Lol this is like lefties pointing at the sharp drop in government spending under Obama after the stimulus. It’s true, but laughable. You know federal employment dropped under Obama as well right?
[/quote]
Actually no it didn’t. It dropped a little over the last 6 months or so but is actually up 11.4% since 2008. The drop was 1.8%. You really fall for that nonsense?
Yes, Bush was a big spender. No, he was not anywhere near as big a spender as Obama. And no, Reagan was not a big spender and only an economic illiterate would suggest he was.
I showed that he cut the entire budget, not counting defence by 9.7% in his first term.
Neither Bush I nor II were conservatives. And Bush II’s spending was nothing on Obama.
I don’t love big government. That’s why I say Bush II was not a conservative. I don’t distort the facts like Obama drones and I don’t like establishment Republicans.
[quote]
But yes, Reagan cut some small pieces of the federal government pie while adding many more. That’s sorta like being “up” 250 at the casino before blowing 500. Great and all, but at the end of the day you’re down big time. [/quote]
Yes, you like that phrase yet you have not yet proven that they are talking points. And even if they are you have not proven the points wrong. So you can continue to say they are merely talking points but all that says to me is that you have no answer for those points regardless of what they are.
He also had an off the charts thriving economy. Where is the Obama economy again? Oh yeah…in the toilet along with his other leftist ideas.
Until YOU actually understand that all debt is not bad and when the economy grows by 20 million private sector jobs while the debt increases by a couple of billion that’s not a bad thing. Now what happened with Obama? He raised the debt more than from Washington to Reagan (I know you like that one:) and what do we have for jobs? Z I P !
And raised it far higher than any President in the history of the country and did it in only four years! WOW WHAT A GREAT JOB! LOL
Another Obama apologist…now who would have figured the great libertarian would be making up excuses for the great spender? But YOU ARE!
Yeah…according to you it’s also too early to assess his first failed term. Will it be okay to talk about him in four more years or won’t you like that either?
I can sum it up in two words for you: Obama sucks.
But to be fair he did do three things right. He killed Bin Laden and he extended the Bush tax cuts once(even though he promised to end them). And he left Gitmo open even though he promised to close it.
Other than that he’s the second worst modern day President. Only LBJ surpasses him on the lousy Presidents list. And it’s not too early to say that. Sure he might have an incredibly second term and pull himself out. But so far…he sucks.
In 1984 the unemployment rate was 7.2% ready to crack into the 6’s. Right now we are at 7.9% once again poised to rise back up to 8%. Quite a big difference.
I am merely commenting on how bad he is. And you are simply defending him like a leftist who can’t wait for Obama to do something right. Odd for a libertarian…quite odd.
Reagan did a good job his first term. He lowered unemployment, lowered inflation, lowered interest rates. And also many foreign policy success stories. Compare that to the pile of shit that Obama has created both economically and abroad.
Now tell me again about how our Abassador and three others died because of an anti-Muslim film? Oh yeah, that didn’t happen after all it was just that Obama and ever single one of his henchman said that it happened. Oh well…it doesn’t matter does it? The press will cover for him. And “libertarians” like you will defend him.
Wanna talk about “talking points”? UH HUH.
[quote]Obama grew the the debt more than from George Washington to Ronald Reagan.
And since you want to make a comparison Reagan was handed a lousy economy by Jimmy Carter. Interest rates were something like 17%, unemployment 8%.
Funny thing about Reagan though he never mentioned Carter after he was elected. Never blamed him or anyone else. He just went to work for the American people and created 20 million new private sector jobs.
Obama doesn’t deserved to be mentioned in the same sentence with Ronald Reagan–Oops I just did it.
Your just Republican talking points.[/quote]
Talking points that you cannot refute. So I can understand why you wouldn’t want to hear them. Which one again isn’t factual?
Uh huh.
I was never proven wrong by you on anything–keep dreaming. Everyone (except you apparantly) knows that debt in and of itself is not the measure of a weak or strong economy. One more time when you create 20 million private sector jobs and the debat is a couple of billion that is not big deal. But, when you don’t creat one single private sector job as your hero Obama has done…AND you raise the debt more than any other President from Washington to Reagan (that one was just for you:) you are horrible President. And don’t forget in the mean time he had both houses of congress democrat and could have done anything that he wanted. AND he passes the worst bill in the history of Washington. A take over of health care 1/6th of the economy. Now I would think that a libertarain like yourseld would be upset over that. But, for some reason that doesn’t bother you in the least. Quite odd. I guess your brand of libertarianism thinks that obamacare is a wonderful idea.
And let’s not forget all the giveaways to his pals at Solendra and other companies that went belly up and ran off with the tax payers money. Does that bother you as a “libertarian” Seems like it should.
And the bail out of GM? Did you like that move mister libertarian?
Oh my I could go on and on. Seesm you should be railing against Obama but instead you chose to pick on one of the most conservative Presidents that we’ve ever had. And one of the most successful modern day Presidents as well.
That’s an odd style of libertarianism that you espouse. Quite odd.
I explained this to you on a prior thread but sometimes I think you rant and rave yourself through a post without really reading it. If an economy is expanding as it was under Reagan (20 million new jobs) and was even under Bush II (4 million private sector jobs) The debt is not as big an issue. But, even so I did post about the debt growing when Bush was President. I guess you better go back and read more of my posts.
I wonder what compells you to make such ridiculous claims regarding my posts if you have not read them all?
And I’m used to you not understand the basic fundamentals of your own government. One does not have to cut defense, or meidicare in order to cut the size of government. You do know that right? There is a vast number of departments and gov employee’s that could be cut.
To you maybe because you are apparently clueless as to how this government works. In shape scope and size. CLUELESS.
You are the Obama fan boy on this thread. You are a libertarian who thinks it’s okay to grow the debt create zero jobs and have one of our Ambassador’s raped murdered and dragged through the streets by animals. You are a walking contradiction. What’s wrong can’t get enough of Obama? Well…you get your wish he has 4 more years to show you how great he is. We can’t judge him yet you say give him four more years then judge him. Yeah… you sound like a libertarian. Seriously I don’t know of any libertarians that think the way you do. The ones I know are furious with obama. But you…not so much. You like his wild spending and his failed foreign policy.
As for me if there is going to be higher debt there better be a thriving economy. Reagan had one and at least GW Bush created 4 million new private sector jobs while growing the debt. Did he do things wrong sure did and I noted them in my many posts (you have to read more). What do you think of Obama growing the debt 5 trillion and not one single private sector job? He took office when the unemployment rate was 7.9% and currently it is 7.9%. If you count those who left the work force and gave up looking for jobs it would be about 14%. But no problem as a libertarian I am sure you like the idea that we are paying for them with extended unemployment, welfare, food stamps and an alphabet soup full of government programs.
