defenseless against missiles

[oiuyt]

[quote=MyrddinsPrecint;825144]My favorite was the article about how concerning the fact that seniors have been overlooked for the high risk groups for H1N1 vaccine, but pregnant women, healthcare workers, and young people are on there./QUOTE]

I was going to make a parody post about how the priority list order is what it is because liberals (or at least the socialist/fascist kind) hate old people.

Then I read the article and discovered that's pretty much just what's being claimed.

CNS has managed to make themselves parody-resistant.

-B

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Originally Posted by chase

If you're (there, fixed that for you. Take it into school for extra points)talking about how he spent money supporting the troops to keep us safe from the terrorism, it was money wisely spent because we're free to have this conversation.

Yes, because if we had not gone into Iraq, we'd all be mumbling through our burkas by now. Good catch.

[chase]

Originally Posted by Fechter1

Oy, where to begin...

Keeping us safe from terrorism: You may want to research the date 9/11/2001, what happened on that date, and the warnings that were not heeded. And to counter the inevitable counter-argument ("But America hasn't been hit since then"), America may not have been hit, but Americans HAVE, and still are, on an almost daily basis.

Money spent wisely: Are you claiming that if we (you, they) had not spent all that moolah in Iraq we would have been invaded? (I'm assuming you're talking about the cost of the war in Iraq, since that is the extraneous expense Prez Shrub II initiated...) If so, please let us know exactly who would have invaded.

Money spent supporting the troops: Like sending troops into Iraq lacking basic body armor, vehicles unsuitable to the task, lacking veterans care, etc?

Economy: Who then do you think is responsible for the economy? And please, provide some evidentiary support to this position.

Free to have this conversation: Sure we're free to HAVE the conversation, just as the NSA is free to data-mine it, along with any of your phone conversations, all without warrant. Yay freedom.

Yeah I am aware of the conspiracy theories that say that Bush and Bin Laden are friends and he let him do that. The fact of the matter is that isn't true.

Sadaam had offered $25,000 to any terrorist who would kill Americans. Also, he was looking into buying uranium, which he would pass off to terrorists. He was a bad guy, and a bad example for the region. We made an example out of him and also set up a positive example of an Arab democracy. Democracies don't fight each other, and I think it will spread throughout the region thanks to the deamonized George W. Bush.

Obama is the one cutting military spending and VA health benefits, not George W. Bush.

Bush cut taxes, which is PROVEN by economics to be good for the economy. The housing bubble was started in the Clinton era and perpetuated by the democrats in government who wanted to put people who couldn't afford houses into houses. Then a minor adjustment in the economy was overhyped by the liberal media to get Obama elected. He then spent billions of dollars on useless bailouts, takeovers and now we're in serious debt. Excessive government debt is bad for the economy, especially during downturns.

Note: Bush isn't blameless in all of this. During the final months of his presidency, he caved into Obama's smooth-talking and the liberal media hype and executed the first bailouts. He should have stood strong but he didn't. That's my only regret about the Bush presidency.

[Hauptman]

Originally Posted by chase

Yeah I am aware of the conspiracy theories that say that Bush and Bin Laden are friends and he let him do that. The fact of the matter is that isn't true.

Again, you completely missed the point. No one is talking about conspiracy theories; the simple fact is that 9/11 happened while Bush was in charge. He had 9 months in office, multiple warnings from the previous administration, and multiple warnings from the intelligence community.

So instead of giving him credit for keeping us safe from terrorism, when will you realize that Bush let the worst act of terrorism in our history occur on his watch?

I don't even want to deal with the rest of your errors and distortions... maybe later if I want to waste some time.

[migopod]

Originally Posted by chase

Yeah I am aware of the conspiracy theories that say that Bush and Bin Laden are friends and he let him do that. The fact of the matter is that isn't true.

Have you heard of the Aug 8 2001 Presidential Daily Brief? Bush and his administration were warned. I don't believe they were complicit tho, just completely incompetent.

