, act ruthlessly towards both shiite and kurd, but they prevented the wholesale slaughter of one another by the general populace which was my point all along.

already answered, several times

 

[maineman]

divecon...again... you need to answer this or admit that you cannot.

my statement from the very beginning was the Saddam stopped sunnis and shiites from SLAUGHTERING ONE ANOTHER. THat is a completely factual statement.

And, I said that he kept Islamic extremists from using Iraq as a base of operations. That is ALSO a completely factual statement.

and you contiunue to be unable to show how shia or kurd slaughtered any other factions.

my statement stands correct. Saddam prevented sunni and shiite from slaughtering one another.

The Iraqi government, under Saddam, did, in fact, act ruthlessly towards both shiite and kurd, but they prevented the wholesale slaughter of one another by the general populace which was my point all along.

already answered, several times

that is not true. You continue to say that, since Saddam's regime was brutal and, that he was a sunni who did indeed use the power of his office to brutalize shiite and kurds, that that, somehow is proof that shiite and kurds also slaughtered sunnis. Which is not the case.

The point is: during Saddam's regime, the Iraqi citizenry was indeed brutalized by the forces of his oppressive government. No one is denying that. However, during Saddam's reign, there was not rampant slaughter of civilians by other civilians. Shiite citizens did not slaughter sunni citizens. Sunni citizens did not slaughter shiite citizens. My assertion that Saddam kept shiites and sunnis from slaughtering one another is absolutely accurate, and you have NEVER shown otherwise.

Also... you need to understand the difference between a wahhabist Islamic extremist terrorist and an arab nationalist terrorist. Saddam certainly supported the latter, but not the former.... and he effectively kept them from setting up shop in the parts of Iraq that he controlled.

 

[DiveCon]

divecon...again... you need to answer this or admit that you cannot.

already answered, several times

that is not true. You continue to say that, since Saddam's regime was brutal and, that he was a sunni who did indeed use the power of his office to brutalize shiite and kurds, that that, somehow is proof that shiite and kurds also slaughtered sunnis. Which is not the case.

The point is: during Saddam's regime, the Iraqi citizenry was indeed brutalized by the forces of his oppressive government. No one is denying that. However, during Saddam's reign, there was not rampant slaughter of civilians by other civilians. Shiite citizens did not slaughter sunni citizens. Sunni citizens did not slaughter shiite citizens. My assertion that Saddam kept shiites and sunnis from slaughtering one another is absolutely accurate, and you have NEVER shown otherwise.

Also... you need to understand the difference between a wahhabist Islamic extremist terrorist and an arab nationalist terrorist. Saddam certainly supported the latter, but not the former.... and he effectively kept them from setting up shop in the parts of Iraq that he controlled.

so as long as the slaughter was only one sided it wasnt happening?



man, that is fucked up thinking

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Hey, jillian, you can't drink yourself sober, lol. Junior spending a trillion, O spending 3 trillion so far, arguing that we must spend more to get ourselves out of debt-- Absolutely priceless.
When are you guys gonna stop the Keynesian lovefest?

 

[jillian]

Hey, jillian, you can't drink yourself sober, lol. Junior spending a trillion, O spending 3 trillion so far, arguing that we must spend more to get ourselves out of debt-- Absolutely priceless.
When are you guys gonna stop the Keynesian lovefest?

when the rightwingnuts stop thinking there's such a thing as trickle down and we don't have to fix what they break.

 

[Care4all]

FYI

Economic Stimulus Bill - Economic Stimulus Package - Obama Economic Stimulus Package

The $787 billion economic stimulus package was approved by Congress in February, 2009. The plan was to jumpstart economic growth, and save between 900,000 - 2.3 million jobs. The economic stimulus bill allocated funds as follows:

* $288 billion in tax cuts.
* $224 billion in extended unemployment benefits, education and health care.
* $275 billion for job creation using federal contracts, grants and loans.

For more detail, see Economic Stimulus Package in Detail.

Although the economic stimulus package was to be spent over ten years, the bulk was budgeted for the first three fiscal years: $185 billion in 2009, $400 billion in 2010 and $135 billion in 2011. By October 30,2009, over $241.9 billion was spent: $92.8 in tax relief, $86.5 in unemployment and other benefits and $62.6 in job creation grants.

