It is impossible to compete with FREE

[Carla_Danger]

possum would like...

... free balogna sammiches...

... on Tuesdays.

I want a pony.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

...the wealthy,

when i see or hear that phrase, i know i have seen/heard an envious person or group who still live under bridges and are called "homeless"

I have nothing but admiration for our wealthy. They are fine people who love puppies and kittens and are a credit to our society

It does not excuse the fact that we have reduced what we expect them to contribute to society with the anticipation of more jobs and a booming economy. What happened is the wealthy just kept the additional wealth rather than invest in our society

Why continue a known failed policy?

I have nothing but admiration for our wealthy.

I don't. I think ass-kissing the butts of wealthy people is really weird.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

...the wealthy,

when i see or hear that phrase, i know i have seen/heard an envious person or group who still live under bridges and are called "homeless"

I have nothing but admiration for our wealthy. They are fine people who love puppies and kittens and are a credit to our society

It does not excuse the fact that we have reduced what we expect them to contribute to society with the anticipation of more jobs and a booming economy. What happened is the wealthy just kept the additional wealth rather than invest in our society

Why continue a known failed policy?

I really think contributions to society should be zero for everyone. It is really a bad idea to burden individuals with the maintenance of society. I live in a society with rules and laws and I adhere to them to the best of my ability or until I get caught breaking them. I don't understand where or why I have to contribute to society since I and everyone else in society already have a set of their own.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

It seems like the democratic party runs on giving away things for free in life and it is hard to come up with an argument why someone shouldn't receive free shit life. It is impossible for a politician to run on rugged individualism because that would require people to actually be self-sufficient human beings who work for a living. It is much easier to tell people that for everything you can't afford the government will give to you for free. That sounds really f'n great to most people because you can't argue against free stuff. Companies give away free stuff all the time and no one will argue against it. I think a politician should just come out and say everything you want will be paid for by the government. End of story! That was we can move away from this losing argument and move on. Land of the FREE and home of the Occupy Anything movement.

Two Republican wars under Bush and no one was asked to pay a nickel for them. Expansion of Medicare under Bush and no one was asked to pay a nickel for it.

Now, in 2016, the Republicans are promising MORE tax cuts, and more spending on the military.

Free stuff? From whom?

Two wars? You are aware that Al quada attacked us on 911. You act like that was Bush's fault.

 

[Andylusion]

...the wealthy,

when i see or hear that phrase, i know i have seen/heard an envious person or group who still live under bridges and are called "homeless"

I have nothing but admiration for our wealthy. They are fine people who love puppies and kittens and are a credit to our society

It does not excuse the fact that we have reduced what we expect them to contribute to society with the anticipation of more jobs and a booming economy. What happened is the wealthy just kept the additional wealth rather than invest in our society

Why continue a known failed policy?

"What we expect them to contribute..."

The arrogance of left-wingers in this country is limitless. No one give a flying crap, what you "expect". You are not entitled to diddly jack squat. You are not 'owed' anything. You existence on this planet, and the ability to suck air, doesn't mean you deserve anything.

You expect more? Go out and earn it.

Guess what?

I am part of We the People

We get to decide who contributes what in our society. We the People used to expect a lot more out of our wealthy and we were better off for it

No. Wrong. We the people are supposed to be under the rule of law. We are not supposed to be a Tyranny of the majority.

By your logic, there was nothing wrong with slavery. After all "we the people" said blacks are not people, and they must contribute what we say to society.

WRONG.

"We the People" of Germany determined they could destroy an entire group of people.

"We the People" of Russia determined they could eliminate an entire class of people.

Every time some idiot somewhere thought that simply because they were part of "we the people" meant they could do whatever the heck they wanted, the result was absolute devastation, not only for all those around them, but usually for they themselves.

I was reading about a Jewish man talking about his great grand parents. They supported Stalin. Were part of his government. Fully supported "we the people" being able to slaughter and steal from the "Bourgeoisie". Just until the purges, and Stalin killed them both, and many others in his show trials.

"We the people" were killed off by the "we the people" monster they created.

You better wake up, before you create a monster you think is going to "decide who contributes what in our society", turns on you, and thinks you need to contribute all of your hard earned money for society. Then your future generations will look back on you, recounting your sad existence, as the person who created a monster, which devoured himself.

 

[Andylusion]

Republicans give away freebies . To their big biz masters!

And how many voters does that account for?

