Cash Flow
by Lee
Here’s some more fabulous news from Iraq.
The insurgency in Iraq is now self-sustaining financially, raising tens of millions of dollars a year from oil smuggling, kidnapping, counterfeiting, connivance by corrupt Islamic charities and other crimes that the Iraqi government and its American patrons have been largely unable to prevent, a classified United States government report has concluded.
The report, obtained by The New York Times, estimates that groups responsible for many insurgent and terrorist attacks are raising $70 million to $200 million a year from illegal activities. It says $25 million to $100 million of that comes from oil smuggling and other criminal activity involving the state-owned oil industry, aided by “corrupt and complicit” Iraqi officials.
As much as $36 million a year comes from ransoms paid for hundreds of kidnap victims, the report says. It estimates that unnamed foreign governments — previously identified by American officials as including France and Italy — paid $30 million in ransom last year.
And just in case you were tempted to dismiss this as a subversive plot by the global liberal conspiracy to defame George W. Bush, The Greatest Leader in the History of Mankind, the group which compiled this report
was led by Juan Zarate, deputy national security adviser for combating terrorism, and was made up of about a dozen people, drawn from the C.I.A., the F.B.I., the Defense Intelligence Agency, the State Department, the Treasury Department and the United States Central Command.
You know, a group of pacifists and America-hating liberals. But wait, it gets better!
The group’s estimate of the financing for the insurgency, even taking the higher figure of $200 million, underscores the David and Goliath nature of the war. American, Iraqi and other coalition forces are fighting an array of shadowy Sunni and Shiite groups that can draw on huge armories left over from Mr. Hussein’s days, and benefit from the willingness of many insurgents to fight with little or no pay. [Emphasis added]
Anyone remember in the early days after the “liberation,” when all those armories were looted, and all those explosives and weapons disappeared into the shadowy public? Do you know why those armories weren’t guarded? First, we didn’t have enough people to guard them. Second, the reason we didn’t have enough people is because the “leaders” who planned this mess were totally, utterly convinced, that there wouldn’t be any sort of insurrection or rebellion or uprising. There was no need to guard those ammunition dumps (not that we knew where they all were, anyway) because the Iraqis would guard them for us. The original war plan—I shit you not—actually planned on Iraqi troops not only surrendering, but immediately joining with coalition forces to fight the rest of Saddam’s army.
Delusional doesn’t even begin to describe it.
So now we have the world’s largest terrorist training ground, where Allah’s warriors can get field experience in how to fight against the mightiest armies of the infidel world. Call me crazy, call me old fashioned, but I always thought the idea of military intervention was to make the problem better, not worse. But I’m kooky like that, I suppose.
Comments
Seriously thought, I always though that argument really lame, though when i brought it up with friend who is an ex gunny and decorated sniper from DS 1 AND 2, he said that he thought it was a valid argument.
We weren’t drunk enough to continue the discussion...playing golf instead, and i let it go. that was a while ago, and I’m wondering if it was simply a keen jerk reaction: sure engage them there, not here.
The begged questions are: would they have come here in a way that needed the force we are spending over there? And given that there was time to prepare for an attack, would of it been wiser to control boarders and and strengthen our internal defenses at a far less cost to the national treasury and the blood of our people in PREVENTION OF an attack? Now does this sound like second guessing? Maybe, but I for one (and in direct contradiction to most on this board) never though that we needed to go to iraq, that ultimately, it was a POLICE MATTER. One that demanded cooperation with other countries on an unprecedented scale.
And I (thinking very Machevellian-ly) always thought that this should have been the opportunity to expand american hegemony (which it’s what all about anyway) in an acceptable and cost effective manner.
So beside the goat fuck we have now I see the greatest lost opportunity in history to have cemented that progression of democracy and American values across the globe by the mistakes and the misuse of American authority since 9/11.
Maybe, but I for one (and in direct contradiction to most on this board) never though that we needed to go to iraq, that ultimately, it was a POLICE MATTER. One that demanded cooperation with other countries on an unprecedented scale.
I think we did ask for international cooperation. Many told us to go fuck ourselves. I wasn’t big on this war either. We should have just left the UN. Saddam would still be in power, and France could have taken over the role of dealing with his shit. All that aside, we’re there now, but if our soldiers shoot, they’re reckless murderers, if they do nothing, then they are allowing a disaster to happen. We need to either let them fight, and not do an anal exam to try to find any little reason to rip on them, or we need to pull out and let the country go to shit, which at this point would be fine by me.
A while ago there was a relatively well-known cartoon that showed every President from Eisenhower on saying: “Don’t...worry...Fidel...Castro...will...be...gone...any...day...now!” or something like that.
I just hope that wenty years from now we won’t have to see a similar cartoon with Presidents saying, one after the other: “Don’t...worry...the...situation...in...Iraq...will...be...solved...any...day...now!”
I’m behind you on that one, doubter. If they had the means to attack us in the US, they would have done so. They understand that for their attacks to have the greatest effect, they must be against civilians and in violation of our sanctuary. they wouldn’t let a war get in the way of thier main objective.
a classified United States government report has concluded.
The report, obtained by The New York Times…
Also, Lee, it porves the government is not only incompetent in planning this war, but keeping its classified reports, well, classified.
I thought that “missing weapons” thing was discussed by JimK a while ago at Moorewatch?
Are we back to thinking the 377 tons of missing TNT was stolen? I thought that was debunked. I don’t remember.
Oh,
I just thought of something.
Does this mean Saudi Arabi, Egypt,Syria, and Iran are no longer funding terrorism is Iraq? If the insurgency is self-sustaining, what are those countries now doing with thier terror money? (The real Iraq dividend, for them, perhaps)
I didn’t know that the insurgency had charities in Iraq from which to corrupt for terrorism use. That’s is interesting.
Also, if kidnapping is a source of income, does that mean FOX news is funding terrorism by reportedly paying for the release of thier reporter and his cameraman?
Also interesting.
Lee, you’ll be pleased to know that freedom of speech is alive and well in Iraq, thanks to us.
Their terrorism’s self-sustaining..? Well… at least the economy’s booming…
Lee, you’ll be pleased to know that freedom of speech is alive and well in Iraq, thanks to us.