One has to look at the economy as a whole. As a libertarian I’m sure you realize this. The first four years of Obama has been an unmitigated disaster.
As Presidents…
GW Bush…Okay. Obama far worse…Reagan…a great President.
I’m sure you agree with me right?
[/quote]
If your definition of a conservative President is cutting taxes while spending highly, then I guess Reagan is one of our most conservative Presidents. Sounds very conservative to me. All your ponies at less prices guys! Bush was the same way. More handouts at a lower cost to you. And stimulus checks in the mail. THIS SHIT FUCKING ROCKS GUYS. Lowered taxes while giving us money and expanding Medicare? Hot damn conservatives do it up right! Big government at a big discount!
I also LOVE how the deficit is no big deal when the economy is doing better…but solving it right now while the economy is crap is your BIGGEST priority? So let’s get this straight. The national debt…which is SO important to you you’d create a third party to end it was no big deal under Ronald Reagan when the economy was improving, but is the NUMBER ONE concern right now? So in good times when you could build up more steam for cutting government jobs or increasing taxes because people are actually working (you do know HOW to lower the debt right Zeb) you are AGAINST caring about the debt. But when the economy’s down and people don’t have jobs and we aren’t taking in as many revenues THAT is the time it’s the number one priority?
That right there might be the most illogical thing you’ve ever said, and that’s really saying something in your case my friend.
Staying on the debt you love so much topic (although I must point out how Reagan’s 7.2 was aiming at 6 and Obama’s is aiming at 8 (weird methods you have there). Uh Reagans 7.2 was more like a 6.3 while Obama’s is looking more like an 8.5! You really don’t need to do that with numbers Zeb. Though anything to make big government look better right.
Anyhoo. Staying on the debt: Please show me how you are going to lower the national debt by NOT TOUCHING Medicare and Defense, two of the hugest pieces of the pie. You think cutting the department of education or a few other government programs is going to do it. LMAO. Again, you better be prepared to raise some serious taxes. Go ahead and show your work though please. You say you can do it, so show me how you plan to get the national debt to 0 (which you said was worth creating a third party for except when Reagan is in office when deficits don’t matter or Bush when deficits don’t matter either.
And you keep bringing up jobs. Would you support GOVERNMENT spending if it meant more jobs? After all CONSERVATIVE hero Ronald Reagan created tons of government jobs. He also created (you say) 20 million private sector jobs. You’re going Mitt Romney here though…the government doesn’t create jobs and then…I will create 12 million jobs (though I work for the government). In fact, unemployment would be closer to 7.2 percent if Obama was creating GOVERNMENT jobs at the rate Reagan was. (Weird how this is all working out for you huh?)
Moral of the story: Deficits when Presidents not named Obama are in office- No big deal. Deficits when Obama is in office: Most pressing issue ever, more important than ANYTHING else.
Second moral of the story: I haven’t brought up the ambassadors, but keep in mind what you told people while Bush was in office. Don’t question the commander in chief. Again, maybe it’s don’t question any commander in chief except Obama.
Now get your Republican pom poms out and go to work on this Zeb. Can’t wait to see how you get the debt to 0 without touching defense, medicare, or raising taxes. Or disability. Or anything else you love from the government. I may be ready to quit my job and help you run in 2016 if you do this.
Every president before Obama didn’t need to worry about the debt whether the economy was good bad or ugly. It’s his burden now. He can’t kick the can as the others did.
[/quote]
You are actually a broken record. And I’m not in the mood to repeat for probably a 5th time (if we include our other mettings) why Obama is the single worst President in modern times. Because I know you don’t want to hear it and in fact ignore it.
What I will point out is that you have many posts attacking republicans and defending Obama. Tell us how long are you going to keep masquarading as a libertarian?
I mean we get it you hate republicans for spending too much and starting wars…ho hum. But for some reason you give Obama a pass for doing even worse. Why is it more important to attack one dead President and one former President than critique the current office holder? Could it be because you support him?
-Obama created 5 trillion in debt in only his first term that’s a record… but it doesn’t bother you.
-Obama’s had many times more drone strikes than Bush…doesn’t bother you.
-Obama is on his knees begging Congress to raise taxes and in fact has already raised taxes in many different ways…doesn’t bother you.
-Obama’s unemployment figure has not gone down even one tenth of a percentage point from when he took over from GW…doesn’t bother you.
-Obama had two years with both houses democrat and could have done anything that he wanted. What did he do? He passes the most sweeping government take over with his health care bill controlling 1/6th of the economy…DOES NOT BOTHER YOU ONE BIT
Sure, I’m a republican and proud of it. And while I didn’t agree with everything GW Bush did (youd’ know that if you read all my posts) I’ve defended Bush and Reagan and I’m up front about that too. Neither were perfect but for some reason you can’t seem to agree that Obama is worse. And you’re a libertarian? LOL PULEEEZE! You are no more a libertarian than my dog. I have far more respect for people like smh who posts proudly as a lefty. You are playing some sort of sick game thinking that if you don’t admit that you’re a liberal you’ll be able to further your points.
Well…here’s a news flash for you bud–NO ONE IS BUYING IT- GAME OVER!
Now go kiss your picture of Obama goodnight and go to bed.
Lol this is like lefties pointing at the sharp drop in government spending under Obama after the stimulus. It’s true, but laughable. You know federal employment dropped under Obama as well right?
[/quote]
Actually no it didn’t. It dropped a little over the last 6 months or so but is actually up 11.4% since 2008. The drop was 1.8%. You really fall for that nonsense?
Yes, Bush was a big spender. No, he was not anywhere near as big a spender as Obama. And no, Reagan was not a big spender and only an economic illiterate would suggest he was.
I showed that he cut the entire budget, not counting defence by 9.7% in his first term.
Neither Bush I nor II were conservatives. And Bush II’s spending was nothing on Obama.
I don’t love big government. That’s why I say Bush II was not a conservative. I don’t distort the facts like Obama drones and I don’t like establishment Republicans.
[quote]
But yes, Reagan cut some small pieces of the federal government pie while adding many more. That’s sorta like being “up” 250 at the casino before blowing 500. Great and all, but at the end of the day you’re down big time. [/quote]
No he didn’t. You’re an economic illiterate.[/quote]
Why would you say Obama has grown government? If I said tell me how Obama has grown government what would you look at? 99% of people would point to the national debt. We’d say the national debt has gone up, up, up under him (just like his predecessors). You’re trying to argue that Ronald Reagan didn’t explode the size of government? Let me get some popcorn this is about to get good.
Government jobs Ronald Reagan first three years: Up 3.1 percent. Obama down 2.7 percent. You know known nutbag Paul Krugman argued it was Obama’s AUSTERITY that made things worse right? That during every other recession government jobs increased while under Obama they actually fell.
