obama sending more troops

[curious]

Sure I did. The Bush Administration has long since forgotten about Afghanistan, we might as well call it the "Forgotten War." The significant difference between Bush and Obama is reducing the number of fronts the "War on Terrorism" is fought on from two to one, with Afghanistan being the new focus instead of Iraq. Why is this beneficial?


As already mentioned, we get far more international AND domestic support on the Afghanistan situation, how long we will maintain that after departing Iraq and escalating in Afghan remains to be seen.


I do agree with allowing Afghanistan to be more self-reliant on how they choose to rebuild their country. It would seem the USA has a certain arrogance when it comes to that much like when we dismantled the Iraq military which has largely become known as a major mistake.

And all those plans were put into place before the election campaigning even started. The war in Iraq started winding down BECAUSE WE WON THAT WAR months before the election. Obama didn't change ANYTHING about the policy in Iraq. The 24 month withdrawal plan was negotiated with the Iraqis and put into place before the campaigning started. Now Obama promises to reduce that to 16 months but the Iraqis want no part of that.

The plan to shift troops from Iraq to Afghanistan was also put in place long before the election.

Obama hasn't changed ANYTHING about either policy.

Fighting the Afghani people in the name of propping up a central government that the people neither want nor support is complete idiocy. Obama is carrying out a losing policy. So, how is he better again?

We didn't dismantle the Iraqi military. Saddam sent everyone home, the entire government, and the police, and the military so that the country would fall into chaos in order to carry out a protracted guerrilla war. Sadaam had years to plan this guerrilla war. Many Iraqi units were trained in irregular warfare. The US did not dismantle the Iraqi military, there was no organized military left to dismantle. That is also why the electricity, water, telephones, internet, food distribution, fuel distribution all stopped working. The government ran all those things and Saddam sent all the government workers home.

Next time you post how much The Messiah is in geo-politics do a little reading and try to know what the **** you are talking about.

[reno cool]

It's hard to say who won what war in Iraq. There are numerous fractions fighting for power, some of which are more than happy to play ball with the US. Certainly, the Iraqi nation as a whole has been losing for 50+ years of wars because of the power struggles. This is mainly due to the strategic importance Iraq holds for US and western Europe. I wont make any predictions but I'm curious to see how this puppet regime holds up after US pulls out.
Obama is not changing much of anything regarding US foreign policy and that can be no surprise to anyone paying attention. It will take more than one black man to put the brakes on 200+ years of aggression.

[ryanXL977]

poor guy is in over his head
but then, the mess that the bankers made (with the help of clinton and bush), combied with bush's moronic "war on terror" (whatever the fvck that means), is bankrupting us.
credit drying up, economy cant recover
vicious cycle. so at least they are trying to loosen up credit. at least they are trying to help normal people and not just bankers. whats funny is , these poor people who vote mccain will sit there and defend the rich and sput off against the new deal because someone on the radio told them it was bad.

whats good for the rich, is generally not so good for the commoners

[reno cool]

poor guy is in over his head
but then, the mess that the bankers made (with the help of clinton and bush), combied with bush's moronic "war on terror" (whatever the fvck that means), is bankrupting us.
credit drying up, economy cant recover
vicious cycle. so at least they are trying to loosen up credit. at least they are trying to help normal people and not just bankers. whats funny is , these poor people who vote mccain will sit there and defend the rich and sput off against the new deal because someone on the radio told them it was bad.

whats good for the rich, is generally not so good for the commoners

I'm amazed at how the establishment is able to pull this off so well. Propaganda is a powerful thing. There is no other reason for it.

[Data]

whats good for the rich, is generally not so good for the commoners

This is certainly one of the cornerstones of liberal thinking.

First, it assumes that there is something that should be good for the commoners and that that good should be pretty much the same as how good the rich have it. Well, there are too many people on that planet and not enough resources for everyone to lead a lazy life of golfing, cocktail parties, opera and fine dining. So, the only "fair" way is to expropriate be it with a gun or through high taxes.

The main use of this thesis is creating jealousy and hate that liberal politicians can use to line up their supporters. This is what is called propaganda - appealing to peoples feelings instead of their minds. There is never a factual argument supporting this nonsense. Why? Because none exists.

