Antiamericanism on the right.

[CryGlennCry]

What do you call it when you and those like you wanted America to fail when Bush was President? Was it just to make Bush look bad?

See, that's where you are just 100% wrong.
No one on the left wanted the country or Bush to fail.
The country WAS failing and EVERYONE was hoping he could pull us out of our slump.
He didn't.
He left our nation beat and bleeding for the next guy.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

What do you call it when you and those like you wanted America to fail when Bush was President? Was it just to make Bush look bad?

See, that's where you are just 100% wrong.
No one on the left wanted the country or Bush to fail.
The country WAS failing and EVERYONE was hoping he could pull us out of our slump.
He didn't.
He left our nation beat and bleeding for the next guy.

Sorry...you appear to be misinformed. AT EVERY TURN the Democrats did NOTHING but criticize Bush and wish he failed, make fun of him, wish failure upon our troops in Iraq, hope the body count in the war on terror would rise exponentially and made his every domestic policy decision out to be Nazism and handing money over to Wall Street.

That whole Democrats singing on the Capitol steps was one of the biggest jokes I ever saw coming from the crooks in Washington. Not 4 weeks later they were right back to Bush bashing and bitching about the build up to the war in Afghanistan.

The Democrats wanted Bush to fail.....and in turn some on the left are upset because some on the right want Obama to fail? Hypocrisy at it's finest.

 

[CryGlennCry]

What do you call it when you and those like you wanted America to fail when Bush was President? Was it just to make Bush look bad?

See, that's where you are just 100% wrong.
No one on the left wanted the country or Bush to fail.
The country WAS failing and EVERYONE was hoping he could pull us out of our slump.
He didn't.
He left our nation beat and bleeding for the next guy.

Sorry...you appear to be misinformed. AT EVERY TURN the Democrats did NOTHING but criticize Bush and wish he failed, make fun of him, wish failure upon our troops in Iraq, hope the body count in the war on terror would rise exponentially and made his every domestic policy decision out to be Nazism and handing money over to Wall Street.

That whole Democrats singing on the Capitol steps was one of the biggest jokes I ever saw coming from the crooks in Washington. Not 4 weeks later they were right back to Bush bashing and bitching about the build up to the war in Afghanistan.

The Democrats wanted Bush to fail.....and in turn some on the left are upset because some on the right want Obama to fail? Hypocrisy at it's finest.

Ok. Well I'm on the left and I just told you I never knew anyone who thought that way, but apparently you're gonna believe whatever you want to believe.
I think ANYONE of any political party wanting the country or the president to fail is a horrible douche bag.

 

[tigerbob]

What do you call it when you and those like you wanted America to fail when Bush was President? Was it just to make Bush look bad?

See, that's where you are just 100% wrong.
No one on the left wanted the country or Bush to fail.
The country WAS failing and EVERYONE was hoping he could pull us out of our slump.
He didn't.
He left our nation beat and bleeding for the next guy.

Sorry, but I'm gonna have to call...

 

[tigerbob]

What do you call it when you and those like you wanted America to fail when Bush was President? Was it just to make Bush look bad?

See, that's where you are just 100% wrong.
No one on the left wanted the country or Bush to fail.
The country WAS failing and EVERYONE was hoping he could pull us out of our slump.
He didn't.
He left our nation beat and bleeding for the next guy.

Sorry...you appear to be misinformed. AT EVERY TURN the Democrats did NOTHING but criticize Bush and wish he failed, make fun of him, wish failure upon our troops in Iraq, hope the body count in the war on terror would rise exponentially and made his every domestic policy decision out to be Nazism and handing money over to Wall Street.

That whole Democrats singing on the Capitol steps was one of the biggest jokes I ever saw coming from the crooks in Washington. Not 4 weeks later they were right back to Bush bashing and bitching about the build up to the war in Afghanistan.

The Democrats wanted Bush to fail.....and in turn some on the left are upset because some on the right want Obama to fail? Hypocrisy at it's finest.

And that's bullshit too. As usual, the truth lies somewhere between the two extremes. But to say Democrats wanted, for example, the body count to rise is just scummy. Do you know any Democrats? How many of them really wanted U.S. troops to be killed just so they could score political points? For you to paint all Democrats in that light is just plain idiocy.

