PDA

View Full Version : lol u mad republicans?


Zet
October 22nd, 2011, 05:02 AM
source (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/10/iraq-troop-withdrawal-mitt-romney-barack-obama-/1)

GOP presidential hopefuls Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, Jon Huntsman and Herman Cain are blasting President Obama for his decision to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of the year.

"The unavoidable question is whether this decision is the result of a naked political calculation or simply sheer ineptitude in negotiations with the Iraqi government," said Romney, a former Massachusetts governor.

Bachmann, a Minnesota congresswoman, said Obama's decision is "a political decision" and "not a military one."

The Obama campaign hit back on Romney and noted the president is keeping his promise to "end the war in Iraq in a responsible way."

"Mitt Romney didn't lay out a plan to end the war in Iraq in his foreign policy agenda -- he barely even mentioned Iraq -- but he is apparently willing to leave American troops there without identifying a new mission," said Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt.

Obama announced earlier today that all American forces will be out of Iraq by Jan. 1, which will formally end a war that began in 2003 when U.S. troops led an invasion of Baghdad to topple Saddam Hussein's regime.

Huntsman said it's a "mistake" not to leave a "small, focused" number of U.S. troops. Without a security agreement, the former U.S. ambassador to China said Iraq is "vulnerable to backsliding."

"An ideal arrangement would have left a small troop presence that could have assisted with the training of Iraqi security forces and vital counterterror efforts," said Huntsman, also a former Utah governor.

Bachmann said the U.S. has been "ejected" from Iraq and should have demanded "that Iraq repay the full cost of liberating them given their rich oil revenues. "

Romney said the American people should hear from military commanders on their recommendations for Iraq.

Cain said he would also consult U.S. commanders on the ground, adding that Obama is making a strategic mistake by publicly stating a timeline for withdrawal.

"The thing I wouldn't do that the president is doing is telling the enemy how many troops you're going to bring out and when you are going to bring them out," he said. "I don't think that's a good strategy."


Bachmann said the U.S. has been "ejected" from Iraq and should have demanded "that Iraq repay the full cost of liberating them given their rich oil revenues. "
I don't see why they should pay you to leave when it's Americas fault for a wrongful invasion for connections to 9/11 and WMD's

Live is this is better suited to be merged with your thread, then merge the crap out of it :3

GGJ
October 22nd, 2011, 06:04 AM
I support this decision, I personally think the more troops that we can get safe home to their families that better and I have no problem that Obama announced it to the world because I personally think that it is a very honorable decision.

Melody
October 22nd, 2011, 04:53 PM
I certainly think Obama is on the right track. It's time we got the heck outta the middle east and licked our own wounds for once. Occupation of a country isn't cheap. He'll certainly save us some money by ending it now.

To be honest I think we should have left the middle east ages ago. If Iraq slides back into it's old ways and becomes a threat to America, we'll gladly smear the floor with them again. If it weren't for the fact that innocent people DO exist in the middle east, I'd have said we should have carpet bombed 'em. I still think we should kill terrorists, but we should definitely look before we shove a spear into them. Get in, kill the enemy, ONLY THE ENEMY, get out is how it should work. Not getting in, getting involved in local politics, staying for 10 years to defend the villages and cities these criminals are exploiting and then pulling out.

Mr. X
October 22nd, 2011, 06:05 PM
The war in Iraq isn't a war between countries, its a war of ideal's.

And in a war of ideal's, everyone can be a enemy.

Amachi
October 22nd, 2011, 07:04 PM
It's taken him long enough. I guess after starting a war in Libya he's gotten kind of tired.

GOP presidential hopefuls Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, Jon Huntsman and Herman Cain are blasting President Obama for his decision to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of the year.
Republicans, these are the candidates you definitely should not be supporting. Ron Paul is the only candidate who has been anti-war and pro-diplomacy. Give him your support.

Mario The World Champion
October 22nd, 2011, 07:27 PM
Republicans, these are the candidates you definitely should not be supporting. Ron Paul is the only candidate who has been anti-war and pro-diplomacy. Give him your support.
You're sounding like Freaky by saying that. And you're not even American, so why do you care?