As many as their super PACS can buy.

Yeah, I'd like to see real facts, and actual numbers, to back up your BS claim.

I wager food stamps has purchased more votes, than "super pacs".

 

[waltky]

Uncle Ferd likes dat clip o'...

... Miss Sarah doin' the hot cha-cha.

Carla wrote: I want a pony.

possum wantin' to know...

... if he gives ya a bite o' his balogna sammich...

... will ya give him a ride on yer pony?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Republicans give away freebies . To their big biz masters!

Do you mean the Bailout? That did suck but anyone who thought the company should go under was immediatly called a heartless human being for letting the workers suffer by LIBERALS! Please tell me who supports bailing out the rich?

Dubya the republican's bailout? Possibly the only good thing he did.

More Democrats vote for the bailout than Republicans, so it's really the Democrat bailout.

By this logic more Republicans voted for the Iraq Resolution and thus they carry the blame for the invasion, occupation, and the cost in blood and treasure of that fiasco.

Well yeah. I still believe it was the correct move, and if given the chance to do it all over again, I would vote to go into Iraq all over again. Granted I would plan for occupation, and I would disband the military, and I wouldn't try to de-bathification..

But yeah, you want to blame me for the Iraq war, Sure I'll own that. It was the right choice. We should have done better, but it was in fact the correct option.

You're wrong now and you would be wrong if this were the moment you watched - if you did - C. Powell's ridiculous presentation before the world on live TV.

That said you are not alone, yet I cannot imagine why someone today would defend this war of choice today knowing how thousands of people lost their lives, have life long wounds and the harm it did to our nation's image around the world.

 

[Wry Catcher]

...the wealthy,

when i see or hear that phrase, i know i have seen/heard an envious person or group who still live under bridges and are called "homeless"

I have nothing but admiration for our wealthy. They are fine people who love puppies and kittens and are a credit to our society

It does not excuse the fact that we have reduced what we expect them to contribute to society with the anticipation of more jobs and a booming economy. What happened is the wealthy just kept the additional wealth rather than invest in our society

Why continue a known failed policy?

"What we expect them to contribute..."

The arrogance of left-wingers in this country is limitless. No one give a flying crap, what you "expect". You are not entitled to diddly jack squat. You are not 'owed' anything. You existence on this planet, and the ability to suck air, doesn't mean you deserve anything.

You expect more? Go out and earn it.

Guess what?

I am part of We the People

We get to decide who contributes what in our society. We the People used to expect a lot more out of our wealthy and we were better off for it

No. Wrong. We the people are supposed to be under the rule of law. We are not supposed to be a Tyranny of the majority.

By your logic, there was nothing wrong with slavery. After all "we the people" said blacks are not people, and they must contribute what we say to society.

WRONG.

"We the People" of Germany determined they could destroy an entire group of people.

"We the People" of Russia determined they could eliminate an entire class of people.

Every time some idiot somewhere thought that simply because they were part of "we the people" meant they could do whatever the heck they wanted, the result was absolute devastation, not only for all those around them, but usually for they themselves.

I was reading about a Jewish man talking about his great grand parents. They supported Stalin. Were part of his government. Fully supported "we the people" being able to slaughter and steal from the "Bourgeoisie". Just until the purges, and Stalin killed them both, and many others in his show trials.

"We the people" were killed off by the "we the people" monster they created.

You better wake up, before you create a monster you think is going to "decide who contributes what in our society", turns on you, and thinks you need to contribute all of your hard earned money for society. Then your future generations will look back on you, recounting your sad existence, as the person who created a monster, which devoured himself.

This post ^^^ is a perverse and cynical opinion piece, missing of course is a conclusion on what would replace our system of governance.

A Philosopher King, perhaps; a Despot, an Oligarchy (selected by?), or the Plutocracy our Republic has slowly become?

The People can be brainwashed and act with the iron fist of a despot, which is why we have few examples of direct democracy (the initiative & the Recall being two, both can be abused) and checks and balances built in to prevent as much as possible a tyranny of the majority.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Republicans give away freebies . To their big biz masters!

And how many voters does that account for?

As many as their super PACS can buy.

Yeah, I'd like to see real facts, and actual numbers, to back up your BS claim.

I wager food stamps has purchased more votes, than "super pacs".

I suspect you'd lose that bet. Though, it fits with the thinking of the GOP and Republican Governors who fear and hold animus for the poor, the aged and minority populations and seek to suppress their ability to vote.

