Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Where's the nutty professor?

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
    Yes, especially when all those brown faces can be ushered in and converted into a new generation of government-dependent democrat takers who can then be mobilized to vote for, you guessed it, more taking. Your compassion is endless.

    Liberals are so transparent on this issue. They should just drop all of the pretenses. If you want to understand history you can do a lot worse than reading books by this guy:

    http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0714/hanson071014.php3
    You had me until you said "brown faces"....

    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
      It's like deja vu, I swear I've seen this so any times on 60 years, dems having to clean up republican messes.

      does anybody notice how Obama just cleaned up the economic mess he inherited? How come no one talks about that?
      Because unless you are among the top 10%, no one else has seen the imaginary economic improvement Democrats speak. In fact the average Ametican has only seen his income go south.

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
        I knew it was a mistake when Bush signed the status of forces agreement with Iraq in 2008 just before he left office. Really tied the hands of the incoming president. I think the approach of humanitarian aid and aerial support seems to be working. Don't understand why Obama hatred leads to a desire to spill the blood of American kids that I was just watching on soccer fields but many aren't going to be satisfied until American kids join the body count.
        “I promised to end the war in Iraq, and I did.” - Barack Obama campaigning in 2012


        “You know what I just find interesting is the degree to which this issue keeps coming up, as if this was my decision.” - Barack Obama, August 2014 in reference to his decision to remove troops from Iraq


        http://www.westernjournalism.com/oba...RYZHOcCkSRQ.99

        Comment


          #19
          Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
          Learn some history. You might be surprised at who is responsible for the mess down there. By your own logic we have a moral obligation to clean up that mess. That does not include sending back children to endure murder and slavery that looks just like the murder and slavery happening in Middle East.

          You have already agreed that GWB's war created conditions that brought on a mess that we have a moral obligation to fix. Moral equivalency demands that we do the same in Nicaragua since current issues were created by Reagan era policies. Iran-contra. Remember that a president had to pardon officials who were criminally convicted for their role in that. It was part of a larger effort that baked the situation that exists now.

          If you are only in HS I understand why you don't know these things. :) nice to see a young person though that feels we have moral obligations for the suffering our nation has caused
          ^^^^^Libs rewriting 3 decades worth of history. ^^^^^

          Comment


            #20
            Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
            Victor David Hanson...the man who inspired bush's adventures in Mideast.

            The blood of how many American sons and daughters on his hands? Yours?

            Maybe if the draft is reinstated your daughter's number will come up. I suspect dodging IED's as well as well as "hazards" that women over there deal with ....that'll change your tune.

            Or are you here because you are a political miscreant and don't have interest in youth soccer?
            Libs are so funny. First they bitch about the draft back in the 60s and 70s. Now they bitch because there is no draft. Libs are never happy.

            Comment


              #21
              Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
              “I promised to end the war in Iraq, and I did.” - Barack Obama campaigning in 2012


              “You know what I just find interesting is the degree to which this issue keeps coming up, as if this was my decision.” - Barack Obama, August 2014 in reference to his decision to remove troops from Iraq


              http://www.westernjournalism.com/oba...RYZHOcCkSRQ.99
              Conservatives are so forgetful

              In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government that set the clock ticking on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate. And as Middle East historian Juan Cole has noted, “Bush had to sign what the [Iraqi] parliament gave him or face the prospect that U.S. troops would have to leave by 31 December, 2008, something that would have been interpreted as a defeat… Bush and his generals clearly expected, however, that over time Washington would be able to wriggle out of the treaty and would find a way to keep a division or so in Iraq past that deadline.”

              But ending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq was an overwhelmingly popular demand among Iraqis, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appears to have been unwilling to take the political risk of extending it. While he was inclined to see a small number of American soldiers stay behind to continue mentoring Iraqi forces, the likes of Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, on whose support Maliki’s ruling coalition depends, were having none of it. Even the Obama Administration’s plan to keep some 3,000 trainers behind failed because the Iraqis were unwilling to grant them the legal immunity from local prosecution that is common to SOF agreements in most countries where U.S. forces are based.