Mr. X
October 22nd, 2011, 07:34 PM
It's taken him long enough. I guess after starting a war in Libya he's gotten kind of tired.


Republicans, these are the candidates you definitely should not be supporting. Ron Paul is the only candidate who has been anti-war and pro-diplomacy. Give him your support.

I can see where they are coming from. Like it or not, the situiation in Iraq is delicate. Im all for pulling out, but even I beleive it should be done slowly instead of within two months.

As for your war in Libya, lets see here...

Bushs war lasted 8 years.

Obama's lasted less then a year.

Seems to me that Obama is better at teh warz.

And he cares because he knows that, just like now, the US will continue to force feed its ideal's to other countries.

Edit - You sig reminds me of Edward and Alphonse for some reason... Don't know why, just does.

Amachi
October 22nd, 2011, 07:37 PM
You're sounding like Freaky by saying that. And you're not even American, so why do you care?

Freaky? How so?

I care because I think America still can be a great country, and it saddens me to see it fall this way. In addition, Ron Paul is one of the few politicians globally that I have any respect or admiration for.

The man Ron Paul is a man of principles as well. For that he receives a lot of my admiration. He's also the best thing for America, yet the media there completely ignores him, so he needs all the support he can get.

I ain't much too different to the Obamadrones around the world, except I support a better candidate :P.

I can see where they are coming from. Like it or not, the situiation in Iraq is delicate. Im all for pulling out, but even I beleive it should be done slowly instead of within two months.

As for your war in Libya, lets see here...

Bushs war lasted 8 years.

Obama's lasted less then a year.

Seems to me that Obama is better at teh warz.

And he cares because he knows that, just like now, the US will continue to force feed its ideal's to other countries.

Edit - You sig reminds me of Edward and Alphonse for some reason... Don't know why, just does.
Dude, we aren't fixing anything - just making things worse. Leave them be, because it's not worth the time, money or lives lost.

lol, I don't support any wars (in any case, Obama has been continuing Bush's wars). This pull out of Iraq has come very late in his presidency. Obama is also better at spending a whole lot of money and putting his country into more debt than ever before *applaud*

haha, I can see what you mean. I think it's Chikoritas facial expression that reminds me of Alphonse, yeah?

FreakyLocz14
October 22nd, 2011, 08:00 PM
You're sounding like Freaky by saying that. And you're not even American, so why do you care?

The United States Presidential election attracts international attention every cycle it takes place.

Mario The World Champion
October 22nd, 2011, 08:13 PM
The real reason why America is in the state its in is because of those stupid Republicans decided to screw the American people by preventing ANYTHING Obama does to help us get out of this damn mess that was created by Bush. All they want to do is to get elected to the White House. Ron Paul is no different than Romney, Perry, Bachmann, Cain and all the other Tea Party scum.

Amachi
October 22nd, 2011, 08:40 PM
haha, that too FreakyLocz14. I would have said that, but I have more reasons than that to be interested.

The real reason why America is in the state its in is because of those stupid Republicans decided to screw the American people by preventing ANYTHING Obama does to help us get out of this damn mess that was created by Bush. All they want to do is to get elected to the White House. Ron Paul is no different than Romney, Perry, Bachmann, Cain and all the other Tea Party scum.
Didn't the Democrats have a majority at the start of his presidency? Hell, they had one at the end of Bush's. I find it hilarious that it's been all this time and you folk are still blaming Bush.

Face it, Obama has been a crappy president. Bush 2.0 really. Continued the wars, continued the Patriot act, spent more money than anyone before him, and sucked up to the banks and corporations as well. He has only been digging you further into the mess by helping out his buddies. Image below related.

http://i.imgur.com/2mkjl.jpg

And clearly you know nothing about Ron Paul. He's different from every other politician in the game. Accepts no corporate donations, loves the constitution, fights for state rights, smaller government, less spending, less taxes, and is pretty much the only anti-war candidate. He already has a plan to cut $1 trillion in spending in the first year, which is better than anyone else.