 

[Andylusion]

Do you mean the Bailout? That did suck but anyone who thought the company should go under was immediatly called a heartless human being for letting the workers suffer by LIBERALS! Please tell me who supports bailing out the rich?

Dubya the republican's bailout? Possibly the only good thing he did.

More Democrats vote for the bailout than Republicans, so it's really the Democrat bailout.

By this logic more Republicans voted for the Iraq Resolution and thus they carry the blame for the invasion, occupation, and the cost in blood and treasure of that fiasco.

Well yeah. I still believe it was the correct move, and if given the chance to do it all over again, I would vote to go into Iraq all over again. Granted I would plan for occupation, and I would disband the military, and I wouldn't try to de-bathification..

But yeah, you want to blame me for the Iraq war, Sure I'll own that. It was the right choice. We should have done better, but it was in fact the correct option.

You're wrong now and you would be wrong if this were the moment you watched - if you did - C. Powell's ridiculous presentation before the world on live TV.

That said you are not alone, yet I cannot imagine why someone today would defend this war of choice today knowing how thousands of people lost their lives, have life long wounds and the harm it did to our nation's image around the world.

I didn't see C. Powell's presentation.

What I did see, was the intelligence briefing by the CIA, which was investigated by the Democrats, and published the Rockefeller report.... in which, they said that nearly everything.... as in almost EVERYTHING, was supported by the intelligence data available at the time.

Now, if *YOU* were in charge, and you were given the information that Bush was given, and YOU had to determine what to do in that situation, being told what you were told... and you knew that if you did nothing, and Saddam did give WMDs, dirty bombs, or chemical or biological weapons to terrorist groups, which is exactly what the evidence and intelligence information AT THAT TIME SAID...... What would you do?

Hard question, given that if a chemical weapons goes off in a New York subway, and tens of thousands, or upward of a million people end up gassed.....

Pretty easy to sit on your high horse, from your arrogant position of zero responsibility, and clean "oh I would have know it was wrong, and not done anything".

Tad bit different when inaction on your part results in deaths.

Knowing what we know RIGHT NOW..... That would be different. But Bush didn't know in 2003, what we know in 2015.

It was the right move, given the information we had, at that time.

Maybe if Clinton had not reduced CIA spending, and put in place asinine rules that hindered information gathering.

Maybe if Bush Sr, had finished the job in 1991.

Maybe if we had never made an alliance with Kuwait.

But if you were in the office, in 2001, you had no control over the prior 20 years. You had the information that you had, and you had to make a decision.

Again, the Rockefeller report (which I have right here on my computer) makes it undeniably clear, that the information that Bush used, was the information that the intelligence community had at the time. PERIOD.

If you think that's wrong, then take up with your democrats who must have all being lying.

 

[Andylusion]

Republicans give away freebies . To their big biz masters!

And how many voters does that account for?

As many as their super PACS can buy.

Yeah, I'd like to see real facts, and actual numbers, to back up your BS claim.

I wager food stamps has purchased more votes, than "super pacs".

I suspect you'd lose that bet. Though, it fits with the thinking of the GOP and Republican Governors who fear and hold animus for the poor, the aged and minority populations and seek to suppress their ability to vote.

Yeah, and I can just make up crap about you. Arrogance, and being judgmental toward someone you've never met. It fits with the thinking of Democrats and leftist, who are self absorbed, and insulting towards anyone with a different opinion than them.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Dubya the republican's bailout? Possibly the only good thing he did.

More Democrats vote for the bailout than Republicans, so it's really the Democrat bailout.

By this logic more Republicans voted for the Iraq Resolution and thus they carry the blame for the invasion, occupation, and the cost in blood and treasure of that fiasco.

Well yeah. I still believe it was the correct move, and if given the chance to do it all over again, I would vote to go into Iraq all over again. Granted I would plan for occupation, and I would disband the military, and I wouldn't try to de-bathification..

But yeah, you want to blame me for the Iraq war, Sure I'll own that. It was the right choice. We should have done better, but it was in fact the correct option.

You're wrong now and you would be wrong if this were the moment you watched - if you did - C. Powell's ridiculous presentation before the world on live TV.

That said you are not alone, yet I cannot imagine why someone today would defend this war of choice today knowing how thousands of people lost their lives, have life long wounds and the harm it did to our nation's image around the world.

