On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:43:12 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 10:23:35 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 23:48:04 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:43:50 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:27:47 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:02:41 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:43:19 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:40:55 -0700, wrote:



If paygo doesn't apply to the entitlements and the DoD budget it is
about as significant as cutting the NPR budget.

"Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan and former Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) director Dan L. Crippen have pointed to PAYGO as
instrumental in establishing the fiscal discipline that gradually
decreased the deficit during the 1990s and ultimately led to large
surpluses."

That was when SS and Medicare were paying their own way. Both are in
deficit now.

They are not in deficit in any way that affects the upcoming budget.
It's nonsense, right-wing fear-mongering.

You are not that stupid. How can you possibly say a program that
spends moire than it takes in is not in deficit?

Medicare has been upside down for several years and SS went upside
down 2 years ago.

And, it is not contributing one penny to the current deficit problem.
It "may" at some point if it isn't fixed.


WHAT? We are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar of the short fall and
Obama chopping 2% off of the FICA tax rate only makes it worse.

WHAT? Not because of SS/MC. I don't agree with any tax cut for the
wealthy.


Before that, they were trying to say a recovery would put SS back into
the black for a year, maybe two. Now they can't even make that claim.

Medicare is just spiraling down the black hole of debt with no end in
sight.

Go hide under your blankey.

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:30:52 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:54:53 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In ,
says...
That begs the question, how stupid were the Democrats?
Why would they listen to a guy they were calling an idiot?
Well, I guess when the President/VP and CIA gin up a bunch of
nonsense, even those dumb Democrats get fooled.

http://usliberals.about.com/od/liber...raqNayVote.htm

Far more non-sucker Dems than Reps.
Iraq War Resolution Act.
House against - 126 Dems, 6 Reps.
Senate against - 21 Dems, 1 Rep.

That is about the same as the vote on Afghanistan and a Libya vote
would not come out that well.

BTW you didn't say how many voted FOR.

But enough total suckers to carry the bill in a Rep Congress.
Too many suckers.
Here's one guy who wasn't buying it.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/feingold1.html

Hey, why is Greg talking about Iraq?
I thought this was about Afghanistan.

I am trying to talk about Libya but Plume can let Iraq go.
Every time I say anything she responds with Iraq.


What point are you trying to make about Libya? Are you contemplating
that Obama is going to try to order in significant numbers of ground
troups? I don't see that happening.

Some wag suggested we arm both sides in these fundamentalist, backwards
countries to the teeth, let them fight it out, and then shoot all the
members of whichever side emerges, and then shoot whoever wants to take
over until there is no one left who wants to rule. At that point,
sometime in the future, it is possible a reasonable form of democracy
might arise.

That's a *bit* too cynical for me.

Well, according to the right Obama dithered and did nothing, and now
he's a war-monger. Did they flip before they flopped?

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:50:10 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 10:27:28 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 23:46:10 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:24:52 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


So Obama "lied" about his 16 month campaign withdrawal plan.
He decided to listen to military advisers like Petraeus instead of the
likes of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al.

They still came up with the same plan


Show me Obama's plan to invade Iraq.

You and Plume have to move up into the 21st century. The war we are
talking about is Afghanistan. I know you can't get your mind off of
Iraq but that was the last century and a guy who is not president
anymore.

So, it's ok with you that we went to war for no reason and ignored a
place where we did have a reason.

We went in two places with no reason. When the Delta team missed OBL,
our job was done there.

When the Delta team "missed" OBL, Rumsfeld should have resigned along
with Bush/Cheney.

We should have just waited for him to pop up somewhere else and killed
him there.

You're quite a military expert aren't you.

Obama is the one who doubled down in Afghanistan.

Trying to fix Bush's mess.

Making a bad decision worse.


According to you.

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:08:59 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 10:32:43 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 00:11:44 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:47:58 -0700, wrote:


Why do we have the right to decide what "human rights" mean in a
foreign country? In real life we are using human rights to mask an
economic or political mission anyway.

So, just to be clear, according to you, screw everyone else. If people
are murdered by dictators, not our problem.