Throughout history there have been many examples when creating conditions that favor rich dramatically improved commoners' quality of life. There have been many opposite examples when creating conditions unfavorable to rich resulted in commoners' suffering of poverty and famine.

Some people never learn and just incapable of grasping this due to the lack of history knowledge and/or thinking abilities. Their hypocritical leaders called politicians, be they fascists or socialists, or liberals, use those lazy and stupid masses to put themselves in power. While the results of that are catastrophic for the masses, their leaders and their kids are set for life and that is all those hypocrites wanted.

[reno cool]

This is certainly one of the cornerstones of liberal thinking.

First, it assumes that there is something that should be good for the commoners and that that good should be pretty much the same as how good the rich have it. Well, there are too many people on that planet and not enough resources for everyone to lead a lazy life of golfing, cocktail parties, opera and fine dining. So, the only "fair" way is to expropriate be it with a gun or through high taxes.

The main use of this thesis is creating jealousy and hate that liberal politicians can use to line up their supporters. This is what is called propaganda - appealing to peoples feelings instead of their minds. There is never a factual argument supporting this nonsense. Why? Because none exists.

Throughout history there have been many examples when creating conditions that favor rich dramatically improved commoners' quality of life. There have been many opposite examples when creating conditions unfavorable to rich resulted in commoners' suffering of poverty and famine.

Some people never learn and just incapable of grasping this due to the lack of history knowledge and/or thinking abilities. Their hypocritical leaders called politicians, be they fascists or socialists, or liberals, use those lazy and stupid masses to put themselves in power. While the results of that are catastrophic for the masses, their leaders and their kids are set for life and that is all those hypocrites wanted.

you actually believe this stuff?
The problem is there are too many people on the planet for your theory.
So what happens when the market doesn't need the millions of people? Where do they go? Suffer or die off. No wonder these people will chose the gun first.

[Bookman]

And all those plans were put into place before the election campaigning even started. The war in Iraq started winding down BECAUSE WE WON THAT WAR months before the election. Obama didn't change ANYTHING about the policy in Iraq. The 24 month withdrawal plan was negotiated with the Iraqis and put into place before the campaigning started. Now Obama promises to reduce that to 16 months but the Iraqis want no part of that.

The plan to shift troops from Iraq to Afghanistan was also put in place long before the election.

Obama hasn't changed ANYTHING about either policy.

Fighting the Afghani people in the name of propping up a central government that the people neither want nor support is complete idiocy. Obama is carrying out a losing policy. So, how is he better again?

We didn't dismantle the Iraqi military. Saddam sent everyone home, the entire government, and the police, and the military so that the country would fall into chaos in order to carry out a protracted guerrilla war. Sadaam had years to plan this guerrilla war. Many Iraqi units were trained in irregular warfare. The US did not dismantle the Iraqi military, there was no organized military left to dismantle. That is also why the electricity, water, telephones, internet, food distribution, fuel distribution all stopped working. The government ran all those things and Saddam sent all the government workers home.

Next time you post how much The Messiah is in geo-politics do a little reading and try to know what the **** you are talking about.

No, the largest Afghan 'surge' occurred during the presidential campaign, when the Generals there requested it. Obama was quick to say he would support their request, and Bush --- while not so quick --- did begin diverting troops there before Obama was elected. In fact, Bush sent almost exactly the number of troops Obama suggested. Meanwhile, McCain said he wanted more info before making a decision, much the same response he had when the economy fell off a cliff.

As for winning the war in Iraq, you must mean the military component of the war. You see, war has two components: military and political. We have most definitely won the military war in Iraq, and would win a military war against any nation because we have the best trained, best equipped and most effective armed forces in the world. I salute them proudly, as they are some of my own.

Unfortunately, however, we have not won the political component in Iraq, but there is still hope that we will. You see, when the premise of an invasion (eg WMD) turns out not to exist and you go in with absolutely zero plan for stabilizing post-Saddam Iraq, it is hard to win the political component of the war. Hopefully the new administration can clean it up.

As for the reading more comment, it should directed at the previous administration....had they done a little more reading we might not be in this mess.

[ryanXL977]

This is certainly one of the cornerstones of liberal thinking.

