Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Erlkonig on September 08, 2003, 06:10:44 AM
-
is the amount Iraq doesn't have in oil revenues.
-
thats great, thanks for sharing
-
Bringing freedom does have it's price
-
that's before interest :)
-
Quiet probation boy. Our master plan musn't lose steam.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Bringing freedom does have it's price
Fishu I hope you mean that in a "nice" way and not with any sarcasm. If so I thank you very much. :)
But generally if nothing else this should make it clear to all the world we are seriously commited to rebulding Iraq even if the cost is very high.
-
Where are all the fiscally conservative republiclowns on this BBS now?
If this were a democratic administration trying to get an 87 billion dollar social programs bill through the congress, they would be going ape.
Bush is making the so-called "Tax & Spend" democrats look like penny pinchers.
At least the democrats would rather spend our money helping Americans in this country.
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
Quiet probation boy. Our master plan musn't lose steam.
Dang, looks like I missed another good thread while camping. :)
-
Originally posted by banana
Where are all the fiscally conservative republiclowns on this BBS now?
If this were a democratic administration trying to get an 87 billion dollar social programs bill through the congress, they would be going ape.
Bush is making the so-called "Tax & Spend" democrats look like penny pinchers.
At least the democrats would rather spend our money helping Americans in this country.
I don't like the fact that its going to cost that much, but face facts, it is. What should they do, pull out and let a power vacuum be created?
What cracks me up is Bush Sr. getting bashed by the lefties for not "doing the job properly" by failure of going all the way to Baghdad in 1991. Now that we have gone all the way, they scream about how much its going to take to rebuild it. :eek: :confused:
-
In other words, Rip, you're ok with massive spending as long as it's spent on other countries?
I wonder what 87 Billion could do to help Americans without health insurance, or what it could do to for the ailing social security system?
Republiclown stance: How dare the US government try to help out unemployed or poor Americans. But spend 87 billion on a foreign country? Absolutely! The sky's the limit!
:rolleyes:
Face it, Rip. The Bush administration has declared it is time for Foreign Welfare on an unprecedented level. As with the Republiclown stance on welfare in this country, I'm sure they are going to require that each Iraqi work for their handout. Right?
-
something tells me the debt will be repaid many times over - through iraq oil $$, a new friend in the region and the scared crapless Iraq neighbors
to say making the mid east more stable in the long run is not helping ALL Americans is foolish
-
I think the cost of having a foothold in the center of an area that is teaming with groups that want to kill you and your family, banana, is worth its price, personally. It might not show now (the benefit) but in the long run it will.
Can you answer the 2nd paragraph I posted? Whats up with that?
-
Originally posted by Eagler
something tells me the debt will be repaid many times over - through iraq oil $$, a new friend in the region and the scared crapless Iraq neighbors
to say making the mid east more stable in the long run is not helping ALL Americans is foolish
Just as foolish as claiming that spending billions on social and jobs programs in the good ol US of A is not helping Americans.
There's a word for this uniquely Republiclown school of logic:
hypocrisy.
-
something tells me the debt will be repaid many times over - through iraq oil $$...
Aaah, so this is like a venture-capital kind of endeavour? How comforting for those mourning loved ones killed executing this 'transaction'. I hope the net profit is worth it!
-
If this were a democratic administration trying to get an 87 billion dollar social programs bill through the congress, they would be going ape.
Just like you're doing now banana?
-
I think the cost of having a foothold in the center of an area that is teaming with groups that want to kill you and your family, banana, is worth its price, personally.
I agree, Rip. But I enjoy pointing out Republiclown hypocrisy whenever it rears it's ugly head.
In reality, Republicans have no qualms about spending, any more than Democrats do. They just differ on which country's citizens should take priority.
-
Originally posted by GrimCO
Just like you're doing now banana?
You're damn good and right I'm going to go ape whenever the chance to expose Republiclown hypocrisy presents itself.
That's my first ammendment constitutional right. You got a problem with the first ammendment, Grim?
-
Originally posted by banana
You're damn good and right I'm going to go ape whenever the chance to expose Republiclown hypocrisy presents itself.
That's my first ammendment constitutional right. You got a problem with the first ammendment, Grim?
Nah... Since you're on the hypocrite bandwagon, I just figured I'd point out how you're doing it yourself.
-
Originally posted by banana
In reality, Republicans have no qualms about spending, any more than Democrats do. They just differ on which country's citizens should take priority.
The world and its politics within changed on 9.11.01 banana. Get used to it.
