Originally Posted by MtnGoat

didn't you argue to continue the sanctions on the basis that they were sufficient deterrent to Saddam?

Are you trying to trip up the man with the truth of his own words?

Originally Posted by Moe M.

But it was the progressive liberal agenda of trying to make everybody equal economically, an impossible task,

Just hide and watch, or carve this into a wall someplace for future reference.

Originally Posted by peterp1964

what's perfect is your equating a b-j with the killing of hundreds of
thousands of people who did nothing to deserve our dealing them
death and destruction.

Pete;
You might be right!


But, I kinda doubt it.

Originally Posted by Highflight

In the first case, you voted for someone you thought would be a Conservative Republican with his fiscal policies, but like most of the rest of us "real" Conservatives, you were fooled.
The thing is, the Libs hark back and use Bush as an example of how "Republicans are big spenders", when we have learned by now that Bush was only a RINO, and didn't represent the majority of Republican's wishes in that regard.

The scenario you paint is significantly flawed - as usual. If was hardly JUST Bush - you've conveniently left out the fact that the Republican dominated Congress was the one sending those spending bills across Bush's desk - which he happily signed.

In the second case, you bought into the lies and rhetoric without considering Obama's real political history and the things that he really stood for and how he views America.
So, you were fooled once more.

It's hilarious how you claim Bush was just a RINO - but Obama is a LIAR.

What an amazing distinction - when it fits your agenda.

Now let's get it together and put some real Conservatives back into power

If the country had wanted that, they would have elected those people.
The reality is a "conservative" can't even make it out of a primary.

Originally Posted by CoastalFlyer

It's hilarious how you claim Bush was just a RINO - but Obama is a LIAR.

It's true. Bush himself admits it pained him to turn his back on and go against free market principle.

Obama, just flat out lies. His entire track record and history show one thing, his campaign shows a carefully constructed avoidance of that track record, his history (to the point of sealing all records) which is still available shows him with former membership in a socialist organization, training for socialist/communist acorn...

then turning right around and acting completely consistently with what you guys all deny he ever followed.

state ownership of buisnesses, forcing private industry to take cash against their will, then demanding controls over said companies, and so much more

when he says one thing, and then takes over a company, I and other people based in empiricism, look at what he *does*....not what he says he doesn't want to do while doing it.

enjoy the power, Obama. the longer you use it to destroy this nations principles, and no, they are not the revisionist socialist version you renown while mouthing your respect for it, the longer you and those who allowed you to ravage this nation will face the aprobation of history.

Originally Posted by peterp1964

except they convinced enough that it was the Democrats who were "the spenders."

Well, at least we now know how many in this country are dangerously credulous.

Nice quote edit. One of the things we all love about Pete.

isn't it amazing to sit here and watch him, apparently in all seriousness (and he's not the only one), expecting folks to believe we shouldn't beleive our lying eyes? why, that many times larger than all deficits ever put together in the entire history of the nation, it's actually those wascawy wepubwicans who are the big spenders!

top it off with demanding trillions more for health care nationalization, and hey, sure, I believe you.

these arguments, following 8 years of complaints about Bush deficits, show what we are up against when it comes to reasoning with this mindset. absolute and total obliviousness to the empirical universe. trillions upon trillions of debt, voted on in a few weeks, and we're supposed to argue a) it's bushes fault b) somehow those darned citizens got bamboozled way back yonder into thinking dems were the big spenders.

gosh, with control of congress and the bankbook looking like it does, it must be my eyes and brain that are all lying to me. sure, not big spenders. elect them again so they can not spend big again.

and argue that they were forced to spend big, but didn't actually do it but they were forced to. yes, it really makes as much sense as it reads. i spent trillions but it's not big spending but I had to, so don't blame me for the huge amount I say i didn't spend.

you thought Carter did some crazy stuff....the nation is going to have a new stagflation, mismanagement, posterboy for debt, privation, exhortation to sacrifice while jetting around, and it's going to make carter look like mr conservative. if, god forbid, the jihadis get through on his watch, it will be all over in a heartbeat, because while Americans may tolerate his financial foolishness, the minute Obambi's policies and Muslim prostration get enough citizens killed here, his legacy and name will go into the toilet faster than you have ever seen, and those of his supporters, nearly as fast. when you back the man, you're on tap for his screwups too. the left did it to us over Bush, paybacks are hell, and unfortunately for many, may be death in health care, and death at jihadi hands.

Originally Posted by MtnGoat

I did not say sanctions were wrong, they were the correct step, but they were the West's responsibility for choosing and imposing them.

Fine. Sanctions in an of themselves did not kill a soul. For you to claim we killed people because of sanctions is disingenuous.

the point here is that there was no 'no dead Iraqui' options ,and now with the current situation, we have fewer deaths on our moral hands than we did when we justifiably backed sanctions.