I guess you didn't have a problem with Germany pre-WW2. Why did we
attack them? They didn't attack us.

Maybe you were absent the day they taught history. Germany declared
war on us.

But, they didn't attack us. Watch the movie The Mouse that Roared.

Right now we are backing the "rebels" in Libya but we do not have a
clue who they really are. It is significant that this region is an
alleged Al Queda strong hold. We may end up replacing a guy that we
had "contained" to use your words, with a gang that we have no
influence over at all.

We're not supplying them with weapons so far. I think that would be a
mistake on general principles, but we have built some good will which
is sorely lacking for us in the region.

Good will from who?
It certainly hasn't become apparent. The Arab League has backed off of
their endorsement and is saying this is not what they signed on to.

The cheers on the ground in Libya. The Arab League has not backed off
much. They backed off the statement that it was more than what they
signed on with.

You have still not given me an example of a success story in all of
our post WWII military adventures. The best that you can point at is a
stalemate in the Bulkans where we have 124,000 blue helmets standing
between feuding factions.

No stalemate. No one is dying there as they were previously.

That is the definition of a stalemate.
(It is a chess term, referring to a game where no pieces can be taken)

No. A stalemate is when neither side gets an advantage. This isn't
chess. This is human life. But, I forgot, you don't care.

BTW when I went looking for that number I was overwhelmed by reports
of the UN "peacekeepers" engaged in human trafficking and rape.
Put this on your google bar

"Bosnia peace keepers 2010"

You can see what wonderful people the UN is putting in there to help
out the population.


So, you're claiming that all the peace keepers (ours included) are
trafficking and raping. Seems to me you believe that because a few
people do something bad, that means all of them do bad.

Just enough to be a problem. More wonderful press for the UN

Problem for the individuals being harmed and some bad press. That's
not a rebuke of the UN.

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:11:37 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 10:33:53 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:51:33 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:08:23 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:31:33 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:31:48 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


They are now saying the main source, a British asset who never talked
to the US, was a fraud. It is interesting that Blair is not getting
more of the blame.
All of the things Powell was saying at the UN (mobile weapons labs and
WMD accidents that killed a number of workers) came from the Brits.


The main "source" for mobile weapons labs "intelligence" was Curveball.
Curveball was a German "asset."
An embezzler, possibly alcoholic, looking for a green card.
He was discredited totally by UN weapons inspectors before the war was
launched.

The Brits were still parroting his stories and fed the information to
Powell.

We can't let facts get in the way of blaming Bush for everything tho.

This is some of the most hilarious bull**** I've see in a long time.
Bush/Cheney/Tenet/Powell had nothing to do with it.
It's all Tony Blairs's fault!

I never said Bush et al were not at fault. That is the part you all
miss. I think the whole ****up in Iraq was unnecessary.
We should have left in 1991. Every president since then shares some of
the blame.
Obama said he would stop both wars yet he clings to the same schedule
"the idiot" came up with. It makes you wonder who the idiot (or the
liar) really is.


Completely untrue. He's implemented a complete withdrawal of combat
troops as per the agreement with the Iraqi gov't. The remaining forces
are winding down. It's clear who the idiot was... Bush. It's clear who
told him what to do.. Cheney, the other war criminal.


"Combat troops" is a cute euphemism. It is like when you said we
didn't have any combat troops in Vietnam after the cease fire, yet
another 362 GIs were killed in combat.
Since the biggest cause of death in both of the current wars is from
IEDs, not "combat" the term is meaningless.

According to you, the expert. I guess you don't care that we're
involvement is winding down and it takes some time.

... according, literally "to the writing on the wall". Go to DC and
look at it sometime.


VN is old news. Get a new argument.

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:26:13 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:30:52 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:54:53 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In ,
says...
That begs the question, how stupid were the Democrats?
Why would they listen to a guy they were calling an idiot?
Well, I guess when the President/VP and CIA gin up a bunch of
nonsense, even those dumb Democrats get fooled.

http://usliberals.about.com/od/liber...raqNayVote.htm

Far more non-sucker Dems than Reps.
Iraq War Resolution Act.
House against - 126 Dems, 6 Reps.
Senate against - 21 Dems, 1 Rep.