FreakyLocz14
October 22nd, 2011, 08:54 PM
The real reason why America is in the state its in is because of those stupid Republicans decided to screw the American people by preventing ANYTHING Obama does to help us get out of this damn mess that was created by Bush. All they want to do is to get elected to the White House. Ron Paul is no different than Romney, Perry, Bachmann, Cain and all the other Tea Party scum.

The Democrats had a large majority in the House and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate until Scott Brown was elected in January 2010. They passed the failed stimulus, the Dodd-Frank Act, socialized student loans, extended unemployment benefits, and passed unconstitutional government-mandated healthcare. Despite all of this, the economy has failed to recover.

Obama has also continued all of Bush's wars, expanded the war in Afghanistan, and started new ones.

Mr. X
October 22nd, 2011, 09:30 PM
As for his cut 1 tril plan, im interested in the number of jobs that might/will be lost due to it.

Lalapizzame
October 23rd, 2011, 07:00 AM
An abrupt and massive reduction in government spending is painful.

A long-term deficit leading to bankruptcy is even more painful. Give me the bitter cure now, so I will not bleed forever till death.

Lance
October 23rd, 2011, 08:59 AM
An abrupt and massive reduction in government spending is painful.


Tell that to Boehner and the House.

Mr. X
October 23rd, 2011, 10:13 AM
It was republican ideal's that started this entire mess. Keyword, started.

You can't just dismiss the fact that under clinton we had a surplus, which vanished under Bush's 8 year reign.

As for Obama, you can't say his plans will fail because the Republicans are doing everything in their power to ensure that his plans never see the light of day. And before you start about how his stimulus failed, remember... Bush's stimulus failed as well.

While Obama's health care plan isn't the best around, I do like the fact that he had to balls to try changing it.

As for Republicans, if they really want the white house, then they should let Obama's plans go through. If they fail, that will give them a straight shot. But, they don't do this because if his plans DO suceed the Republicans know that the majority of their arguments agenst him will be, for all intents and purposes, gutted. They would rather damn everyone and try to fix a much bigger problem later on then risk letting their rivals fix the problems

GFA
October 23rd, 2011, 10:46 AM
@ Amachi: This is really none of your business. I know America tends to get it's peanut butter into everyone's chocolate, but please, be the better man and stay out of this.

The Democrats had a large majority in the House and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate until Scott Brown was elected in January 2010. They passed the failed stimulus, the Dodd-Frank Act, socialized student loans, extended unemployment benefits, and passed unconstitutional government-mandated healthcare. Despite all of this, the economy has failed to recover.
No matter who was in charge, the economy would fail to recover in a matter of four measly years. FDR would take at least half of his presidency to sort through the crap that we've been forced-fed since the Reagan administration. Also, half of the things you've mentioned aren't even related to the economy (in the sense that they weren't done to boost it).

Go home and take a debate class or bring pertinent matters to the table.

I won't say that what Obama is/has doing/done has been the best, but it sure beats the Hell out of cutting taxes/keeping the Bush cuts in place.

Obama has also continued all of Bush's wars, expanded the war in Afghanistan, and started new ones.
Except our Libyan involvement was not a war. Not anything close to one. We backed the National Transitional Council, and really, that's pretty much it.

Melody
October 23rd, 2011, 01:45 PM
I still blame the Republicans. As it's been said before, Bush certainly spent every cent of the surplus we had coming out of the Clinton Administration. Now I'm not saying he didn't spend it well enough, but he spent it.

Meanwhile he pretty much gutted the Economy by ignoring it. 8 years in office, and not a peep about a potential recession or "credit crunch", which is what started this mess in the first place. Then in 2008 as Bush was preparing to leave office and go sit on his laurels and pension, the big banks began to destabilize and then began to decline and fail. Bush did nothing at the behest of his party. Bush had left a hot, steaming pile of crap in the Oval Office.

