Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 1 Badge!

How we treat our dead is equally as important as how we treat the living.
>> ^MrMark4000:

I'm not seeing the problem here. They were shot dead. They should not have been fighting in the first place knowing they would be killed. Soldiers need to be allowed to be soldiers. Many of the U.S. Soldiers are busy getting themselves killed because corrupt Afghan officials keep Fing things up. If soldiers could be soldiers and not peace keepers there would be no war because everyone in Afganistan would be dead that fought back. Instead we try our best not to insult the population and putting ourselves into bad situations with a No Win Scenario. What is really worse: Peeing on a dead body or bombing city after city with incendiary bombs (WW2)? We should treat this war exactly as the Taliban do to beat the Taliban. We call ourselves an Advanced Society, but if we really were advanced we would not have the need to fight. Besides, an uneducated society is not working on the same level as the U.S. Morals are the last thing on the Taliban's minds.

I'm not seeing the problem here. They were shot dead. They should not have been fighting in the first place knowing they would be killed. Soldiers need to be allowed to be soldiers. Many of the U.S. Soldiers are busy getting themselves killed because corrupt Afghan officials keep Fing things up. If soldiers could be soldiers and not peace keepers there would be no war because everyone in Afganistan would be dead that fought back. Instead we try our best not to insult the population and putting ourselves into bad situations with a No Win Scenario. What is really worse: Peeing on a dead body or bombing city after city with incendiary bombs (WW2)? We should treat this war exactly as the Taliban do to beat the Taliban. We call ourselves an Advanced Society, but if we really were advanced we would not have the need to fight. Besides, an uneducated society is not working on the same level as the U.S. Morals are the last thing on the Taliban's minds.

>> ^cosmovitelli:

I read your stuff Yogi!
FWIW Involving the US in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan is all about money and power. Oil, minerals, rate earth shit etc etc.
In Iran they got rid of a benevolent democratically elected progressive who tried to return the oil wealth of the country to its people and replaced him with a foreign sponsored greedy foolish puppet.
When it swung back the other way the clerics took over. Doh!
They used Afghanistan as a proxy war with the soviets, training the mujahideen / aka Taliban fighters in improvised explosives, insurgency warfare and basically how to fuck up a mechanised invading army. Then they invaded. Doh!
In Iraq they supported Saddam despite his demented paranoid savagery until the Iraqi oilfields became too tasty to ignore.
Duck Cheney said it couldn't be done:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I&sns=em
But they upped his end via massive Haliburton projects and installed a puppet moron to keep blaming Iraq for the Saudi attacks on 9/11.
Then they invaded, killing thousands of civilians, and dismantled the police and social services while fucking up the food and water supply. Just for good measure they disbanded the army and sent 375,000 heavily armed young men off to find food for their own families. Doh!
Never mind about panama, chile, Vietnam, Cuba, Russia, Pakistan etc etc.


I'd pretty much agree with your facts. I'm a little less sure on your point.

America helped train and support the Islamic fighter in Afghanistan to chase out the Soviets. America supported Saddam while he was using chemical weapons against Iran and even Iraqi Kurds. America propped up a strong man of their choosing in Iran which backfired and led to the current theocracy.

You needn't look far or very hard to find examples where almost any and every nation has selfishly done very bad things, or things with terrible consequences. America, Russia and China being such large nations, the examples for them are much bigger and numerous. It makes for great propaganda, and all 3 continually make heavy use of it to tarnish each other. America is characterized by the genocide of native americans and Vietnam, Russia by Stalin and China by Mao. It's great propaganda, but it's not insightful or helpful analysis.

Pretend you get be President when Bush Jr. was president. America's narrow self interests are being threatened by terrorism. Bin Laden has extremely close ties with Islamists not only in Afghanistan, but throughout nuclear armed Pakistan. AQ Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear program, is going around selling nuclear secrets and equipment to the highest bidder. That's an uncomfortably short path from Pakistan's nuclear arsenal to the hands of a very credible terrorist network. Do you demand Pakistan break it's ties with the Taliban, or just let it slide? Do you demand the Afghan Taliban break ties with Al Qaeda, or just let it slide? I think selfish American interest DID dictate making those two demands, and being willing to launch a war if they were refused.