First, it assumes that there is something that should be good for the commoners and that that good should be pretty much the same as how good the rich have it. Well, there are too many people on that planet and not enough resources for everyone to lead a lazy life of golfing, cocktail parties, opera and fine dining. So, the only "fair" way is to expropriate be it with a gun or through high taxes.

The main use of this thesis is creating jealousy and hate that liberal politicians can use to line up their supporters. This is what is called propaganda - appealing to peoples feelings instead of their minds. There is never a factual argument supporting this nonsense. Why? Because none exists.

Throughout history there have been many examples when creating conditions that favor rich dramatically improved commoners' quality of life. There have been many opposite examples when creating conditions unfavorable to rich resulted in commoners' suffering of poverty and famine.

Some people never learn and just incapable of grasping this due to the lack of history knowledge and/or thinking abilities. Their hypocritical leaders called politicians, be they fascists or socialists, or liberals, use those lazy and stupid masses to put themselves in power. While the results of that are catastrophic for the masses, their leaders and their kids are set for life and that is all those hypocrites wanted.

this guy is ****ing insane
its hilairous

love that free market
just make sure the wolf is guarding the chicken coop
insane

here we have a country in dire straits because of free markets, bc of conservative policies, to a T, and he still supports it

unreal

[pico]

ryan, you want to live in commie china?

[andywend]

Ryan, it is you that is INSANE and you don't possess the intelligence to shine Data's shoes.

The economic meltdown that our country faces was caused by democrats who kept pushing for looser and looser lending standards especially concerning those with lower income and minorities. They started the mudslide which quickly turned into an avalanche.

The above mentioned groups have always had higher default rates which is why the banks felt the need to charge them higher interest rates or avoid doing business with them altogether. It turns out the bankers were right and the democrats were wrong (big surprise there, LOL).

Ryan, the vast majority of societies outside the U.S. shun the free market system and believe in big government controlling everything. I sure do wish people like yourself would relocate to one of those countries instead of forcing your socialist bullshit down the throats of hard-working Americans who want no part of it.l

[wtf]

ryan, read this-live it-be it. and then move there.

http://forum.sbrforum.com/players-talk/148239-lets-get-divorced-finally.html

[curious]

No, the largest Afghan 'surge' occurred during the presidential campaign, when the Generals there requested it. Obama was quick to say he would support their request, and Bush --- while not so quick --- did begin diverting troops there before Obama was elected. In fact, Bush sent almost exactly the number of troops Obama suggested. Meanwhile, McCain said he wanted more info before making a decision, much the same response he had when the economy fell off a cliff.

As for winning the war in Iraq, you must mean the military component of the war. You see, war has two components: military and political. We have most definitely won the military war in Iraq, and would win a military war against any nation because we have the best trained, best equipped and most effective armed forces in the world. I salute them proudly, as they are some of my own.

Unfortunately, however, we have not won the political component in Iraq, but there is still hope that we will. You see, when the premise of an invasion (eg WMD) turns out not to exist and you go in with absolutely zero plan for stabilizing post-Saddam Iraq, it is hard to win the political component of the war. Hopefully the new administration can clean it up.

As for the reading more comment, it should directed at the previous administration....had they done a little more reading we might not be in this mess.

The goals for the Iraq war were:
1. Remove Sadaam - Accomplished
2. Give al-Qeda an azz whupping they won't soon forget - Accomplished
3. Establish a "democratic" government - Accomplished

NO government can exist anywhere in the middle east without factional fighting that will go on for millenia. The people in the middle east live by the feud and they hold grudges for thousands of years. People in the middle east are killing each other over things that happened in the year 711. Nothing is going to change these nutjobs.

Obama will not "clean up" Iraq because he won't be able to change the ingrained hatred of millions of psychotic and delusional religious nutjobs.

Yes the previous administration would have been advised to do a little reading about the history of the Middle East. Saddam ruled the way he did because he had too because that is the only way to keep the nutjobs under control. Once you remove the guns pointing at them to keep them under control, the nutjobs revert to their two thousand year old blood fueds against anyone who isn't exactly like them.