So when Obama took the presidency he was energetic, optimistic and more. I don't think he liked the mess he saw but he definitely acted on it. He pressed and pressed on Congress to do something. Fortunately the Democrats had a super-majority or we'd have already defaulted on our debts as a country. DESPITE THAT, the republicans fought like wildcats. They fillibustered, protested, moaned and groaned. Finally the Democratic party got tired of it and put their foot down. Obama's recovery plan had passed.

Then the next congressional elections came by and balanced out the odds there. Now there was much ado about cutting spending and debt ceilings and more. None of which was really productive. This battle went on and on until literally the LAST FREAKING MINUTE. Because of the Republicans, who couldn't take compromises and play along with Obama because he pressed his Healthcare bill through the previous congress. So basically the Republicans were acting like sore losers. Finally Obama once again put his foot down, and sharply criticized them. The voters yelled and finally a raise in the ceiling, an extension was passed.

But to this very day, leading up to the 2012 race, the congress that is in session now obstructs Obama at every turn. At this point in the game Obama is a lame duck. He's fighting the Republican's hijinks with all he's got, and he's doing the best that the system will allow him to do. That's why I don't hate nor dislike Obama. Right now I don't particularly like the Republicans either. The Republicans have not been giving Obama any time to work with, by obstructing him, and now they're complaining because NOTHING is happening. WELL DUH! YOU REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN FIGHTING HIM ALL ALONG AND HE HAS TO WASTE HIS TIME ON YOU RATHER THAN DEALING WITH THE ISSUES THAT REALLY MATTER RIGHT NOW.

parallelzero
October 23rd, 2011, 02:36 PM
So, for those of you trying to phase people who aren't American out of the discussion: stop. Just because they don't live there doesn't mean they shouldn't have the freedom to discuss it. Hell, they might actually know more about it and have a better grasp of it than yourself. You guys need to watch the ice you tread on in these kinds of discussions, and that includes insulting one another (which I can see at least one instance of in this thread thus far).

Klippy
October 23rd, 2011, 02:42 PM
I dunno why this has to be about Republicans or Democrats. Why are we concerned with what they feel and say more than that we are saving further deaths of American troops and Iraqis? Anyway, you can act like one side is better than the other all you care, but there's always someone that is going to be displeased or find something wrong with the other party in power. It's just fact.

I'd like to see people concerned more with the economy and jobs, rather than playing the blame-game repeatedly for the issues in the country. Constantly screaming and crying that Bush caused our problems is not fixing anything, nor is regarding Obama as inept, whether both things are true or not. It doesn't create valuable discussion in the slightest.

Blaming Bush or Obama alone is just oversimplifying and scapegoating someone/something when the issue is so difficult to fix. Don't be fooled into thinking it's any one man's fault or that they caused it all. I'm not justifying what either of them have done, but it's easy to sit behind your computer and judge when you're not the person running the country.

The real reason why America is in the state its in is because of those stupid Republicans decided to screw the American people by preventing ANYTHING Obama does to help us get out of this damn mess that was created by Bush. All they want to do is to get elected to the White House. Ron Paul is no different than Romney, Perry, Bachmann, Cain and all the other Tea Party scum.

I feel sorry for you if this is how you articulate your views. Very ignorant. If you're going to accuse someone of being "scum" and "stupid", at least point out logical reasons why, instead of just vomiting out insults. Obama had two years with majorities in both the Senate and House and the Democrats could have gotten almost anything they wanted to pass in Congress, so why didn't they get more of the things done they wanted? I know they can't wave a wand and make it happen, but if they could still get "Obamacare" passed, they certainly could have gotten other legislation passed, instead of now blaming the Republicans for halting their efforts when they should have been putting the effort in from day one.