Strange, I saw no reference to US involvement in the TV station takeover. For all of Bush’s incompetence, let’s not say the actions of radicals, and warring tribes are entirely the result of US policy. Letting them act the way they do, well, maybe that can somewhat rest on us, but how do we stop them? Yes, Saddam kept them in check through fear and violence. He also kept millions more in check through fear and violence that just want to live a peaceful life. Is that how we should take care of this problem? I think we once made an attempt to go after these groups, and I remember seeing story after story about how we were destroying towns, shooting mosques, being reckless, etc. So if we can’t go after them without the wave a criticism that will follow, and sitting back and trying to let Iraq run itself is apparently out of the question, then what do we do? Does any of the blame fall on radical factions who have no interest in peace?
Lee, just for shits and giggles, you should have a post where everyone could offer what they would do if they were suddenly put in charge of this war (maybe you already have and I just didn’t see it). Most of us now agree Bush is a dolt, but what now? As far as I know we are all just regular joes, and not privy to every piece of geopolitical information, but I’d be interested in reading how this could be resolved. Do we pull out, lock down the country for a period of time, and force or convince these guys into talks until this is resolved, do we bomb the shit out of them, what? No need to make a bashing session of the ideas of others in the thread (note to self), just everyone writes what they would do, whether it’s a good idea or not. It’s just a thought.
In the end, Bush is finished, we all know it, so it’s a moot point to keep pointing out his shortcomings in this thing. Now we need to worry about how to fix it. What should we be looking for in politicians who will offer real leadership? I’d be interested to see people’s solutions on this.
Sorry, I should have said, “Thanks to our Fearless Leader’s incompetence.”
I’d go ahead and divide the country in three, send in as many troops as we need to secure Sunniland, relocate to New Kurdistan, and then bomb the crap out of Greater Iran (Shi’itestan). Then I’d say, “OK, guys, it’s all yours,” and let them deal with their own BS.
I’d go ahead and divide the country in three, send in as many troops as we need to secure Sunniland, relocate to New Kurdistan, and then bomb the crap out of Greater Iran (Shi’itestan). Then I’d say, “OK, guys, it’s all yours,” and let them deal with their own BS.
That’s pretty much the idea I have as well, except that ‘Sunniland’ is no more our friend than ‘Shi’itestan’. The country needs to be broken up. The trick is resources and how to allow access of those resources to each state, and keeping Turkey from carrying out an instant invasion on ‘New Kurdistan’. The region has either been under an empire or dictator for centuries, and now they’re let loose to fight. It’s like Yugoslavia. These folks will never be able to live together as one nation without a might fist pounding them down. At least not for the foreseeable, so they should break it up. It’s still very risky though.
... Or we could just stay the course :)
or we need to pull out and let the country go to shit, which at this point would be fine by me.
Why do I have this disturbing feeling that if I’d been telling you how fucked this war was a year or two ago (which I was, though not to you), you would have given me a great big sob story about how we were liberating the poor oppressed Iraqis (Saddam gassed his own people!!!) and blah blah blah...seems like all you guys were on such a great big moral bandwagon not so long ago about the poor Iraqis and their evil dictator and how your great president was out to save the world from the baddies…
How times change.
Most of us now agree Bush is a dolt
TOOK YOU FUCKING LONG ENOUGH TO FIGURE THAT ONE OUT!!!
I know guys like you are too full of themselves to ever offer an apology for Bush, who you supported beyond all reason, and who we liberals saw through since before he was ever in office...but I’ll accept your apology in absentia. Jesus Christ...it’s been a long time coming…
I know guys like you are too full of themselves to ever offer an apology for Bush, who you supported beyond all reason, and who we liberals saw through since before he was ever in office...but I’ll accept your apology in absentia. Jesus Christ...it’s been a long time coming…
Why should we apologise yo your ilk?
He fucked us too, and btw, your ilks objections to Bush back then were much different than the objections we have now.
These folks will never be able to live together as one nation without a might fist pounding them down. At least not for the foreseeable, so they should break it up. It’s still very risky though.
that there describes Much of the middle east, let alone many of the nations in Africa and Asia.
I say let them fight it out. this is not our war, but the Iraqis war, its their nation to win or lose.
They can come out of this with something greater, a sense of national unity…
It may lest take the US or the Iraqis to consider that Iran and Syria re not their friends and are fucking them hard, for their own ends.
Why do I have this disturbing feeling that if I’d been telling you how fucked this war was a year or two ago (which I was, though not to you), you would have given me a great big sob story about how we were liberating the poor oppressed Iraqis (Saddam gassed his own people!!!) and blah blah blah...seems like all you guys were on such a great big moral bandwagon not so long ago about the poor Iraqis and their evil dictator and how your great president was out to save the world from the baddies…
Just to update you on my opinions of this thing, you can ask just about anyone here that has read my posts for the last two years that I never thought going into Iraq was a good idea. Once we went in, however, I wanted to see a victory, and yes Saddam is an asshole whether you like it or not. The other option would be to hope for disaster, like the Left wanted. I wanted to see democracy established. I didn’t really care for people that would say ha ha, the insurgents blew up another pipeline, look at Bush now. What’s up with the Left to take pleasure in more death to make their point? I think some of you basically were cheering for the other side. Well fuck that, that’s something I’ll never do. Period.
What was up with the bitching when the soldiers had to fight to do their job? Oh, we need to make sure they don’t shoot anyone. Now they’re strap down with extra body armor because the Left were bitching, they can’t shoot half the time because the Left were bitching, and Bush is too much of a puss to challenge it.
TOOK YOU FUCKING LONG ENOUGH TO FIGURE THAT ONE OUT!!!
Before you make that statement, you should go back and read my last two years of statements regarding Bush.
Oh, and I should point out that as bad as Bush is, the Left try awfully hard to push someone who is just as bad or worse.
Oh, and I should point out that as bad as Bush is, the Left try awfully hard to push someone who is just as bad or worse.
Well, that’s the myth that the Right in this country likes to push, and were pushing hard in 2004.
Of course, like a lot of winger BS, there isn’t any substance behind it.
What Democratic president could be worse than Bush?
What policies would he pursue that would be worse than Bush?
Could he possibly be as incompetent as Bush?
You might not AGREE with things a Democratic president might do, just like I don’t AGREE with things a Republican president might do...but your or my policy disagreements over what a president of the opposing party would do are fundamentally DIFFERENT than trying to argue that a Democratic president would, just by virtue of not being of the party you like, be as bad or even WORSE than Bush.
Worse? How could anybody be worse than this loser?
That meme from the 2004 election, that Kerry, (or Gore in 2000) would be some kind of horrible disaster is just plain silly. Especially when we’ve got a very obvious, bona fide disaster in office right now.