Sending Christian soldiers into a Muslim country is lunacy. Fighting a 10 year undeclared war against the Iraqi people (the so-called no fly zones and U.N. sanctions) because the 1st Gulf War was not ended properly was criminal.

But, it gets even better, Bush the elder telling Saddam it was "a regional" issue if Iraq invaded Kuwait because Kuwait would not stop stealing Iraqi oil, thus giving Saddam the green light to invade, and THEN pissing and moaning about it and using the occupation as an excuse to start a war was even more criminal, and idiotic.

Why did we care if Iraq annexed what is and always has been an integral part of Iraq? The 1st gulf war never should have been fought.

One excuse used was that Iraq was then going to invade Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. Excuse me but there is no way to do that without air and naval supremacy and the US could have just sent the 7th fleet to the Persian Gulf and made such a campaign impossible.

I don't know if Saddam was planning such a campaign, but the Iraqi military could not have carried it out. I'm still wondering why we care anyway. Those countries are not our friends, I don't care what they say.

It really amazes me that people can seriously conjecture that Obama will be able to fix problems that are caused by 2,000 years of hate, brainwashing, and propaganda. Problems that could only be fixed by totally transforming the thoughts and feelings of millions of people. Is Obama somekind of God that he can do that?

[curious]

Ryan, it is you that is INSANE and you don't possess the intelligence to shine Data's shoes.

The economic meltdown that our country faces was caused by democrats who kept pushing for looser and looser lending standards especially concerning those with lower income and minorities. They started the mudslide which quickly turned into an avalanche.

The above mentioned groups have always had higher default rates which is why the banks felt the need to charge them higher interest rates or avoid doing business with them altogether. It turns out the bankers were right and the democrats were wrong (big surprise there, LOL).

Ryan, the vast majority of societies outside the U.S. shun the free market system and believe in big government controlling everything. I sure do wish people like yourself would relocate to one of those countries instead of forcing your socialist bullshit down the throats of hard-working Americans who want no part of it.l

The artificially low interest rates that the Fed and the Treasury have made possible since 1998 caused an asset bubble that eventually had to burst. Because the interest rates were so low and lending standards were relaxed to an idiotic degree the bubble was extremely large when it burst.

First Bush, and now Obama are making the problem worse because they are not allowing the bubble to completely deflate, they are artificially trying to reinflate the bubble. This will only drag out the period of time between when the bubble will be completely burst and recovery will begin. This meddling may make recovery impossible. FDR made the same mistake, his meddling made it almost impossible for recovery to begin because the bubble was not allowed to fully burst but the government interfered and kept trying to reinflate it.

Artificially low interest rates are very damaging to an economy.

The solution is for the government to get out of the way and allow the bubble to totally burst and then let the market recover as it naturally will. Of course that does not make for a good bumper sticker slogan. Also, interest rates have to be allowed to move to slightly above the market value, right now that is somewhere around 11%. You want the interest rate to be slightly above market value to encourage savings and to discourage speculators and reckless behavior. Keeping interest rates slightly artificially higher than market rates also keeps the boom/bust cycle from being so steep. Crashes don't fall as far and recovery doesn't soar as high, which is a good thing.

Since there is no one in the current administration who has a background where they can understand complex subjects like basic math, basic finance, basic macro-economics, business cycles, etc, we are not likely to see a policy that will actually help the situation, but instead we will continue to see this delusional meddling which only makes things worse, all in the spirit of Yes We Can **** things up totally beyond belief.

[curious]

No, the largest Afghan 'surge' occurred during the presidential campaign, when the Generals there requested it.

Those plans were drafted and discussed long before the request was made public.

But, you still prove my point, Obama inherited the policy to increase troop strength in Afghanistan, he did not originate that policy.

And why do you use that snarky term "surge", the leftist media elites crafted that term to discredit Bush's sending reinforcements to Iraq.

[curious]

you actually believe this stuff?
The problem is there are too many people on the planet for your theory.
So what happens when the market doesn't need the millions of people? Where do they go? Suffer or die off. No wonder these people will chose the gun first.

Without government interference the market will always grow large enough to supply jobs to anyone who wants one. The policies that the left wing nutjobs think are "good for the common man" because they punish the "rich" are actually terrible for everyone.

