NeoCons (And Supporters); Prepping For A LOSS!

[top gun]

BigRob;67220]12 billion a month for 6 years is what... 860 billion or so?

Interestingly enough, we would not save any of that money under an Obama administration. Obama is the sponsor of S. 2433 which would send 800 billion of that right back to Africa to fight poverty.

We have all seen how good and non-corrupt that has been in the past. Of that 800 billion it is likely not even half makes it to the intended target.

I understand being trapped in the position that your side completely ran our country into a ditch with absolute power for 6 of the last 7+ years and filibustering progress ever since.

But once President Obama is able to get in and make his judgments things will start to improve. You have to assume that things will at least not be continued in the same KNOWN broken path and I have full faith that the deficit will once again be a concern.

Also, remember Saddam had no weapons, but he also was playing it up that he did to balance with Iran. Given that our intelligence is so bad, it is hardly a stretch to assume we thought Iraq had them as well.

On top of that, the United States does one of the worst jobs in the world of counter-intelligence, while places in the Middle East do really good jobs. It is almost a certainty to those who follow that kind of thing, that Iraq was running a CI operation on us, just as we were trying to gather whatever intel we could find. Problem is, Saddam thought we would take the UN route again, and honestly believed he would outlast the attack, just as he did in 91. This of course proved to be false.

I understand what you're saying but the bottom line is you (you being the Republican administration) were wrong and Senator Obama was right from the start. There are consequences to being wrong. On this I actually lean toward Ron Paul's overall position that our military should be used to protect America & repel invaders and not attack overseas preemptively. Also to defend an Alli that has been attacked... not for political Nation Building or a quest for resources.

Thanks to a surge that restored order and stability. Of course Obama proposed the 16 month time table before the surge even started. I hardly think the credit is with him on any success.

Again the war didn't start at the "surge". At the beginning and through years of Bush debacle senator Obama's judgment was spot on. And the fact that we could for a period flood Iraq with troops and create some additional stabilization ignores the real political situation on the ground and the fact the fighters just pack up much of their resources and open up the fight somewhere else as in Afghanistan. You have to understand this region is where they live, they have no where else to go. They'll fight somewhere as long as we are there exactly like they did to the Soviets.

Given that "rich" people pay the vast majority of taxes, who do you think is really shouldering the burden of a "taxpayer funded" bailout? Those who were against the bailout for the most part as I recall were House Republicans, not Democrats.

Well that of course is the argument that the rich always make. Because they have the huge amounts of money the actual cash amount of taxes is larger than a middle income person.

But just like wanting to look at Iraq as when the surge started even though the war was going on for years & years before that. Had we kept taxes at the levels where the country was doing well under President Clinton and not done what no President has in the history of The United States ever done... CUT TAXES DURING WAR TIME... we would be less in debt.

All that's happening is going back to a distribution of tax burden to a time when we were doing much better. It will be fine. Under Senator Obama's plan 95% of Americans will not pay one penny more and 90% of that 95% will actually pay less tax.

 

[BigRob]

I understand being trapped in the position that your side completely ran our country into a ditch with absolute power for 6 of the last 7+ years and filibustering progress ever since.

But once President Obama is able to get in and make his judgments things will start to improve. You have to assume that things will at least not be continued in the same KNOWN broken path and I have full faith that the deficit will once again be a concern.

Forgive my ignorance, but how does this rebuttal have anything to do with the fact that Obama wants to spend more money than Bush did?

Also, markets do not run on the "judgment" of one person. Why will the market improve? Because Obama can make decisions... that is not even an answer...

I understand what you're saying but the bottom line is you (you being the Republican administration) were wrong and Senator Obama was right from the start. There are consequences to being wrong. On this I actually lean toward Ron Paul's overall position that our military should be used to protect America & repel invaders and not attack overseas preemptively. Also to defend an Alli that has been attacked... not for political Nation Building or a quest for resources.

Well I am certainly not an isolationist, so agree to disagree on how the military should be used.

That said, should we have invaded Iraq? In hindsight, probably not the best idea in the world. That said, we did. So then what? We can withdraw and accept the consequence of a failed Iraq destabilizing the entire Middle East, or we can try a new plan, the surge.

Obama often points at McCain and says he talks as if the war started in 2007. Obama still talks as if we are not at war and it is 2003.