Just to update you on my opinions of this thing, you can ask just about anyone here that has read my posts for the last two years that I never thought going into Iraq was a good idea. Once we went in, however, I wanted to see a victory, and yes Saddam is an asshole whether you like it or not. The other option would be to hope for disaster, like the Left wanted.
I’m sorry if I’m taking your words at face value...I’ll get around to reading the last two years of your posts sometime in the next decade.
This tendency on the Right these days to be angry at Iraq for not fulfilling their pipe dreams of silly heroic nation-building is disturbing. More and more I read angry right-wingers who just hate the people they were once so eager to save in their Holy Crusade under Dear Leader. I read more and more opinions that if the Iraqis just won’t cooperate, we should just flatten a few cities, carpet bomb areas with insurgent activity regardless of civilian lives there, or just nuke stuff because we can.
There’s even one guy on another thread here that thinks the Iraqis should be billed for our expenses in invading their country!
Fact is, there are a LOT of people in this country on the Right who are now in a position of having to eat their words...their mighty crusade blew up in their faces...and the last thing they want to do is admit that people who didn’t agree with invading Iraq were right. But, we were right.
If you weren’t one of those Bush-worshipping idiots, my apologies for thinking you were.
and yes Saddam is an asshole whether you like it or not.
Yes, but we had bigger fish to fry. Invading a country to get rid of a tinpot dictator wasn’t really on the top ten list of anybody but the neocons and Bush.
The other option would be to hope for disaster, like the Left wanted. I wanted to see democracy established. I didn’t really care for people that would say ha ha, the insurgents blew up another pipeline, look at Bush now. What’s up with the Left to take pleasure in more death to make their point? I think some of you basically were cheering for the other side.
I think you’re oversimplfying quite a bit. This isn’t a football game, where there are only two sides.
Look at it this way, if the neocons had been more successful, we’d probably be trying to occupy Iran now too...and instead of 3000 dead soldiers, we’d probably have ten thousand dead, and be in an even worse fix than we are now.
Wanting a bad president’s bad policy to fail because it will lead to even worse things down the road is not quite the same as ‘cheering for the other side’.
Just as Bush famously ‘doesn’t do nuance’, the fact is that there is a lot of nuance in world events and there are many ‘sides’, not just “us” or “them”.
Rhetorically speaking, is it ‘cheering for the other side’ to want a bad policy to fail quickly so we can get out with the least cost in lives and money? Or is it better to cheer like a good boy, to the point that a bad policy is continued for years, like Vietnam, and a lot more American boys die for nothing before the leaders finally get a clue and get out?
Posted by HARLEY on 11/26/06 at 10:21 AM from United States
Why should we apologise yo your ilk?
He fucked us too, and btw, your ilks objections to Bush back then were much different than the objections we have now.
By “my ilk” I assume you mean smart people, who were right about not going into Iraq.
Our ‘objections’ to Bush haven’t changed, we just have more of them. He was, and remains, the worst president we’ve ever had. We knew that back then. You wingers are just starting to figure it out now.
That meme from the 2004 election, that Kerry, (or Gore in 2000) would be some kind of horrible disaster is just plain silly. Especially when we’ve got a very obvious, bona fide disaster in office right now.
Gore’s a nut. Plain and simple. Geez, I hope I don’t have to explain this one later. Maybe tomorrow, it’s getting late.
The whole 2004 campaign was marketed around Michael Moore, and the Dems didn’t do a whole hell of a lot to distance themselves from him. That wasn’t too bright.
When the war broke out, the left decided to burn flags, shout about how America was horrible, and how we’re all racists, etc. Great fucking marketing tactic. Had they taken the high road, and said let’s follow this by the Constitution first, in a real patriotic way, or said don’t go to Iraq, leave the UN, they might have gotten the public’s ear. Instead they had to show their unbridled hate for this country, and hoped everyone would jump right on board.
Now, you’re right. Bush sucks. His policies are hardly to the right on economic issues. With the exception of a tax cut, there was no real push of Social Security reform, and with the Medicare bill came the largest spending on entitlements in history I believe, and for all the ridicule Clinton got for his programs, none have been cut that I know of. In fact, I think they’ve gotten healthy increases ever since. For the Supreme Court, his first choice was a fucking joke. Thanks God the GOP finally pulled the plug for once. Bush is a Christian Democrat, or a similar variant of that just like Lee has said many times.
As far as fucked up wars, well, I believe it was Eisenhower who started putting troops in Vietnam, but it was Kennedy who really ramped things up. Now how many presidents did it take to get out of that fucking thing? Not to mention the failed Bay of Pigs incident. Yeah, Bush is a dolt. Not the first, and unfortunately probably not the last.
Gore’s a nut. Plain and simple. Geez, I hope I don’t have to explain this one later. Maybe tomorrow, it’s getting late.
I can’t think of anything particularly ‘nutty’ that Gore would do. Can you?
Instead they had to show their unbridled hate for this country, and hoped everyone would jump right on board.
Please don’t insult my intelligence (or as Condi would say, ‘impugn my integrity’) by telling me how the left “hates America”. We don’t hate America. We are AMERICANS, dude. You make it difficult for me not to be insulting when you spew crap like that. We might hate the Right, we might hate Republicans, we might hate Bush, we might hate the DIRECTION Republicans drive America, but we do NOT hate America. This is our country too. You don’t win any points for spouting that tired crap about how millions of people in this country who don’t agree with you politically simply hate the nation we are citizens of.
Disagreeing with right-wingers and what they do when they are in control is not ‘hating America’. Hating what America has become is also not the same thing as ‘hating America’. And, anybody that does legitimately ‘hate America’, has just as much of a right to their point of view as you do. This isn’t a flag-waving contest, and lots of people have legitimate beefs with things America has done lately...including many Americans. And there is nothing wrong with that.
There is something wrong with the way a lot of you folks on the right have turned policy discussions into a referendum on who cheers the loudest and who doesn’t cheer at all, and who protests, as though certain points of view are wrong simply because they aren’t cheering.
When the war broke out, the left decided to burn flags, shout about how America was horrible, and how we’re all racists, etc.
I don’t recall any flags being burned, but if there were some, the people who did it were within their rights to protest. Also, the point of view that we may have helped to bring 9/11 on ourselves is a legitimate point of view, though you may not like it. I also don’t recall ‘the left’ saying that ‘we’ were all racists. Who is ‘the left’ here, and who is ‘we’? I wasn’t saying that, and I am part of that ‘we’ as well. Maybe you are talking about the reaction to a very visible anti-Arab racism that arose immediately after 9/11? I was driving a cab back then, and right after 9/11 I got an angry right-winger in my cab who gave me an earful about how all Arabs should be killed immediately and a bunch of other nasty stuff...so I know the sentiment was out there.