But this is getting good. It’s almost as good as watching lefties backtrack on the war on terror now that the drone strike in chief has a D by his name.
I LOVE when people say they are for limited government, but also say Reagan was their favorite. I like to respond, “oh you’re for saying you’re for limited government like Reagan did, not for actually reducing it’s size.”
(Also would you like Zeb to throw out his national debt argument now since clearly we can absolve Obama of ANY spending that has been defense related.) Everyone knows defense doesn’t add to the debt!
Also you haven’t hung around many lefty forums. They touted the drop in government spending after the stimulus as evidence that Obama was getting serious on cutting spending he just needed the stimulus to save the economy. The key part is AFTER the stimulus and it’s ludicrous coming from them. Almost as ludicrous as pointing out places Reagan made cuts while ignoring the net government increase during his term.
Government jobs Ronald Reagan first three years: Up 3.1 percent.
[/quote]
Ah, no. Down 2.2%. Your figures are bogus.
And why would they say that rather than any other president with an ‘R’ in front of his name? It’s because he did the most to reduce the size and scope of government and cut spending.
Reagan was contending with the Soviet Union and he defeated them allowing defence spending to then drop dramatically under his successors.
[quote]
…ludicrous as pointing out places Reagan made cuts while ignoring the net government increase during his term. [/quote]
For the third time, I pointed out a 9.7% decline in spending(not including defence) in his first term.
Yes, you like that phrase yet you have not yet proven that they are talking points. And even if they are you have not proven the points wrong. So you can continue to say they are merely talking points but all that says to me is that you have no answer for those points regardless of what they are.
He also had an off the charts thriving economy. Where is the Obama economy again? Oh yeah…in the toilet along with his other leftist ideas.
Until YOU actually understand that all debt is not bad and when the economy grows by 20 million private sector jobs while the debt increases by a couple of billion that’s not a bad thing. Now what happened with Obama? He raised the debt more than from Washington to Reagan (I know you like that one:) and what do we have for jobs? Z I P !
And raised it far higher than any President in the history of the country and did it in only four years! WOW WHAT A GREAT JOB! LOL
Another Obama apologist…now who would have figured the great libertarian would be making up excuses for the great spender? But YOU ARE!
Yeah…according to you it’s also too early to assess his first failed term. Will it be okay to talk about him in four more years or won’t you like that either?
I can sum it up in two words for you: Obama sucks.
But to be fair he did do three things right. He killed Bin Laden and he extended the Bush tax cuts once(even though he promised to end them). And he left Gitmo open even though he promised to close it.
Other than that he’s the second worst modern day President. Only LBJ surpasses him on the lousy Presidents list. And it’s not too early to say that. Sure he might have an incredibly second term and pull himself out. But so far…he sucks.
In 1984 the unemployment rate was 7.2% ready to crack into the 6’s. Right now we are at 7.9% once again poised to rise back up to 8%. Quite a big difference.
I am merely commenting on how bad he is. And you are simply defending him like a leftist who can’t wait for Obama to do something right. Odd for a libertarian…quite odd.
Reagan did a good job his first term. He lowered unemployment, lowered inflation, lowered interest rates. And also many foreign policy success stories. Compare that to the pile of shit that Obama has created both economically and abroad.
Now tell me again about how our Abassador and three others died because of an anti-Muslim film? Oh yeah, that didn’t happen after all it was just that Obama and ever single one of his henchman said that it happened. Oh well…it doesn’t matter does it? The press will cover for him. And “libertarians” like you will defend him.
Wanna talk about “talking points”? UH HUH.
[quote]Obama grew the the debt more than from George Washington to Ronald Reagan.
And since you want to make a comparison Reagan was handed a lousy economy by Jimmy Carter. Interest rates were something like 17%, unemployment 8%.
Funny thing about Reagan though he never mentioned Carter after he was elected. Never blamed him or anyone else. He just went to work for the American people and created 20 million new private sector jobs.
Obama doesn’t deserved to be mentioned in the same sentence with Ronald Reagan–Oops I just did it.
Your just Republican talking points.[/quote]
Talking points that you cannot refute. So I can understand why you wouldn’t want to hear them. Which one again isn’t factual?
Uh huh.
I was never proven wrong by you on anything–keep dreaming. Everyone (except you apparantly) knows that debt in and of itself is not the measure of a weak or strong economy. One more time when you create 20 million private sector jobs and the debat is a couple of billion that is not big deal. But, when you don’t creat one single private sector job as your hero Obama has done…AND you raise the debt more than any other President from Washington to Reagan (that one was just for you:) you are horrible President. And don’t forget in the mean time he had both houses of congress democrat and could have done anything that he wanted. AND he passes the worst bill in the history of Washington. A take over of health care 1/6th of the economy. Now I would think that a libertarain like yourseld would be upset over that. But, for some reason that doesn’t bother you in the least. Quite odd. I guess your brand of libertarianism thinks that obamacare is a wonderful idea.
And let’s not forget all the giveaways to his pals at Solendra and other companies that went belly up and ran off with the tax payers money. Does that bother you as a “libertarian” Seems like it should.
And the bail out of GM? Did you like that move mister libertarian?
Oh my I could go on and on. Seesm you should be railing against Obama but instead you chose to pick on one of the most conservative Presidents that we’ve ever had. And one of the most successful modern day Presidents as well.
That’s an odd style of libertarianism that you espouse. Quite odd.
I explained this to you on a prior thread but sometimes I think you rant and rave yourself through a post without really reading it. If an economy is expanding as it was under Reagan (20 million new jobs) and was even under Bush II (4 million private sector jobs) The debt is not as big an issue. But, even so I did post about the debt growing when Bush was President. I guess you better go back and read more of my posts.
I wonder what compells you to make such ridiculous claims regarding my posts if you have not read them all?
And I’m used to you not understand the basic fundamentals of your own government. One does not have to cut defense, or meidicare in order to cut the size of government. You do know that right? There is a vast number of departments and gov employee’s that could be cut.
To you maybe because you are apparently clueless as to how this government works. In shape scope and size. CLUELESS.
You are the Obama fan boy on this thread. You are a libertarian who thinks it’s okay to grow the debt create zero jobs and have one of our Ambassador’s raped murdered and dragged through the streets by animals. You are a walking contradiction. What’s wrong can’t get enough of Obama? Well…you get your wish he has 4 more years to show you how great he is. We can’t judge him yet you say give him four more years then judge him. Yeah… you sound like a libertarian. Seriously I don’t know of any libertarians that think the way you do. The ones I know are furious with obama. But you…not so much. You like his wild spending and his failed foreign policy.