From my viewpoint, we are there, we mind as well come up with a plan to win. Pulling out in the most violent period when Iraq was on the brink of Civil War (Obama's proposal) is certainly not my idea of a winning strategy.

For the record: When I say "win" I mean a stable Iraqi government with all groups participating in the elections. We are right on the brink of that, because of the surge.

Again the war didn't start at the "surge". At the beginning and through years of Bush debacle senator Obama's judgment was spot on. And the fact that we could for a period flood Iraq with troops and create some additional stabilization ignores the real political situation on the ground and the fact the fighters just pack up much of their resources and open up the fight somewhere else as in Afghanistan. You have to understand this region is where they live, they have no where else to go. They'll fight somewhere as long as we are there exactly like they did to the Soviets.

You have to understand that a large majority of the insurgency was simply normal Iraqi people who had no other prospects. That has changed.

Yes there will always be diehards, and yes many have gone to Afghanistan (where we have a lot of help from NATO btw). Right now the situation in Iraq is violence is down all over the country (we only surged in part of it) and all parties are gearing up for an election with no boycotts. Decent if you ask me.

Obama's judgment was that we pullout. That would have been a disaster at the time he was demanding it. As I said much of the insurgency was not the type of fighter you just described, so yes, bringing them peace and stability and job prospects by flooding the area with soldiers did actually work to benefit us much more than you are letting on to.

Well that of course is the argument that the rich always make. Because they have the huge amounts of money the actual cash amount of taxes is larger than a middle income person.

But just like wanting to look at Iraq as when the surge started even though the war was going on for years & years before that. Had we kept taxes at the levels where the country was doing well under President Clinton and not done what no President has in the history of The United States ever done... CUT TAXES DURING WAR TIME... we would be less in debt.

So what you are saying is yes I pay more money than you, but no you shoulder more of the burden?

No one denies that the occupation went badly, but we cannot sit around and say oh darn, we have to come up with a new plan, which we did, and which worked, and which Obama opposed.

You can make the argument for not cutting taxes in war time all day long, but we did, so now what? Obama promises a tax cut to 95% of people, so I guess you will not supporting him? On top of that he promises massive new spending increases... if you are upset about debt then you will be in tears by 2012.

All that's happening is going back to a distribution of tax burden to a time when we were doing much better. It will be fine. Under Senator Obama's plan 95% of Americans will not pay one penny more and 90% of that 95% will actually pay less tax.

When the tech boom is going full swing and the market is exploding with money, you can get away with Clinton tax rates. In a lagging economy you cannot.

I also again find it ironic that you berate Bush for cutting taxes during "wartime" and then argue in support of Obama because he will "cut taxes" during "wartime."

How will be cut taxes for 95% of people when only 65% pay taxes to begin with? He will basically give them money they did not earn... that requires more spending... a convenient point he left out.

Further, the "tax distribution" had nothing to do with why the economy was going well when it was going well.

 

[Libsmasher]

Come on dude I know you lean racist but people have seen these two together. There's no doubt to the VAST intelectual difference.

To a simpleton obamabot like you - three-syllable words means "intellectual".

 

[PLC1]

To a simpleton obamabot like you - three-syllable words means "intellectual".

Ah, yes, yet another brilliant rejoinder, showing the depth of thinking of the author. Keep it up, Lib, I think we're beginning to understand your philosophy, your thought processes, and your educational background.

 

[Phoenix68]

I see this question has been asked of me by more than just you Dr. Who so I'll try and answer everyone at one time.

The number one reason I'm so strongly supporting Senator Obama is the combination of intelligence & temperament. Now I realize that's not a specific "issue" but when there are multiple things gone terribly wrong sometimes one has to go with the broad overview.

.
Hell....Obama took the wheel, from Bush AND McCain, before Bush (even) LEFT OFFICE!!!!!​

 

[Phoenix68]

Do they get-away-with-it.....again?

"We have long suspected here on News Hounds that FOX News’ obsession with voter fraud is nothing more than a set-up to challenge the validity of a Barack Obama win should it happen. We saw the same set-up during the 2004 election, only to have those concerns disappear the moment George Bush won the election. But now that John McCain is slipping in the polls, the issue has suddenly resurfaced on FOX. Last Thursday, John Fund, the author of “Stealing Elections” and the chief “voter-fraud” monger, appeared on Hannity & Colmes and essentially confirmed that our suspicions are correct."

.
It's always amusing to go fossil-hunting....​