I didn't see C. Powell's presentation.

What I did see, was the intelligence briefing by the CIA, which was investigated by the Democrats, and published the Rockefeller report.... in which, they said that nearly everything.... as in almost EVERYTHING, was supported by the intelligence data available at the time.

Now, if *YOU* were in charge, and you were given the information that Bush was given, and YOU had to determine what to do in that situation, being told what you were told... and you knew that if you did nothing, and Saddam did give WMDs, dirty bombs, or chemical or biological weapons to terrorist groups, which is exactly what the evidence and intelligence information AT THAT TIME SAID...... What would you do?

Hard question, given that if a chemical weapons goes off in a New York subway, and tens of thousands, or upward of a million people end up gassed.....

Pretty easy to sit on your high horse, from your arrogant position of zero responsibility, and clean "oh I would have know it was wrong, and not done anything".

Tad bit different when inaction on your part results in deaths.

Knowing what we know RIGHT NOW..... That would be different. But Bush didn't know in 2003, what we know in 2015.

It was the right move, given the information we had, at that time.

Maybe if Clinton had not reduced CIA spending, and put in place asinine rules that hindered information gathering.

Maybe if Bush Sr, had finished the job in 1991.

Maybe if we had never made an alliance with Kuwait.

But if you were in the office, in 2001, you had no control over the prior 20 years. You had the information that you had, and you had to make a decision.

Again, the Rockefeller report (which I have right here on my computer) makes it undeniably clear, that the information that Bush used, was the information that the intelligence community had at the time. PERIOD.

If you think that's wrong, then take up with your democrats who must have all being lying.

Gee, all of what you suggest is plausible, yet we didn't invade N. Korea which has nuclear capacity, but no oil.

I understand that nuclear weapons leave a signature, and that a dirty bomb can be forensically traced to a source. Maybe Kim da Krazy might try that, but the response to a nuclear attack on the US would result in the destruction of any nation which did so.

 

[Andylusion]

More Democrats vote for the bailout than Republicans, so it's really the Democrat bailout.

By this logic more Republicans voted for the Iraq Resolution and thus they carry the blame for the invasion, occupation, and the cost in blood and treasure of that fiasco.

Well yeah. I still believe it was the correct move, and if given the chance to do it all over again, I would vote to go into Iraq all over again. Granted I would plan for occupation, and I would disband the military, and I wouldn't try to de-bathification..

But yeah, you want to blame me for the Iraq war, Sure I'll own that. It was the right choice. We should have done better, but it was in fact the correct option.

You're wrong now and you would be wrong if this were the moment you watched - if you did - C. Powell's ridiculous presentation before the world on live TV.

That said you are not alone, yet I cannot imagine why someone today would defend this war of choice today knowing how thousands of people lost their lives, have life long wounds and the harm it did to our nation's image around the world.

I didn't see C. Powell's presentation.

What I did see, was the intelligence briefing by the CIA, which was investigated by the Democrats, and published the Rockefeller report.... in which, they said that nearly everything.... as in almost EVERYTHING, was supported by the intelligence data available at the time.

Now, if *YOU* were in charge, and you were given the information that Bush was given, and YOU had to determine what to do in that situation, being told what you were told... and you knew that if you did nothing, and Saddam did give WMDs, dirty bombs, or chemical or biological weapons to terrorist groups, which is exactly what the evidence and intelligence information AT THAT TIME SAID...... What would you do?

Hard question, given that if a chemical weapons goes off in a New York subway, and tens of thousands, or upward of a million people end up gassed.....

Pretty easy to sit on your high horse, from your arrogant position of zero responsibility, and clean "oh I would have know it was wrong, and not done anything".

Tad bit different when inaction on your part results in deaths.

Knowing what we know RIGHT NOW..... That would be different. But Bush didn't know in 2003, what we know in 2015.

It was the right move, given the information we had, at that time.

Maybe if Clinton had not reduced CIA spending, and put in place asinine rules that hindered information gathering.

Maybe if Bush Sr, had finished the job in 1991.

Maybe if we had never made an alliance with Kuwait.

But if you were in the office, in 2001, you had no control over the prior 20 years. You had the information that you had, and you had to make a decision.

Again, the Rockefeller report (which I have right here on my computer) makes it undeniably clear, that the information that Bush used, was the information that the intelligence community had at the time. PERIOD.

If you think that's wrong, then take up with your democrats who must have all being lying.