In the name of being pro-labor the Democrats destroyed the coal mining industry in West Virginia. Now, there is no labor to be in favor of because the jobs are all gone. This is the kind of idiocy that these "good for the common man" policies create.

If the left wing nutjobs really cared about "the common man" they would ensure an economic, regulatory, and legal environment which was extremely favorable to innovation, manufacturing, and commerce. An environment like this creates jobs, then working people prosper. When you "punish" the "rich" that is only done by creating an environment that is not favorable to job creation and then working people suffer.

Of course the left wing nutjobs don't care about the "common man", the fact that they use such an insulting, degrading term proves they don't care about people. You can only think that there is such a thing as a "common man" if you view yourself and others as being superior to the commoner. And if you believe yourself superior you cannot have empathy and if you don't have empathy there is no way to craft policies that are beneficial to the people you cannot empathize with.

If the left wing nutjobs really cared about people (I refuse to use that term "common man"), then they would create an environment where innovation, manufacturing, and commerce can flourish. Then anyone who wants a job can get one. And pretty much anyone who wants to get out of poverty badly enough can learn skills that will enable them to earn enough to lift themselves out of poverty. But no one is "owed" having someone else lift them out of poverty. Give them the tools they need to improve their lot in life, yes, but do the improving for them, no.

Of course to create an environment where innovation, manufacturing, and commerce can flourish the leftwing elitists have to get out of the way, no cushy jobs for them running useless bureaucracies, you see in a society where innovation, manufacturing, and commerce are highly prized and encouraged, liberal arts majors become pretty much superfluous, and most leftists pursue cushy government/academic jobs because they know they can't cut it in the real world where they might have to actually sweat and earn their own keep.

[wtf]

great post curious

remember people get the government they vote for

they wanted the superficial good looking sweet talking chosen one, now enjoy

his job now is to hand out the goodies to welfare moms , and illegal aliens

[ryanXL977]

Ryan, it is you that is INSANE and you don't possess the intelligence to shine Data's shoes.

The economic meltdown that our country faces was caused by democrats who kept pushing for looser and looser lending standards especially concerning those with lower income and minorities. They started the mudslide which quickly turned into an avalanche.

The above mentioned groups have always had higher default rates which is why the banks felt the need to charge them higher interest rates or avoid doing business with them altogether. It turns out the bankers were right and the democrats were wrong (big surprise there, LOL).

Ryan, the vast majority of societies outside the U.S. shun the free market system and believe in big government controlling everything. I sure do wish people like yourself would relocate to one of those countries instead of forcing your socialist bullshit down the throats of hard-working Americans who want no part of it.l

you have no idea what you are talking about. it wasnt caused by a political party (though phil gramm had more to do with deregulation than anyone in the world). it was caused by unregulated banking practices (buying and selling junk and derivatives) The war masked the theft that went on and made it easy to steal.
i dont really care if you understand that or not. you dont know what youre talking about. this has very very little to do with lending to minorities, thats probably about .05% of the problem. you geniuses have been awesome the last 8 years, thank god you are here to help us out now.

[curious]

great post curious

remember people get the government they vote for

they wanted the superficial good looking sweet talking chosen one, now enjoy

his job now is to hand out the goodies to welfare moms , and illegal aliens

I really wanted to have a reason to like Obama. I HATE the "business as usual" Washington insiders. The lobbyists, the campaign contributions, the fund raisers, the pollsters, all of it. I have been looking for a long time for someone, ANYONE who possessed a strong set of principles grounded in doing what is best for America and Americans. Someone who would take on the lobbyists and the special interest groups, the bribery, the corruption, the "business as usual".

Someone who had competency so that they could identify, craft, and execute sound policies.

I gave Obama the benefit of the doubt when he first started campaigning. I read his books, I listened to his speeches, I read his press releases. It all sounded good at first.

But, once you get past "Yes, we can" what do you have? Well, that never got filled in.

So, then he gets elected and I am still hopeful. He promised to take on the lobbyists and then immediately surrounded himself with people who's main skill is knowing how to work the lobbyists. He promised to take on the Washington insiders and then filled his administration with ex-Clinton and ex-Carter era insiders.

