It’s ‘Karl Marx’, dammit.
[quote]wirewound wrote:
It’s ‘Karl Marx’, dammit.[/quote]
Does anyone care about spelling when posting on a forum? I hope not because my spelling sucks. Grammar sucks too.
[quote]erik206 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Obama has no experience.
McCain has bad experience.
I’ve said it before: we’re choosing between a douche and a turd sandwich. Pick the one that tastes the least like death and you’re golden.
Not that I’m head over heals for McCain, But what about his experience do you consider “bad”? Or were you simply regarding his track record as a RINO?
Uhh…Iraq? Boy, he was dead wrong about that one, and naive little Obama was svengali like in his judgement.
You mean when McCain pushed for the Surge and Obama said it would never work?
It is amazing how your view is exactly the opposite of reality.
You mean the reality that while this administration has committed so much of our military to Iraq we no longer have the resources to combat al qaida in Afghanistan where they are as strong as ever?
[/quote]
AQ is a shell of what it was. The “Taliban” has been resurgent but we will never defeat the mujahadeen in Afghanistan, just ask the Russians. It is past time to get out of Afghanistan. We have no further interests there.
Wrong. We have destroyed most of his organization. You don’t know the difference between the Talibal and al Qaeda but welcome to the discussion anyway.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
“Space for political reconciliation” What a bunch of meaningless blather.
McCain was 100% correct about the surge. Obama was 100% wrong.
Do you really believe that the goal of the surge was simply improved security in the areas receiving additional soldiers and that said security gains were only accomplished by the additional troops and were in no way helped by the mass killings, cleansed neighborhoods, city segregation, shia cease-fire agreements, and sunni’s decision to join with americans to eliminate AQI while receiving bribes and weapons?
Of course you don’t, so why pretend in here?
[/quote]
Surge = success
Obama was against it. McCain for it.
The surge was a multi faceted change in the counter insurgency approach that included but was not limited to additional troops.
Are you actually pretending the security was imprved because of mass killings and the bad guys had ran out of people to kill?
You really are a loathesome person.
[quote]wirewound wrote:
It’s ‘Karl Marx’, dammit.[/quote]
Actually it is spelled G-R-O-U-C-H-O.
Meet the Bankers! You know, the guys who LOVE your theories! Why do they do that?
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
McCain has bad experience.
Explain what “bad experience” McCain has.[/quote]
Being tortured is a bad experience. I won’t hold that against him.
15 of 18 Congressional Benchmarks reached. Al-Queda in Iraq history. Sounds like McCain showed the right judgement. Obama. Ried and Pelosi…not so much.
[quote]hedo wrote:
15 of 18 Congressional Benchmarks reached. Al-Queda in Iraq history. Sounds like McCain showed the right judgement. Obama. Ried and Pelosi…not so much.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/01/AR2008070102860.html[/quote]
Just goes to show you what our boys in uniform can do with a decent plan.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
hedo wrote:
15 of 18 Congressional Benchmarks reached. Al-Queda in Iraq history. Sounds like McCain showed the right judgement. Obama. Ried and Pelosi…not so much.
Just goes to show you what our boys in uniform can do with a decent plan.[/quote]
Imagine how well they would do with poltcial leadership that actually supports them. Imagine how disheartening that would be to the enemy.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I am a carpenter and I have pulled teeth. I have also given stitches. Not because I can do these things better than a Dentist or Doctor but there were none available at the time.
you guys are killing me here. Ok, one more. I had a steak tonight. The knife I had was a little dull. I didn’t go get a spoon. I’m sure I can come up with another on but let’s just leave this one alone.
About electing a DIPSHIT president that is why I am voting for Obama instead of McCain:)
You got me, Obama is looking more and more like them.
I agree with everything you are saying in the end except Dems being half their intellect.
The Republican agenda says let�??s treat Corporate America better than we treat people because if we do that Corporate America will heap their blessing on the masses. When in actuality Corporate America is exploiting people�??s good work ethics with no intention helping anything except their profits. And the average Republican thinks this is just fine
Common misconception. Instead of just taking this at face value let’s explore this a bit.
First, Repulicans are in the hip pocket of corporate america. Someone needs to explain to me what this means. Who is corporate America? Are they in the hip pocket of hard working americans that work for a corporation? Are they in the hip pocket of middle management? Are they in the hip pocket of the executives? How so?
Are they in hip pocket of the owners of the corporations? How many americans have stocks or a 401k? These are your owners. We want them in the hip pocket of corporate america. That means they are in our hip pockets. That is of course if you work for corporation, have stocks, have a 401k, or build houses for or sell services or products to any of the above.