As for me if there is going to be higher debt there better be a thriving economy. Reagan had one and at least GW Bush created 4 million new private sector jobs while growing the debt. Did he do things wrong sure did and I noted them in my many posts (you have to read more). What do you think of Obama growing the debt 5 trillion and not one single private sector job? He took office when the unemployment rate was 7.9% and currently it is 7.9%. If you count those who left the work force and gave up looking for jobs it would be about 14%. But no problem as a libertarian I am sure you like the idea that we are paying for them with extended unemployment, welfare, food stamps and an alphabet soup full of government programs.
One has to look at the economy as a whole. As a libertarian I’m sure you realize this. The first four years of Obama has been an unmitigated disaster.
As Presidents…
GW Bush…Okay. Obama far worse…Reagan…a great President.
I’m sure you agree with me right?
[/quote]
If your definition of a conservative President is cutting taxes while spending highly, then I guess Reagan is one of our most conservative Presidents. Sounds very conservative to me. All your ponies at less prices guys! Bush was the same way. More handouts at a lower cost to you. And stimulus checks in the mail. THIS SHIT FUCKING ROCKS GUYS. Lowered taxes while giving us money and expanding Medicare? Hot damn conservatives do it up right! Big government at a big discount!
I also LOVE how the deficit is no big deal when the economy is doing better…but solving it right now while the economy is crap is your BIGGEST priority? So let’s get this straight. The national debt…which is SO important to you you’d create a third party to end it was no big deal under Ronald Reagan when the economy was improving, but is the NUMBER ONE concern right now? So in good times when you could build up more steam for cutting government jobs or increasing taxes because people are actually working (you do know HOW to lower the debt right Zeb) you are AGAINST caring about the debt. But when the economy’s down and people don’t have jobs and we aren’t taking in as many revenues THAT is the time it’s the number one priority?
That right there might be the most illogical thing you’ve ever said, and that’s really saying something in your case my friend.
Staying on the debt you love so much topic (although I must point out how Reagan’s 7.2 was aiming at 6 and Obama’s is aiming at 8 (weird methods you have there). Uh Reagans 7.2 was more like a 6.3 while Obama’s is looking more like an 8.5! You really don’t need to do that with numbers Zeb. Though anything to make big government look better right.
Anyhoo. Staying on the debt: Please show me how you are going to lower the national debt by NOT TOUCHING Medicare and Defense, two of the hugest pieces of the pie. You think cutting the department of education or a few other government programs is going to do it. LMAO. Again, you better be prepared to raise some serious taxes. Go ahead and show your work though please. You say you can do it, so show me how you plan to get the national debt to 0 (which you said was worth creating a third party for except when Reagan is in office when deficits don’t matter or Bush when deficits don’t matter either.
And you keep bringing up jobs. Would you support GOVERNMENT spending if it meant more jobs? After all CONSERVATIVE hero Ronald Reagan created tons of government jobs. He also created (you say) 20 million private sector jobs. You’re going Mitt Romney here though…the government doesn’t create jobs and then…I will create 12 million jobs (though I work for the government). In fact, unemployment would be closer to 7.2 percent if Obama was creating GOVERNMENT jobs at the rate Reagan was. (Weird how this is all working out for you huh?)
Moral of the story: Deficits when Presidents not named Obama are in office- No big deal. Deficits when Obama is in office: Most pressing issue ever, more important than ANYTHING else.
Second moral of the story: I haven’t brought up the ambassadors, but keep in mind what you told people while Bush was in office. Don’t question the commander in chief. Again, maybe it’s don’t question any commander in chief except Obama.
Now get your Republican pom poms out and go to work on this Zeb. Can’t wait to see how you get the debt to 0 without touching defense, medicare, or raising taxes. Or disability. Or anything else you love from the government. I may be ready to quit my job and help you run in 2016 if you do this.
Every president before Obama didn’t need to worry about the debt whether the economy was good bad or ugly. It’s his burden now. He can’t kick the can as the others did.
[/quote]
You are actually a broken record. And I’m not in the mood to repeat for probably a 5th time (if we include our other mettings) why Obama is the single worst President in modern times. Because I know you don’t want to hear it and in fact ignore it.
What I will point out is that you have many posts attacking republicans and defending Obama. Tell us how long are you going to keep masquarading as a libertarian?
I mean we get it you hate republicans for spending too much and starting wars…ho hum. But for some reason you give Obama a pass for doing even worse. Why is it more important to attack one dead President and one former President than critique the current office holder? Could it be because you support him?
-Obama created 5 trillion in debt in only his first term that’s a record… but it doesn’t bother you.
-Obama’s had many times more drone strikes than Bush…doesn’t bother you.
-Obama is on his knees begging Congress to raise taxes and in fact has already raised taxes in many different ways…doesn’t bother you.
-Obama’s unemployment figure has not gone down even one tenth of a percentage point from when he took over from GW…doesn’t bother you.
-Obama had two years with both houses democrat and could have done anything that he wanted. What did he do? He passes the most sweeping government take over with his health care bill controlling 1/6th of the economy…DOES NOT BOTHER YOU ONE BIT
Sure, I’m a republican and proud of it. And while I didn’t agree with everything GW Bush did (youd’ know that if you read all my posts) I’ve defended Bush and Reagan and I’m up front about that too. Neither were perfect but for some reason you can’t seem to agree that Obama is worse. And you’re a libertarian? LOL PULEEEZE! You are no more a libertarian than my dog. I have far more respect for people like smh who posts proudly as a lefty. You are playing some sort of sick game thinking that if you don’t admit that you’re a liberal you’ll be able to further your points.
Well…here’s a news flash for you bud–NO ONE IS BUYING IT- GAME OVER!
Now go kiss your picture of Obama goodnight and go to bed.
[/quote]
Most of what you said bothers me greatly. But you are a far right Republican. Showing you that Obama is JUST like the guys YOU like is the only way to try and open YOUR eyes. I tried showing you with your OWN words. You ignored it. The similarities between the last two Presidents have been amazing. And yet ONE of these two you defended for close to 6 years on this board over and over. You claim he did stuff you didn’t like, but you’re words on here don’t reflect that.
It’s NOT more important to critique those two than Obama. What is important is pointing out to YOU that you have been wildly inconsistent in your expectations of a President. THIS one bothers you, but those two didn’t. All I’ve asked is why. The debt bothers you now, but didn’t in 03-08 under Bush. All I’ve asked is why. The party YOU cheer for claims to be for small government, and they have not been anything of the sort. And yet THAT doesn’t bother you. It bothers you that this President has been big government.
If Mitt Romney was in office and presided the next 4 years EXACTLY as Barack Obama will you would likely defend him on this very board from anyone who was critical of him. Again, that is based on your history of other Republican presidents. But change that letter to a D and you will attack away.
THAT is what I’m trying to change in you Zeb. THAT is what I view as the problem. You don’t think that is a problem and I think it is a huge problem. I think inconsistency in arguments KEEPS us from having limited government and keeps us in a two party bind where both parties have way more in common than different.
