• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance [W:246, 565, *656*]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

History, something CONservatives are ALWAYS on the wrong side of. Weird....

Even weirder, Proggies delusional rejection of facts. A curious detachment from reality, but such a need explains much.
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

Yes, and the US will be treated like liberators and confronted with flowers and candy.... $50 billion perhaps months not years.....lol

Switching the subject doesn't absolve people from the folly of their claims. The cage is secure, as the facts, and now deflection have clearly proven.
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

Switching the subject doesn't absolve people from the folly of their claims. The cage is secure, as the facts, and now deflection have clearly proven.

But the question is there...Is our electorate smart enough to see progressivism as the destructive force that it is, and much as we did after the last reprobate of human society, Woodrow Wilson, and his thug followers, were banished to the dust heap of mistakes for 100 years?
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

But the question is there...Is our electorate smart enough to see progressivism as the destructive force that it is, and much as we did after the last reprobate of human society, Woodrow Wilson, and his thug followers, were banished to the dust heap of mistakes for 100 years?

That is the hanging question. It would seem the darkness of Progressivism collapsed from the fatal faults in it's premise before, and today, the unsustainable nature of the religion will certainly collapse again. How long that takes is the unfortunate and painful question.

When it does happen, I suppose the billionaire globalists pushing the agenda will crawl back under the baseboards and look for some other way to manipulate people.
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

Really? interesting how the economic results don't show that nor the foreign policy successes. Iraq was stable when Bush left office, it is a mess now. The economy went into free fall when Democrats took over the Congress but prior to that the GDP Growth, job creation, govt. revenue was better than anything we have now. Too bad liberals ignore bls.gov, bea.gov, Treasury data and of course basic civics and history Bush was a governor, Obama a Community agitator. Democrats were more interested in regaining the WH than doing what was right for the American people and knew that people like you would blame Bush for the results generated with a Democrat controlled Congress.

More CON crap, the economy went into free fall when the HOUSING bubble collapsed, BUSHII was President and just like every other crisis he was at first overwhelmed and then poured massive amounts of tax payer money into the sinkhole (Which CONs went along with as long as a CON President was in office) You seem to forget that the engine driving the 'record' growth was doing so by cannibalizing itself. Stripping more and more from the structure below to attempt to reach higher with paper profits and fund manager profits... :roll:

Your blaming DEMs in Congress is like me blaming my wife for a streetlight going out as we pass under it... that light was on the path to failure long before we even started the car... :roll:

Same with Iraq where the 'Decider in Chief' refused to listen to the Generals for years as the 'dead-enders' grew to a major insurgency and then poured massive amounts of bribes and troops (the numbers originally given as required by the Generals BTW) in a desperate attempt to stave off Iraq disintegrating. But key was giving a date certain for our withdrawal.

So Iraq wasn't stable when BushII left, it was bribed into a lull AFTER BushII announced we would be leaving with a date certain... :doh

You CONs refuse to admit BushII so screwed this pooch from day one that there was no 'fixing' it. You refuse to admit Iraq was a tottering house of cards when BushII left with no real central government as the Sunnis, Kurds and Shi'ites ALL wanted to go their own way. You seem to think we can force other governments to do our bidding and they will do so like reluctant children.

BushII's record in office was one of a strutting, stuttering, drawling, little big man who finally couldn't leverage the family name for 'success'. His misplaced faith in American Exceptialism cost us as badly as Crassus cost the Romans at Carrhae.
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

More CON crap, the economy went into free fall when the HOUSING bubble collapsed, BUSHII was President and just like every other crisis he was at first overwhelmed and then poured massive amounts of tax payer money into the sinkhole (Which CONs went along with as long as a CON President was in office) You seem to forget that the engine driving the 'record' growth was doing so by cannibalizing itself. Stripping more and more from the structure below to attempt to reach higher with paper profits and fund manager profits... :roll:

Your blaming DEMs in Congress is like me blaming my wife for a streetlight going out as we pass under it... that light was on the path to failure long before we even started the car... :roll:

Same with Iraq where the 'Decider in Chief' refused to listen to the Generals for years as the 'dead-enders' grew to a major insurgency and then poured massive amounts of bribes and troops (the numbers originally given as required by the Generals BTW) in a desperate attempt to stave off Iraq disintegrating. But key was giving a date certain for our withdrawal.