I'm not saying either party is in the wrong or right however, because they both show their complete unconcern with American citizens when it takes them to the final hours before we are going to default to get something hashed out. They have all the time in the world to work on this stuff and they wait until the last minute to work on the important things. As I said before, most of them just look to win another election and get more of our money for their bank accounts, which is sad for regular American citizens

Amachi
October 23rd, 2011, 03:34 PM
As for his cut 1 tril plan, im interested in the number of jobs that might/will be lost due to it.
In the public sector, jobs will definitely be lost. That said, most public sector jobs are worthless, as they don't contribute anything to the economy, since the wages paid are just recycled tax dollars. Never mind that the public sector is a lot more inefficient than the private.
An abrupt and massive reduction in government spending is painful.

A long-term deficit leading to bankruptcy is even more painful. Give me the bitter cure now, so I will not bleed forever till death.
I totally agree mate.
@ Amachi: This is really none of your business. I know America tends to get it's peanut butter into everyone's chocolate, but please, be the better man and stay out of this.

Except our Libyan involvement was not a war. Not anything close to one. We backed the National Transitional Council, and really, that's pretty much it.
Make me.

It was a civil war supported by the White House currently led by a man who won a Nobel Peace prize.

I don't see how it wasn't a war. Just because there were no US troops on the ground doesn't mean the US wasn't involved. You wasted more money you didn't have toppling a dictator who looked after his people well enough. Libya is now the new Iraq - things are going to be worse than ever now that ever tribe (and there's 109 of them), want a piece of the pie.

Mr. X
October 23rd, 2011, 03:56 PM
In the public sector, jobs will definitely be lost. That said, most public sector jobs are worthless,
snip


So, you consider the majority of public sector jobs to be worthless? Do you have any idea just how many jobs are considered to be public sector jobs?

But anyway, please post public sector jobs that you believe to be worthless.

FreakyLocz14
October 23rd, 2011, 04:04 PM
An abrupt, massive reduction in government spending is exactly what we need.

Netto Azure
October 23rd, 2011, 04:20 PM
Ah Ron Paul. Nice guy, but his sharply economic libertarian stance puts me off. Might as well go back to the Gilded Age if the stuff he proposes becomes law. Monopolies, blatant payoffs to government officials, corruption being the name of the game.

I can just imagine it, the Government going to the Big Banks to ask for Gold to save the [hypothetical] Gold Reserve of the US during recessions. Also getting rid of the FDIC and the return of bank runs. Ah the good old days of swashbuckling capitalism.

Still, that aside at least there are third rail issues that keep both parties somewhat in the middle/consensus road from Defense Spending (Public Employment lol) to Social Security and Medicare.

Although, looking back, isn't the world like it again? :P

An abrupt, massive reduction in government spending is exactly what we need.

Let's go back to our agrarian roots while we're at it. JK

But seriously, removing Government spending would remove almost a quarter of US GDP. :/

Mario The World Champion
October 23rd, 2011, 04:21 PM
Well, I'm sorry if I was born in a Blue State and was fed nothing but disdain for anything Republican for 30 years. Besides, both parties have been throwing insults at each other for decades instead of trying to work together to get SOMETHING done and with the economy still in the toilet, the rhetoric is only going to get worse.

Also, people who are voters on both sides can be ignorant as well. So, don't be surprised because of my tone against Republicans. Some Republican voters probably hate Democrats with a passion.

Politics = Ignorance from both sides.

Mr. X
October 23rd, 2011, 04:23 PM
So, in other words, a abrupt, massive loss of public sector jobs is what we need?

While cutting spending is a good idea, caution must be taken to ensure that the spending cuts will not result in lost jobs.

But one part I'll agree on is immediately cutting off all monetary aid to other countries.

FreakyLocz14
October 23rd, 2011, 04:42 PM
So, in other words, a abrupt, massive loss of public sector jobs is what we need?

While cutting spending is a good idea, caution must be taken to ensure that the spending cuts will not result in lost jobs.

But one part I'll agree on is immediately cutting off all monetary aid to other countries.

We need to end ALL wars and any form of precursor to war overseas by withdrawing every single troop we have overseas that are not engaged in combat with a nation that attacked us. That alone would save us tons of money.