Gee, all of what you suggest is plausible, yet we didn't invade N. Korea which has nuclear capacity, but no oil.

I understand that nuclear weapons leave a signature, and that a dirty bomb can be forensically traced to a source. Maybe Kim da Krazy might try that, but the response to a nuclear attack on the US would result in the destruction of any nation which did so.

None of which changes the intelligence information that Bush had at that time.

Are you saying that if you were given tons of information, that all suggested that an enemy nation, which had already invaded one of your allies, and had been openly thwarting the UN inspections for over a decade..... That you would just assume "all the information is a lie, and I know he won't do anything"?

That would just make you a pathetically bad leader.... or Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton was warned over and over... Al Qaida is growing, they are planning to attack us.... you should do something. And Billy boy Clinton, did not believe the information, and said they wouldn't do anything.

He was warned in 1996. He was warned in 1998. In 2001, we found out the "all the information is a lie, and I know he won't do anything" was wrong. Bill Clinton was a bad president.

If you take the same 'head-in-the-sand' approach, that would make you a bad president.

Bush did something, because he wasn't going to follow Clinton's incompetence.

And by the way, we found WMDs in Iraq. Contrary to the left-wing claim. He did have them. We have soldiers that had to be treated for chemical weapon exposures. And we also know the Russians removed a bunch.

So... who was really right in the end?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Republicans give away freebies . To their big biz masters!

And how many voters does that account for?

As many as their super PACS can buy.

Yeah, I'd like to see real facts, and actual numbers, to back up your BS claim.

I wager food stamps has purchased more votes, than "super pacs".

I suspect you'd lose that bet. Though, it fits with the thinking of the GOP and Republican Governors who fear and hold animus for the poor, the aged and minority populations and seek to suppress their ability to vote.

Yeah, and I can just make up crap about you. Arrogance, and being judgmental toward someone you've never met. It fits with the thinking of Democrats and leftist, who are self absorbed, and insulting towards anyone with a different opinion than them.

Define "leftist"; in my arrogant opinion you have no concept of a "leftist" or a Democrat. I base that on your words. wherein you lump those who hold opinions which challenge your own as being clones.

Admit you use these two words, and likely others, as a pejorative. I suspect you lack the ability to respond with a rebuttal, or are too lazy to do so.

 

[Wry Catcher]

By this logic more Republicans voted for the Iraq Resolution and thus they carry the blame for the invasion, occupation, and the cost in blood and treasure of that fiasco.

Well yeah. I still believe it was the correct move, and if given the chance to do it all over again, I would vote to go into Iraq all over again. Granted I would plan for occupation, and I would disband the military, and I wouldn't try to de-bathification..

But yeah, you want to blame me for the Iraq war, Sure I'll own that. It was the right choice. We should have done better, but it was in fact the correct option.

You're wrong now and you would be wrong if this were the moment you watched - if you did - C. Powell's ridiculous presentation before the world on live TV.

That said you are not alone, yet I cannot imagine why someone today would defend this war of choice today knowing how thousands of people lost their lives, have life long wounds and the harm it did to our nation's image around the world.

I didn't see C. Powell's presentation.

What I did see, was the intelligence briefing by the CIA, which was investigated by the Democrats, and published the Rockefeller report.... in which, they said that nearly everything.... as in almost EVERYTHING, was supported by the intelligence data available at the time.

Now, if *YOU* were in charge, and you were given the information that Bush was given, and YOU had to determine what to do in that situation, being told what you were told... and you knew that if you did nothing, and Saddam did give WMDs, dirty bombs, or chemical or biological weapons to terrorist groups, which is exactly what the evidence and intelligence information AT THAT TIME SAID...... What would you do?

Hard question, given that if a chemical weapons goes off in a New York subway, and tens of thousands, or upward of a million people end up gassed.....

Pretty easy to sit on your high horse, from your arrogant position of zero responsibility, and clean "oh I would have know it was wrong, and not done anything".

Tad bit different when inaction on your part results in deaths.

Knowing what we know RIGHT NOW..... That would be different. But Bush didn't know in 2003, what we know in 2015.

It was the right move, given the information we had, at that time.

Maybe if Clinton had not reduced CIA spending, and put in place asinine rules that hindered information gathering.

Maybe if Bush Sr, had finished the job in 1991.

Maybe if we had never made an alliance with Kuwait.