              So, while U.S. commanders would have liked to have kept a division or more behind in Iraq to face any contingencies — and, increasingly, Administration figures had begun citing the challenge of Iran, next door — it was Iraqi democracy that put the kibosh on that goal. The Bush Administration had agreed in 2004 to restore Iraqi sovereignty, and in 2005 put the country’s elected government in charge of shaping its destiny. But President Bush hadn’t anticipated that Iraqi democracy would see pro-U.S. parties sidelined and would, instead, consistently return governments closer to Tehran than they are to Washington. Contra expectations, a democratic Iraq has turned out to be at odds with much of U.S. regional strategy — first and foremost its campaign to isolate Iran.
              http://world.time.com/2011/10/21/ira...roop-presence/

              That story was from before the withdrawal so spin that as spin after the spin moron.

              Comment


                #22
                Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                Libs are so funny. First they bitch about the draft back in the 60s and 70s. Now they bitch because there is no draft. Libs are never happy.
                Whatever. Your not going to get your wet dream of seeing us in another war in Iraq while Obama is in office. You certainly won't get it if rand Paul gets elected. Guess you conservatives will have to vote for Hillary if you want to get excited about spilling the blood of kids.

                Suck on that.

                Comment


                  #23
                  Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                  Because unless you are among the top 10%, no one else has seen the imaginary economic improvement Democrats speak. In fact the average Ametican has only seen his income go south.
                  "The recession officially ended more than five years ago and ought to be a distant memory. These should be boom times with widespread optimism and robust spending. Yet consumers are gloomy and the economy is limping along at subpar levels of growth.

                  It’s becoming clear why: While jobs have returned, incomes have not. The latest evidence is a study by the U.S. Conference of Mayors that highlights stark disparities between the jobs lost during the recession and jobs gained since. The types of jobs lost paid nearly $62,000 per year, on average. The jobs gained during the past six years pay only about $47,000. That 23% shortfall adds up to about $93 billion in lost wages per year — money not being spent because it vanished from the economy."

                  http://finance.yahoo.com/news/here-s...143802815.html

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                    "The recession officially ended more than five years ago and ought to be a distant memory. These should be boom times with widespread optimism and robust spending. Yet consumers are gloomy and the economy is limping along at subpar levels of growth.

                    It’s becoming clear why: While jobs have returned, incomes have not. The latest evidence is a study by the U.S. Conference of Mayors that highlights stark disparities between the jobs lost during the recession and jobs gained since. The types of jobs lost paid nearly $62,000 per year, on average. The jobs gained during the past six years pay only about $47,000. That 23% shortfall adds up to about $93 billion in lost wages per year — money not being spent because it vanished from the economy."

                    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/here-s...143802815.html
                    And yet corporate profits are at an all time high, both nominal and marginal. The same corporations that are benefitting from artificially low wages. Hmm, are the dems the party that all these corporations support and finance campaigns for??

                    Try again....

                    Comment


                      #25
                      Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                      And yet corporate profits are at an all time high, both nominal and marginal. The same corporations that are benefitting from artificially low wages. Hmm, are the dems the party that all these corporations support and finance campaigns for??

                      Try again....
                      Exactly....there is a great recovery just that all the money is captured by the very top.

                      Just a little redistribution gonna fix all that.

                      Comment


                        #26
                        Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                        Whatever. Your not going to get your wet dream of seeing us in another war in Iraq while Obama is in office. You certainly won't get it if rand Paul gets elected. Guess you conservatives will have to vote for Hillary if you want to get excited about spilling the blood of kids.

                        Suck on that.
                        As usual a lib makes assumptions about conservatives that show who the real bigots are. It is the statist that want to see fighting in the Middle East, among them Clinton Democrats and McCain Republicans. No wonder those two get along so famously. But I think I said in a previous post I don't want to see Americans fighting in Iraq, but I do feel we have a moral obligation there. This is where a real leader turns to his generals for advice. The last thing we need is a politician making decisions based on the next election, which is what we have now.