The whole 2004 campaign was marketed around Michael Moore, and the Dems didn’t do a whole hell of a lot to distance themselves from him. That wasn’t too bright.
The conventional wisdom is that Kerry ran a crappy campaign, and he did. (But no, it wasn’t marketed around Michael Moore...get over that guy, he’s just a filmmaker.)
However, what is talked about less is how Bush just BARELY managed to avoid becoming the first sitting president tossed out of office in a time of war. People were ALREADY so unhappy with Bush that he almost lost...to a Democrat who ran a piss-poor campaign. Look at Nixon in ‘72, 49-state landslide. Look at Reagan in ‘84, 49-state landslide.
This was not a defeat for Democrats in 2004...since going up against a president in wartime is a fool’s errand anyway...even though Bush ‘won’ (if you believe he really did), it was more a defeat in the sense that he failed to rally the people behind him. After 9/11, and with the nation at war, he should have been a shoo-in for a second term...and any Democrat running against him should have been crushed...but instead he just barely managed to hang on to his office by his fingernails...not exactly the ‘mandate’ he claimed the next day...not when you look at the re-election victories of Nixon and Reagan.
And look at how Bush and Cheney had to win...not by talking about their successes and plans...but basically by scaring people across the country by telling them that if they didn’t vote for them, the terrorists would win...and all the other lies and dirt they dished during that campaign. Not exactly a shining moment for the high nobility of conservatism or Republicanism.
A more accurate way to look at the election of 2004 is how a president with an approval rating of 90% managed to squander that approval so fast that he was nearly thrown out of office three years later. Historically speaking, he should have easily left his opponent in the dust, no matter who the Democrats ran against him.
Now, you’re right. Bush sucks. His policies are hardly to the right on economic issues.
No, no...you don’t get to do that. Conservatives created Bush, they built him into what he is, they supported him and voted for him twice and cheered on his war. Conservatives OWN Bush, and he is wrapped around your neck. No blaming Bush on liberals, and no claiming that Bush is liberal. None of that crap is going to pass the bullshit test. It’s in the nature of conservatism to suck up to ideologues and authoritarians. I don’t know why...it just is. And economic issues? Every Republican president for the past quarter century has left us with a big deficit...Bush’s is the biggest. The fault isn’t that these presidents are too liberal, the fault is with conservatism itself.
With the exception of a tax cut, there was no real push of Social Security reform
Bush pushed it, and the more he opened his trap about it, the less popular he got.
I know right-wingers hate Social Security, but the fact is that it’s the most successful insurance program in history, and it’s a good thing.
Very few people believed that Bush and the people behind him actually wanted to ‘fix’ Social Security. Instead, we think he wanted to destroy it, and making those private accounts would have effectively destroyed it.
Had they taken the high road, and said let’s follow this by the Constitution first, in a real patriotic way, or said don’t go to Iraq, leave the UN, they might have gotten the public’s ear.
This too is a right-winger thing. Most moderate Americans don’t want to leave the UN. And to expect ‘the left’ to argue that we should leave the UN as an argument against going into Iraq is a little silly. I know you guys hate the UN, but most people on the left and in the middle don’t have much of a problem with the UN. Sure, it’s not perfect, and probably needs some fixing...but everything in life isn’t perfect, and needs some fixing.
I know right-wingers hate Social Security, but the fact is that it’s the most successful insurance program in history, and it’s a good thing.
Do you have some facts to back that up? You can get a lot more putting the same percent of your check into the Dow 30. It’s true! Plus there would even be money leftover to donate to the poor, which there would be a lot less of them if we didn’t regulate so much. Speaking of donating, Kerry should do that someday with some of his 750 mil. He’s the richest guy in the Senate. It’s easier for him to donate my money instead though, while he writes off everything under the sun with his accountants. I wish I could live that elitist lifestyle, marry a chick with tons of cash and then sucker people into thinking I’m not using the downtrodden as pawns for my political aspirations. Now, if some want the government to do their investing for them, fine. Just make sure it’s an investment, and won’t eventually rely on someone’s kids being forced to pay for your retirement.
This too is a right-winger thing. Most moderate Americans don’t want to leave the UN. And to expect ‘the left’ to argue that we should leave the UN as an argument against going into Iraq is a little silly. I know you guys hate the UN, but most people on the left and in the middle don’t have much of a problem with the UN. Sure, it’s not perfect, and probably needs some fixing...but everything in life isn’t perfect, and needs some fixing.
Well, of course the left wouldn’t dream of badmouthing the UN. How about the flag burning and other things I mentioned? See, it would be hard for you guys not to do it, because that would be hiding your true feelings, then you get mad when people questions the patriotism. Now, I think you guys have every right to do that shit, but it doesn’t mean people are going to like it. Just like Michael Richards can say nigger all he wants, it’s not going to make him funny, nor a good comedian. It’s interesting though that people will bitch about the US government, which they should, but know little about or even care about a government body they can’t even vote for. I have no problem with international talks when needed, but the UN is a joke. Five countries which consist of the US and Great Britain that usually side with one another with Russia and China on the other side, and France is the little bitch that sides with whomever she feels she’ll bet the best deal out of at any given time (although in reality, that’s not a dumb thing to do). The third world countries are the pawns.
And boy, they all love resolutions, and no action. They’ll send peacekeepers that are instructed not to do anything when violence breaks out. They tell a country to stop building nuclear power plants, but won’t do anything when they actually do. Not that it’s anyone’s business anyhow.
I was reading something about the US populace not really caring for the UN the other day. I’ll have
to find the article after work. It’s not just a right-wing nut thing anymore.
I know right-wingers hate Social Security, but the fact is that it’s the most successful insurance program in history, and it’s a good thing.Do you have some facts to back that up?
No, but I can’t think of another program that has worked as well for so many years. It’s an insurance program, not an investment portfolio.
You can get a lot more putting the same percent of your check into the Dow 30. It’s true!
When we aren’t in any kind of recession, that’s probably true. Of course, if we set that up, who would manage all those accounts? What would their fees be? Who would guarantee that money? If the economy took a nose-dive, which it does from time to time, what then?
I just see no reason to change Social Security.