But if you were in the office, in 2001, you had no control over the prior 20 years. You had the information that you had, and you had to make a decision.

Again, the Rockefeller report (which I have right here on my computer) makes it undeniably clear, that the information that Bush used, was the information that the intelligence community had at the time. PERIOD.

If you think that's wrong, then take up with your democrats who must have all being lying.

Gee, all of what you suggest is plausible, yet we didn't invade N. Korea which has nuclear capacity, but no oil.

I understand that nuclear weapons leave a signature, and that a dirty bomb can be forensically traced to a source. Maybe Kim da Krazy might try that, but the response to a nuclear attack on the US would result in the destruction of any nation which did so.

None of which changes the intelligence information that Bush had at that time.

Are you saying that if you were given tons of information, that all suggested that an enemy nation, which had already invaded one of your allies, and had been openly thwarting the UN inspections for over a decade..... That you would just assume "all the information is a lie, and I know he won't do anything"?

That would just make you a pathetically bad leader.... or Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton was warned over and over... Al Qaida is growing, they are planning to attack us.... you should do something. And Billy boy Clinton, did not believe the information, and said they wouldn't do anything.

He was warned in 1996. He was warned in 1998. In 2001, we found out the "all the information is a lie, and I know he won't do anything" was wrong. Bill Clinton was a bad president.

If you take the same 'head-in-the-sand' approach, that would make you a bad president.

Bush did something, because he wasn't going to follow Clinton's incompetence.

And by the way, we found WMDs in Iraq. Contrary to the left-wing claim. He did have them. We have soldiers that had to be treated for chemical weapon exposures. And we also know the Russians removed a bunch.

So... who was really right in the end?

Bush & Co. engaged in fear mongering, the evidence of WMD's was weak, and the presentation by Powell was weaker. IMO, and I'm far from alone, Bush needed a war because he was the Commander-in-Chief when the most lethal attack on America occurred.

Cheney and the Neo Cons wanted a war with Iraq in the early 90's, when Bush I chose not to invade Iraq, and the PNAC statement of principles published in 1997 confirms such an agenda.

See the link below pay attention to those who signed the document and the place they held in Bush II's Administration:

http://www.rrojasdatabank.info/pfpc/PNAC---statement of principles.pdf

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

And how many voters does that account for?

As many as their super PACS can buy.

Yeah, I'd like to see real facts, and actual numbers, to back up your BS claim.

I wager food stamps has purchased more votes, than "super pacs".

I suspect you'd lose that bet. Though, it fits with the thinking of the GOP and Republican Governors who fear and hold animus for the poor, the aged and minority populations and seek to suppress their ability to vote.

Yeah, and I can just make up crap about you. Arrogance, and being judgmental toward someone you've never met. It fits with the thinking of Democrats and leftist, who are self absorbed, and insulting towards anyone with a different opinion than them.

Define "leftist"; in my arrogant opinion you have no concept of a "leftist" or a Democrat. I base that on your words. wherein you lump those who hold opinions which challenge your own as being clones.

Admit you use these two words, and likely others, as a pejorative. I suspect you lack the ability to respond with a rebuttal, or are too lazy to do so.

Thats easy...the two "dems" running for the office of the presidency are leftist.

 

[g5000]

It seems like the democratic party runs on giving away things for free in life and it is hard to come up with an argument why someone shouldn't receive free shit life. It is impossible for a politician to run on rugged individualism because that would require people to actually be self-sufficient human beings who work for a living. It is much easier to tell people that for everything you can't afford the government will give to you for free. That sounds really f'n great to most people because you can't argue against free stuff. Companies give away free stuff all the time and no one will argue against it. I think a politician should just come out and say everything you want will be paid for by the government. End of story! That was we can move away from this losing argument and move on. Land of the FREE and home of the Occupy Anything movement.

Tax expenditures are DOUBLE the cost of all the welfare programs.

Look in the mirror. There's your problem.

 

[Arianrhod]

Republicans give away freebies . To their big biz masters!

And how many voters does that account for?

As many as their super PACS can buy.

Yeah, I'd like to see real facts, and actual numbers, to back up your BS claim.

I wager food stamps has purchased more votes, than "super pacs".

What do you think the function of a super PAC is, anyway?

 

[Andylusion]

Well yeah. I still believe it was the correct move, and if given the chance to do it all over again, I would vote to go into Iraq all over again. Granted I would plan for occupation, and I would disband the military, and I wouldn't try to de-bathification..