He promised new policy initiatives on a wide array of subjects that would be "new", "different", etc.

And he had ample opportunity to make a real difference on a long list of subjects.

Let's see what he has done, I'll use "Yes we can" as the theme for these:
1. Energy - Yes We Can NOT explore for or drill for oil on federal land and/or offshore.
Yes We Can NOT build a new, highly efficient electricity grid that uses computers and superconductivity to greatly increase the efficiency of the electricity grid. (such a grid is a requirement if you are serious about solar, wind, geothermal, etc).
2. Trade - Yes We Can NOT insist on FAIR trade with our trading partners. The one measure that would have gone, oh, say 5% down the road to fair trade, was removed when our so-called allies complained. Obama said he didn't want to "upset" the international community. Well, he better get worried about upsetting the American community.
3. Immigration - Yes We Can NOT secure the border and deport illegal aliens and punish the sanctuary cities for breaking federal law.
4. Health Care - Yes We Can NOT provide health coverage to those who do not have it. All the legislation so far has moved people with private coverage to public coverage. No one has been given coverage who did not already have it.
5. Manufacturing - Yes We Can NOT resurrect the foreign profits repatriation tax policy that would allow companies to bring foreign profits back to the united states tax free. This is the first step in getting manufacturers to move jobs back to the US. There are a long list of other policies that have to be changed to eliminate the huge benefit that US manufacturers get when they move jobs overseas, of course Obama has addressed NONE of them.
6. Environment - Yes We Can NOT get serious about a solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, nuclear, clean coal electricity production program that would drastically reduce carbon emissions. Yes We Can NOT get serious about helping create an electric automobile industry.
7. Education - Yes We Can NOT eliminate Sallie Mae and overhaul our education system so that people don't have to take on ruinous debt to get an education.

Well the list can go on and on but these are the high points.

I think the slogan should be changed to Yes We Can NOT

[rookie]

One excuse used was that Iraq was then going to invade Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. Excuse me but there is no way to do that without air and naval supremacy and the US could have just sent the 7th fleet to the Persian Gulf and made such a campaign impossible.

I don't know if Saddam was planning such a campaign, but the Iraqi military could not have carried it out. I'm still wondering why we care anyway. Those countries are not our friends, I don't care what they say.

Really ?

[ryanXL977]

those pics are doctored and made up! you must hate america!

[rookie]

those pics are doctored and made up! you must hate america!

Lighten up. I have seen one of these on Jay Leno's Tonight show as well. FYI, I don't hate anything or anyone. Too much energy goes in hate.

[Data]

Those countries are not our friends

Really ?

Really, and neither is Bush, do you think otherwise?

[Data]

Curious, are you my ghost, or am I yours? There are nearly identical things that were posted in this forum.

[tacomax]

[curious]

Really ?

So, a dude who's very survival depends on keeping up the facade that America is his friend, kisses an imbecile and that proves what exactly?

If you think that Saudi Arabia is America's friend because their leaders can put on a good show you are worse than delusional.

[curious]

Really ?

And you think that the Bush family is America's friend?

Let's see in the last 72 years the Bush family has:
1. Made WWII possible by providing Hitler with coal liquefaction technology and the financing to hire GM and Standard Oil to build 38 coal liquefaction plants in Germany. The German generals after the war all stated that without these 38 coal liquefaction plants Germany would not have been able to even consider going to war.
2. Betrayed the conservative movement and the Reagan revolution and oversaw the largest expansion of the federal budget (or ANY budget for that matter) in history.
3. Told Saddam he had the green light to annex Kuwait due to Kuwait's stealing Iraqi oil. Then used that annexation as an excuse to start a war.
4. Failed to properly end the war that the Bush family had just helped start and then launched an 11 year long undeclared war on the Iraqi people called the "No fly zones" and the U.N. sanctions.
5. For political and financial considerations allowed the family of Osama ben Laden to flee to Saudi Arabia instead of holding them all in custody. What a leverage they could have been against Ben Laden.
6. In the name of "national interests" launched one of the most ill considered, ill planned wars in history against Iraq to clean up the mess that was left because the first war was ended so ridiculously.
7. Has taken hundreds of millions of dollars in "contributions", "investments", etc from our enemies.
8. After 9/11 invaded Afghanistan as an occupier instead of going in there with a lightening strike to get the Taliban and al-Qaeda leadership. Then when said leadership was cornered at Tora Bora agreed to a 24 hour cease fire which allowed said leadership to escape! They had ben Laden cold and the rest of the al-Qaeda leadership and let them escape.
9. Colluded with the DemoCong on a policy of artificially low interest rates and a pretty much anything goes policy in regard to mortgages, fiscal responsibility and anything else that actually made any sense in the financial sector.
10. When North Korea violated the terms of the truce which ended the Korean War in an extremely open and blatant manner, by actively pursuing nuclear weapons, did NOTHING except promise them more money and more aid. Truman would have helped the mother ****ers get their nuclear weapons by dropping a few on them.
11. When Iran openly and blatantly showed that they were actively building nuclear weapons did NOTHING.
12. When Syria obtained nuclear weapons the Bush family tried to stop Israel from destroying them. Israel said go **** yourself.