Government jobs Ronald Reagan first three years: Up 3.1 percent.
[/quote]
Ah, no. Down 2.2%. Your figures are bogus.
And why would they say that rather than any other president with an ‘R’ in front of his name? It’s because he did the most to reduce the size and scope of government and cut spending.
Reagan was contending with the Soviet Union and he defeated them allowing defence spending to then drop dramatically under his successors.
[quote]
…ludicrous as pointing out places Reagan made cuts while ignoring the net government increase during his term. [/quote]
For the third time, I pointed out a 9.7% decline in spending(not including defence) in his first term.[/quote]
So Reagan had the Soviets? That seems like a copout. Obama had Iraq, Afghanistan, War on Terror, and a much higher starting debt. Shocking, both sides can apologize for big government. Which is why it always gets kicked down the road. What was the decrease in spending for his 8 years? I’m genuinely curious, but not really. Why is defense spending always good? Why are we against spending here at home, but for spending abroad. Why do we talk of the fraud in welfare, but ignore the fraud in defense? Wasted taxpayer dollars are wasted taxpayer dollars. If the Pentagon wastes money instead of the Department of Education why are you ok with it?
There is nothing in that article about government jobs increasing by 3.1% in Reagan’s first three years as you claimed. I asked you for your source on that claim.
Bush II had the wars as well yet he didn’t spend anything like Obama. Reagan also had Carter’s recession and debt.
What “side?” I already told you I don’t like Bush II and establishment Republicans. You think I just picked Reagan out of a hat? I like Reagan because of what he accomplished not because he had an ‘R’ in front of his name.
[quote]
Which is why it always gets kicked down the road. What was the decrease in spending for his 8 years? I’m genuinely curious, but not really. Why is defense spending always good? Why are we against spending here at home, but for spending abroad. Why do we talk of the fraud in welfare, but ignore the fraud in defense? Wasted taxpayer dollars are wasted taxpayer dollars. If the Pentagon wastes money instead of the Department of Education why are you ok with it? [/quote]
Who said I am? I merely said defence spending under Reagan was necessary. It’s not a “fraud,” it was a legitimate expenditure to protect the country from the Soviet Union.
There is nothing in that article about government jobs increasing by 3.1% in Reagan’s first three years as you claimed. I asked you for your source on that claim.
Bush II had the wars as well yet he didn’t spend anything like Obama. Reagan also had Carter’s recession and debt.
What “side?” I already told you I don’t like Bush II and establishment Republicans. You think I just picked Reagan out of a hat? I like Reagan because of what he accomplished not because he had an ‘R’ in front of his name.
[quote]
Which is why it always gets kicked down the road. What was the decrease in spending for his 8 years? I’m genuinely curious, but not really. Why is defense spending always good? Why are we against spending here at home, but for spending abroad. Why do we talk of the fraud in welfare, but ignore the fraud in defense? Wasted taxpayer dollars are wasted taxpayer dollars. If the Pentagon wastes money instead of the Department of Education why are you ok with it? [/quote]
Who said I am? I merely said defence spending under Reagan was necessary. It’s not a “fraud,” it was a legitimate expenditure to protect the country from the Soviet Union.[/quote]
Wrong linky, that was from answering on a different forum. Ironically it was ALSO the new york times and that blowhard Paul Krugman. It’s in other places as well though:
Anyways, moving on from whose numbers are right on that point since apparently this may be up for debate…
Bush II had the wars as well…are you kidding me? HE STARTED the wars? While cutting taxes. Comparing this to Obama who inherited the wars is laughable. The fact is Barack Obama was handed a god damn mess. He was handed a sickening recession and housing crisis, two of the longest most expensive wars ever, and the biggest national debt interest rate ever (and largest debt ever). Has he done well? I would say no. The first thing I would have done is ended BOTH wars, not bailed out anyone else, cut taxes more than he did, focused on cutting regulations, etc. He didn’t do that, and for that I don’t think he had a good first term nor do I have hope for his second. Saying LOOK AT HIS DEBT while ignoring what he got on his plate is laughable. Especially when you use it as a defense for Reagan.
Yes, you like that phrase yet you have not yet proven that they are talking points. And even if they are you have not proven the points wrong. So you can continue to say they are merely talking points but all that says to me is that you have no answer for those points regardless of what they are.
He also had an off the charts thriving economy. Where is the Obama economy again? Oh yeah…in the toilet along with his other leftist ideas.
Until YOU actually understand that all debt is not bad and when the economy grows by 20 million private sector jobs while the debt increases by a couple of billion that’s not a bad thing. Now what happened with Obama? He raised the debt more than from Washington to Reagan (I know you like that one:) and what do we have for jobs? Z I P !
And raised it far higher than any President in the history of the country and did it in only four years! WOW WHAT A GREAT JOB! LOL
Another Obama apologist…now who would have figured the great libertarian would be making up excuses for the great spender? But YOU ARE!
Yeah…according to you it’s also too early to assess his first failed term. Will it be okay to talk about him in four more years or won’t you like that either?
I can sum it up in two words for you: Obama sucks.
But to be fair he did do three things right. He killed Bin Laden and he extended the Bush tax cuts once(even though he promised to end them). And he left Gitmo open even though he promised to close it.
Other than that he’s the second worst modern day President. Only LBJ surpasses him on the lousy Presidents list. And it’s not too early to say that. Sure he might have an incredibly second term and pull himself out. But so far…he sucks.
In 1984 the unemployment rate was 7.2% ready to crack into the 6’s. Right now we are at 7.9% once again poised to rise back up to 8%. Quite a big difference.
I am merely commenting on how bad he is. And you are simply defending him like a leftist who can’t wait for Obama to do something right. Odd for a libertarian…quite odd.
Reagan did a good job his first term. He lowered unemployment, lowered inflation, lowered interest rates. And also many foreign policy success stories. Compare that to the pile of shit that Obama has created both economically and abroad.
Now tell me again about how our Abassador and three others died because of an anti-Muslim film? Oh yeah, that didn’t happen after all it was just that Obama and ever single one of his henchman said that it happened. Oh well…it doesn’t matter does it? The press will cover for him. And “libertarians” like you will defend him.
Wanna talk about “talking points”? UH HUH.
[quote]Obama grew the the debt more than from George Washington to Ronald Reagan.
And since you want to make a comparison Reagan was handed a lousy economy by Jimmy Carter. Interest rates were something like 17%, unemployment 8%.
Funny thing about Reagan though he never mentioned Carter after he was elected. Never blamed him or anyone else. He just went to work for the American people and created 20 million new private sector jobs.
Obama doesn’t deserved to be mentioned in the same sentence with Ronald Reagan–Oops I just did it.
Your just Republican talking points.[/quote]
Talking points that you cannot refute. So I can understand why you wouldn’t want to hear them. Which one again isn’t factual?
Uh huh.
I was never proven wrong by you on anything–keep dreaming. Everyone (except you apparantly) knows that debt in and of itself is not the measure of a weak or strong economy. One more time when you create 20 million private sector jobs and the debat is a couple of billion that is not big deal. But, when you don’t creat one single private sector job as your hero Obama has done…AND you raise the debt more than any other President from Washington to Reagan (that one was just for you:) you are horrible President. And don’t forget in the mean time he had both houses of congress democrat and could have done anything that he wanted. AND he passes the worst bill in the history of Washington. A take over of health care 1/6th of the economy. Now I would think that a libertarain like yourseld would be upset over that. But, for some reason that doesn’t bother you in the least. Quite odd. I guess your brand of libertarianism thinks that obamacare is a wonderful idea.
And let’s not forget all the giveaways to his pals at Solendra and other companies that went belly up and ran off with the tax payers money. Does that bother you as a “libertarian” Seems like it should.
And the bail out of GM? Did you like that move mister libertarian?
Oh my I could go on and on. Seesm you should be railing against Obama but instead you chose to pick on one of the most conservative Presidents that we’ve ever had. And one of the most successful modern day Presidents as well.
That’s an odd style of libertarianism that you espouse. Quite odd.
I explained this to you on a prior thread but sometimes I think you rant and rave yourself through a post without really reading it. If an economy is expanding as it was under Reagan (20 million new jobs) and was even under Bush II (4 million private sector jobs) The debt is not as big an issue. But, even so I did post about the debt growing when Bush was President. I guess you better go back and read more of my posts.
I wonder what compells you to make such ridiculous claims regarding my posts if you have not read them all?
And I’m used to you not understand the basic fundamentals of your own government. One does not have to cut defense, or meidicare in order to cut the size of government. You do know that right? There is a vast number of departments and gov employee’s that could be cut.
To you maybe because you are apparently clueless as to how this government works. In shape scope and size. CLUELESS.
You are the Obama fan boy on this thread. You are a libertarian who thinks it’s okay to grow the debt create zero jobs and have one of our Ambassador’s raped murdered and dragged through the streets by animals. You are a walking contradiction. What’s wrong can’t get enough of Obama? Well…you get your wish he has 4 more years to show you how great he is. We can’t judge him yet you say give him four more years then judge him. Yeah… you sound like a libertarian. Seriously I don’t know of any libertarians that think the way you do. The ones I know are furious with obama. But you…not so much. You like his wild spending and his failed foreign policy.
As for me if there is going to be higher debt there better be a thriving economy. Reagan had one and at least GW Bush created 4 million new private sector jobs while growing the debt. Did he do things wrong sure did and I noted them in my many posts (you have to read more). What do you think of Obama growing the debt 5 trillion and not one single private sector job? He took office when the unemployment rate was 7.9% and currently it is 7.9%. If you count those who left the work force and gave up looking for jobs it would be about 14%. But no problem as a libertarian I am sure you like the idea that we are paying for them with extended unemployment, welfare, food stamps and an alphabet soup full of government programs.
One has to look at the economy as a whole. As a libertarian I’m sure you realize this. The first four years of Obama has been an unmitigated disaster.
As Presidents…
GW Bush…Okay. Obama far worse…Reagan…a great President.
I’m sure you agree with me right?
[/quote]
If your definition of a conservative President is cutting taxes while spending highly, then I guess Reagan is one of our most conservative Presidents. Sounds very conservative to me. All your ponies at less prices guys! Bush was the same way. More handouts at a lower cost to you. And stimulus checks in the mail. THIS SHIT FUCKING ROCKS GUYS. Lowered taxes while giving us money and expanding Medicare? Hot damn conservatives do it up right! Big government at a big discount!
I also LOVE how the deficit is no big deal when the economy is doing better…but solving it right now while the economy is crap is your BIGGEST priority? So let’s get this straight. The national debt…which is SO important to you you’d create a third party to end it was no big deal under Ronald Reagan when the economy was improving, but is the NUMBER ONE concern right now? So in good times when you could build up more steam for cutting government jobs or increasing taxes because people are actually working (you do know HOW to lower the debt right Zeb) you are AGAINST caring about the debt. But when the economy’s down and people don’t have jobs and we aren’t taking in as many revenues THAT is the time it’s the number one priority?
That right there might be the most illogical thing you’ve ever said, and that’s really saying something in your case my friend.
Staying on the debt you love so much topic (although I must point out how Reagan’s 7.2 was aiming at 6 and Obama’s is aiming at 8 (weird methods you have there). Uh Reagans 7.2 was more like a 6.3 while Obama’s is looking more like an 8.5! You really don’t need to do that with numbers Zeb. Though anything to make big government look better right.
Anyhoo. Staying on the debt: Please show me how you are going to lower the national debt by NOT TOUCHING Medicare and Defense, two of the hugest pieces of the pie. You think cutting the department of education or a few other government programs is going to do it. LMAO. Again, you better be prepared to raise some serious taxes. Go ahead and show your work though please. You say you can do it, so show me how you plan to get the national debt to 0 (which you said was worth creating a third party for except when Reagan is in office when deficits don’t matter or Bush when deficits don’t matter either.
And you keep bringing up jobs. Would you support GOVERNMENT spending if it meant more jobs? After all CONSERVATIVE hero Ronald Reagan created tons of government jobs. He also created (you say) 20 million private sector jobs. You’re going Mitt Romney here though…the government doesn’t create jobs and then…I will create 12 million jobs (though I work for the government). In fact, unemployment would be closer to 7.2 percent if Obama was creating GOVERNMENT jobs at the rate Reagan was. (Weird how this is all working out for you huh?)
Moral of the story: Deficits when Presidents not named Obama are in office- No big deal. Deficits when Obama is in office: Most pressing issue ever, more important than ANYTHING else.
Second moral of the story: I haven’t brought up the ambassadors, but keep in mind what you told people while Bush was in office. Don’t question the commander in chief. Again, maybe it’s don’t question any commander in chief except Obama.
Now get your Republican pom poms out and go to work on this Zeb. Can’t wait to see how you get the debt to 0 without touching defense, medicare, or raising taxes. Or disability. Or anything else you love from the government. I may be ready to quit my job and help you run in 2016 if you do this.
Every president before Obama didn’t need to worry about the debt whether the economy was good bad or ugly. It’s his burden now. He can’t kick the can as the others did.
[/quote]
You are actually a broken record. And I’m not in the mood to repeat for probably a 5th time (if we include our other mettings) why Obama is the single worst President in modern times. Because I know you don’t want to hear it and in fact ignore it.
What I will point out is that you have many posts attacking republicans and defending Obama. Tell us how long are you going to keep masquarading as a libertarian?