I see. So when we don't actually kill people but we impose sanctions that is morally wrong but when we actually do kill people with guns and stuff then our actions are moral. It's a strange world you live in there.

Originally Posted by Mr. Wiz

Fine. Sanctions in an of themselves did not kill a soul. For you to claim we killed people because of sanctions is disingenuous.



I see. So when we don't actually kill people but we impose sanctions that is morally wrong but when we actually do kill people with guns and stuff then our actions are moral. It's a strange world you live in there.

I'll agree with that one. It is most definitely a different world that you live in compared to the rest of us.

Originally Posted by MtnGoat

It's true. Bush himself admits it pained him to turn his back on and go against free market principle.

Apperently it didn't pain him too much because he choose to do it any way. I wonder why he did that?

Originally Posted by Highflight

I'll agree with that one. It is most definitely a different world that you live in compared to the rest of us.

"The rest of us" Who are the rest of us? In my world the people that actually do the killing are the ones I hold responsible for doing the killing. I goat's world people that didn't actually kill anyone or even tell anyone to kill anyone are responsible because he says their actions set into motion the circumstnaces where someone died. That's just plain silly.

We interact with each other all the time. My actions may indeed, and infact do lead to actions of others. I am not responsible for the actions of others. If I put out a nice Christmas display in my yard and a passer by gawks at it and gets into an accident and dies, did I kill him because I put out a distracting Christmas display? I don't think so. People are responsible for their own actions.

Originally Posted by Mr. Wiz

Apperently it didn't pain him too much because he choose to do it any way. I wonder why he did that?

because his handlers told him he had to show contrition in between the jokes he
made of not finding the fabled WMDs that we lost so many and killed so many
in order to remove as a threat to the homeland (_and_ busted the budget to do so).

Dumbya's gangsters played this country like a fiddle, milked it for all it was worth,
and now others are tasked to pick up the pieces and try to put them back together
while those who caused all this mess are calling for boycotts of GM and Chrysler
(apparently for these "patriots" what's bad for GM and Chrysler is good for the
country), they run to the Chinese to tell them the Federal government is not
to be trusted to make good on its bonds (pure treason if you ask me), shout on
the airwaves that they wish Obama to fail, etc., etc.

I give Dumbya kudos for being consistent in his failure of a life and living up to
my expectations.

Originally Posted by Mr. Wiz

"The rest of us" Who are the rest of us? In my world the people that actually do the killing are the ones I hold responsible for doing the killing. I goat's world people that didn't actually kill anyone or even tell anyone to kill anyone are responsible because he says their actions set into motion the circumstnaces where someone died. That's just plain silly.

We interact with each other all the time. My actions may indeed, and infact do lead to actions of others. I am not responsible for the actions of others. If I put out a nice Christmas display in my yard and a passer by gawks at it and gets into an accident and dies, did I kill him because I put out a distracting Christmas display? I don't think so. People are responsible for their own actions.

Actually you can be held responsible for some actions that do get people killed or injured, even if that is not your intent, your christmas display for example, if it is distracting above the norm for your area and in fact does cause someone to be distracted to a point of causing an accident, and some one is killed or seriously injured, you can and shold be charged with negligent homicide of injury to others, you could be charged criminally or sued civilly, or both.

But the real problem you are having is with moral relevence, if Bush went to war thinking that he was defending his country, he is not responsibile morally or criminally for the deaths that were incured, likewise, those that were responsible for causing Bush to make that decision (radical islam), are responsible for each and every death caused in that war.

The same would hold true for the war between Israel and Palistine, palistine is the aggressor and deserves the blame.

If Palistine had no guns there would be no war, if Israel had no guns, there would be no more Israel.

Originally Posted by peterp1964

because his handlers told him he had to show contrition in between the jokes he
made of not finding the fabled WMDs that we lost so many and killed so many
in order to remove as a threat to the homeland (_and_ busted the budget to do so).

Dumbya's gangsters played this country like a fiddle, milked it for all it was worth,
and now others are tasked to pick up the pieces and try to put them back together
while those who caused all this mess are calling for boycotts of GM and Chrysler
(apparently for these "patriots" what's bad for GM and Chrysler is good for the
country), they run to the Chinese to tell them the Federal government is not
to be trusted to make good on its bonds (pure treason if you ask me), shout on
the airwaves that they wish Obama to fail, etc., etc.

I give Dumbya kudos for being consistent in his failure of a life and living up to
my expectations.

This thread is like the move Ground Hog Day. Didn't I just read all this BS before ??

Originally Posted by Mr. Wiz

Apperently it didn't pain him too much because he choose to do it any way. I wonder why he did that?

I don't know. I have no stance on this.