While we shouldn't fire public workers, we should cut back on their bloated benefits packages and limit their collective bargaining privileges. We also should outlaw mandatory unionization.

GFA
October 23rd, 2011, 04:53 PM
So, for those of you trying to phase people who aren't American out of the discussion: stop. Just because they don't live there doesn't mean they shouldn't have the freedom to discuss it. Hell, they might actually know more about it and have a better grasp of it than yourself.
Maybe so, but it isn't their business. Everyone should pull a North Korea and leave everyone but their neighboring countries alone. (Even if it means youy have to be antagonistic in all of your relationships.)

:P

Make me.
I'm sad to see you sink to America's level.

I don't see how it wasn't a war. Just because there were no US troops on the ground doesn't mean the US wasn't involved. I meant it wasn't our war. Our involvement has been minimal at most.

You wasted more money you didn't have toppling a dictator who looked after his people well enough. Libya is now the new Iraq - things are going to be worse than ever now that ever tribe (and there's 109 of them), want a piece of the pie. And you assume I support these ideas. I Don't. Saddam never did anything to deserve his persecution. Anyway, I agree. Libya will be a big mess. It however, wont be another Iraq. The movement was started by the people and for the people, and has had major UN Support. Also, the NTC, it isn't everyman for himself. Not yet.

We need to end ALL wars and any form of precursor to war overseas by withdrawing every single troop we have overseas that are not engaged in combat with a nation that attacked us. That alone would save us tons of money.
While that would help, even when we aren't at war our defense spending is ridiculous. It would need further cuts.

Mr. X
October 23rd, 2011, 04:54 PM
With our technology we don't really need soldier's to fight our wars. Someone attacks us? Send in the Carriers and let the aircraft bomb our enemies all to hell. (Speaking of navies, I miss the Battleships. Nothing says '**** with me if you dare' more then a ship loaded with huge guns. Wasteful or not, we need at least on of them just for the intimidation factor.)

As for saving more money, cut funding for research into next gen weaponry. Our current weapons will be sufficient for the next decade the least.

Im all for cutting benefits packages, but if your really agenst bloated benefit's packages then we should also go after those in the private sector as well. You remember those large retirement packages that the higher ups in various banking companies got? You know, the ones that were bailed out?

Im for outlawing mandatory unionization, but im agenst reducing their bargaining rights.

Edit - GFA has a point. While a easily mobilizable army is nice to have, its not really something worth the additional money. Just like previous wars, large army or not, if someone attacks us we will be ready to kick ass in a couple of weeks.

FreakyLocz14
October 23rd, 2011, 04:57 PM
With our technology we don't really need soldier's to fight our wars. Someone attacks us? Send in the Carriers and let the aircraft bomb our enemies all to hell. (Speaking of navies, I miss the Battleships. Nothing says '**** with me if you dare' more then a ship loaded with huge guns. Wasteful or not, we need at least on of them just for the intimidation factor.)

As for saving more money, cut funding for research into next gen weaponry. Our current weapons will be sufficient for the next decade the least.

Im all for cutting benefits packages, but if your really agenst bloated benefit's packages then we should also go after those in the private sector as well. You remember those large retirement packages that the higher ups in various banking companies got? You know, the ones that were bailed out?

Im for outlawing mandatory unionization, but im agenst reducing their bargaining rights.

No. I don't support meddling in the benefits packages of private sector workers. Those have nothing to do with government spending. Just stop bailing out these people. No need to meddle in their wages and benefits.

Amachi
October 23rd, 2011, 05:37 PM
So, you consider the majority of public sector jobs to be worthless? Do you have any idea just how many jobs are considered to be public sector jobs?

But anyway, please post public sector jobs that you believe to be worthless.
worthless to the economy, yes. They are all paid for through taxes - they don't generate any capital on their own.

You mean I need to specify which positions in this massively overwhelming bureaucracy are worthless?
Ah Ron Paul. Nice guy, but his sharply economic libertarian stance puts me off. Might as well go back to the Gilded Age if the stuff he proposes becomes law. Monopolies, blatant payoffs to government officials, corruption being the name of the game.