Also, I don’t trust Republicans on this issue. I don’t trust their motivations. If we are going to change Social Security, let’s wait until we get a Democratic government from top to bottom, and THEN change it...when we know the changes being made are really intended to preserve the program, and not kill it.
Now, if some want the government to do their investing for them, fine. Just make sure it’s an investment, and won’t eventually rely on someone’s kids being forced to pay for your retirement.
And for those who make unwise investment choices, and wind up broke, what happens to them?
I still see no reason to alter Social Security.
Well, of course the left wouldn’t dream of badmouthing the UN. How about the flag burning and other things I mentioned? See, it would be hard for you guys not to do it, because that would be hiding your true feelings, then you get mad when people questions the patriotism.
Like I said, I don’t remember any flag burning going on after 9/11. And since you are a winger, you don’t really know about the ‘true feelings’ of anybody on the Left, do you? I think you wingers are America-hating bastards just as much as you think that of me.
I’m not sure why the high or low levels of ‘patriotism’ is relevant...nor do I think that how loudly one cheers, whether one waves the flag around or not, etc., have anything to do with patriotism or anything like it.
You guys on the Right are a bit too in love with your symbols, in my opinion.
Have you ever thought that burning the flag when you feel like your government has soiled it might be the highest form of patriotism you’ll ever see in your life? The loyalty to one’s country is tied to the ideas behind it, not the piece of cloth.
The ‘other things you mentioned’? Like this:
What was up with the bitching when the soldiers had to fight to do their job? Oh, we need to make sure they don’t shoot anyone. Now they’re strap down with extra body armor because the Left were bitching, they can’t shoot half the time because the Left were bitching, and Bush is too much of a puss to challenge it.
I’m not sure how you blame ‘the Left’ for this stuff...seems to me you blame a lot of stuff on some fictional ‘Left’ that just embodies anything you happen to disagree with.
If you are referring to soldiers shooting innocents, look it up in the Army Manual...I think that liberal document has something to say about the subject.
Look, a lot of what you are complaining about seems to just be generalized bitching...people exercise their right to air grievances against their government and you question their patriotism...soldiers are bound to adhere to the rules of war and the rules they are trained by and you blame liberals for not cheering on massacres or things like Abu Ghraib.
I think some of your values need to be reassessed...a lot of things you blame ‘the Left’ for, have very little to do with liberals.
It’s like guys like you are mad because we won’t jump on the Republicans’ “Clap louder” style of government. Well, get used to it, because we never will.
.
Five countries which consist of the US and Great Britain that usually side with one another with Russia and China on the other side, and France is the little bitch that sides with whomever she feels she’ll bet the best deal out of at any given time (although in reality, that’s not a dumb thing to do). The third world countries are the pawns.
Yes, that’s true to some extent...of course, other matters than the few big ones we hear about in America also get handled by the UN, and if you ask some of those little countries, I think you’ll find a lot of support for the UN, because it is the only international forum they have.
Yes, it needs to be reformed...but honestly, the kind of reform it needs to represent the world fairly isn’t going to make right-wingers happy, since it will just reduce America’s clout further in the organization.
The UN is a Euro/Anglo/American-created body, but to update it sixty years later, we’d have to bring regional powers like India, Brazil, Iran, Japan, and a few others into the central structure and give them a larger role commensurate with their role in their regions. The role of America and Europe would be reduced, but the organization would work better. That’s my take on it anyway.
Speaking of donating, Kerry should do that someday with some of his 750 mil. He’s the richest guy in the Senate. It’s easier for him to donate my money instead though, while he writes off everything under the sun with his accountants. I wish I could live that elitist lifestyle, marry a chick with tons of cash and then sucker people into thinking I’m not using the downtrodden as pawns for my political aspirations.
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here. There are plenty of filthy rich Republicans, plenty of them have married into money too. They are just as elitist as any other rich aristocrat. Bush’s entire life has been possible because of his famous name and his family’s wealth and connections. If it weren’t for those things, he would have never attended the schools he did...he would never have been bailed out of any of his business failures...he would never have gotten rich because nobody would have invested in him without the family connection, he would never have done any of the things that he thinks he did on his own.
He’d probably be an alcoholic garbage collector in some shithole in Texas and the whole world would be better off.
Don’t spew that ‘elitist liberal’ crap at me. There is just as much elitism on your side.
No, but I can’t think of another program that has worked as well for so many years. It’s an insurance program, not an investment portfolio.
Oh, ok then. I’ll just take your word for it then.
When we aren’t in any kind of recession, that’s probably true. Of course, if we set that up, who would manage all those accounts? What would their fees be? Who would guarantee that money? If the economy took a nose-dive, which it does from time to time, what then?
Oh hell, I don’t know who could manage it. Maybe the person who earned the money maybe? If you are saving for retirement, the market goes up and down, but over the 60 years or so, the blue chips have outperformed everything. Gold, savings bonds, social security, you name it. There are plenty of funds, 401Ks, IRAs, and all kinds of other investment tools for the common person. If they want to opt to have a government employee do it for them, fine, but it should be a choice.
Wouldn’t it be nice if school actually taught you something useful like saving your money, buying a car without getting fucked in the ass by the sales guy. You know shit you need to do to get by in this world. Instead you hear about the little safety net the government has provided for you, and a lot of people just happen to slip right through the holes.
By the way, social security derives its money from tax dollars, so guess what will happen if there is another real depression and there isn’t the feed of money. Savings on the other hand, can just be transferred, and still make money from one commodity or another, or one stock or another regardless.
Don’t spew that ‘elitist liberal’ crap at me. There is just as much elitism on your side.
I guess you don’t get it. I’ll give you an analogy: When a reverend goes around saying people are corrupt, and that we need morality laws, many of us see this guy as an overbearing SOB. Don’t we? How dare he tell me to sacrifice any enjoyment as long as I’m not hurting anyone right? Right? Right!!? Someone else out there may have just as strict of a moral code, yet doesn’t care about restricting the personal rights of others, because he’s not an elitist. Do you think the two are the same even though they have may same personal moral code? Now, not only does the reverend want these laws, but if we come to find out he doesn’t practice what he preaches, and screws around or whatever, what do you call a person that dictates one thing but does another? See if you can figure out what I’m getting at.
Basically, I don’t give a shit about rich people. Only the ones who talk about the ‘privileged few’, yet won’t cough up their fair share of tax dollars, and choose to write off as much as they can. It’s called hypocrisy. Not practicing what you preach. It’s the same you get from those fundies you hate so much.
Like I said, I don’t remember any flag burning going on after 9/11.
How old are you? 4 1/2?
Like I said, I don’t remember any flag burning going on after 9/11.
How old are you? 4 1/2?
Ok, please provide some links or evidence...some numbers...something...about flags being burned after 9/11. And obviously, I mean here in America. You guys love to talk about burning flags, but I don’t see much evidence of it. Can you come up with even THREE incidents of flags being burned after 9/11? TWO? Maybe just ONE?
This whole flag-burning thing is another silly conservative hobby horse, because flags being burned don’t matter, and aren’t representative of anything besides people airing their grievances in a way you don’t like...but since you cite it so much, provide some relevant numbers, please.
And from a real source...I’m not interested in how many flags Rush Limbaugh thinks are burning or any of the usual gasbags of the Right who are so influential on your side. No O’Reilly, no Drudge...something at least slightly reputable.
Ok, please provide some links or evidence...some numbers...something...about flags being burned after 9/11.
Ah...go do a little research on the subject, there is some new news about it.
It’ll be good for you to break out of your moonbat echo chamber for a minute or two and find out stuff on your own.
If you get lost out there in the real world, just find a pay phone, call home, and mommy will come pick you up.
You’ll be okay.
I guess you don’t get it. I’ll give you an analogy:
Your whole analogy, to give me an example of someone on the Right who is an elitist, to help me understand your point about John Kerry, just proves what I said, which was this:
There is just as much elitism on your side.
Posted by Buzzion on 11/30/06 at 02:36 AM from United States
Ok, please provide some links or evidence...some numbers...something...about flags being burned after 9/11.
Ah...go do a little research on the subject, there is some new news about it.
It’ll be good for you to break out of your moonbat echo chamber for a minute or two and find out stuff on your own.
If you get lost out there in the real world, just find a pay phone, call home, and mommy will come pick you up.
You’ll be okay.
Aww...you poor winger...did I upset you? Here, take a lollipop.
Since you feel like jumping into this conversation, go find me some examples of flags being burned after 9/11. Consider it a challenge, because I don’t remember a wave of flag-burning sweeping the nation after 9/11. In fact, I don’t remember a single incident of an American flag being burned.
I’d be curious if you could find even one.
It’s your hobby horse, not mine...so prove me wrong.
How much after 9/11 do you want it you moronic little child?
No, but I can’t think of another program that has worked as well for so many years. It’s an insurance program, not an investment portfolio.Oh, ok then. I’ll just take your word for it then.
I guess you’ll have to...I can’t think of a more successful program, and apparently, neither can you or you would have named it.
Oh hell, I don’t know who could manage it. Maybe the person who earned the money maybe?
Hmmm...I can just imagine the overhead, setting up millions of individual accounts, and then making sure that they were operating correctly, and protecting them from scam artists, etc.
Wouldn’t it be nice if school actually taught you something useful like saving your money, buying a car without getting fucked in the ass by the sales guy. You know shit you need to do to get by in this world. Instead you hear about the little safety net the government has provided for you, and a lot of people just happen to slip right through the holes.
I don’t recall school teaching me about either one, saving money OR the safety net. A lot of people slip through the holes, but a lot FEWER people than before things like Social Security.
There are plenty of funds, 401Ks, IRAs, and all kinds of other investment tools for the common person. If they want to opt to have a government employee do it for them, fine, but it should be a choice.
Instead of setting up lots of little funds, why don’t we just make one big one, which will make even more money. I know...we’ll call it Social Security. I’m not averse to the idea that Social Security could do with a little bit of tinkering...but I’m not willing to touch it while Republicans are anywhere near. Given the deficits they always leave us with, I don’t trust them with our money.
Next time a Republican president wants to screw around with Social Security, he should campaign on that issue and see what kind of reception he gets. What Bush did, never mention Social Security once during the entire long campaign, and then wake up the day after the election declaring that he had a ‘mandate’ to change it...that was a fundamentally dishonest and unscrupulous thing to do. Of course, we’ve learned to expect things like that from Georgie-boy.
I guess you’ll have to...I can’t think of a more successful program, and apparently, neither can you or you would have named it.
How do you define “success”?
Posted by Buzzion on 11/30/06 at 02:45 AM from United States
How much after 9/11 do you want it you moronic little child?
Oh, look...the winger is all pissy, he’s calling me names.
Dumb fucker...we don’t have to get all nasty about this, it’s up to you.
Since the original claim was that ‘the Left’ was burning flags “after 9/11”, meaning in response to 9/11, let’s say two things need to be in place for it to be a 9/11-related flag burning.
Let’s say within six months of 9/11, and there has to be some kind of relation TO 9/11.
Like, “Today, a group of crazy liberals held a sit-in at their school and burned an American flag. It was a 9/11 related protest.”
Something like that.
Not, “Some psycho waving a gun around burned a flag today. Right-wingers claimed it was another example of liberalism gone amok.”
Got it?
Go get ‘em, tiger…
Posted by Orpheus on 11/30/06 at 02:55 AM from Australia
I guess you’ll have to...I can’t think of a more successful program, and apparently, neither can you or you would have named it.How do you define “success”?
I’m not sure, exactly. Back in the thirties, grinding poverty was the future for many people as they reached old age. Serious, bread-line, starving-to-death, poverty.
Today, while there is still poverty, it is much less prevalent, and much less severe. Part of the reason for that is that every single person gets a check after a certain age, every single month, regardless of who they are or what they did...and the check might not be much, but it at least guarantees some kind of income for those who can’t or don’t work anymore.
How do I define success? Not seeing lots of starving old people with begging bowls on the streets, like I’ve seen in some countries.
Don’t worry muirgeo I found some.
Posted by Buzzion on 11/30/06 at 02:45 AM from United States
How much after 9/11 do you want it you moronic little child?
Actually, I need to add a third condition:
1) Within six months of 9/11
2) Somehow related to 9/11
3) Somehow related to liberals
i.e. “A group of teenagers burnt a flag at their high school this afternoon...apparently to get attention...” doesn’t count.
There’s other ways to achieve that kind of success. Compulsory savings plans like they have here in Australia, for instance. Every employer has to pay into a superannuation fund on behalf of the employee. It’s their money, and although you can technically withdraw it in case, the tax rate for doing so is some lethally high value, so noone does. When you reach the age of retirement, you can access it. The only people who need the state pension are those who haven’t worked enough during their lives to fund their retirement. The main difference as far as I can tell is that the government has nothing to do with managing the money - that’s up to private superannuation funds. If you don’t like your fund, you can switch it to another fund easily. You can also switch it into certain kinds of personal investment if you can convince the tax office that it’s a long term investment - then they’ll issue an exemption for the punitive withdrawal tax.