So Iraq wasn't stable when BushII left, it was bribed into a lull AFTER BushII announced we would be leaving with a date certain... :doh

You CONs refuse to admit BushII so screwed this pooch from day one that there was no 'fixing' it. You refuse to admit Iraq was a tottering house of cards when BushII left with no real central government as the Sunnis, Kurds and Shi'ites ALL wanted to go their own way. You seem to think we can force other governments to do our bidding and they will do so like reluctant children.

BushII's record in office was one of a strutting, stuttering, drawling, little big man who finally couldn't leverage the family name for 'success'. His misplaced faith in American Exceptialism cost us as badly as Crassus cost the Romans at Carrhae.

I think that, instead of interfering, he should have let some of those corporations claim bankruptcy. It, of course, would have been painful for some people for a while, but that is how capitalism works. That is the reason WHY we have bankruptcy as an option. I was totally against ALL of those bail outs. We the taxpayers should never have to bail out a floundering business. This does NOTHING to encourage better business practices in the future. In fact, it makes it so that this is expected, and that is bogus and makes me quite angry sometimes.
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

I think that, instead of interfering, he should have let some of those corporations claim bankruptcy. It, of course, would have been painful for some people for a while, but that is how capitalism works. That is the reason WHY we have bankruptcy as an option. I was totally against ALL of those bail outs. We the taxpayers should never have to bail out a floundering business. This does NOTHING to encourage better business practices in the future. In fact, it makes it so that this is expected, and that is bogus and makes me quite angry sometimes.

If BushII had backed the partisan political theory many CONs espouse then yes the economy should have been allowed to drive off the cliff like it routinely did in decades past. Millions more of Americans would have been out of work as the cascade of business failures would have been far more wide reaching.

(course if CON economic philosophy was worth half a bucket of warm spit the 'invisible hand' would have stopped the bus before it got to the cliff and no CEO would have let his corporation engage in risky practices for short term gain) Remember those gems??? :roll:

As far as bankruptcy goes, the CONs pushed hard to limit that option as a loser's way out. Have you ever declared bankruptcy? A close friend did because of major medical bills even though he had pretty good medical insurance at the time. He was 300,000 in debt AFTER his insurance was done picking up it's part. He worked two jobs but finally gave in and filed. I NEVER want to go through that- EVER. (I don't think you do either)

Keeping our economy from tanking as bad as it did ROUTINELY in the past, a quick study of our nation's capitalism shows recessions and depressions as a dismally common rate of occurrence. Unbridled capitalism does harm a nation. I'm more of a fix the problem and then hang the bastards but when lobbyists can get regulations cut and laws past it is difficult to punish those who wrecked the economy without ruining the lives of millions of 'innocent' citizens.

Odd thing I noticed, the concept of 'innocent being harmed' in the CON world. Millions of hard working Americans would have their lives thrown into chaos and financial ruin by a cavalier attitude of 'punishing' businesses who's CEOs and major players have gold plated ejector seats and golden parachutes for just such emergencies.

I don't see allowing businesses to collapse as punishing anyone but those millions of Middle Class Americans who's careers are now ruined but not even a paper parachute from 'corporate', millions of Retired Americans who's 401K is now worthless, and millions of Americans who never earned a penny working for or investing in the collapsing businesses but now are out of work as the collapse ends the customers they relied on.

That's a trickle down Reagan never wanted to believe in.... :peace
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

If BushII had backed the partisan political theory many CONs espouse then yes the economy should have been allowed to drive off the cliff like it routinely did in decades past. Millions more of Americans would have been out of work as the cascade of business failures would have been far more wide reaching.

