Bush/Cheney warmongering exposed in new book

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
The other currencies are high is because the succession of lib and RINO presidents since Reagan have done nothing about energy. "Conservative" is not involved. The people who rolled the dice and lost their homes with risky loans they couldn't pay CAUSED the slowed economic condidtions - you have that ass backwards.

What has the Bush administration done for energy?

You're....not.....listening. I Just blamed the RINOs and libs for the problem.

Also, I await proof that the housing crisis came before the recession.

There is no recession by the definition of economists (two consecutive quarters of negative growth) - that's just the parallel universe agitprop imagined by Obamabots. The order of the slowing and causal relationship is known by anyone who reads the business news anywhere. :rolleyes:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
EVERYONE, right now, google "medical tourism" and Britain, and see who is doing the "Bull**** dodge".

I conceded waiting lists in Britain (unless that you do not know that Britain is in the U.K.), and asked you to prove your contention there are always waiting lists with socialized medicine in the other European countries than U.K. and Canada...but you bull$hit dodged by referring again to Brittan.

You are now scoping it down to waiting lists, which are just a tiny part of the nightmare of socialized medicine. If I gave you one example, why should you need others? But here's some stuff after 20 seconds of googling - it's all over the net - get in there and read. :) Do your OWN googling.

http://socglory.blogspot.com/2004_08_01_archive.html

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6293

http://townhall.com/Columnists/WalterEWilliams/2007/02/14/do_we_want_socialized_medicine

http://freemarketcure.com/socializedmedicineissicko.php

http://www.ncpa.org/pi/health/pd012600d.html

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2007/08/another_sociali.html

http://onthefencefilms.com/blog/index.php?p=334


Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
Too chicken to look at the facts? Figures. I am not going to undertake the massive task of repairing your ignorance - I've told you exactly what to look at - you have a LOT to read - come back when you have a clue.

You keep referring to articles written by conservatives. This is not proof, "facts", or data, it is opinion.

I didn't refer to anything written by conservatives.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
Sweden doesn't have 20 million illegal aliens, and the tens of millions of blacks with their social pathologies - and there ARE homeless in Sweden.
[then you said:]
Sweden is a country where everyone goes to work and does what they are supposed to do - it doesn't have all the deadbeats, losers, druggies, illegal aliens, so it doesn't need that stuff.

Which is it? There are [significant numbers of] homeless people in Sweden, or "...everyone goes to work and does what they are supposed to do..."?

You said there were no homeless in sweden, and I said that was false. I've been there and seen it. But it isn't anywhere near what there is in the US, because the swedes have a work ethic that libs have sucked out of people in this country.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
They have public transportation because nobody can afford a car, with 50% income tax. And "urban spawl" = having your own house, instead of a sturdy iron-roofed socialist apartment.

Ass backwards as usual - they have tramsbecause nobody can aford cars.


Prove nobody can afford a car in Sweden rather than there is little reason to own a car because of the good mass transit system. It is logical that if a person has a convenient method of going to work, groceries, other cities, that owning a car in a small country would just be an unnecessary luxury that would sit most of the time and not be worth the expense.

Illogic. There's no such thing as a "good mass transit system". Such systems, based on rail and busses, basically an anachronistic 19th century technology, take you WHERE they want to take you, WHEN they want to take you, and HOW they want to take you. They often stop running at night. Ask americans how many would agree to completely give up their car in favor of mass transit. :D Cars are MUCH more expensive in sweden, and the gas is MUCH more expensive than in the US. Swedes can't afford cars for the same reason they can't afford houses - the government takes 50% of their pay.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
I've never heard that about americans, but I know they did violate their neutrality by allowing german troop trains to cross their territory to invade Norway - a fact of immensely greater consequence than a few Swedish INDIVIDUALS having mercy on a few jews.

Again, show proof that they allowed German troop trains to cross their territory before you refer to it as a "fact". I would like to see a German troop train crossing the Baltic Sea on its way to Sweden. Do you know where Sweden is? If the Germans crossed Sweden on trains, they would have had to be Swedish trains, after landing in Sweden from ships.