Who is for higher minimum wages, unfair union practices (your lucky, carpenters union actually provides some value), increased capital gains taxes, and massive regulation?
The lines are a bit blurred these days but most would say Democrats. This is fantastic for large corporations. It absolutely kill the little guy that owns the small business and thus eliminates competition for the large corporations.
Minimum Wage Increase - Tells people that are worth less than the new minimum wage that they can’t offer their services or can’t work. It also deprives society of the services that could have been provided.
Who do you think will fair better, Walmart that has millions of products that they can raise by 1 cent or the small business struggling on very tight margins? How about the big company with millions of employees that can cut a few or the small business who may lose half their work force if they have to cut one?
Unfair Union Practices - Big companies that hire hundreds, thousands, or millions have much more negotiating power. How about the small shop that has a few employees? Do they have much bargaining power against a union that already has the deck stacked?
Capital Gains Tax - Again, who can absorb this better Walmart or the little guy. Hell, this is why we are losing jobs to other contries. What if we had no corporate income tax? Companies would come here and forein companies would have little advantage over domestics.
Massive Regulation - Walmart has teams of people to deal with this. How about the small shop?
I think the Democrats agenda is reward people that do not want to work, that does not sit well with me either, but it does not matter what kind of government we have. We are going to have lazy people, and some one will have to take care of them.
What happened to them before the 60s? They weren’t dying in the streets before welfare. There were huge private organizations that would help the misfortunate. Communities and neighbors used to help each other.
No one asked of his neighbor what he could work for himself. What more embarassing, asking your neighbor for charity or going down to some gov’t office to talk to someone who’s job is to hand out money. If you reward bad behaivior what do think will happen?
You should read the books that Charles Murray has written. The Bell Curve, In our Hands, and What it Means to be a Libertarian. Something like that. Very easy reads and chalk full of common sense.
I think it is time to swing things back a little towards favoring people over corporate profits. We give big corporations tax breaks and they move their operations over seas where they can exploit some one at a cheaper rate
corporate taxes increase the cost of goods, lower income of workers, and encourage companies to move overseas.
Jobs that can be done cheaper overseas are better off over there. Goods that can be purchased cheaper overseas should be.
Should we protect one industry or job at the expense of every consumer in the country. Should we all pay more for cars to save the job of an autoworker? The answer is no. The county is better off buying the products of best value regardless of where the come from.
What’s going to be better in the long run for me. Quit my job and build my own house or hire you? I can make more at something I’m more effecient at, hire you to build my house, and have money left over to buy other things I need. It’s called division of labor and it works no different accross borders.
The inefficient auto worker will be redeployed at something that provides more value. It has always worked this way and always will. If not we would still have carriage builders out of work because people are driving cars.
I do, however, support the extension of unemployment insurance. We need to provide for our resourses while they are redeployed.
[/quote]
Ok I will give you this one; I have never cut a steak with a spoon. If I were in your predicament, I would use my fingers 
The corporate angle is covered in the Corporate /personhood thread. But when I am speaking of the Republicans being in the Hip pocket of Corporate America, I am speaking mostly of the CEO and presidents major share holders . Retirement accounts are in there in the forms of 403b and 401k but I doubt they are out lobbying to benefit there investment.
That thread on Corporate Personhood has it right by it is the job of the CEO and top echelon of management to do what ever it takes to make a profit for share holder , that is their job. What I am saying is the Insurance and Banking industries are into our Government big time and it is not necessarily the best thing for you and me
Minimum wage is a joke. What we need is a livable wage. Granted the CEO of the companies may have to take home less than their 7, 8 or 9 figured salaries but these companies know how to depress wages. When I grew up all Mothers stayed home with their kids.
AS I grew older end of the 60�??s they started going to work, creating more competition for the jobs. Now we have a booming illegal workforce that is farther beating down wages. Wages should be no lower than required to live in a certain area
I think Wal-Mart is the Antichrist. But I have seen a town in South Dakota that had no Wal-Mart, when I would visit and had to Grocery shop would cringe, $5 for 5 oz. of blue berries.
Unions out lived their usefulness. If I were starting a Union I would go after these companies that pay Minimum wage and screw their employees ever chance they can. Problem now you have no Organized crime to give a union any weight
When you speak of the Auto industry it reminds me of the steel industry. In the Reagan Admin. When Ronald opened the door to steel imports the Steel industry went to hell, putting hundreds of thousands of high paid workers out of work no one came in and trained these displaced workers for a new career, which they promised.
If you go to some place like Youngstown Ohio you will see what I mean. High unemployment drug problems because people have no hope one of the toughest cities in America.