(course if CON economic philosophy was worth half a bucket of warm spit the 'invisible hand' would have stopped the bus before it got to the cliff and no CEO would have let his corporation engage in risky practices for short term gain) Remember those gems??? :roll:

As far as bankruptcy goes, the CONs pushed hard to limit that option as a loser's way out. Have you ever declared bankruptcy? A close friend did because of major medical bills even though he had pretty good medical insurance at the time. He was 300,000 in debt AFTER his insurance was done picking up it's part. He worked two jobs but finally gave in and filed. I NEVER want to go through that- EVER. (I don't think you do either)

Keeping our economy from tanking as bad as it did ROUTINELY in the past, a quick study of our nation's capitalism shows recessions and depressions as a dismally common rate of occurrence. Unbridled capitalism does harm a nation. I'm more of a fix the problem and then hang the bastards but when lobbyists can get regulations cut and laws past it is difficult to punish those who wrecked the economy without ruining the lives of millions of 'innocent' citizens.

Odd thing I noticed, the concept of 'innocent being harmed' in the CON world. Millions of hard working Americans would have their lives thrown into chaos and financial ruin by a cavalier attitude of 'punishing' businesses who's CEOs and major players have gold plated ejector seats and golden parachutes for just such emergencies.

I don't see allowing businesses to collapse as punishing anyone but those millions of Middle Class Americans who's careers are now ruined but not even a paper parachute from 'corporate', millions of Retired Americans who's 401K is now worthless, and millions of Americans who never earned a penny working for or investing in the collapsing businesses but now are out of work as the collapse ends the customers they relied on.

That's a trickle down Reagan never wanted to believe in.... :peace

Those are the RISKS involved. When people invest their money, that is a risk they take and should be aware of. I feel for people who lose their jobs, but it is NOT the responsibility of the taxpayer to keep businesses up and running. No way.

Seriously, you seem to think that life should be free of risks and that jobs and good money should be a guarantee backed by the government.
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

I've run from nothing, you people are the ones running. The resolution included the support of big Democrats, and the truth hurts your Hate-Bush meme.

Who was the "decider" at the time? Was it big democrats or was it George W. Bush?
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

I've run from nothing, you people are the ones running. The resolution included the support of big Democrats, and the truth hurts your Hate-Bush meme.

The resolution only passed the buck. Now, if your honest, just answer one question and you'll see the point. Could Bush have chose not to invade?
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

The resolution only passed the buck. Now, if your honest, just answer one question and you'll see the point. Could Bush have chose not to invade?
I am going to quote one of the demo hopefuls today and say,

"at this point, what difference does it make...?"

Pathetic.
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

I am going to quote one of the demo hopefuls today and say,

"at this point, what difference does it make...?"

Pathetic.

What's pathetic was that he was correct. Bush had already decided. We were going in. Evidence be damned. We were going to recklessly spend American lives for nothing, making things worse.
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

If I'm Turkey i'm extremley worried right now.
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

Those are the RISKS involved. When people invest their money, that is a risk they take and should be aware of. I feel for people who lose their jobs, but it is NOT the responsibility of the taxpayer to keep businesses up and running. No way. Seriously, you seem to think that life should be free of risks and that jobs and good money should be a guarantee backed by the government.

Now you're going hard in the CON paint. You remind me of a tired old joke- a recession is your neighbor out of a job, a depression is YOU getting a pink slip- :shock:

Actually it is the duty of our Government to maintain order and domestic tranquility. Otherwise why have any rules or regulations? Why have the FDIC guarantee bank accounts from fraud and robbery? Why have a police force? Life does have risks- every man for himself! :doh

Of course there will always be risks, SOCIETY works to minimize those risks and keep innocent people from harm.

But seriously, do you think TARP made life free of risks???? Now when it comes to jobs what do CONs always claim- their leadership creates jobs.... so yeah i'd say it is the Gubmint's job to ensure an even playing field, a fair labor market, safe working conditions, honest business practices and jobs for those willing to work... (ever read the GOP party platform????)
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

some people really like watching " war " on tv.because they know they wont be attacked with mustard gas,pepper gas,onion gas etcç..
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

Now you're going hard in the CON paint. You remind me of a tired old joke- a recession is your neighbor out of a job, a depression is YOU getting a pink slip- :shock:

So you think that taxpayers should pay for the mistakes of businesses so that people can keep their jobs? Is this what you're saying?