You didn't read right, Einstein. :D Here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_of_German_troops_through_Scandinavia_(WWII)

The above is the last time I am going to tutor you about extremely well known events. You are fundamentally uninformed about history, healthcare, and other topics - I'm not going to spend hours and hours bringing you up to speed regarding well known facts - you have a computer - use it. You are a person whose knowledge is apparently limited to standard leftwing propaganda - you owe it to yourself to learn something about the world - your ignorance is substantial.
 
Werbung:
There is no recession by the definition of economists (two consecutive quarters of negative growth) - that's just the parallel universe agitprop imagined by Obamabots. The order of the slowing and causal relationship is known by anyone who reads the business news anywhere. :rolleyes:
There is only a recession for middle class and poor. Income data is as you say for the wealthiest people in the country, having divested in American and invested in China and other foreign lands.
Take a look at Michigan where it is worse. Food banks and other relief agencies are nearing the end of their resources. Yup! If you are like rich Dick DeVoss (ran for Republican Gov. of Michigan and lost), divested in Michigan, created jobs in China by starting a new factory, established an off-shore bank account in the Bahamas to receive his money from China without paying any income tax. Yes, only the "little people" know that there is a recession.

You are now scoping it down to waiting lists, which are just a tiny part of the nightmare of socialized medicine. If I gave you one example, why should you need others?

Because each countries system is different.
But here's some stuff after 20 seconds of googling - it's all over the net - get in there and read. :) Do your OWN googling.
I didn't refer to anything written by conservatives.
The articles to which you refer are not evaluations of the issue of socialized medicine, they are opinions of the authors who want to sell stories. You cannot state with certainty they are not conservatives with a biased outlook. The authors picked the worst examples of which to write (I wonder why), by which to denounce the idea of socialized med. Therefore, by excluding successful programs from their "unbiased" scrutiny, they have become suspect of Conservative bias. Not all countries are as unsuccessful as the U.K. and Canada. For instance:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ed...s/2007/08/11/frances_model_healthcare_system/
You said there were no homeless in Sweden, and I said that was false. I've been there and seen it. But it isn't anywhere near what there is in the US, because the swedes have a work ethic that libs have sucked out of people in this country.
I said that there were not large masses of homeless like in the U.S. And if there are homeless in Sweden, it is not because of the grinding poverty of the lower classes like that we have in this country.

Illogic[Sic, Illogical]. There's no such thing as a "good mass transit system". Such systems, based on rail and busses, basically an anachronistic 19th century technology, take you WHERE they want to take you, WHEN they want to take you, and HOW they want to take you. They often stop running at night. Ask americans how many would agree to completely give up their car in favor of mass transit. :D Cars are MUCH more expensive in sweden, and the gas is MUCH more expensive than in the US. Swedes can't afford cars for the same reason they can't afford houses - the government takes 50% of their pay.

The Swedes seem quite happy with their system. "...anachronistic 19th century technology..." ? No, modern European train system with a well establish network of routes. However, they do not have the network of roads that the U.S. has, so even if one had a car, he would not find the network of freeways and other roads to make car travel convenient. The Swedes are adapted to their system and again your opinion that they would choose to change to an American style system is your subjective opinion.


You lucked-out and were correct on that one. Seems that after being surrounded by enemies, the Swedes did allow for German troops to cross from Finland to Norway via Sweden. At the point it happened, what choice did they have? None the less, it was because they were socialists.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
There is no recession by the definition of economists (two consecutive quarters of negative growth) - that's just the parallel universe agitprop imagined by Obamabots. The order of the slowing and causal relationship is known by anyone who reads the business news anywhere.

There is only a recession for middle class and poor. Income data is as you say for the wealthiest people in the country, having divested in American and invested in China and other foreign lands.
Take a look at Michigan where it is worse. Food banks and other relief agencies are nearing the end of their resources. Yup! If you are like rich Dick DeVoss (ran for Republican Gov. of Michigan and lost), divested in Michigan, created jobs in China by starting a new factory, established an off-shore bank account in the Bahamas to receive his money from China without paying any income tax. Yes, only the "little people" know that there is a recession.

I come from the midwest (ohio) and feel sorry for the unemployed blue collar workers there. I am a former member of the UAW, having worked in a Chrysler plant one summer. :D The people in Michigan owe their plight to the unions. During the post-WWII period, the US was in a golden age of manufacturing. Europe was destroyed and asia hadn't come on line. The US could make anything and sell it all over the world. Workers could be paid huge wages and benefits. But that period, roughly 1945-1970 was a unique confluence of historic elements. Around 1970, things began to change, as europe and asia began to compete, but unions didn't change - they wanted exorbitant salaries and benefits. Now, the golden age is long gone. The unions should have prepared their workers for a changed world, and retrained them. Instead, they are living in the past, pretending it's 1968 when it's 2008.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
But here's some stuff after 20 seconds of googling - it's all over the net - get in there and read. Do your OWN googling.
I didn't refer to anything written by conservatives.

The articles to which you refer are not evaluations of the issue of socialized medicine, they are opinions of the authors who want to sell stories. You cannot state with certainty they are not conservatives with a biased outlook. The authors picked the worst examples of which to write (I wonder why), by which to denounce the idea of socialized med. Therefore, by excluding successful programs from their "unbiased" scrutiny, they have become suspect of Conservative bias. Not all countries are as unsuccessful as the U.K. and Canada. For instance:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...thcare_system/

No, the articles contained many facts about the abysmal performance of socialized systems.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
You said there were no homeless in Sweden, and I said that was false. I've been there and seen it. But it isn't anywhere near what there is in the US, because the swedes have a work ethic that libs have sucked out of people in this country.

I said that there were not large masses of homeless like in the U.S. And if there are homeless in Sweden, it is not because of the grinding poverty of the lower classes like that we have in this country.

Whatever prosperity there is in sweden is in spite of, not because of, their social system. Sweden took a pass on WWII, letting others do the fighting and dying and paying bills. Both with the fascists in the 1940s and the communists afterwards, the US racked up big losses in blood and money, while they did nothing. What would have happened to "neutral" countries if either the fascists of the communists had taken over the world, or even just europe? They would have become impoverished dismal slave states like eastern europe under the communists. Sweden also doesn't have the social problems the US is burdened with because they don't have huge problems with minorities an illegal aliens. When you have a monoracial, "neutral", country with a big work ethic and law-abiding population, you can make things work out nifty, but it has nothing to do with socialism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
Illogic[Sic, Illogical]. There's no such thing as a "good mass transit system". Such systems, based on rail and busses, basically an anachronistic 19th century technology, take you WHERE they want to take you, WHEN they want to take you, and HOW they want to take you. They often stop running at night. Ask americans how many would agree to completely give up their car in favor of mass transit. Cars are MUCH more expensive in sweden, and the gas is MUCH more expensive than in the US. Swedes can't afford cars for the same reason they can't afford houses - the government takes 50% of their pay.

The Swedes seem quite happy with their system. "...anachronistic 19th century technology..." ? No, modern European train system with a well establish network of routes. However, they do not have the network of roads that the U.S. has, so even if one had a car, he would not find the network of freeways and other roads to make car travel convenient. The Swedes are adapted to their system and again your opinion that they would choose to change to an American style system is your subjective opinion.

This is the key phrase - "The Swedes are adapted". Sweden has a population that is built around the transportation system determined by bureaucrats. In the US, the transportation is built around peoples' preferences and desires. The auto is an american's freedom machine - it goes where he wants it to, when he wants it to. He pays the bills he has incurred, not somebody else's. This is the fundamental difference between freedom advocates and statists: the former demand the state serve them, the latter believe individuals "adapt" to the state.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
You didn't read right, Einstein. Here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit...ndinavia_(WWII)

You lucked-out and were correct on that one.

No,I didn't "luck out". :D I simply have apprised myself of the well-known facts of modern history, and suggest you do the same.

Seems that after being surrounded by enemies, the Swedes did allow for German troops to cross from Finland to Norway via Sweden. At the point it happened, what choice did they have? None the less, it was because they were socialists.

They were no more "surrounded" than any of europe's victims of nazis.

When the french were attacked by germans, what did they do? Fight back.
When the belgians were attacked by germans, what did they do? Fight back.
When the dutch were attacked by germans, what did they do? Fight back.
When the norwegians were attacked by germans, what did they do? Fight back.
When the poles were attacked by germans, what did they do? Fight back.
When the british were attacked by germans, what did they do? Fight back.
When the finnish were attacked by germans, what did they do? Fight back.
When the russians were attacked by germans, what did they do? Fight back.
When the americans were attacked by germans, what did they do? Fight back.
When the greeks were attacked by germans, what did they do? Fight back.
When the yugoslavs were attacked by germans, what did they do? Fight back.
When the czechs were attacked by germans, what did they do? Fight back.
 
No,I didn't "luck out". :D I simply have apprised myself of the well-known facts of modern history, and suggest you do the same..
No, the fact that Sweden allowed the Germans to cross their country is not "well known".
If there were to be a poll here, I suspect most could not say they knew that fact. And in your case, it proves that even a broken clock is right sometime.

When the dutch were attacked by germans, what did they do? Fight back.
They put up an insipid defense, surrendering in five days. Not only that, but after being occupied by the Germans, the Dutch fielded two full divisions of volunteers to fight against the allies, the most from any single allied country. Therefore, only some of the Dutch fought back (mostly in the Dutch underground). Therefore, the fighting back of the Dutch was more against us than the Germans.


When the finnish were attacked by germans, what did they do? Fight back.
The Finnish were never attacked by the Germans. This is prima facia evidence you are not the brilliant scholar you think you are and pretend to be. They had just finished a war with Russia when WWII broke out, and were somewhat (never heard of any action against the allies during WWII though), cooperative with the Germans.
A note: the Finns flew American Brewster Buffalo air planes and beat the Russians so badly that they had the highest kill ratio for the WWII era(although technically it was the Finnish-Russo war not WWII).
When the czechs were attacked by germans, what did they do? Fight back.
The Czechs put up no fight when Germany invaded the first part of Czechoslovakia (where the German speaking people lived), later Germany invaded the rest of that country and still the Czechs did not fight, except for some who went to England and fought in English uniforms including some pilots. By the way, the first letter in the names of countries are always capitalized.

When the americans were attacked by germans, what did they do? Fight back.
No, the Germans sank a U.S. destroyer, Reuben James (DD245) on 31 Oct 1941, that was escorting British merchant hips. The Americans did nothing until Hitler declared war on the U.S. a few days after Pearl Harbor.
These are common historical facts that everyone knows.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
No,I didn't "luck out". I simply have apprised myself of the well-known facts of modern history, and suggest you do the same..

No, the fact that Sweden allowed the Germans to cross their country is not "well known".
If there were to be a poll here, I suspect most could not say they knew that fact. And in your case, it proves that even a broken clock is right sometime.

Uh, I don't necessarily consider the people here as a cross-section of normal people - the libs are EXCEPTIONALLY ignorant of such as history and economics, and your apparent belief that the EXTREMELY well known fact of swedish cooperation with the nazis is some kind of obscure fact is a giggle. :p The only exculpation I can think of for you is that it's clear you've been force-fed by the lib media and leftwing propaganda only, which tend to ignore parts of history that are inconvenient for their worldview.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
When the dutch were attacked by germans, what did they do? Fight back.

They put up an insipid defense, surrendering in five days. Not only that, but after being occupied by the Germans, the Dutch fielded two full divisions of volunteers to fight against the allies, the most from any single allied country.

Here's an account of their defense from wiki:

In spite of fierce fighting and victory in several local battles the country was overrun in five days, far longer than the German High Command and Hitler had planned for. Only after the bombing of Rotterdam, the army's main force surrendered on 14 May after, although a Dutch/French allied force including Moroccan troops held the western part of Zeeland for some time after the surrender. The German Luftwaffe and Airborne regiments suffered very heavy losses. The Kingdom as such continued the war from the colonial empire; the government in exile resided in London

The government-in-exile lost control of its major colonial stronghold, the Netherlands East Indies (Indonesia), to Japanese forces in March 1942. "American-British-Dutch-Australian" (ABDA) forces fought hard in some instances, but were overwhelmed.

"Insipid defense"??? A cynic would say that makes you a LIAR, but I'll take the charitable view and just assume you don't know what you're talking about.

As for the claim of two divisions fielded for the nazis, I can't find any verification of that. Of course there would be local nazis who would volunteer. If the communists ever had taken over the US, I'm sure they could find enough people like you to field twenty divisions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
When the finnish were attacked by germans, what did they do? Fight back.

The Finnish were never attacked by the Germans. This is prima facia evidence you are not the brilliant scholar you think you are and pretend to be. They had just finished a war with Russia when WWII broke out, and were somewhat (never heard of any action against the allies during WWII though), cooperative with the Germans.
A note: the Finns flew American Brewster Buffalo air planes and beat the Russians so badly that they had the highest kill ratio for the WWII era(although technically it was the Finnish-Russo war not WWII).

Geez, do I have to tutor you about EVERYTHING?? :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapland_War

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
When the czechs were attacked by germans, what did they do? Fight back.

The Czechs put up no fight when Germany invaded the first part of Czechoslovakia (where the German speaking people lived),

Yes, that was the Sudetenland annexation of ethnic germans - OF COURSE they didn't fight. That was agreed to by the euro-appeasers who are your ideological ancestors.

later Germany invaded the rest of that country and still the Czechs did not fight, except for some who went to England and fought in English uniforms including some pilots. By the way, the first letter in the names of countries are always capitalized.

Here we go AGAIN! :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_occupation_of_Czechoslovakia#Czech_resistance


Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
When the americans were attacked by germans, what did they do? Fight back.

No, the Germans sank a U.S. destroyer, Reuben James (DD245) on 31 Oct 1941, that was escorting British merchant hips. The Americans did nothing until Hitler declared war on the U.S. a few days after Pearl Harbor.
These are common historical facts that everyone knows.

Left out of your "common knowledge" is the Lend-Lease act, whereby the US was violating it's then neutrality by Roosevelt sending war materiel to the UK. The situation before the declaration of war by germany is more complicated than you suspect. Neither germany nor the US wanted war with each other at that time, for what should be :)rolleyes:) obvious reasons. The US and germany were actually engaged in a "quiet war" where neither declared war, with the US "allowing" the sinking of some US ships because what Roosevelt was doing was illegal in international law. Of course, after the german declaration, the german U-boat fleet in particular engaged in wide open war against the US.

Instead of me having to tutor you online, why don't you man-up and grasp that the version of history you got from the government schools and the lib media and the leftwing agitprop is distorted and incomplete, and undertake a project of independent study using REAL historical texts?
 
I tried to tell you Lib you will not make up much ground fighting dahermit on anything war history related or on any gun topics. These are his bread & butter issues. He's a salty old dog (I say that with respect). Not that I've always agreed with him, we've definitely butted heads before, but he is nothing if not well researched and vigilant.

But back to the original: Bush/Cheney warmongering exposed in new book

I think it's pretty clear with all the inside information that's been bleeding out of the Bush/Cheney administration from Scott McClellan on this new book only puts an exclamation point to the fact that Bush wanted to invade Iraq, remove Hussein and cozy his oil cronies back up to all that Iraqi oil again... from day one of their administration.