But yeah, you want to blame me for the Iraq war, Sure I'll own that. It was the right choice. We should have done better, but it was in fact the correct option.

You're wrong now and you would be wrong if this were the moment you watched - if you did - C. Powell's ridiculous presentation before the world on live TV.

That said you are not alone, yet I cannot imagine why someone today would defend this war of choice today knowing how thousands of people lost their lives, have life long wounds and the harm it did to our nation's image around the world.

I didn't see C. Powell's presentation.

What I did see, was the intelligence briefing by the CIA, which was investigated by the Democrats, and published the Rockefeller report.... in which, they said that nearly everything.... as in almost EVERYTHING, was supported by the intelligence data available at the time.

Now, if *YOU* were in charge, and you were given the information that Bush was given, and YOU had to determine what to do in that situation, being told what you were told... and you knew that if you did nothing, and Saddam did give WMDs, dirty bombs, or chemical or biological weapons to terrorist groups, which is exactly what the evidence and intelligence information AT THAT TIME SAID...... What would you do?

Hard question, given that if a chemical weapons goes off in a New York subway, and tens of thousands, or upward of a million people end up gassed.....

Pretty easy to sit on your high horse, from your arrogant position of zero responsibility, and clean "oh I would have know it was wrong, and not done anything".

Tad bit different when inaction on your part results in deaths.

Knowing what we know RIGHT NOW..... That would be different. But Bush didn't know in 2003, what we know in 2015.

It was the right move, given the information we had, at that time.

Maybe if Clinton had not reduced CIA spending, and put in place asinine rules that hindered information gathering.

Maybe if Bush Sr, had finished the job in 1991.

Maybe if we had never made an alliance with Kuwait.

But if you were in the office, in 2001, you had no control over the prior 20 years. You had the information that you had, and you had to make a decision.

Again, the Rockefeller report (which I have right here on my computer) makes it undeniably clear, that the information that Bush used, was the information that the intelligence community had at the time. PERIOD.

If you think that's wrong, then take up with your democrats who must have all being lying.

Gee, all of what you suggest is plausible, yet we didn't invade N. Korea which has nuclear capacity, but no oil.

I understand that nuclear weapons leave a signature, and that a dirty bomb can be forensically traced to a source. Maybe Kim da Krazy might try that, but the response to a nuclear attack on the US would result in the destruction of any nation which did so.

None of which changes the intelligence information that Bush had at that time.

Are you saying that if you were given tons of information, that all suggested that an enemy nation, which had already invaded one of your allies, and had been openly thwarting the UN inspections for over a decade..... That you would just assume "all the information is a lie, and I know he won't do anything"?

That would just make you a pathetically bad leader.... or Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton was warned over and over... Al Qaida is growing, they are planning to attack us.... you should do something. And Billy boy Clinton, did not believe the information, and said they wouldn't do anything.

He was warned in 1996. He was warned in 1998. In 2001, we found out the "all the information is a lie, and I know he won't do anything" was wrong. Bill Clinton was a bad president.

If you take the same 'head-in-the-sand' approach, that would make you a bad president.

Bush did something, because he wasn't going to follow Clinton's incompetence.

And by the way, we found WMDs in Iraq. Contrary to the left-wing claim. He did have them. We have soldiers that had to be treated for chemical weapon exposures. And we also know the Russians removed a bunch.

So... who was really right in the end?

Bush & Co. engaged in fear mongering, the evidence of WMD's was weak, and the presentation by Powell was weaker. IMO, and I'm far from alone, Bush needed a war because he was the Commander-in-Chief when the most lethal attack on America occurred.

Cheney and the Neo Cons wanted a war with Iraq in the early 90's, when Bush I chose not to invade Iraq, and the PNAC statement of principles published in 1997 confirms such an agenda.

See the link below pay attention to those who signed the document and the place they held in Bush II's Administration:

http://www.rrojasdatabank.info/pfpc/PNAC---statement of principles.pdf

And yet according to the Rockefeller report, the evidence was all supported by the intelligence available at the time.

You can say whatever you want, and post whatever links you want... but the Rockefeller report, was an official congressional investigation into the intelligence information that led to the Iraq war.

Nothing have said, and nothing you have posted, changes those facts. You want to resort to insults? Fine. But that just proves that despite your claims, you are the one who can't respond to the facts.