Actually it is the duty of our Government to maintain order and domestic tranquility. Otherwise why have any rules or regulations? Why have the FDIC guarantee bank accounts from fraud and robbery? Why have a police force? Life does have risks- every man for himself! :doh

It is not the job of our federal government to bail out banks. Please find me that where it is stated that is one of the federal government responsibilities.

Of course there will always be risks, SOCIETY works to minimize those risks and keep innocent people from harm.

Forcing taxpayers to pay for bank bail outs is not a function of society, nor does it keep anyone from harm.

But seriously, do you think TARP made life free of risks???? Now when it comes to jobs what do CONs always claim- their leadership creates jobs.... so yeah i'd say it is the Gubmint's job to ensure an even playing field, a fair labor market, safe working conditions, honest business practices and jobs for those willing to work... (ever read the GOP party platform????)

Of course not, TARP was useless. No it is not the job of the government to interfere, nor is it the taxpayers responsibility to pay for the mistakes of a business. I don't know where you're getting these crazy ideas, but it sounds like you don't understand the limitations of the federal government.
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

some people really like watching " war " on tv.because they know they wont be attacked with mustard gas,pepper gas,onion gas etcç..

What an ignorant and disgusting comment. You should be ashamed of yourself.
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

What an ignorant and disgusting comment. You should be ashamed of yourself.

why do you have to take everything personally ?




it is impossible for me to be ignorant of ME while l live here.

why l am disgusting >?
l am not the one who tries to justify this war
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

why do you have to take everything personally ?

why l am disgusting >?


it is impossible for me to be ignorant of ME while l live here.

You make these types of comments all the time. Of course you mean it.
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

You make these types of comments all the time. Of course you mean it.

no ,l only make such comments when l see how people try to justify a war
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

no ,l only make such comments when l see how people try to justify a war

I don't think that's true. I've been around here for a while now. You aren't fooling me.
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

I don't think that's true. I've been around here for a while now. You aren't fooling me.

l dont know why you think l was referring to you :confused:
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

l dont know why you think l was referring to you :confused:

I think you are referring to all conservatives. This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. It's nothing new, but anyways, it was very tasteless comment to make.
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

Latest report is that ISIS is moving towards Baghdad. Now would be a good time to attack their main body with FAE weapons.

They're going to get chewed up if they move on Baghdad. I think they've hit about the limit of what they can expand to right now, especially given that they also have to support ops in Syria.
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

So you think that taxpayers should pay for the mistakes of businesses so that people can keep their jobs? Is this what you're saying? It is not the job of our federal government to bail out banks. Please find me that where it is stated that is one of the federal government responsibilities. Forcing taxpayers to pay for bank bail outs is not a function of society, nor does it keep anyone from harm. Of course not, TARP was useless. No it is not the job of the government to interfere, nor is it the taxpayers responsibility to pay for the mistakes of a business. I don't know where you're getting these crazy ideas, but it sounds like you don't understand the limitations of the federal government.

CON game- the Government should keep the economy stable by first not stripping away all the regulations put in place to correct from the last time the free hand of capitalism jacked the economy off a cliff and then by not allowing millions of Americans to lose their jobs because the same smucks who would never hurt their corporations (according to the CON capitalism primer) did just that for short term gains. (those CEOs and money managers should be charged with criminal misconduct but sadly most of those laws were stripped out)

It is very much the job of the federal government to 'bail-out' account holders, either if robbed or the bank itself conducts fraud. the FDIC protects account holders. Please find for me where the courts have ruled the FDIC is unconstitutional. :)

Society does in fact protect banks, jobs, homes, health, your loved ones- NO ONE can go it alone- we depend on ambulance crews (taxpayers are 'forced' to pay for them), firefighters (again more 'forced' taxpayer funding), but also the facets that keep this nation more than a cabal of individuals fighting over the scrapheap from other nations that do band together.

Of course the Government should step in (should act proactively to prevent market crashes from short sighted capitalistic greed) and prevent a massive collapse of our economy from hurricanes to derivative scandals.

I don't know where you get your concepts of governance- cut throat capitalism and a level of society that goes back to kill or be killed hunter gatherers... :doh
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom