Lifestyle > Train of Thought
Republicans: Liberals should be used as human shields.
Ant:
--- Quote from: nibs on March 04, 2005, 05:33:20 PM ---
--- Quote from: Ant on March 02, 2005, 05:42:08 PM ---Excerpts from a speech by republican Jim Gibbons... member of house of representatives.
--- End quote ---
he plagiarized the fucking speech
http://www.elkodaily.com/articles/2005/03/03/news/local/news1.txt
http://www.klas-tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3033323&nav=168XX7U0
it's from some alabama chick:
http://www.bethchapman.com/thespeech.html
hateful and unoriginal. lol!!!
--- End quote ---
lol
nibs:
Ant:
It depends on the point you are trying to make with an analogy. My point was a) Clinton could execute better than Bush
let me clarify my point by restating it. you started a discussion of liberals vs conservatives. i was arguing that clinton was not liberal. clinton is basically a conservative-lite. hence bush-lite.
the bush administration has actually had pretty good execution. just poor policies
let me say one thing. bush's execution has not been consistent with his rhetoric, as those were lies to get him elected. bush's policies have been consistent with his agenda which has been pro-big business. deregulation of corporate and environmental regulations. smaller govt by squeezing out social programs and entitlement programs. and the neo-con foreign policy. we agree 100% that compassionate conservatism is a sham.
with that said, let's put your statements in context.
1. Iraq cost 200 Billion so far... we were told it would cost 87$ billion and we would make our money back in one year.
it's in excess of 200 billion and there will be another $80 billion supplemental this year. the cost doesn't matter to bush. it's tax payer money. they are currently tying up close to $600 billion a year in defense ($500 billion in the budget plus the $80 billion supplemental). but consider how much of that money is going to defense contractors for weapons systems and the infrastructure costs of privatization. about 1/3 of that money in terms of war costs go to contractors because of privatization, aka bush's base. i don't have the numbers for the defense budget as a whole. war is a cash cow for many.
did you see bush's budget? the tax cuts are intentional. he's cutting all sorts of money in defense and homeland security, and very soon democrats in congress will push for a balanced budget, and the republicans will cave in, at which point they will slash all sorts of social programs and entitlement programs...etc. why else do you think grover norquist loves this guy?
this is intentional.
2. We were told the Iraqis would welcome us with open-arms... instead 2 years after the war is over we have 800 injuries per month and about a hundred deaths.
the iraqi's did welcome the u.s. at first in the shia and kurdish regions. remember there were only about 140 coalition deaths and about 1200 injured when "major combat operations had ended". the bush administration didn't overthrow saddam to turn over iraq to the iraqi people to do as they wished. they had a specific plan and desire for how that govt and economy would be setup; and that is where things went wrong. but they did get rid of saddam +, they did get 15 permanent military bases in iraq (perfect for staging bombings against iran or syria)...
there are alot of successes in iraq. they simply aren't pleasant to the average non neo-con non defense contract investor american.
3. We were told we had to cut taxes to avoid an exessive surplus and to save us from recession... instead we've destroyed the value of the dollar and at least according to a few economists we've significantly increased the risk of a global financial crisis
you're looking short term. those economic projections are based on the current levels of spending. once the tax cuts are made permanent the republicans will balance the budget and eventually pay down debts, by slashing spending. the democrats are chomping at the bit to do something about the current deficits, but they won't be able to raise taxes (as republicans won't let them) and they won't cut defense spending or homeland security because they must look strong.
4. We were told the president doesn't believe in nation building only to later be told nation building is the centerpiece of his second term agenda.
before 9/11, bush was listening to colin powell. after 9/11 he was listening to cheney and rumsfeld. powell is now on the golf courses somewhere. i don't like the 9/11 catchall, but bush knew nothing about foreign policy before he took office, and we now know who is running the show.
5. We were told the U.N. was wrong, the inspectors were wrong, and the whole world would eventually realize we were right about Iraq. Instead we were wrong and anti-americanism as at a record high.
these were lies to convince the world that iraq had to be invaded. without telling these lies you don't get the iraq war. bush got his war.
look. if you are judging bush's "execution"; judge him by his own standards and his own goals. and you've only mentioned foreign policy, you've stayed far away from domestic policy and bush's successes at dismantling environmental regulations, corporate regulations...etc. they are about to get these bankruptcy reforms through congress, this is a huge win for the banking and credit institutions. bush is all about big business, and he's chalking up the successes on these fronts.
If you want to read the recent issue of Foreign Policy magazine they have a lengthy article addressing the relationship between Bush and Condi.
is it online?
hence my statement that republicans/conservatives are divorced from reality. I'm unaware of any 'liberals' or democrats that want to use themselves as human shields to protect iraqi insurgents.
not for insurgents. he wasn't talking about insurgents. he was talking about liberals that wanted to use themselves as human shields before the initial invasion when saddam was still in power.
if I'm going to choose to support the democratic party I'd rather not hear democratic leaders saying things like "I hate republicans and everythign they stand for." I think its immature to think that your side is completely right and the other side is completely wrong, and if that is the attitude of a democratic leader than I find that upsetting given my support of his party.
i actually think you are taking dean's statements out of the implied context. alot of democrats are frustrated with the current republican agenda which is simply anti-american. anti-small guy. if you look at some of the tax cuts debates and the bankruptcy debates it really seems like the republican party is mean spirited and contemptuous towards the american public.
Since when does majority opinion dictate truth and reality? 90% of children under the age of 6 think santa claus visits them. Does that mean santa claus is real?
we aren't talking about truth and reality. we are talking about one guy's attutude towards "liberals". "liberal" itself is an insult with 50% of the nation. i remember senator lindsey graham snarling something like "people that don't mind being called a liberal". this is a guy with a girl's name throwing stones.
if you make a statement expressing a particular attitude in front of an audience, and you are legitimately applauded...you are not divorced from reality. you are firmly entrenched within and appreciative of the reality of the situation.
the problem is all these damned liberals trying to redefine the word "reality"
ARYC:
lol hillllllariousssss
7even:
--- Quote from: nibs on March 03, 2005, 07:19:19 PM ---you wonder why i say modern day republicans are divorced from reality and are a party of hate.
but ateast 49% of the nation supports this.
--- End quote ---
That's the sad part about your nation.
Suffice:
it's disgusting that polititians can get away with these kinds of statements
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version