And again, why are the same Dems that were saying Bush Sr. screwed up by not going all the way to Baghdad in 1991 now the same democrats crying about more spending to rebuild Iraq?
hipocrasy was a word INVENTED by Democrats.
-
money in more handouts
or
money to prevent future 9/11's which would/could plunge the entire nation/world into an economic depression - one so massive as to destroy the world as we know it
which is better spent
hmmm
and yes, just as in WW2 - rebuilding is not a freebie on the country which won - it would be retarded not to recoup the entire expense and then some
-
Originally posted by GrimCO
Nah... Since you're on the hypocrite bandwagon, I just figured I'd point out how you're doing it yourself.
I'm not a hypocrite, Grim. I believe in spending US Tax payers' money on important programs. I don't disagree with spending money on re-building Iraq, just like I don't disagree with spending money on rebuilding American jobs and health care coverage.
Republiclowns are hypocrites because they don't mind spending money to rebuild Iraq, yet they balk at spending money at home to directly help Americans who are in need, now.
I'm consistent, they are not.
-
money to prevent future 9/11's which would/could plunge the entire nation/world into an economic depression - one so massive as to destroy the world as we know it
I see. That would be logical if the funding and manpower for 9-11 had come from Iraq. Unfortunately for your clock-work version of the world it came from...
... Saudi Arabia!
Care to guess how much money has been spent (directly and indirectly) by the US on supporting the Saudi government? Now why should doing the same in Iraq work this time?
and yes, just as in WW2 - rebuilding is not a freebie on the country which won - it would be retarded not to recoup the entire expense and then some
Interesting. It seems strange that whenever post-WW2 rebuilding of Europe is mentioned, the 'altruistic freebie' angle, coupled with a 'you still owe us big style' spin is the EXACT set of arguments pulled out of the hat by a large number of Americans on this board. Yet now there was a net 'gain'? Is that conclusion the result of new research or is it simply a convenience thing?
-
Originally posted by Eagler
money in more handouts
or
money to prevent future 9/11's which would/could plunge the entire nation/world into an economic depression - one so massive as to destroy the world as we know it
which is better spent
hmmm
and yes, just as in WW2 - rebuilding is not a freebie on the country which won - it would be retarded not to recoup the entire expense and then some
Translation: Spending money to improve Americans lives is a wasteful handout. Spending money to improve Iraqi lives is an important investment.
Astounding, simply astounding.
-
yep, exactly what I said :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by banana
I'm not a hypocrite, Grim. I believe in spending US Tax payers' money on important programs. I don't disagree with spending money on re-building Iraq, just like I don't disagree with spending money on rebuilding American jobs and health care coverage.
Republiclowns are hypocrites because they don't mind spending money to rebuild Iraq, yet they balk at spending money at home to directly help Americans who are in need, now.
I'm consistent, they are not.
I believe we're ALL hypocrites to one extent or another. And BTW, I'm not a Republican. Democrats can support the war in Iraq too ya know :)
-
Originally posted by GrimCO
I believe we're ALL hypocrites to one extent or another. And BTW, I'm not a Republican. Democrats can support the war in Iraq too ya know :)
I couldn't agree more, Grim. I'm just shaking the Republican tree a little bit today, and getting some good results. :D
-
Originally posted by banana
I couldn't agree more, Grim. I'm just shaking the Republican tree a little bit today, and getting some good results. :D
Yeah, but note, Grim, he still won't answer *my* question ;) Truth hurts (Hipocrites)
-
And again, why are the same Dems that were saying Bush Sr. screwed up by not going all the way to Baghdad in 1991 now the same democrats crying about more spending to rebuild Iraq?
Do you have a link to some of these "same Dems" Rip? Or is this a made up question?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Do you have a link to some of these "same Dems" Rip? Or is this a made up question?
So, you haven't been watching these boards for 2 years? Put down the pipe, short term memory loss, sir.
-
Put down the pipe, short term memory loss, sir.
I think Ripsnort should demonstrate his superior memory and furnish us with some examples... before I forget what this thread is all about.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Do you have a link to some of these "same Dems" Rip? Or is this a made up question?
Probabaly from the same cite that claims Republicans are willing to spend $87B on Iraqi citizens but none on their own.
Get real.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
So, you haven't been watching these boards for 2 years? Put down the pipe, short term memory loss, sir.
Wow, nice duck Ripster. The best defense is a good personal attack... er ... offense. If you can't answer the question just say so. we promise not to taunt you too much.
-
Just a sample of two threads describing "He should have finished the job"
I could get more if I did the proper search:
"Why didn't the previous Bush SR. finish what he started 12 years ago?"
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=80751&referrerid=3203
Should've finished the job 10 years ago.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=81363&referrerid=3203
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Wow, nice duck Ripster. The best defense is a good personal attack... er ... offense. If you can't answer the question just say so. we promise not to taunt you too much.
See above post. Truth hurts don't it? You're memory is not what it used to be old man.
-
Originally posted by banana
Where are all the fiscally conservative republiclowns on this BBS now?
If this were a democratic administration trying to get an 87 billion dollar social programs bill through the congress, they would be going ape.
Bush is making the so-called "Tax & Spend" democrats look like penny pinchers.
At least the democrats would rather spend our money helping Americans in this country.
Democrats are interested in one thing....getting back in power.
I wonder what part of Bush's speeches you guys didn't understand when he warned after Sept. 11th of a long and protracted war which could last 3-5 years. Some of you act like this is a big suprise....especially the Democratic hopefuls.
-
Why didn't the previous Bush SR. finish what he started 12 years ago?
Here is the quote you cited from the first link... It is from Skernsk, a Canadian. (Not exactly a Dem now is he?)
Leftists: Bush 1st should have taken out Hussein in '91.
This is from the second link..... funny thing is.... thats from YOUR post Rip. ROFL
-
Originally posted by banana
I agree, Rip. But I enjoy pointing out Republiclown hypocrisy whenever it rears it's ugly head.
In reality, Republicans have no qualms about spending, any more than Democrats do. They just differ on which country's citizens should take priority.
You're comparing apples and oranges and you can't tell the difference.
Ok banana...we are all listening....what is your solution for the current Iraq....or can you just throw stones from behind your puter?
-
Originally posted by Rude
Democrats are interested in one thing....getting back in power.
Desperation is showing up in all forms. Its funny to watch. :) I might add that I think Bush might give them back their power by his own blunders...but spending money on Iraq won't be one of them.
-
lol MT
You've got to admit, Ripsnort, that is funny.
-
Interesting. It seems strange that whenever post-WW2 rebuilding of Europe is mentioned, the 'altruistic freebie' angle, coupled with a 'you still owe us big style' spin is the EXACT set of arguments pulled out of the hat by a large number of Americans on this board. Yet now there was a net 'gain'? Is that conclusion the result of new research or is it simply a convenience thing?
It's called the truth of the matter Dowding, whether you find it pallitable or not is moot.
-
So,
Skernk, (a Canadian)
Gofaster - (A known Dem symp.)
Ripsnort - (A centrist vote the issues only Dem)
These are the "same Dems" you were talking about?
-
It's called the truth of the matter Dowding, whether you find it pallitable or not is moot.
You're right. The inconsistency, as I described, is glaringly obvious.
-
Ok banana...we are all listening....what is your solution for the current Iraq....or can you just throw stones from behind your puter?
Rude, I never said I disagreed with spending money on rebuilding Iraq. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of many(not all) republiclowns on this BBS who go nuts whenever democrats try to spend money on improving the living conditions of all Americans.
If I had the time, I could dredge up a multitude of threads of various republiclowns calling foul when democrats try to send social reform or health care legislation through congress. These reactionaries get furious when the US government tries to spend our tax dollars on the people of the US.
But, when our president institutes a massive, and I do mean massive, spending program on a foreign country....they have no problem whatsoever.
That, my friend, is not comparing apples to oranges. It's comparing apples to apples, and I'm right and it makes you angry.
Sorry, but the truth hurts sometimes, as Rip was kind enough to mention earlier.
-
What's this probation **** about anyway.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Here is the quote you cited from the first link... It is from Skernsk, a Canadian. (Not exactly a Dem now is he?)
This is from the second link..... funny thing is.... thats from YOUR post Rip. ROFL
Gofaster said it too. (not exactly conservative) Skernsk leans left if you've paid attention to his posts in the past. Thats not a "bad" thing, its just an observation.
As far as me saying it, that wasn't the discussion nor the point of the arguement (neither of which you understand, but hey, you're a liberal Californian, understandable)
-
Why don't they use the money made from The Oil revenues to rebuild Iraq?
That way the Usa Is not out any more money than it already is.
We need that money for programs here in the the states for AMERICANS!!!