I think that is a strong argument that the Afghan war was indeed a good thing from the perspective of America's narrow self-interest.

What about the Afghan people though? Their self interest depends on what the end game is, and nobody can predict that. What we DO know is that the formerly ruling Taliban hated women's rights, and we fought against them. What we DO know is that the formerly ruling Taliban burnt off more of Afghanistan's vineyards than even the Russians had, because making wine was anathema to their cult. What we DO know is that the Taliban was one of the most brutal, backwards and hateful organizations around.

I can not say that the Afghan war ensured a better future for Afghanistan's people. What I CAN say is that leaving the Taliban in power in Afghanistan ensured a dark, bleak and miserable future for Afghanistan's people. I would modestly propose that a chance at something better was a good thing.

People familiar with International Law and Morality didn't agree with the Afghan War in the first place.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^ghark:
Besides, by saying the GOP made nice comments about Arab Spring then bad comments about these protests, aren't you highlighting their hypocrisy? So what's the big deal about highlighting hypocrisy when it comes from the other side?
Yes, I'm highlighting their hypocrisy, because they are actually being hypocritical.
Democrats are not. They are sympathetic to OWS. They are saying good things about OWS. They are not capable of issuing orders to the police protesters are clashing with, and they definitely are not ordering a violent crackdown on demonstrators who are largely arguing for Democratic proposals.
>> ^ghark:
I agree that Republican obstructionism is not good, but if Dem's had the significant majority in both the house and senate would it make a big difference? I think in the past it might have, when the corporate influence in politics wasn't so great, these days... I think it's a very hard argument to make, especially considering the fact they didn't do anything significant when they did have the numbers after the last election.
Let's do some quick math. Suppose the Democratic Party consisted only of clones of Bernie Sanders and Joe Manchin. Further, let's suppose that in any given election, the Democratic party sends 80% Bernies, and 20% Joes to Congress. For simplicity, let's assume all the Joes always vote with Republicans, and that 100% of the Republicans vote against anything OWS wants.
You need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. How big does the Democratic Party's margin of victory need to be for there to be 60 clones of Bernie Sanders in the Senate? Answer: 75. You need Democrats to carry 75% of the Senate. That means a minimum of 25 of 50 states need to have both their Senators be Democrats. Are there 25 blue states? And that scenario also requires ALL the remaining states be purple, with no pure red states at all.
Now, if Republicans weren't filibustering everything and anything, then the math changes only slightly. Democrats could pass legislation with just 50 votes (plus Biden), but as long as the Republican party stays 100% unified against anything even remotely like what OWS wants, you need 63 Democrats in order to wind up with 50 Bernies.
This is my way of saying "Democratic purity isn't the problem" -- 80% Bernies would be a massive, massive leap forward in Democratic ideological purity, and it still wouldn't do jack shit for us, because the deck is stacked against us by a) the rules of the Senate, and b) lockstep Republican opposition to sane policy.
So, are you out there working to help give Democrats that kind of majority, or improve their purity, or at least doing something about Republicans? Fuck no, you're out there taking potshots at Democrats because you didn't get a pony from Obama.
It ticks me off, because it's part of what's killing this country. To quote Yeats, "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."


I think the argument has to go a little deeper than that - you are talking about improving the number of 'rational-acting' Democrats which is a noble idea, and one which I of course support. However, at some point (if things stay the way they are) people are going to be unhappy with the system so you're going to get swing voters voting Republican. So unless both parties are brought into line we'll just persist with the current system where, no matter what anyone votes, there will never be enough Bernie Sanders' to make a difference.

The answer to both your Democratic problem, and the Republican problem can be mostly solved by just one change, removing the money in politics.

I don't think it should ever be about which side is better, it should be about 'how do we get the results we want' - talk is cheap after all.