The CBO projected these funds would increase GDP growth by 1.4% - 3.8% by the end of 2009. This does not mean GDP growth will be positive. The economy could remain in recession, defined as negative GDP growth. In fact, the CBO forecast the economy would be down 3% for 2009.

 

[maineman]

already answered, several times

that is not true. You continue to say that, since Saddam's regime was brutal and, that he was a sunni who did indeed use the power of his office to brutalize shiite and kurds, that that, somehow is proof that shiite and kurds also slaughtered sunnis. Which is not the case.

The point is: during Saddam's regime, the Iraqi citizenry was indeed brutalized by the forces of his oppressive government. No one is denying that. However, during Saddam's reign, there was not rampant slaughter of civilians by other civilians. Shiite citizens did not slaughter sunni citizens. Sunni citizens did not slaughter shiite citizens. My assertion that Saddam kept shiites and sunnis from slaughtering one another is absolutely accurate, and you have NEVER shown otherwise.

Also... you need to understand the difference between a wahhabist Islamic extremist terrorist and an arab nationalist terrorist. Saddam certainly supported the latter, but not the former.... and he effectively kept them from setting up shop in the parts of Iraq that he controlled.

so as long as the slaughter was only one sided it wasnt happening?



man, that is fucked up thinking

nmo. as long as the slaughter was caused by the government, and it was only one sided, it IS proof that Saddam did, in fact, keep shiites and sunni civilians from wantonly slaughtering one another. There was NO wanton slaughter of sunnis by shiites during the reign of Saddam..... he did, in fact, keep the civilians from all factions from slaughtering one another.... which is PRECISELY what I said all along.

But you refuse to admit that I am right... instead, you give me negative reputation comments like a little fag and tell ME that I am dishonest, when I have only stated facts. You are a pathetic little dweeb and it is appropriate that you live in a town filled with inbred dentally challenged morons. You muar fit right in. Do you go to the Old Goat no family

 

[DiveCon]

that is not true. You continue to say that, since Saddam's regime was brutal and, that he was a sunni who did indeed use the power of his office to brutalize shiite and kurds, that that, somehow is proof that shiite and kurds also slaughtered sunnis. Which is not the case.

The point is: during Saddam's regime, the Iraqi citizenry was indeed brutalized by the forces of his oppressive government. No one is denying that. However, during Saddam's reign, there was not rampant slaughter of civilians by other civilians. Shiite citizens did not slaughter sunni citizens. Sunni citizens did not slaughter shiite citizens. My assertion that Saddam kept shiites and sunnis from slaughtering one another is absolutely accurate, and you have NEVER shown otherwise.

Also... you need to understand the difference between a wahhabist Islamic extremist terrorist and an arab nationalist terrorist. Saddam certainly supported the latter, but not the former.... and he effectively kept them from setting up shop in the parts of Iraq that he controlled.

so as long as the slaughter was only one sided it wasnt happening?



man, that is fucked up thinking

nmo. as long as the slaughter was caused by the government, and it was only one sided, it IS proof that Saddam did, in fact, keep shiites and sunni civilians from wantonly slaughtering one another. There was NO wanton slaughter of sunnis by shiites during the reign of Saddam..... he did, in fact, keep the civilians from all factions from slaughtering one another.... which is PRECISELY what I said all along.

But you refuse to admit that I am right... instead, you give me negative reputation comments like a little fag and tell ME that I am dishonest, when I have only stated facts. You are a pathetic little dweeb and it is appropriate that you live in a town filled with inbred dentally challenged morons. You muar fit right in. Do you go to the Old Goat no family

you are one of the most dishonest PoS on this board

 

[maineman]

so as long as the slaughter was only one sided it wasnt happening?



man, that is fucked up thinking

nmo. as long as the slaughter was caused by the government, and it was only one sided, it IS proof that Saddam did, in fact, keep shiites and sunni civilians from wantonly slaughtering one another. There was NO wanton slaughter of sunnis by shiites during the reign of Saddam..... he did, in fact, keep the civilians from all factions from slaughtering one another.... which is PRECISELY what I said all along.

But you refuse to admit that I am right... instead, you give me negative reputation comments like a little fag and tell ME that I am dishonest, when I have only stated facts. You are a pathetic little dweeb and it is appropriate that you live in a town filled with inbred dentally challenged morons. You muar fit right in. Do you go to the Old Goat no fmily

you are one of the most dishonest PoS on this board

I challenge you to prove that by showing any post from me where I EVER said anytihng OTHER than Saddam kept sunni and shiite from slaughtering one another.