So, you think that the Bush family are friends of the United States why?

[reno cool]

Without government interference the market will always grow large enough to supply jobs to anyone who wants one. The policies that the left wing nutjobs think are "good for the common man" because they punish the "rich" are actually terrible for everyone.

In the name of being pro-labor the Democrats destroyed the coal mining industry in West Virginia. Now, there is no labor to be in favor of because the jobs are all gone. This is the kind of idiocy that these "good for the common man" policies create.

If the left wing nutjobs really cared about "the common man" they would ensure an economic, regulatory, and legal environment which was extremely favorable to innovation, manufacturing, and commerce. An environment like this creates jobs, then working people prosper. When you "punish" the "rich" that is only done by creating an environment that is not favorable to job creation and then working people suffer.

Of course the left wing nutjobs don't care about the "common man", the fact that they use such an insulting, degrading term proves they don't care about people. You can only think that there is such a thing as a "common man" if you view yourself and others as being superior to the commoner. And if you believe yourself superior you cannot have empathy and if you don't have empathy there is no way to craft policies that are beneficial to the people you cannot empathize with.

If the left wing nutjobs really cared about people (I refuse to use that term "common man"), then they would create an environment where innovation, manufacturing, and commerce can flourish. Then anyone who wants a job can get one. And pretty much anyone who wants to get out of poverty badly enough can learn skills that will enable them to earn enough to lift themselves out of poverty. But no one is "owed" having someone else lift them out of poverty. Give them the tools they need to improve their lot in life, yes, but do the improving for them, no.

Of course to create an environment where innovation, manufacturing, and commerce can flourish the leftwing elitists have to get out of the way, no cushy jobs for them running useless bureaucracies, you see in a society where innovation, manufacturing, and commerce are highly prized and encouraged, liberal arts majors become pretty much superfluous, and most leftists pursue cushy government/academic jobs because they know they can't cut it in the real world where they might have to actually sweat and earn their own keep.

really?
Is this why we had labor strikes, murder of protesters, workers? Child labor, workers risking life and limb in a desperate attempt to feed their families. People competing for the crumbs the rich might be willing to throw them.
All this despite of tremendous advancements in technology that should have made life easier for everyone.
The poor we're living too high off the hog. Of course.
This is American Capitalism. This is what you envision. If it wasn't for the great people in this country and elsewhere fighting for their rights that is what we would have.

[ryanXL977]

really?
Is this why we had labor strikes, murder of protesters, workers? Child labor, workers risking life and limb in a desperate attempt to feed their families. People competing for the crumbs the rich might be willing to throw them.
All this despite of tremendous advancements in technology that should have made life easier for everyone.
The poor we're living too high off the hog. Of course.
This is American Capitalism. This is what you envision. If it wasn't for the great people in this country and elsewhere fighting for their rights that is what we would have.

nope, rush limbaugh and foxnews told the people that they are lucky to live bc the rich are the ones who pay for everything, its the poor who benefit from it all! thank god for the rich, they do all the work. we are lucky that these bankers got 50 million dollar bonuses, boy, they sure deserved em.

[reno cool]

It's amazing how some insist on defending pure falsehoods.
They get so caught up in fancy elitist argument and forget that the basic premise has nothing to do with reality.

[ryanXL977]

yep
and there is quite a difference between being rich and makign 150k , and being rich and makign 100 mill a yr like rush limbaugh and these other people they support

why they think that a billionaire has their interests at heart is insane to me

[curious]

really?
Is this why we had labor strikes, murder of protesters, workers? Child labor, workers risking life and limb in a desperate attempt to feed their families. People competing for the crumbs the rich might be willing to throw them.
All this despite of tremendous advancements in technology that should have made life easier for everyone.
The poor we're living too high off the hog. Of course.
This is American Capitalism. This is what you envision. If it wasn't for the great people in this country and elsewhere fighting for their rights that is what we would have.

Talking to you is a total waste of time. You don't like Americans? Fine, we can live without you. ****ing piece of shit. Move to a socialist paradise like Venezuela or North Korea, I'm sure you will be much happier there since you won't be tyrannized by American Capitalism in your socialist paradise.

Geezuz, what a ****ing loser.

[curious]

It's amazing how some insist on defending pure falsehoods.
They get so caught up in fancy elitist argument and forget that the basic premise has nothing to do with reality.

And it is amazing how you continue to spew pure bullshit without giving a single fact to back up your accusations.

What SINGLE falsehood have I stated?

Fancy elitist argument? My points are very simple. If you want prosperity you have to make an environment where commerce can thrive. Government cannot provide prosperity. Liberals are liars because they claim to be for "the common man", but the fact that someone feels that they are elevated over someone else so that they could even say that phrase "common man" with a straight face proves that they actually despise the people they claim to be "for". ****ing liars and hypocrites.

I support policies that work. Liberal policies fail most dramatically.

Because I am so vehemently anti-liberal you then make assumptions about my belief systems, assuming that I am for robber-baron capitalism, which are totally untrue.

The robber baron era was NOT capitalism, it was fascism. The government gave special dispensations to their cronies and abused the law in order to step on the rights of everyone else. The examples you use of why capitalism is so bad are not examples of capitalism they are examples of fascism. And before you moan and whine and complain about big business trampling the "common man", my family had their land in West Virginia stolen from them by the big coal companies. THe big coal companies could only steal their land because the politicians in Wheeling and Charleston conspired to abuse the law so that land owners did not have legal recourse to what was a blatantly criminal act. These politicians were DemoCong by the way.

That is not capitalism. That is cronyism and fascism. When the government uses the law to reward a select few at the detriment of everyone else. Oh, that is also called socialism.

Making an environment in which innovation, commerce, and manufacturing can thrive does not require giving certain large businesses monopolies and using the government to ensure that these monopolies have an unfair and illegal advantage. Which is what you imply when you bring up the robber baron era. I'm not saying that at all.

But, of course you know that, like all good liberals you won't argue a point on the basis of the arguments actually proposed, you change the subject so that you can imply something totally different from what was actually proposed. I detest people that are intellectually dishonest.

[reno cool]

Please, Curious enlighten me to what you'd propose.
I highlighted a blatant falsehood in your argument. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what your saying.
I have to be because that's just too ridiculous.

I think you have some valid, interesting points in your perspective. But you cannot base a society dependent on the good will of the rich. In any other context if you dare propose such nonsense you would be spat in the face. But, due to bombardment of elitist, right wing propaganda we have been exposed to since childhood some of us miraculously accept and support it.

[losturmarbles]

really?
Is this why we had labor strikes, murder of protesters, workers? Child labor, workers risking life and limb in a desperate attempt to feed their families. People competing for the crumbs the rich might be willing to throw them.
All this despite of tremendous advancements in technology that should have made life easier for everyone.
The poor we're living too high off the hog. Of course.
This is American Capitalism. This is what you envision. If it wasn't for the great people in this country and elsewhere fighting for their rights that is what we would have.

sorry but capitalism is what this country was founded on. its what made this country a better place to live than anywhere else in the world the past two centuries.

without capitalism, you will eventually have some form of communism where you have no rights. and unfortunately we've been heading that direction for some time now.

[reno cool]

This country is diverse and made up of many. It is what it is. Lets leave the bs scare words behind (communism) and support whats right.