This is the big thing Bushies should be most worried about. This information is steadily bleeding out and WHILE Bush is still President. What do you think it will be like after he's out of office! It's very bad for you if you've been playing for that side during this time.
 
I have been at a disadvantage in this discussion with Libsmasher. I have only my memory, a "government" school (what ever that is), education. Where he has the Internet where apparently he looks up the reference and claims it for his own.

So, back to Der Fuhrer Bush's and Deputy Fuhrer Chaney's war mongering.

Note: According to Libsmasher, you cannot argue a negative. Therefore, we cannot say that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Given that, then we cannot say that the American Indians did not posses WMD's just because they were never found.
 
I have been at a disadvantage in this discussion with Libsmasher. I have only my memory, a "government" school (what ever that is), education. Where he has the Internet where apparently he looks up the reference and claims it for his own.

Information can also be found in books at the library.

So, back to Der Fuhrer Bush's and Deputy Fuhrer Chaney's war mongering.

What school did you learn this from? The anti-Bush school of worthless rhetoric?
 
I have been at a disadvantage in this discussion with Libsmasher. I have only my memory, a "government" school (what ever that is), education. Where he has the Internet where apparently he looks up the reference and claims it for his own.

So, back to Der Fuhrer Bush's and Deputy Fuhrer Chaney's war mongering.

Note: According to Libsmasher, you cannot argue a negative. Therefore, we cannot say that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Given that, then we cannot say that the American Indians did not posses WMD's just because they were never found.

Lessee - I'll take your third-person gossip with top gun to mean you've given up debating, er, I mean getting tutored. :D And the arrival of top gun usually signals the death of a thread. ;) The difficulty in proving universal propositions ("There are no cats with three colors") is obvious to most, and a standard feature of Logic 101 courses. Perhaps you should take such a course?
 
dahermit;57189]I have been at a disadvantage in this discussion with Libsmasher. I have only my memory, a "government" school (what ever that is), education. Where he has the Internet where apparently he looks up the reference and claims it for his own.

That may be true but it really doesn't seem to slow you down much.:) How's that old saying go... It's not the size of the dog in the fight it's the size of the fight in the dog!

Personal experience is often more realistic than the way things are sometimes written. History is written by the victors. My Uncle Orville served in WW2 in an Infantry Division that was at one time attached to Patton's Armor Division. The stories he told were somewhat different & far less romantic than the books & the movie. When they'd say there goes old blood & guts what they were really saying was "Yeah our blood his guts".

So, back to Der Fuhrer Bush's and Deputy Fuhrer Chaney's war mongering.

Note: According to Libsmasher, you cannot argue a negative. Therefore, we cannot say that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Given that, then we cannot say that the American Indians did not posses WMD's just because they were never found.

I know, I know... when you get caught out in a lie like the Bush administration did that's exactly what they hope people will do. Not question authority. Not ask for the proof.

The burden of proof is not on you to prove they "were not" there. The burden of proof is on the President who sent American troops in to die looking for them because he said they "were there"!
 
I know, I know... when you get caught out in a lie like the Bush administration did that's exactly what they hope people will do. Not question authority. Not ask for the proof.

You are a laughable unschooled imbecile. :)
 
The difficulty in proving universal propositions ("There are no cats with three colors") is obvious to most, and a standard feature of Logic 101 courses. Perhaps you should take such a course?
Logic 102. If an assertion is stated in the positive then the burden of proving that assertion is incumbent upon the person stating it.
For instance: "There is a God", the person asserting that is required to offer proof. Opponents are not required to disprove that assertion inasmuch as you state that it is impossible.

Or, "Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction."-George W. Bush
It is then incumbent of George W. Bush to prove his assertion.

Where did you take logic 101, a "Government School"?
 
Werbung:
!!!????...........George W. is that you?

Well you clearly have access to the internet since you are posting. Would it hurt to do a quick fact check?


Oh, my God!!! it is you! Mr. President, this is such a great honor!

Bush and Cheney are no more warmongers than anyone else has been. Maybe your memory does not reach that far back?
 
Back
Top