Don’t worry muirgeo I found some.
BTW, what is ‘muirgeo’?
Would your prefer if I called you george?
I’ll also add something for you. Go read Section8’s original comment on flag burnings. It doesn’t relate to after 9/11. But there are cases of it occuring. You’d of course discount them though. I doubt you can find evidence of what I’ve asked for an update on that doesn’t originate from the same phony police officer the first story came from.
There’s other ways to achieve that kind of success. Compulsory savings plans like they have here in Australia, for instance. Every employer has to pay into a superannuation fund on behalf of the employee. It’s their money, and although you can technically withdraw it in case, the tax rate for doing so is some lethally high value, so noone does. When you reach the age of retirement, you can access it. The only people who need the state pension are those who haven’t worked enough during their lives to fund their retirement. The main difference as far as I can tell is that the government has nothing to do with managing the money - that’s up to private superannuation funds. If you don’t like your fund, you can switch it to another fund easily. You can also switch it into certain kinds of personal investment if you can convince the tax office that it’s a long term investment - then they’ll issue an exemption for the punitive withdrawal tax.
shhhhhh, you’ll scare all the democrats away with talk like that. You mention private companies and no control by government and its immediately bad.
Posted by Orpheus on 11/30/06 at 03:09 AM from Australia
There’s other ways to achieve that kind of success. Compulsory savings plans like they have here in Australia, for instance.
That sounds interesting. Maybe the next time Democrats control everything, we can talk about something like that. It’s still a compulsory thing, though, and conservatives in this country don’t like that.
The main thing for me is not having starving old people in the streets. I don’t care how much they might have fucked up in life...when they get old and no longer able to work...I want them to have some kind of support for the basics of food and shelter.
The problem (as I see it) with implementing the program you describe over here is that some people will be at the bottom end of it, and will still require public assistance. And whenever Republicans get in control, they always cut public assistance and hand the savings to their rich friends in high places.
I’m just unwilling to tinker with our program while the losers we are stuck with right now are still in control of anything larger than the nation’s doghouse.
Would your prefer if I called you george?
I’ll also add something for you. Go read Section8’s original comment on flag burnings. It doesn’t relate to after 9/11. But there are cases of it occuring. You’d of course discount them though. I doubt you can find evidence of what I’ve asked for an update on that doesn’t originate from the same phony police officer the first story came from.
George? I don’t get it.
Ok, so forget my conditions...what DID you find on flag burning in general?
shhhhhh, you’ll scare all the democrats away with talk like that. You mention private companies and no control by government and its immediately bad.
I’m guessing that the funds he is referring to are regulated somehow by the government, or at least monitored to make sure unscrupulous people aren’t stealing the peoples’ money.
I doubt you can find evidence of what I’ve asked for an update on that doesn’t originate from the same phony police officer the first story came from.
“On Tuesday, two AP reporters also went back to the Hurriyah neighborhood around the Mustafa mosque and found three witnesses who independently gave accounts of the attack. Others in the neighborhood said they were afraid to talk about what happened.”
I’m not entirely sure why this has become an issue for the right-wing. Last month you would have pointed to something like this as proof of the savagery of the people we are fighting. Spin, spin, spin...should be a song…
On Tuesday, two AP reporters also went back to the Hurriyah neighborhood around the Mustafa mosque and found three witnesses who independently gave accounts of the attack. Others in the neighborhood said they were afraid to talk about what happened.”
Link
I’m not entirely sure why this has become an issue for the right-wing. Last month you would have pointed to something like this as proof of the savagery of the people we are fighting. Spin, spin, spin...should be a song…
Two AP reporters. Who are the two reporters? The same two that are always talking to this phony police captain? Who told them where to find witnesses? Where’s the confirmation from other police officers? Thanks for proving that there is no update though. Just the AP trying to make it look like there is.
Two AP reporters. Who are the two reporters? The same two that are always talking to this phony police captain? Who told them where to find witnesses? Where’s the confirmation from other police officers? Thanks for proving that there is no update though. Just the AP trying to make it look like there is.
Well, shit dude...I’m not sure what you expect from this when they’re reporting out of a fucking war zone. It’s not exactly the ideal place to go interview every house on the block or send out fifty reporters for it. How much risk to life and limb do you expect these guys to go through just to satisfy a bunch of winger complaints on blogs?
They interviewed a few more witnesses...whether the reporters were the same ones or different ones doesn’t matter, I don’t see why it should.
Pull that winger hair out of your ass...there isn’t really any reason to doubt the story beyond the fact that the Iraqi government, which has a stake in playing down shit like this, says it didn’t happen. The locals say it did.
I know you wingers have tons of faith in anything coming from ‘the government’ and you love your big government and all, but this is getting a little silly.
Hey, are you going to get me that stuff on flag-burning?
They interviewed a few more witnesses...whether the reporters were the same ones or different ones doesn’t matter, I don’t see why it should.
It does matter. You see there is this pattern of the same reporters always contacting this Hussein guy who all sources say is not a police officer. If these are the reporters doing the interviews, or Jamil is the one who sent them to the witnesses then you are solving nothing. They are involved in a circular loop and don’t want anyone to know.
Its like asking Butters who caused 9/11 and Eric Cartman going “Ah-ha see I was right!”
You see if I go outside and look at a flag pole, and decide to ask people how tall they think it is. The first person I ask is Bob. Bob says he thinks its 30 feet high. Bob then goes tell 3 people that the flag pole is 30 feet high. Later I ask those 3 people how tall they think it is and they all respond with 30 feet. Have I gotten a good sample, or am I involved in a loop of information?
Pull that winger hair out of your ass...there isn’t really any reason to doubt the story beyond the fact that the Iraqi government, which has a stake in playing down shit like this, says it didn’t happen. The locals say it did.
You mean unlike the other acts of violence that they regularly admit to. You know like how the original article claimed 4 mosques were set on fire but the police can only find one that was burned.
How do you know that these AP reporters aren’t students of Pallywood? You do know what that is don’t you?
Hey, are you going to get me that stuff on flag-burning?
Nope do your own footwork. I already proved that your initial premise was completely flawed since no one but you mentioned flag burnings occuring after 9/11.