I can just imagine it, the Government going to the Big Banks to ask for Gold to save the [hypothetical] Gold Reserve of the US during recessions. Also getting rid of the FDIC and the return of bank runs. Ah the good old days of swashbuckling capitalism.
We have monopolies, payoffs to politicians and corruption right now. It's all because of too much government that this happens, and it's why the US is in the mess it's in now. Why else would the politicians give away trillions of dollars that it does not have to failing banks and corporations to bail them out? Because they're buddies.

Capitalism is what made America great. Government regulations bring you down. Small government is best government - little spending, little taxes, and people are free to make their own lives comfortable.

And right now the bank owns your butts. There is a government supported monopoly with the FED, and it is destroying America. Destroying it - and you want more government?
I'm sad to see you sink to America's level.

I meant it wasn't our war. Our involvement has been minimal at most.

And you assume I support these ideas. I Don't. Saddam never did anything to deserve his persecution. Anyway, I agree. Libya will be a big mess. It however, wont be another Iraq. The movement was started by the people and for the people, and has had major UN Support. Also, the NTC, it isn't everyman for himself. Not yet.
You mean, America's level of defending freedom of speech, unlike yourself that wised to make me silent?

I'm sure if I was agreeing with you and praising the Democrats and Obongo you'd be quite happy for me to contribute to this thread.

You were still involved, both morally and with supplies and weapons. Sure it was through NATO, but America was the only country there with enough ammunition anyway.

I made no such assumption. I simply made a comparison. Iraq was better under Saddam, and Libya was better under Gaddafi.

There were many Libyans who supported Gaddafi as well. No, I don't believe this really had the support of the majority of the population at all. And lol, UN support? So what? The UN is probably one of the worst institutions on the planet. To hell with the UN.

Mr. X
October 23rd, 2011, 05:46 PM
What I wanted you to realize is that more jobs are considered public sector then you think.

Firefighters and police are considered public sector in some countries. Not sure about here, but if they are, do you consider them to be worthless?

GFA
October 23rd, 2011, 06:10 PM
You mean, America's level of defending freedom of speech, unlike yourself that wised to make me silent?
The US Constitutions if for, you guessed it, Americans in America. (And not even everyone in America deserves that right.)

Anyway, what I meant was that you shouldn't stick your nose where it belongs. And neither should America. Feel free to talk about whatever you want as long as it actually concerns you personally.

I'm sure if I was agreeing with you and praising the Democrats and Obongo you'd be quite happy for me to contribute to this thread.No. Really I wouldn't. (Though I will point out Obongo seems pretty racist.) Would you want me commenting on your politics?

You were still involved, both morally and with supplies and weapons. Sure it was through NATO, but America was the only country there with enough ammunition anyway.Our troops weren't on the ground, it wasn't our war.


I made no such assumption. I simply made a comparison. Iraq was better under Saddam, and Libya was better under Gaddafi. Alright, I'll agree with you here, but it sure didn't read that way.

There were many Libyans who supported Gaddafi as well. No, I don't believe this really had the support of the majority of the population at all.Well, I suppose that's something that we can't know right now. But even if the majority was support of Gaddafi, does it matter? The man still committed many atrocities. I reccomend you read In The Country of Men by Hishim Matar.

I realize no body is perfect, but their are many world leader who were/are better then him/he was.

And lol, UN support? So what? The UN is probably one of the worst institutions on the planet. To hell with the UN.I have no idea why you would say this.

EDIT:

Capitalism is what made America great. Government regulations bring you down. Small government is best government - little spending, little taxes, and people are free to make their own lives comfortable.
Oh. I'm sorry, did you like that big hole in the Ozone that gave everyone skin-cancer? Because we'd love to get rid of those regulations. They weren't affecting us anyway.

Lance
October 23rd, 2011, 06:55 PM
You all suck. I can't even trust former staff members to not make a mockery of themselves and this section.




*Locked*