I mean we get it you hate republicans for spending too much and starting wars…ho hum. But for some reason you give Obama a pass for doing even worse. Why is it more important to attack one dead President and one former President than critique the current office holder? Could it be because you support him?
-Obama created 5 trillion in debt in only his first term that’s a record… but it doesn’t bother you.
-Obama’s had many times more drone strikes than Bush…doesn’t bother you.
-Obama is on his knees begging Congress to raise taxes and in fact has already raised taxes in many different ways…doesn’t bother you.
-Obama’s unemployment figure has not gone down even one tenth of a percentage point from when he took over from GW…doesn’t bother you.
-Obama had two years with both houses democrat and could have done anything that he wanted. What did he do? He passes the most sweeping government take over with his health care bill controlling 1/6th of the economy…DOES NOT BOTHER YOU ONE BIT
Sure, I’m a republican and proud of it. And while I didn’t agree with everything GW Bush did (youd’ know that if you read all my posts) I’ve defended Bush and Reagan and I’m up front about that too. Neither were perfect but for some reason you can’t seem to agree that Obama is worse. And you’re a libertarian? LOL PULEEEZE! You are no more a libertarian than my dog. I have far more respect for people like smh who posts proudly as a lefty. You are playing some sort of sick game thinking that if you don’t admit that you’re a liberal you’ll be able to further your points.
Well…here’s a news flash for you bud–NO ONE IS BUYING IT- GAME OVER!
Now go kiss your picture of Obama goodnight and go to bed.
[/quote]
Most of what you said bothers me greatly. But you are a far right Republican. Showing you that Obama is JUST like the guys YOU like is the only way to try and open YOUR eyes. I tried showing you with your OWN words. You ignored it. The similarities between the last two Presidents have been amazing. And yet ONE of these two you defended for close to 6 years on this board over and over. You claim he did stuff you didn’t like, but you’re words on here don’t reflect that.
It’s NOT more important to critique those two than Obama. What is important is pointing out to YOU that you have been wildly inconsistent in your expectations of a President. THIS one bothers you, but those two didn’t. All I’ve asked is why. The debt bothers you now, but didn’t in 03-08 under Bush. All I’ve asked is why. The party YOU cheer for claims to be for small government, and they have not been anything of the sort. And yet THAT doesn’t bother you. It bothers you that this President has been big government.
If Mitt Romney was in office and presided the next 4 years EXACTLY as Barack Obama will you would likely defend him on this very board from anyone who was critical of him. Again, that is based on your history of other Republican presidents. But change that letter to a D and you will attack away.
THAT is what I’m trying to change in you Zeb. THAT is what I view as the problem. You don’t think that is a problem and I think it is a huge problem. I think inconsistency in arguments KEEPS us from having limited government and keeps us in a two party bind where both parties have way more in common than different. [/quote]
Yeah, you’re a libertarian that’s why you can’t stop talking about how great Ron Paul is and how much the debt has risen under Obama, oh wait you’re not doing that are you? You’re a libertarian who is attacking dead republican Presidents. But you’re doing all this because you are just trying to teach me (and others I presume) a lesson…on a message board on the Internet.
You’ve picked fights so far with Smachine, Pushharder and a couple of other conservatives. Odd though you’re not provoking any good debate with the liberals. I guess they just don’'t need to be taught a lesson by your highness right?
If you’re not a fraud you’re a really dumb bastard.
Bush II had the wars as well…are you kidding me? HE STARTED the wars?
[/quote]
Yeah, al Qaeda and Saddam didn’t start the wars Bush did. Whatever you say. I don’t have the time nor inclination to argue history/foreign policy with a Ron Paul supporter. And I’m pretty sure that’s what you are.
As was Reagan. See the Wall Street Journal article ‘A Tale of Two Recoveries’ for how each handled their respective messes.
The Democrats and to an extent Obama(who was involved in community organising and pushing the Affordable Housing Act etc.) are responsible for the housing crisis.
LOL. Do you know what WWII cost? Nevermind.
I would say no also.
President H Factor would’ve ended both wars. Good grief, you’re not only a goose you’re deranged.
[quote]ZEB wrote:Yeah, you’re a libertarian that’s why you can’t stop talking about how great Ron Paul is and how much the debt has risen under Obama, oh wait you’re not doing that are you? You’re a libertarian who is attacking dead republican Presidents. But you’re doing all this because you are just trying to teach me (and others I presume) a lesson…on a message board on the Internet.
You’ve picked fights so far with Smachine, Pushharder and a couple of other conservatives. Odd though you’re not provoking any good debate with the liberals. I guess they just don’'t need to be taught a lesson by your highness right?
If you’re not a fraud you’re a really dumb bastard.
Good luck with your ah… mission.
[/quote]
I haven’t picked fights with anyone. And as far as I can tell liberals aren’t on this site with the exception of a few is smh even a liberal? I dunno, haven’t been around here enough.
BUT (as I figured) you COMPLETELY ignored my post to you and I am genuinely curious in your answers. I was hoping you’d address that post. You did not. I AM trying to teach you a lesson Zeb. That both parties are parties of big government. That on most of the big issues they have been pretty well in lock step. That “Republicans” have a history of huge government. That “Democrats” have the same history. And finally, that cheering one party while demonizing the other for doing the exact same thing isn’t being very principled. That type of behavior leads us nowhere. And both sides do it. Over and over and over.
And you have a history of doing this. All I was asking is why. All I’ve tried to understand is why that is. Because I honestly don’t know why it is. Why were liberals ready to impeach Bush for so many things in the War on Terror, but forget that stance now that Obama is doing the same thing? Why are so many Republican advocates now huge deficit hawks and anti-government when they said it was necessary just a few years ago or ignored the deficit.
Why can all the biggest anti-Obama guys here who have a long posting history seem to do exactly that? Why do they assume their party will finally be different the next time they get in power when they haven’t shown it? Why do I think if Mitt Romney released a jobs bill that had some government spending (yes, a stimulus bill) they would cheer this? I mean they can say I’m wrong because Mitt Romney can’t do that, but again I’m going off the history of people.
I’m being 100% honest. That is something I see people do on forums ALL the time. And I don’t know WHY they do it. I’m not attacking you, I’m asking a question. Again, I was hoping you would answer that post. You didn’t. I’m not anywhere closer to understanding because you don’t ever address it.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
President H Factor would’ve ended both wars. Good grief, you’re not only a goose you’re deranged.[/quote]
First off I realize World War 2 was also insanely expensive. Apparently you missed the two of the longest and most expensive wars ever part.
Let me ask you this. At what point would you have left Iraq? Did we leave too early or too late? What about Afghanistan? If not now then when would you leave? How would you know when you’d achieved victory? And would there EVER be a point where the war was worth stopping?