The main thing for me is not having starving old people in the streets. I don’t care how much they might have fucked up in life...when they get old and no longer able to work...I want them to have some kind of support for the basics of food and shelter.
Well, see, that’s when you get out your checkbook and write a check. Liberals think they are the only one’s who care, but the reality is people do give, and they’ll give without the threat of force. They also prefer to give to a volunteer organization that cares, not an institution where the cure would kill the doctor and people would lose their jobs (see, those institutions don’t want the problem solved. It’s put them out of business). People would give even more if it weren’t for that bitter taste they get when the government steals from them. Writing your own check is a lot more honorable than advocating the government take it from someone else. I’m all for having a little checkbox that says you’d prefer the government to budget your money, and then they can take out the 12%. It’s called freedom, not the coercion of the government to promote social goals. It’s funny how you guys scoff at Christian fundies when you also have no regrets of using the force of government for a ‘better society’.
You should really read up on the economic history of this nation. There are lots of social programs and anti free market laws that the elite pushed for back at the beginning of the century. It’s strange that they would promote such laws that supposedly protected the people from the rich and powerful. Has it ever occurred to some of you that the ones who have so much money don’t mind these laws because it basically puts up barriers for anyone else to ever reach their level? Read up on the Federal Reserve and how the government was actually responsible for taking what used to be short-term contractions in the economy, and making a great depression out of it. Not to mention part of the reason for the creation of the Federal Reserve was to make deficit spending easier. Well, we’ve seen where that’s gotten us.
The CEO of Wal-Mart recently advocated an increase in the minimum wage. Why didn’t he just unilaterally pay his workers more? Well, advocating an increase makes it look like you care, but all businesses will have to pay more, including the small stores, which will have to raise their prices immediately, while Wal-Mart could wait a year or two since they have the cash to burn. Many smaller stores probably couldn’t sustain an increase, where Wall-Mart can. Eliminating competition, and looking good for doing it. I’m telling you, a lot of these programs aren’t there to help the poor. It’s to fuck the people and give the elite more power.
I’ll also add something for you. Go read Section8’s original comment on flag burnings. It doesn’t relate to after 9/11.
Exactly, but huckleberry can’t seem to read very well. There are several things I’ve tried to explain in very basic terms, which seem to just fly over his head. My original post about that was how the left did a terrible job of anti war protesting, marketing it as more of America is terrible, rather than doing it in a more unifying way.
My original post about that was how the left did a terrible job of anti war protesting, marketing it as more of America is terrible, rather than doing it in a more unifying way.
Without ever explaining what exactly ‘the left’ actually is...or noting that ‘the left’ isn’t a monolithic group like, for example, the evangelicals.
You were just bashing the left without much truth involved, and fewer facts, because as a winger you like to throw that anti-America crap around...and then when you mentioned flag burning...I called you on it.
As a result of what Buzzion put up in his list, we can see that there were very few incidents of flag burning that one might call protesting, or anything by ‘the left’...certainly no organized, nation-wide flag-burning, or anything like that.
Just a few isolated incidents, and a few angry folks, doing something they have a right to do…
but you want to use that to make some kind of grand statement about ‘the Left’.
And yes, you were wrong.
But that’s ok, you guys are wrong about so much.
Exactly, but huckleberry can’t seem to read very well.
Kind of amazing how you wingers continue to think you’re smarter than everyone else, considering the mess we’re in is entirely your fault. I guess that’s just one of the annoying characteristics of conservatives everywhere...the smarmy smugness...even though they’ve given us the most destructive president in history.
Oh well, enjoy it, I suppose…
Without ever explaining what exactly ‘the left’ actually is...or noting that ‘the left’ isn’t a monolithic group like, for example, the evangelicals.
You were just bashing the left without much truth involved, and fewer facts, because as a winger you like to throw that anti-America crap around...and then when you mentioned flag burning...I called you on it.
As a result of what Buzzion put up in his list, we can see that there were very few incidents of flag burning that one might call protesting, or anything by ‘the left’...certainly no organized, nation-wide flag-burning, or anything like that.
You’re the ignorant shit that took the point and focused in on only one facet and tried to claim that it was the entire point being made.
If I claimed that bears eat fish, insects, and woodland creatures, you would focus on the insects, saying “I don’t recall ever hearing about bears eating insects. Provide evidence that bears eat insects as food. Prove to me that bears eat insects for their primary source of food.” See you’d twist that all into the focus on the insects and make the claim about it being the primary food source.
So I would provide proof that bears have eaten insects at times that they aren’t able to find other foods and you would go “AH-HA! Bears only occasionally eat insects. You can only find a few examples of bears eating insects. And who are these “bears” you always talk about “bears” but only a few bears have eaten insects. “bears” aren’t some monolithic group. But you used it as some grand statement that bears eat insects.”
That’s what you did and you have your head shoved so far up your ass you can see your tonsils that you will never realize it.
Next entry: The Other Cheek
Previous entry: Snipe Hunting
Who's Logged In
Total Members: 8230
Total Logged in members: 3
Total guests: 44
Total anonymous users: 0
britishcress,
Manwhore,
Miguelito,
Capitalism
Search
Search this site with Google
Search will take you to Google.com, which will display results from Right-Thinking and link you back here. Search using pMachineRecent Comments
How quickly they soured us on their ideology, huh?
(8 total, Last @ 08:58)
Mark_M: The average American is so fucking stupid I don’t give us much hope. I'll paraphrase a great line from Dennis Miller ..."The American people are so stupid...of course, I know better than them. But then again I DO have a bachelor's in communications from Tallahassee Junior College."
Tonight's speech by Obama on Iraq...
(30 total, Last @ 08:56)
Manwhore: It is striking to me that Alex is now the only real voice of conservative thinking on this blog. For the few who rebel against the idea are hit in the face with a Limbaugh smear. I think it was fucking hilarious that he handed all of you your asses;…
Quote Mining
(14 total, Last @ 08:04)
Dick Fitzwell: A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul--George Bernard Shaw Sometimes I wonder if the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.--Mark Twain A major source of objection to a…
How quickly they soured us on their ideology, huh?
(8 total, Last @ 07:34)
Seattle Outcast: Get that sand washed out yet muirgeo1?
The Discovery Gunman
(2 total, Last @ 07:33)
Seattle Outcast: Considering that this is exactly what I hear from your typical garden-variety libtard, I'm keeping my guard up around them in case they snap.
Last 30 Comments
But hey, we’re fighting them over there not here!