[quote]hedo wrote:
15 of 18 Congressional Benchmarks reached. Al-Queda in Iraq history. Sounds like McCain showed the right judgement. Obama. Ried and Pelosi…not so much.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/01/AR2008070102860.html[/quote]
Kindly post the GAO report.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
hedo wrote:
15 of 18 Congressional Benchmarks reached. Al-Queda in Iraq history. Sounds like McCain showed the right judgement. Obama. Ried and Pelosi…not so much.
Just goes to show you what our boys in uniform can do with a decent plan.[/quote]
Everything but provide political reconciliation, the goal of the surge. But I guess it helps to think of things in more of a preschool kind of way…where the surge was only meant to provide additional security with the result that they then stay in Iraq for the next 100 years.
In the real world the surge was a means for the troops to come home, by providing the space needed for political reconciliation, That obviously hasn’t happened, thus wingnuts and liars have to dramatically simplify the surge into just security gains, and oddly cheering the results of reducing violence down to the previous horrible levels of violence as opposed to the hellishly god-awful levels of violence pre-surge.
By focusing on “just security gains” wingnuts, freepers, and liars can then ignore the strain on the military, the distraction from Afghanistan, and lack of political reconciliation all predicted by the surge nay sayers.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Everything but provide political reconciliation, the goal of the surge. But I guess it helps to think of things in more of a preschool kind of way…where the surge was only meant to provide additional security with the result that they then stay in Iraq for the next 100 years.
In the real world the surge was a means for the troops to come home, by providing the space needed for political reconciliation, That obviously hasn’t happened, thus wingnuts and liars have to dramatically simplify the surge into just security gains, and oddly cheering the results of reducing violence down to the previous horrible levels of violence as opposed to the hellishly god-awful levels of violence pre-surge.
By focusing on “just security gains” wingnuts, freepers, and liars can then ignore the strain on the military, the distraction from Afghanistan, and lack of political reconciliation all predicted by the surge nay sayers.[/quote]
Congrats. Another post with no useful information or any semblance of reason. Not even worth reading. i have leaned my lesson with you. Happy trails.
[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
15 of 18 Congressional Benchmarks reached. Al-Queda in Iraq history. Sounds like McCain showed the right judgement. Obama. Ried and Pelosi…not so much.
Kindly post the GAO report.
[/quote]
What is the date of the GAO report? This report, done by the US Embassy in IRAQ, was just presented to congress. No doubt Obama missed it, couldn’t even vote “present” on that one.
Do you think Al-Queda in Iraq is winning? Do you support AQ in Iraq for the obvious political reasons?
[quote]dhickey wrote:
100meters wrote:
Everything but provide political reconciliation, the goal of the surge. But I guess it helps to think of things in more of a preschool kind of way…where the surge was only meant to provide additional security with the result that they then stay in Iraq for the next 100 years.
In the real world the surge was a means for the troops to come home, by providing the space needed for political reconciliation, That obviously hasn’t happened, thus wingnuts and liars have to dramatically simplify the surge into just security gains, and oddly cheering the results of reducing violence down to the previous horrible levels of violence as opposed to the hellishly god-awful levels of violence pre-surge.
By focusing on “just security gains” wingnuts, freepers, and liars can then ignore the strain on the military, the distraction from Afghanistan, and lack of political reconciliation all predicted by the surge nay sayers.
Congrats. Another post with no useful information or any semblance of reason. Not even worth reading. i have leaned my lesson with you. Happy trails.[/quote]
Happy trails - I love it. Hey, this guy 100 meters never ceases to amaze me with his ignorance - he delivers every single time like Alan Colmes.
You really are wasting your time with him though - he’s an idiot. His parents were probably idiots.
I’m going to vote for Obama. The primary problem this country faces right now is the economy. Privitization does not solve all the world’s problems. McCain has admitted he knows little about economics and those who he has surrounded himself with “Dr. Phil” included are less than impressive.
In terms of foreign policy, I think McCain is far too hawkish. Iran is a major problem that needs to be dealt with, not ignored while hurling insults. It cannot be solved by war. Trying to “stop Iran’s influence in Iraq” is like trying to stop Canadian influence in America…It isn’t going to happen, their ties are too close. Despite the many problems that we have with Iran, there are common interests shared between our nations, these interests need to be exploited.
I’m glad McCain won on the right. He was the best they had to offer. Obama however is the better man to vote for.
The surge has not “failed” nor has it “succeeded.” It was meant to provide security in order for the Iraqi govt to step up to the plate and make some serious political compromises. Additional security has been achieved at great cost, but no significant compromises have been made.