                        The problem with you libs is you constantly base your opinion on "woulda, coulda, shoulda" instead of recognizing the here and now. Perfect example is blaming Reagan 30 years later for the influx of illegals from Central America. That doesn't solve the problem of tens of thousands of illegals flooding our borders, some of whom may actually represent ISIS and not the kids of Central America.

                        The one thing you can be sure of is that I will not be voting for Hillary. Whether I vote of Paul is still up in the air; however, he comes as close to my views on the subject than any other politician out there.

                        "What would airstrikes accomplish? We know that Iran is aiding the Iraqi government against ISIS. Do we want to, in effect, become Iran's air force? What's in this for Iran? Why should we choose a side, and if we do, who are we really helping?" - Rand Paul, June 2014

                        "I have mixed feelings about it. I'm not saying I'm completely opposed to helping with arms or maybe even bombing, but I am concerned that ISIS is big and powerful because we protected them in Syria for a year. Do you know who also hates ISIS and who is bombing them? Assad, the Syrian government. So a year ago, the same people who want to bomb ISIS wanted to bomb Syria last year. Syria and ISIS are on opposite sides of the war. We're now bombing both sides of one war that has spread into another country." - Rand Paul, August, 2014

                        Of course, Paul will be accused by his political opponents on both sides of flip flopping , but he makes perfect sense to me.

                        Comment


                          #27
                          Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                          As usual a lib makes assumptions about conservatives that show who the real bigots are. It is the statist that want to see fighting in the Middle East, among them Clinton Democrats and McCain Republicans. No wonder those two get along so famously. But I think I said in a previous post I don't want to see Americans fighting in Iraq, but I do feel we have a moral obligation there. This is where a real leader turns to his generals for advice.
                          What do you call bombing support and air-drops of humanitarian aid? That IS what is going on. Evidence for your contention that the president failed to consult his generals prior to bombing?

                          Ignorance knows no limit.

                          "you libs" is you constantly base your opinion on "woulda, coulda, shoulda" instead of recognizing the here and now. Perfect example is blaming Reagan 30 years later for the influx of illegals from Central America. That doesn't solve the problem of tens of thousands of illegals flooding our borders, some of whom may actually represent ISIS and not the kids of Central America.
                          Thats an assertion without support. It's more common that ISIS infiltrating here via H1B visa for tech workers. Perhaps you should tell those corporations it's a security risk to sponsor computer scientists from India, far eat, etc where these groups also have a presence.

                          Bonus - cheap foreign labor gone = higher wages for Americans in those fields.

                          See how it works! You can see the evidence for what I said when you produce
                          "I have mixed feelings about it. I'm not saying I'm completely opposed to helping with arms or maybe even bombing, but I am concerned that ISIS is big and powerful because we protected them in Syria for a year. Do you know who also hates ISIS and who is bombing them? Assad, the Syrian government. So a year ago, the same people who want to bomb ISIS wanted to bomb Syria last year. Syria and ISIS are on opposite sides of the war. We're now bombing both sides of one war that has spread into another country." - Rand Paul, August, 2014

                          Of course, Paul will be accused by his political opponents on both sides of flip flopping , but he makes perfect sense to me.
                          That's because he does flip flop ....all the time. Just like you have in your post.

                          "You libs"? Ok....not feeling up to discussing. On edits so resort to that. So revealing

                          Comment


                            #28
                            Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                            What do you call bombing support and air-drops of humanitarian aid? That IS what is going on. Evidence for your contention that the president failed to consult his generals prior to bombing?

                            Ignorance knows no limit.
                            What do I call it? Bipartisan support. However, that is not the issue. The military did not support troop withdrawals from Iraq and predicted the mess that we have at hand. Don't you ever watch those ignorant bastards on Frontline???

                            Losing Iraq - Frontline examines the unfolding chaos in Iraq. What went wrong? How did we get here?

                            Nah, your too busy watching MSNBC, where news goes to die.

                            http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/losing-iraq/

                            Thats an assertion without support. It's more common that ISIS infiltrating here via H1B visa for tech workers. Perhaps you should tell those corporations it's a security risk to sponsor computer scientists from India, far eat, etc where these groups also have a presence.