Originally Posted by chase

Sadaam had offered $25,000 to any terrorist who would kill Americans. Also, he was looking into buying uranium, which he would pass off to terrorists. He was a bad guy, and a bad example for the region. We made an example out of him and also set up a positive example of an Arab democracy. Democracies don't fight each other, and I think it will spread throughout the region thanks to the deamonized George W. Bush.

The $25,000 offer was to families of Palestinian suicide bombers, not for killing Americans. Bad, but not a threat to the US.

The uranium buy claim was pretty thoroughly debunked, and the documents that supported that particular lie were determined to be forgeries.
Definitely a bad guy, but also definitely contained and definitely not a threat.

Iran and Lebanon are both relatively democratic countries (compared to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and other US allies in the middle east at least). Wouldn't it have been better to reach out to countries that were already fledgling democracies and help them improve rather than randomly stomp on a country that posed no threat to us in order to impose democracy on them? It certainly wouldn't have cost nearly as much, and wouldn't have killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and left millions more as refugees.

Originally Posted by chase

Obama is the one cutting military spending and VA health benefits, not George W. Bush.

This is the opposite of true. Where did you hear this? Bush consistently underfunded the VA, and Obama consistently voted in the senate to increase VA funding and benefits, and Obama has proposed a 15% increase in VA funding in the 2010 budget. Cuts to military systems have so far primarily been to expensive weapons systems with dubious utility, not to funding the VA.

Originally Posted by chase

Bush cut taxes, which is PROVEN by economics to be good for the economy. The housing bubble was started in the Clinton era and perpetuated by the democrats in government who wanted to put people who couldn't afford houses into houses. Then a minor adjustment in the economy was overhyped by the liberal media to get Obama elected. He then spent billions of dollars on useless bailouts, takeovers and now we're in serious debt. Excessive government debt is bad for the economy, especially during downturns.

Note: Bush isn't blameless in all of this. During the final months of his presidency, he caved into Obama's smooth-talking and the liberal media hype and executed the first bailouts. He should have stood strong but he didn't. That's my only regret about the Bush presidency.

Targeted tax cuts can be good for an economy. I'm not really that into economics, but logic dictates that tax cuts that result in an estimated $1.8 trillion in lost revenue over ten years while simultaneously trying to fund two wars is unsustainable.

The housing market crash can be blamed on Democrats, Republicans and the mortgage lending market pretty well. Bush, after all, strongly encouraged minority home ownership, which would have been all well and good if they didn't all get horrible sub-prime mortgages that they couldn't afford and ultimately defaulted on.

[lindajdunn]

Originally Posted by Hauptman

I don't even want to deal with the rest of your errors and distortions... maybe later if I want to waste some time.

I started to post some responses and then realized I might as well attempt to persuade Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that the holocaust was real.

[fencerchica]

Originally Posted by migopod

The housing market crash can be blamed on Democrats, Republicans and the mortgage lending market pretty well. Bush, after all, strongly encouraged minority home ownership, which would have been all well and good if they didn't all get horrible sub-prime mortgages that they couldn't afford and ultimately defaulted on.

Well, the problem wasn't encouraging minority home ownership per se, it was the deregulation that turned sub-prime mortgages, that were marketed to minorities and others, into attractive financial instruments with no responsibility tied to the brokers. Phil Gramm, formerly McCain's chief advisor, is the single individual most to blame. It's true that Clinton signed two very bad pieces of Phil Gramm legislation into law (and made a pretty wince-worthy signing speech over at least one of them) but the Republican-controlled Congress (along with lots of feckless Dems, I grant) would've been able to push them both through over his vetos even if he'd opposed them.

[migopod]

Originally Posted by fencerchica

Well, the problem wasn't encouraging minority home ownership per se, it was the deregulation that turned sub-prime mortgages, that were marketed to minorities and others, into attractive financial instruments with no responsibility tied to the brokers. Phil Gramm, formerly McCain's chief advisor, is the single individual most to blame. It's true that Clinton signed two very bad pieces of Phil Gramm legislation into law (and made a pretty wince-worthy signing speech over at least one of them) but the Republican-controlled Congress (along with lots of feckless Dems, I grant) would've been able to push them both through over his vetos even if he'd opposed them.

That's pretty similar to what I had heard. Like I said, economics isn't my cup of tea. Thanks for the info.