The reason I don't think you can just hope for more people to vote Democrat and expect change that way is Obama had a huge wave of support in the last election; you'd just had years of Iraq war, Afghan occupation, colonialism just about anywhere there was oil, corporate looting, disastrous economic decisions etc by Bush, 2008 was the moment where the Democrats could have made a difference. But what have they done? I mean seriously, while we debate this nonsense people are getting slaughtered all over the world in the name of oil, by your troops, by your private armies, by your weapons and often with other countries support (including mine). There is a time for debate, but we must also realize that we are destroying our own livelihoods and the livelihoods of our children, we need to fix the path we're on sooner rather than later.

>> ^criticalthud:

@bmcs27 no i would call that a terrible waste of time. go ahead and look up the politics of landmines and you may be surprised at which country is both adamant about the production and continued use of them. and yeah, i've been to cambodia. another country we had absolutely no business sticking our nose into.
@NetRunner. "Al Queda" is a term created by the US government for a loose collection of groups who do not admire US foreign policy.
why are we there? well, before we hated the taliban, we loved em. but either way they are still sitting on trillions in minerals and rare earth deposits.
but hey, lets pretend little johnny is over there ensuring our safety from further crotch-bombers.


Your dead right on Cambodia, after all the horrific things Kissinger's lackeys did to there they followed it up by supporting the Khmer Rouge.

On Al-Qaida, you are just flat wrong. Bin Laden came up with the name for his particular cult of international islamic jihadists.

You are also wrong on the Taliban. During the push to remove the Soviets from Afghanistan, the American's backed Pakistan and it's training of Afghan and imported mujahideen warriors. Those mujahideen warriors were NOT the Taliban, they were a disparate collection of all manner of different local and imported fighters. The Taliban were not the only group to come from this Pakistan and American backed crowd, so where the Northern Alliance fighters whom the Taliban sought to destroy. It's fun to make cheap comments like yours, but that doesn't make them accurate or true.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Duckman33:
I've dug plenty deep. I already know that people were trying to warn of the attacks coming, that's old news. So then why lie about it in a press conference? You know, that part where we were lied to by Condie Rice, etc. When they knew fair and well they had conceived that very scenario?
President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other White House officials have consistently denied knowing about the 9/11 plot or receiving information that (or even imagining that) commercial aircraft could be used as weapons. For example, Bush said repeatedly there were no warnings of any kind ... “Never in anybody’s thought process ... about how to protect America did we ever think the evil doers would fly not one but four commercial aircraft into precious US targets ... never.”
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that “the President did not – not – receive information about the use of airplanes as missiles by suicide bombers ... Until this attack took place, I think it’s fair to say that no one envisioned that as a possibility.”
Then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said: “I don’t think that anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile ... even in retrospect there was nothing to suggest that.”
I don't care about the buildings anymore, that's all been "debunked" for the most part.
Like I've said to you before, you can quote all you want from information you find on the interwebs, that doesn't make it any more or less true than anything I can Google and quote. There's a lot more to 9/11 than just the buildings coming down, there's a lot of lies, repeated lies in fact. A lot of denial and finger pointing. And a lot of convenient "failures of the system". Whether you like it or not, or want to admit it or not there is something fishy going on here. But hey, I'm just a crackpot, loonie conspiracy theorist. What do I know, right? I should be a good robot and always implicitly trust people that lie to me on a continual basis, that way I don't have to face an ugly truth, or facts, or think for myself.

Oh for heavens sakes, your acting like discovering that politicians spin things and choose their wording carefully and to their own benefit is a discovery you've made through some stroke of genius.
Politicians will use the truth to deceive and trick the public as long as it's in their own interest, and if it's better to lie they'll do that to. That's not news, it's not a conspiracy, it's common knowledge.
So you seem to accept that an Afghan leader was warning of a 'major attack'(no mention of airplanes, just a major attack) leading up to 9/11. You don't act like his assassination on the 10th of September was a surprise either. What is surprising is your quotes you throw out thinking that officials were unaware or lying about this. EVERY quote you gave specifically states there was no idea that civilian aircraft would be used as missiles in an attack. Remembering that politicians are deceitful monsters, you'll notice they do NOT deny having warnings of an impending Al Qaeda attack. In fact, multiple official reports, investigations, and even Bin Laden's own public statements all make it very clear there were warnings of pending attack from Bin Laden's organization. The only denial in your quotes is specifically to the method.
Sorry, your whole act depends on people being either ignorant of the facts or shocked that politicians might hedge and be dodgy in their answers on a massively political topic...