                            "A leaked intelligence analysis from the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) reveals the exact numbers of illegal immigrants entering and attempting to enter the U.S. from more than 75 different countries..... The report reveals the apprehension numbers ranging from 2010 through July 2014. It shows that most of the human smuggling from Syria and Albania into the U.S. comes through Central America..... Twenty-eight individuals from Pakistan were caught attempting to sneak into the U.S. this year alone, with another 211 individuals either turning themselves in or being caught at official ports of entry. Thirteen Egyptians were caught trying to sneak into the U.S. this year alone, with another 168 either turning themselves in or being caught at official ports of entry. Four individuals from Yemen were caught attempting to sneak into the U.S. by Border Patrol agents in 2014 alone, with another 34 individuals either turning themselves in or being caught attempting to sneak through official ports of entry."


                            Bonus - cheap foreign labor gone = higher wages for Americans in those fields.

                            See how it works! You can see the evidence for what I said when you produce
                            What are you talking about??? Haven't you figured out why the National Chamber of Commerce supports immigration reform? They are looking for cheap labor, especially cheap skilled labor. Reports by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), the RAND Corporation, the Urban Institute, and the National Research Council have all found no evidence that STEM workers are in short supply. PBS even published an opinion piece based on the EPI study entitled, “The Bogus High-Tech Worker Shortage: How Guest Workers Lower U.S. Wages.” This is PBS, mind you, which is as likely to publish something skeptical of immigration as it is to publish something skeptical of taxpayer subsidies for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

                            "There are a number of problems with allowing ever-more foreign STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) workers into the country. First, the argument for doing so is deceptive and dishonest. Second, these are still mostly middle-class jobs and an enormous number of American students getting STEM degrees are not finding STEM jobs. Over time this fact along with a lack of wage growth can only deter Americans kids from going into these fields. Third, STEM workers are vital to national defense and having a large share of our STEM workforce be foreign-born has important national-security implications. Fourth, allowing American industry to become dependent on foreign sources of skilled labor makes industry increasingly indifferent to any problems in our schools, making it less likely we will fix them."
                            http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...teven-camarota

                            Comment


                              #29
                              Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                              Learn some history. You might be surprised at who is responsible for the mess down there. By your own logic we have a moral obligation to clean up that mess. That does not include sending back children to endure murder and slavery that looks just like the murder and slavery happening in Middle East.

                              You have already agreed that GWB's war created conditions that brought on a mess that we have a moral obligation to fix. Moral equivalency demands that we do the same in Nicaragua since current issues were created by Reagan era policies. Iran-contra. Remember that a president had to pardon officials who were criminally convicted for their role in that. It was part of a larger effort that baked the situation that exists now.

                              If you are only in HS I understand why you don't know these things. :) nice to see a young person though that feels we have moral obligations for the suffering our nation has caused
                              Somebody better tell Biden, "It's Regan's fault".

                              “(Violence is ) bad, but nothing’s changed. Nothing’s changed in six months or a year, the neighborhoods are no more violent or less violent. What’s happened is a group of folks got together and decided that there’s a hell of a good way to make money. You just don’t transfer drugs, give me $5,600 and I’ll take your baby to the border, and your baby’s going to be home free." Joe Biden, August 6, 2014

                              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bw-q0Erq00

                              Comment


                                #30
                                Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                                Conservatives are so forgetful



                                http://world.time.com/2011/10/21/ira...roop-presence/

                                That story was from before the withdrawal so spin that as spin after the spin moron.
                                Talk about spinning!

                                The key to your quote is "But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate."

                                As we all know, Obama is incapable of negotiating with members of Congress, so why would we think he is capable of negotiating with the Iraqi government??? Like a spoiled little boy who doesn't get his way, Obama took his toys home thinking this would gain him political points on the left and despite warnings that came from his military advisors.

                                Comment

                                Previously entered content was automatically saved. Restore or Discard.
                                Auto-Saved
                                x
                                Insert: Thumbnail Small Medium Large Fullsize Remove  
                                x
                                Working...
                                X