Iraq Has the ability to make all the money it needs to rebuild itself:mad:
-
God please forgive me for this schadenfreude
-
Originally posted by rc51
Why don't they use the money made from The Oil revenues to rebuild Iraq?
That way the Usa Is not out any more money than it already is.
We need that money for programs here in the the states for AMERICANS!!!
Iraq Has the ability to make all the money it needs to rebuild itself:mad:
Its infrastructure, both political and financial, is in the dumpsters. It will use the money to pay us back hopefully. (shrugs)
-
Originally posted by Rude
Democrats are interested in one thing....getting back in power.
That is a 2 way street.
-
Originally posted by banana
Rude, I never said I disagreed with spending money on rebuilding Iraq. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of many (not all) republiclowns on this BBS who go nuts whenever democrats try to spend money on improving the living conditions of all Americans.
If one believes that invading Iraq was done only to rape the petroleum resource, then that was done for the benefit of the American and 'western' economies, and thereby for the benefit of Americans.
If one believes that invading Iraq was done to control the spread of WMD's and to force Iraq to comply with 1441, then that was done for the benefit of the American and 'western' populations, and thereby for the benefit of Americans.
If a total Somalia style withdrawl were to occur, Iraq would become worse than before. Once the war started, stabilizing Iraq became our only choice. Therefore, money spent in Iraq for the stabilization of that country is money spent for the benefit of Americans.
The money spent chasing the 'Great Society' programs has done little to lower the poverty rate. Last I read, there are more per capita citizens living in poverty than before LBJ's programs were instituted.
-
So we should forget about instituting social reforms at home, and instead rely on overseas conquering and rebuilding as a way of improving life in America?
I sure hope that isn't the wave of the future.
-
That, my friend, is not comparing apples to oranges. It's comparing apples to apples, and I'm right and it makes you angry.
You're kiddin yourself Wank....I'm hardly angry watching you posture.
Remarks about turning our backs on the American people is simply a lie...democratic dribble.
I suppose the 400 Billion dollar perscription drug bill does not qualify....how about Tom Daschels 80 billion dollar Farm Aid bill which Bush also signed into law. There are many others.
To listen to you, one would think the sky was falling....calm down a bit...sadly, the truth of the matter is that both the repubs and dems do not serve the best interest of the American public, but rather their own interests.
Bush spoke clearly when we began as did Rumsfeld regarding the length of time necessary to accomplish this mission....years not months were conveyed to the American public...you must have short term memory loss.
Anyone who would think that a quick and painless solution should be at hand re: Iraq, is kidding themselves...sounds like one of my children and how they view the world.:)
-
It's just terrible isn't it?
Chew On This banana (http://www.sentryoveramerica.com/24_SentryLatest_Surge_Socialism.htm)
:D
-
And again, why are the same Dems that were saying Bush Sr. screwed up by not going all the way to Baghdad in 1991 now the same democrats crying about more spending to rebuild Iraq?
Just for clarification Rip... those Dem's are a Canadian (skernsk) and Gofaster?
looking........
Nope... those dem's haven't posted here. Wrong again Oh shiny headed bimmerphile.
-
Originally posted by banana
So we should forget about instituting social reforms at home, and instead rely on overseas conquering and rebuilding as a way of improving life in America?
I sure hope that isn't the wave of the future.
How you divined that sentiment out of what I wrote is questionable.
I was commenting on the view that it is not hypocritical to advocate spending American money (and lives) to protect the safety of American citizens by finishing the job from which we cannot possibly back away, and in the same breath, critcizing failed Great Society programs.
Possibly better designed domestic programs might be succesfull, but those of the Great Society pattern are flawed when viewed through the prism of history.
-
Guys, guys, the real issue here is how my posting of this topic got me put on this gay "On Probation" crap.
-
Your avatar did that.......
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
Guys, guys, the real issue here is how my posting of this topic got me put on this gay "On Probation" crap.
I'm sure it wasn't this thread, but I could point to about a dozen others that may have deemed you on probation.
And I don't think "gay" probation means you're happy, right?
-
Originally posted by Rude
It's just terrible isn't it?
Chew On This banana (http://www.sentryoveramerica.com/24_SentryLatest_Surge_Socialism.htm)
:D
Gee, I may have underestimated the man, afterall. ;)
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
God please forgive me for this schadenfreude
You're forgiven.....