That is about the same as the vote on Afghanistan and a Libya vote
would not come out that well.

BTW you didn't say how many voted FOR.

But enough total suckers to carry the bill in a Rep Congress.
Too many suckers.
Here's one guy who wasn't buying it.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/feingold1.html

Hey, why is Greg talking about Iraq?
I thought this was about Afghanistan.

I am trying to talk about Libya but Plume can let Iraq go.
Every time I say anything she responds with Iraq.


What point are you trying to make about Libya? Are you contemplating
that Obama is going to try to order in significant numbers of ground
troups? I don't see that happening.

Some wag suggested we arm both sides in these fundamentalist, backwards
countries to the teeth, let them fight it out, and then shoot all the
members of whichever side emerges, and then shoot whoever wants to take
over until there is no one left who wants to rule. At that point,
sometime in the future, it is possible a reasonable form of democracy
might arise.

That's a *bit* too cynical for me.

I just want to hear our exit strategy. It really does not look like
air power is going to displace Qdaffy and we will soon find ourselves
in a similar position to what we were in with Iraq.

If you listened to any news outlet (no Fox doesn't count), you'd know
that we'll be handing off more of the air bombing to others.

I still remember the early talk about the NFZ there when it was
"humanitarian" to save the Kurds with the bonus that they would topple
Saddam if we could just give them a chance.

I don't think Obama would go in but who knows what the next yahoo
might do if he has it all teed up.

I agree. Let's try and keep Jeb out of the White House.

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:43:18 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:40:28 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:43:12 -0400, wrote:


You are not that stupid. How can you possibly say a program that
spends moire than it takes in is not in deficit?

Medicare has been upside down for several years and SS went upside
down 2 years ago.

And, it is not contributing one penny to the current deficit problem.
It "may" at some point if it isn't fixed.


WHAT? We are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar of the short fall and
Obama chopping 2% off of the FICA tax rate only makes it worse.

WHAT? Not because of SS/MC. I don't agree with any tax cut for the
wealthy.

The income taxes have nothing to do with the short fall in FICA.


Were do you get the notion that I think FICA and income tax are the
same things?

As I said the wealthy need to be taxed more not less.


Before that, they were trying to say a recovery would put SS back into
the black for a year, maybe two. Now they can't even make that claim.

Medicare is just spiraling down the black hole of debt with no end in
sight.

Go hide under your blankey.

Denial is not the answer.

Ok, so don't hide and face the facts. One fact is that there is no
short-term crisis for either program. Another is that lowering taxes
on wealthy people will do little or nothing to help job creation.

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:52:53 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 19:35:05 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:26:13 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:30:52 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:54:53 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In ,
says...
That begs the question, how stupid were the Democrats?
Why would they listen to a guy they were calling an idiot?
Well, I guess when the President/VP and CIA gin up a bunch of
nonsense, even those dumb Democrats get fooled.

http://usliberals.about.com/od/liber...raqNayVote.htm

Far more non-sucker Dems than Reps.
Iraq War Resolution Act.
House against - 126 Dems, 6 Reps.
Senate against - 21 Dems, 1 Rep.

That is about the same as the vote on Afghanistan and a Libya vote
would not come out that well.

BTW you didn't say how many voted FOR.

But enough total suckers to carry the bill in a Rep Congress.
Too many suckers.
Here's one guy who wasn't buying it.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/feingold1.html

Hey, why is Greg talking about Iraq?
I thought this was about Afghanistan.

I am trying to talk about Libya but Plume can let Iraq go.
Every time I say anything she responds with Iraq.


What point are you trying to make about Libya? Are you contemplating
that Obama is going to try to order in significant numbers of ground
troups? I don't see that happening.

Some wag suggested we arm both sides in these fundamentalist, backwards
countries to the teeth, let them fight it out, and then shoot all the
members of whichever side emerges, and then shoot whoever wants to take
over until there is no one left who wants to rule. At that point,
sometime in the future, it is possible a reasonable form of democracy
might arise.