[I_luv_saber]

Originally Posted by fencerchica

It's true that Clinton signed two very bad pieces of Phil Gramm legislation into law (and made a pretty wince-worthy signing speech over at least one of them) but the Republican-controlled Congress (along with lots of feckless Dems, I grant) would've been able to push them both through over his vetos even if he'd opposed them.

I don't think that exempts him from blame (at least that which is due)...

[chase]

Merely stating that "there might be a terrorist attack on US soil soon" isn't helpful. If I were to warn you only that somebody would take $5 from you in the next month, you couldn't effectively act on it. Nobody knew how or where they would do it.

Believe what you want about hat doesn't change the fact that Sadaam's goals, but that doesn't change the fact that he was bad and that we distracted the terrorists from attacking us at home by fighting them in Iraq. The fact that there weren't any terrorist attacks on US soil under Bush prove this right.

[I_luv_saber]

Originally Posted by chase

The fact that there weren't any terrorist attacks on US soil under Bush prove this right.

I'll just leave this here.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by I_luv_saber

I'll just leave this here.

I want to, but I can't.

Originally Posted by chase

Merely stating that "there might be a terrorist attack on US soil soon" isn't helpful. If I were to warn you only that somebody would take $5 from you in the next month, you couldn't effectively act on it. Nobody knew how or where they would do it.

Here's p. 2 of the PDB: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/t...80601pdb2.html

So, they knew that there were hijacking plans, and they new that NY federal buildings were a potential target. Saying "let's find out more about this, I want another report next week" or even "next month" would have been appropriate. Maybe it wouldn't have stopped it, but you certainly can't stop something when you don't even try to make getting more intel a priority.

Originally Posted by chase

Believe what you want about hat doesn't change the fact that Sadaam's goals, but that doesn't change the fact that he was bad and that we distracted the terrorists from attacking us at home by fighting them in Iraq.

We don't kill everyone who is bad. We don't attack every country we don't agree with. And please please PLEASE tell me which terrorists that attacked American citizens on American soil on 9/11 had ties to Iraq??? And even if we assume that Iraq always was a bed or terrorism against the US, why would we want to make it EASIER for them to kill Americans?

Originally Posted by chase

The fact that there weren't any terrorist attacks on US soil under Bush prove this right.

................... So 9/11 wasn't a terrorist attack????

[jeff]

Originally Posted by I_luv_saber

I'll just leave this here.

That's even more stupid than his 'Hitler attacking Pearl Harbor" remark. Responding to chase has definitely reached the 'arguing with a dining room table' level.

[telkanuru]

Please write the following phrase on the blackboard 100 times:

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by jeff

That's even more stupid than his 'Hitler attacking Pearl Harbor" remark. Responding to chase has definitely reached the 'arguing with a dining room table' level.

AKA "not worth wasting the urine" level.

[migopod]

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

AKA "not worth wasting the urine" level.

I've just been doing it because I've been bored at work, and it's a little fun.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by migopod

I've just been doing it because I've been bored at work, and it's a little fun.

Yes, well, I needed to pee anyway.....

[jessicasimpson]

Originally Posted by I_luv_saber

I don't think that exempts him from blame (at least that which is due)...

If you are going to blame him, you have to first admit that we had record growth, no deficit spending, and a projected surpluss by the time Clinton left office

[migopod]

FIRE ZE MISSILES!

[I_luv_saber]

Originally Posted by jessicasimpson

If you are going to blame him, you have to first admit that we had record growth, no deficit spending, and a projected surpluss by the time Clinton left office

Again: credit where credit is due. It's surely not totally his fault the crash happened, just as it's not all to his credit we were doing well. You can't hold Clinton up on a pedestal with "Look! We were doing WELL then, he was an awesome Pres!" and then turn around and say, "Well, but it wasn't all his fault..." when it's pointed out that some of his policies led to the crash, regardless of if it actually happened on his watch (not to mention some of his other policies which get overlooked).

He did good, and he did bad. I give him credit for both when it's due (my parenthesis in the last post was meant to point out that it's not all his fault, just that he had a hand in it).