-
the plan is to ship anyone on gov assistance over to Iraq where the $87,000,000,000 (is that billion?) would help them also :)
once the Iraqi's see how easy it is to live off the gov dole, our terrorist problem will be solved :)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Its infrastructure, both political and financial, is in the dumpsters. It will use the money to pay us back hopefully. (shrugs)
Not aimed at RIP:}
Who in here actually thinks Iraq oil revenues will be used to pay back the US?
Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Silat
Not aimed at RIP:}
Who in here actually thinks Iraq oil revenues will be used to pay back the US?
Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?
:rolleyes:
if not we are stupid
-
Off topic (sry)
@ banana and Erlkönig
Why the hell do u both have those ugly avatars. Is this a tradition for US-democrats to use ugly avatars (OK OK they are not so ugly as the one Martlet uses *shrugg* but still ugly)?
-
Originally posted by Duedel
Off topic (sry)
@ banana and Erlkönig
Why the hell do u both have those ugly avatars. Is this a tradition for US-democrats to use ugly avatars (OK OK they are not so ugly as the one Martlet uses *shrugg* but still ugly)?
banana's avatar is of a great american. :D
-
Originally posted by Silat
Not aimed at RIP:}
Who in here actually thinks Iraq oil revenues will be used to pay back the US?
Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?
:rolleyes:
Probably the same ones who think that Dubyas request for 87B will be his last, we can expect upwards of 100B requested in installments next year. That's close to $500 per resident < not all residents pay income tax > so us taxpayer's part will be a bit more than that.
Then the next year....WTF knows?
-
1 billion per year - Afghanistan
1 billion per week - Iraq
(Quickly now - which country harbored the leader of the 9/11 attacks)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
1 billion per year - Afghanistan
1 billion per week - Iraq
(Quickly now - which country harbored the leader of the 9/11 attacks)
Saudi Arabia!
;)
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Saudi Arabia!
;)
troublemaker!!
:p
-
"... rely on overseas conquering and rebuilding as a way of improving life in America? "
Hey. What's wrong with that? It worked for the Roman's didn't
it? ;)
Lars, too true :( When you hear how the man talks (in Texas 2-word-step sound bites) and you know he's fully aware that most of the populace will have forgotten next year what he asked for in this one, well... Let's see if he's re-elected. I pray not.
-
Germany :D
-
Duedel, my avatar is not ugly. You and the rest of the haters can go suck it.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/graphics/87billion.gif)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
1 billion per year - Afghanistan
1 billion per week - Iraq
(Quickly now - which country harbored the leader of the 9/11 attacks)
Much to your disapointment, we will catch him as well.:)
-
Originally posted by Rude
Much to your disapointment, we will catch him as well.:)
Of course we will. Didn't he see how quickly we surrounded and captured Saddam? :rolleyes:
-
China holds well over a hundred billion in U.S. T-Bills now.
-
Not real crazy bout spending 87 billion on those people there.
I mean for gads sake they got all the dammed oil let them rebuild let them form there own gov let them do as they wish dammit bring our people home NOW!.
If saddumb sticks his head up then blow it off till then bring em home.
Keep a small force there .
Chit we are asking our troops to do a job they are not trained for.
Marines and the Army are not the Police!
They are attackers not peace makers and police men.
Them stupid prettythang muslims have been fighting for 100s of years and they will continue no matter what we do.
Iraq will never be a democracy.
It did not work in Viet nam and it ain't gonna work here!
Our polocy should be simple .
Kill the bad guys dont worry bout rebuilding no dam countries and bring the troops home.
So they can rest and go after more bad guys.:D
-
Heres hoping all that iraqi oil will pay back in spades.
Im betting that regardless of the future of the bush admin, repub or demo party, congress will make no law ignoring the iraqi oil fields for a thousand years....if we last that long.
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
Duedel, my avatar is not ugly. You and the rest of the haters can go suck it.
Suck what?
-
Originally posted by Duedel
Suck what?
No
-
Originally posted by Eagler
something tells me the debt will be repaid many times over - through iraq oil $$, a new friend in the region and the scared crapless Iraq neighbors
to say making the mid east more stable in the long run is not helping ALL Americans is foolish
Well put Eagler...
-
Easy Erkonig, your overly gay lover in your avatar is not ugly, just a little to feminine for this thread....
:p
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
1 billion per year - Afghanistan
1 billion per week - Iraq
(Quickly now - which country harbored the leader of the 9/11 attacks)
Blame Canada!!!
-
Originally posted by Rude
Much to your disapointment, we will catch him as well.:)
I know you put a smiley on there, but you really don't believe that, do you?