I’m by no means a war hawk, but I’m not against every war ever. I don’t view Afghanistan as a winnable war. I don’t think we know what a win looks like. Is it when Al Qaeda is defeated? How will we know they have been defeated? Is it when Afghans are secure from the Taliban? How will we know when they are secure? If we haven’t achieved this in a decade should we continue? How about 20 years? Thirty? Forty? 100?
As for Iraq, personally I don’t think we should have went in at any point, but I don’t want to turn this into Iraq War thread part 8 billion. I’ve discussed this ad nauseam elsewhere and I don’t wish to do it again. One of my first steps in office would have been to get out of two of the most expensive wars ever and start hacking away at a beyond bloated defense budget. I’ll assume this bothers you. So I’ll ask. What is the right amount to spend on defense? Is it more than the next 10 countries? 20 countries? 30 countries? Can you ever spend too much? Finally, again, isn’t fraud and waste in the military JUST as bad as fraud and waste elsewhere? If not why not?* Are you as quick to point at waste in the military when it’s shown as you are in other aspects of the government? What is providing for the common defense to you? Is it running into any nation we might disagree with? Is it playing world police?
*And please for the love of God don’t go down the “oh so you’d fire all our soldiers and put the ones left in shit equipment road.” As if we don’t have TONS of waste in programs that don’t require me massively laying off soldiers or having them go to war with nerf weapons. (Though with me as President we would be very likely to avoid war as well).
Yeah, al Qaeda and Saddam didn’t start the wars Bush did.
[quote]
Afganistan harbored al Qaeda, who attacked our soil, so I can see the argument that the first war was self defense. But I missed the part where Saddam knocked down buildings in the U.S. or did something that was the equivalent of bombing Pearl Harbor. The second gulf war did not have the support of the international community nor was it an act of self defense which makes it an unlawful war of aggression.
First off I realize World War 2 was also insanely expensive. Let me ask you this. At what point would you have left Iraq? Did we leave too early or too late?
[/quote]
President SexMachine never would’ve gone into Iraq. He would’ve gone into Iran.
He would’ve made it clear to the Taliban’s backers in Pakistan and the Sunni petro regimes that they must stop backing the Taliban and must crack down on private citizens within their territories who aid them. He would’ve bombed the smithereens out of the Pashtun strongholds in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
When the Taliban and AQ central are dead.
See above.
When they’re no longer bombing anyone.
The Afghans will never be secure. America needs to be the ‘strong horse’ and they’ll leave us alone.
LOL! The defense budget has been cut to oblivion. The US Navy doesn’t even have the capability of defending the East and West coasts similtaneously anymore. Obama has presided over the greatest defence cuts of $450 billion slashing the defence budget by 31% in the middle of the largest counterinsurgency since Vietnam. He’s in the process of ‘sequestering’ hundreds of billions more leaving the US without the capability of even protecting overseas embassies with results already seen in Benghazi. Obama has exchanged US defence for a policy of appeasement.
See above.
[quote]
*And please for the love of God don’t go down the “oh so you’d fire all our soldiers and put the ones left in shit equipment road.” As if we don’t have TONS of waste in programs that don’t require me massively laying off soldiers or having them go to war with nerf weapons. (Though with me as President we would be very likely to avoid war as well). [/quote]
Yes I’m sure al Qaeda wouldn’t mess with America once you’d cut the military down to banana republic size. And Putin, Chavez and China wouldn’t do anything either once the military is dismantled. As I said, you’re deranged like all Ron Paul supporters.
Afganistan harbored al Qaeda, who attacked our soil, so I can see the argument that the first war was self defense. But I missed the part where Saddam knocked down buildings in the U.S. or did something that was the equivalent of bombing Pearl Harbor. The second gulf war did not have the support of the international community nor was it an act of self defense which makes it an unlawful war of aggression.[/quote]
Firstly, as I stated I believe the Second Gulf War was a strategic mistake. However, Saddam was a threat and as we now know he had WMD and shipped them to Syria where they are now likely in the hands of Islamists. Secondly, I don’t give a hoot in hell about the UN’s ‘international law.’ The UN is little more than a frigging terrorist organisation.
Afganistan harbored al Qaeda, who attacked our soil, so I can see the argument that the first war was self defense. But I missed the part where Saddam knocked down buildings in the U.S. or did something that was the equivalent of bombing Pearl Harbor. The second gulf war did not have the support of the international community nor was it an act of self defense which makes it an unlawful war of aggression.[/quote]
Firstly, as I stated I believe the Second Gulf War was a strategic mistake. However, Saddam was a threat and as we now know he had WMD and shipped them to Syria where they are now likely in the hands of Islamists. Secondly, I don’t give a hoot in hell about the UN’s ‘international law.’ The UN is little more than a frigging terrorist organisation.[/quote]
The international-law precedent setting the standards for the prohibition against modern industrial aggressive war wasn’t established by the U.N., it was established by the United Stated, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and France, at or near the conclusion of World War II. The Nuremburg Principles define a Crime Against Peace as: “(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; or (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).” You might disagree with this, but its the law we set up as the victors after WWII.
Yeah, al Qaeda and Saddam didn’t start the wars Bush did.
[quote]
Afganistan harbored al Qaeda, who attacked our soil, so I can see the argument that the first war was self defense. But I missed the part where Saddam knocked down buildings in the U.S. or did something that was the equivalent of bombing Pearl Harbor. The second gulf war did not have the support of the international community nor was it an act of self defense which makes it an unlawful war of aggression.[/quote]
You don’t know your history.
I’ve been over this too many times however; aint doing it again. sigh[/quote]
That’s cool. Its old news and I’m sure we’ll disagree on this.
Afganistan harbored al Qaeda, who attacked our soil, so I can see the argument that the first war was self defense. But I missed the part where Saddam knocked down buildings in the U.S. or did something that was the equivalent of bombing Pearl Harbor. The second gulf war did not have the support of the international community nor was it an act of self defense which makes it an unlawful war of aggression.[/quote]
Firstly, as I stated I believe the Second Gulf War was a strategic mistake. However, Saddam was a threat and as we now know he had WMD and shipped them to Syria where they are now likely in the hands of Islamists. Secondly, I don’t give a hoot in hell about the UN’s ‘international law.’ The UN is little more than a frigging terrorist organisation.[/quote]
The international-law precedent setting the standards for the prohibition against modern industrial aggressive war wasn’t established by the U.N., it was established by the United Stated, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and France, at or near the conclusion of World War II. The Nuremburg Principles define a Crime Against Peace as: “(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; or (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).” You might disagree with this, but its the law we set up as the victors after WWII.
[/quote]
I don’t disagree with the Nuremberg principles. Nor the Hague convention statements of 1899 and 1907. However, the international organisation with authority to form and oversee international courts and tribunals is the United Nations. And as I said, the UN is little more than a terrorist organisation.