 

[tigerbob]

See, that's where you are just 100% wrong.
No one on the left wanted the country or Bush to fail.
The country WAS failing and EVERYONE was hoping he could pull us out of our slump.
He didn't.
He left our nation beat and bleeding for the next guy.

Sorry...you appear to be misinformed. AT EVERY TURN the Democrats did NOTHING but criticize Bush and wish he failed, make fun of him, wish failure upon our troops in Iraq, hope the body count in the war on terror would rise exponentially and made his every domestic policy decision out to be Nazism and handing money over to Wall Street.

That whole Democrats singing on the Capitol steps was one of the biggest jokes I ever saw coming from the crooks in Washington. Not 4 weeks later they were right back to Bush bashing and bitching about the build up to the war in Afghanistan.

The Democrats wanted Bush to fail.....and in turn some on the left are upset because some on the right want Obama to fail? Hypocrisy at it's finest.

Ok. Well I'm on the left and I just told you I never knew anyone who thought that way, but apparently you're gonna believe whatever you want to believe.
I think ANYONE of any political party wanting the country or the president to fail is a horrible douche bag.

I knew plenty of Democrats that wanted Bush to fail. I can lend you some.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

See, that's where you are just 100% wrong.
No one on the left wanted the country or Bush to fail.
The country WAS failing and EVERYONE was hoping he could pull us out of our slump.
He didn't.
He left our nation beat and bleeding for the next guy.

Sorry...you appear to be misinformed. AT EVERY TURN the Democrats did NOTHING but criticize Bush and wish he failed, make fun of him, wish failure upon our troops in Iraq, hope the body count in the war on terror would rise exponentially and made his every domestic policy decision out to be Nazism and handing money over to Wall Street.

That whole Democrats singing on the Capitol steps was one of the biggest jokes I ever saw coming from the crooks in Washington. Not 4 weeks later they were right back to Bush bashing and bitching about the build up to the war in Afghanistan.

The Democrats wanted Bush to fail.....and in turn some on the left are upset because some on the right want Obama to fail? Hypocrisy at it's finest.

Ok. Well I'm on the left and I just told you I never knew anyone who thought that way, but apparently you're gonna believe whatever you want to believe.
I think ANYONE of any political party wanting the country or the president to fail is a horrible douche bag.

Yeah....OK. It's a fact that the Dems wanted Bush and anything he stood for to fail. All you have to do is read Huffington from 2001-2009 and the Democratic Underground's message board especially from 2004 until 2009. The hatred, vitriol and vile comments about our troops, the President and America absolutely disgusted me to no end.

and tigerbob....You looking for specific comments? How about specific deeds that led to or is causing the needless deaths of Americans...

Democrats pledged to provide full funding for critical intelligence programs – but just months after taking power, they took precious resources away from critical intelligence programs and used the money to fund research on global warming instead. “Led by U.S. Rep. Sylvestre Reyes of Texas, a coalition of D.C. Democrats say national security will be better served if CIA cash is used for global warming research – because apparently there just aren’t enough people studying the issue out there.”

How about the delays in funding the war because the anti war ass clowns wanted more unemployment insurance? WTF?

 

[CryGlennCry]

Yeah....OK. It's a fact that the Dems wanted Bush and anything he stood for to fail. All you have to do is read Huffington from 2001-2009 and the Democratic Underground's message board especially from 2004 until 2009. The hatred, vitriol and vile comments about our troops, the President and America absolutely disgusted me to no end.

I've never read the Huffington Post.
Or even heard of the Democratic Underground.
All I can tell you is I never heard any of my like minded friends or relatives or associates ever wish failure on Bush or the country.
Don't get me wrong. There was plenty of hatred for him due to his pro war, anti middle class policies.
But I say again. We all wanted the country to do well!

 

[bodecea]

You realize the Olympics tend to cause nothing but problems for the host city, correct? Why would we want that for any American city?

Um...yeah...the Olympic bomber caused problems for Atlanta. But tell us what the problems were with LA in 1984?

 

[Vel]

As where the Olympics will be has little interest to me, I'll not have remorse nor glee for this.

But, I will be pleased that this sort of silliness is finished so that we can get back to much, much more important issues - war, economy, fixing the disaster of the bill, etc. Call me superficial, but no, the Olympics is just not that import in perspective. And perhaps some are happy about that so that we can get back to real issues.

Great points. Perhaps now maybe Obama will look into sending our troops in Afghanistan some reinforcements. We lost 8 soldiers today.

 

[Modbert]

Great points. Perhaps now maybe Obama will look into sending our troops in Afghanistan some reinforcements. We lost 8 soldiers today.

Do you know how many the new general wants? Honestly, without using google, do you know?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You realize the Olympics tend to cause nothing but problems for the host city, correct? Why would we want that for any American city?

Um...yeah...the Olympic bomber caused problems for Atlanta. But tell us what the problems were with LA in 1984?

I addressed the inherent problems later in the thread.

How about all the money that would have to be spent to host the games? They'd spend money trying to beautify the city so they can try to impress all the rest of the world, they'd crack down on any "crime" they can come up with, police state nonsense the likes of which we saw recently in Pittsburgh for the G20 meeting, the inevitable corruption, and all at the expense of the taxpayers.

 

[Meister]

You realize the Olympics tend to cause nothing but problems for the host city, correct? Why would we want that for any American city?

Um...yeah...the Olympic bomber caused problems for Atlanta. But tell us what the problems were with LA in 1984?

LA was lucky enough to have the Coliseum, Forum, and Sports Arena already built with no cost to the hosting City. But, there was a tremendous amount of security to deal with. Uberroth was a genius with the Olympics. But, most other cities aren't this lucky, and do cost the host city a whole lot of money that isn't recouped.

 

[Meister]

Great points. Perhaps now maybe Obama will look into sending our troops in Afghanistan some reinforcements. We lost 8 soldiers today.

Do you know how many the new general wants? Honestly, without using google, do you know?

Without a search, I heard 40,000.

 

[Modbert]

Without a search, I heard 40,000.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ytCEuuW2_A]YouTube - The Price is Right losing horn[/ame]

You're as about as close as the Washington Nationals were to the playoffs this year.

He wants the current amount, plus 500,000 (FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND) over 5 years.

AND he has stated that if Obama is not willing to commit that, he will quit. So should Obama rush things you think and just commit 500,000 troops on a whim?

 

[Meister]

Without a search, I heard 40,000.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ytCEuuW2_A]YouTube - The Price is Right losing horn[/ame]

You're as about as close as the Washington Nationals were to the playoffs this year.

He wants the current amount, plus 500,000 (FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND) over 5 years.

AND he has stated that if Obama is not willing to commit that, he will quit. So should Obama rush things you think and just commit 500,000 troops on a whim?

Could you give us your source?

 

[Modbert]

Could you give us your source?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWX794aJ_y8]YouTube - 500,000 Troops Needed for Afghanistan?[/ame]

No one's refuted it.

 

[Meister]

Without a search, I heard 40,000.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ytCEuuW2_A]YouTube - The Price is Right losing horn[/ame]

You're as about as close as the Washington Nationals were to the playoffs this year.

He wants the current amount, plus 500,000 (FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND) over 5 years.

AND he has stated that if Obama is not willing to commit that, he will quit. So should Obama rush things you think and just commit 500,000 troops on a whim?

I see a lot of 40,000 more troops when I Google, not one 500,000....

Kimberly and Fred Kagan, defense analysts who helped McChrystal prepare his assessment of the war, this week released a report calling for about 40,000 extra troops to help wage a broad counterinsurgency campaign.
Top general in Afghanistan asks Pentagon for more troops -- latimes.com

 

[Modbert]

I see a lot of 40,000 more troops when I Google, not one 500,000....

Kimberly and Fred Kagan, defense analysts who helped McChrystal prepare his assessment of the war, this week released a report calling for about 40,000 extra troops to help wage a broad counterinsurgency campaign.
Top general in Afghanistan asks Pentagon for more troops -- latimes.com

From your own link:

It is unclear how many troops Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal requested. Officials have estimated that he needs 20,000 to 40,000 additional combat troops to pursue an expanded counterinsurgency strategy.

That's not for the entire war or even close to that. That's for one specific strategy.

The Soviet Union had over 100,000 troops in the country and more than 200,000 different ones at various times and still got their asses handed to them. And that was back in the 80's, before the U.S. supplied the future terrorists with training, before they took power and got even more money, etc.

 

[Meister]

Could you give us your source?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWX794aJ_y8]YouTube - 500,000 Troops Needed for Afghanistan?[/ame]

No one's refuted it.

I guess we will have to wait and see on it. MSNBC, though? That's a tuff pill to swallow.