My guess is, you will hem and haw and bluster about and call me more names and perhaps even neg rep me again...but you will be UNABLE to find one post where I deviated from that basic TRUTHFUL premise.

I won't hold my breath

 

[Trajan]

we borrowed the money to run bush's pretend war of choice...

which led to our economic meltdown...

i think the president was more than nice to his predecessor.

The housing bubble was the center of the storm.

I don't think you'll find any serious economic expert who won't sppt. that.

The war cost a lot, but that cost had zero to do with the financial meltdown.
IF what you said was so, then the spending over the last year and half would be triggering another meltdown.

I don't know about nice, frankly it doesn't matter.
I do know that laying off everything on ones predecessor has a short half life and he reached the expiration date on that a few months ago.

 

[DiveCon]

nmo. as long as the slaughter was caused by the government, and it was only one sided, it IS proof that Saddam did, in fact, keep shiites and sunni civilians from wantonly slaughtering one another. There was NO wanton slaughter of sunnis by shiites during the reign of Saddam..... he did, in fact, keep the civilians from all factions from slaughtering one another.... which is PRECISELY what I said all along.

But you refuse to admit that I am right... instead, you give me negative reputation comments like a little fag and tell ME that I am dishonest, when I have only stated facts. You are a pathetic little dweeb and it is appropriate that you live in a town filled with inbred dentally challenged morons. You muar fit right in. Do you go to the Old Goat to pdeleted

you are one of the most dishonest PoS on this board

I challenge you to prove that by showing any post from me where I EVER said anytihng OTHER than Saddam kept sunni and shiite from slaughtering one another.

My guess is, you will hem and haw and bluster about and call me more names and perhaps even neg rep me again...but you will be UNABLE to find one post where I deviated from that basic TRUTHFUL premise.

I won't hold my breath

you have said that and it is WRONG

btw, keep whining about a neg rep

 

[antagon]

we borrowed the money to run bush's pretend war of choice...

which led to our economic meltdown...

i think the president was more than nice to his predecessor.

The housing bubble was the center of the storm.

I don't think you'll find any serious economic expert who won't sppt. that.

The war cost a lot, but that cost had zero to do with the financial meltdown.
IF what you said was so, then the spending over the last year and half would be triggering another meltdown.

I don't know about nice, frankly it doesn't matter.
I do know that laying off everything on ones predecessor has a short half life and he reached the expiration date on that a few months ago.

, again.

The Iraq War, which should not have been waged, has nothing to do with the economic collapse of 2007-2008.

Borrowing money to pay for Iraq has little to do with our economic meltdown. It's added to our national debt, which isn't helpful, but the debt is only one of many factors contributing to the current state of our economy.

this isnt sensible. do you mean to say there's no direct correlation between public finance and mortgage rates and mortgage rates and the mortgage bubble or its collapse?

 

[geauxtohell]

we borrowed the money to run bush's pretend war of choice...

which led to our economic meltdown...

i think the president was more than nice to his predecessor.

And to make matters worse, we borrowed it from our future economic rival: China.

By invading Iraq we strengthened Iran and China. A president would have to work pretty hard to make a worse strategic and operational move.

Why Bush continues to get a pass for Iraq I'll never know. To me, it was the biggest mistake made by a President in the last century to include watergate.

 

[jillian]

And to make matters worse, we borrowed it from our future economic rival: China.

By invading Iraq we strengthened Iran and China. A president would have to work pretty hard to make a worse strategic and operational move.

Why Bush continues to get a pass for Iraq I'll never know. To me, it was the biggest mistake made by a President in the last century to include watergate.

bush gets a pass for iraq because the dems were and are terrified that they will be called weak and will be blamed if another terrorist attack occurs... and it is easier not to discuss it than to address the difference betwen what the right claims (which is that the dems voted for the war) with what the truth was (that bush was required to jump through a lot of hoops before invading that he failed to jump through)

 

[Titanic Sailor]

Geezus, what a friggin dumb bitch. Are you still spinning that crap? You are worse than Bush. Admit it, your Democrats suck worse than Bush, and voted with him on every issue except Terry Schiavo and SCHIPs.

Stop lying dopey. Read something, learn something, put some pants on, go get some air and some exercise, and stop your blatant stupidity. Enough. God almighty, that was sad.