That's a *bit* too cynical for me.

I just want to hear our exit strategy. It really does not look like
air power is going to displace Qdaffy and we will soon find ourselves
in a similar position to what we were in with Iraq.

If you listened to any news outlet (no Fox doesn't count), you'd know
that we'll be handing off more of the air bombing to others.

I will feel better when it happens.

So what? Do you think anyone really wants us to be in another war?

Your feelings are irrelevant.


I still remember the early talk about the NFZ there when it was
"humanitarian" to save the Kurds with the bonus that they would topple
Saddam if we could just give them a chance.

I don't think Obama would go in but who knows what the next yahoo
might do if he has it all teed up.

I agree. Let's try and keep Jeb out of the White House.

There won't be another Bush in there anytime soon.
Huckabee could be scary.
I don't really see a viable republican I like.

I guess you'll be voting for Obama then. Good for you!

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:39:31 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:46:01 -0700, wrote:

You have still not given me an example of a success story in all of
our post WWII military adventures. The best that you can point at is a
stalemate in the Bulkans where we have 124,000 blue helmets standing
between feuding factions.

No stalemate. No one is dying there as they were previously.

That is the definition of a stalemate.
(It is a chess term, referring to a game where no pieces can be taken)

No. A stalemate is when neither side gets an advantage. This isn't
chess. This is human life. But, I forgot, you don't care.

Then this is still a stalemate by your definition.

What "advantage" are we achieving?

Peace. People not dying. Seems pretty good to me.


BTW when I went looking for that number I was overwhelmed by reports
of the UN "peacekeepers" engaged in human trafficking and rape.
Put this on your google bar

"Bosnia peace keepers 2010"

You can see what wonderful people the UN is putting in there to help
out the population.


So, you're claiming that all the peace keepers (ours included) are
trafficking and raping. Seems to me you believe that because a few
people do something bad, that means all of them do bad.

Just enough to be a problem. More wonderful press for the UN

Problem for the individuals being harmed and some bad press. That's
not a rebuke of the UN.


You certainly have a soft position on rape and human trafficking.

?? That's disingenuous in the extreme and total nonsense.

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:40:33 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:46:42 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:11:37 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 10:33:53 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:51:33 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:08:23 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:31:33 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:31:48 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


They are now saying the main source, a British asset who never talked
to the US, was a fraud. It is interesting that Blair is not getting
more of the blame.
All of the things Powell was saying at the UN (mobile weapons labs and
WMD accidents that killed a number of workers) came from the Brits.


The main "source" for mobile weapons labs "intelligence" was Curveball.
Curveball was a German "asset."
An embezzler, possibly alcoholic, looking for a green card.
He was discredited totally by UN weapons inspectors before the war was
launched.

The Brits were still parroting his stories and fed the information to
Powell.

We can't let facts get in the way of blaming Bush for everything tho.

This is some of the most hilarious bull**** I've see in a long time.
Bush/Cheney/Tenet/Powell had nothing to do with it.
It's all Tony Blairs's fault!

I never said Bush et al were not at fault. That is the part you all
miss. I think the whole ****up in Iraq was unnecessary.
We should have left in 1991. Every president since then shares some of
the blame.
Obama said he would stop both wars yet he clings to the same schedule
"the idiot" came up with. It makes you wonder who the idiot (or the
liar) really is.


Completely untrue. He's implemented a complete withdrawal of combat
troops as per the agreement with the Iraqi gov't. The remaining forces
are winding down. It's clear who the idiot was... Bush. It's clear who
told him what to do.. Cheney, the other war criminal.


"Combat troops" is a cute euphemism. It is like when you said we
didn't have any combat troops in Vietnam after the cease fire, yet
another 362 GIs were killed in combat.
Since the biggest cause of death in both of the current wars is from
IEDs, not "combat" the term is meaningless.

According to you, the expert. I guess you don't care that we're
involvement is winding down and it takes some time.

... according, literally "to the writing on the wall". Go to DC and
look at it sometime.


VN is old news. Get a new argument.

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

Since there's no correlation between VN and our present situation,
there's nothing that is going to be repeated.