No I'm not, I'm questioning why they felt had to lie about this. That is all. Don't put words in my mouth, or even try to think you know what motivates me please.

So, if you think that collaborating to bend the truth to deceive and trick the public to achieve a common goal is not a conspiracy I suggest you read up on the definition of what a conspiracy is. Just because I use the word "conspiracy" does not mean I'm referring to some wild, far fetched and unbelievable scenario. That's not always what a conspiracy is, that's what the general public has come to think of what a conspiracy is due to people like you that apply the most extreme definition to the word. Just like a UFO is not necessarily an alien space craft. It's that due to society, and per-conceived notions, most people automatically think of alien space ships when someone refers to seeing a UFO.

Sorry, you're smug little, "I know all the facts, and you are delusional" act is a joke. Yeah, you are far more superior to us "conspiracy nuts".

Oh, where did I say anything about Bush being in bed with Bin Laden or planting explosives in the towers? Why is it that once someone talks about a conspiracy they are automatically "crazy"? Not all of us believe what the fringe is trying to sell, my friend. But we also don't believe what is being force fed down our throats either.

>> ^Duckman33:

I've dug plenty deep. I already know that people were trying to warn of the attacks coming, that's old news. So then why lie about it in a press conference? You know, that part where we were lied to by Condie Rice, etc. When they knew fair and well they had conceived that very scenario?
President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other White House officials have consistently denied knowing about the 9/11 plot or receiving information that (or even imagining that) commercial aircraft could be used as weapons. For example, Bush said repeatedly there were no warnings of any kind ... “Never in anybody’s thought process ... about how to protect America did we ever think the evil doers would fly not one but four commercial aircraft into precious US targets ... never.”
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that “the President did not – not – receive information about the use of airplanes as missiles by suicide bombers ... Until this attack took place, I think it’s fair to say that no one envisioned that as a possibility.”
Then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said: “I don’t think that anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile ... even in retrospect there was nothing to suggest that.”
I don't care about the buildings anymore, that's all been "debunked" for the most part.
Like I've said to you before, you can quote all you want from information you find on the interwebs, that doesn't make it any more or less true than anything I can Google and quote. There's a lot more to 9/11 than just the buildings coming down, there's a lot of lies, repeated lies in fact. A lot of denial and finger pointing. And a lot of convenient "failures of the system". Whether you like it or not, or want to admit it or not there is something fishy going on here. But hey, I'm just a crackpot, loonie conspiracy theorist. What do I know, right? I should be a good robot and always implicitly trust people that lie to me on a continual basis, that way I don't have to face an ugly truth, or facts, or think for myself.


Oh for heavens sakes, your acting like discovering that politicians spin things and choose their wording carefully and to their own benefit is a discovery you've made through some stroke of genius.

Politicians will use the truth to deceive and trick the public as long as it's in their own interest, and if it's better to lie they'll do that to. That's not news, it's not a conspiracy, it's common knowledge.

So you seem to accept that an Afghan leader was warning of a 'major attack'(no mention of airplanes, just a major attack) leading up to 9/11. You don't act like his assassination on the 10th of September was a surprise either. What is surprising is your quotes you throw out thinking that officials were unaware or lying about this. EVERY quote you gave specifically states there was no idea that civilian aircraft would be used as missiles in an attack. Remembering that politicians are deceitful monsters, you'll notice they do NOT deny having warnings of an impending Al Qaeda attack. In fact, multiple official reports, investigations, and even Bin Laden's own public statements all make it very clear there were warnings of pending attack from Bin Laden's organization. The only denial in your quotes is specifically to the method.

Sorry, your whole act depends on people being either ignorant of the facts or shocked that politicians might hedge and be dodgy in their answers on a massively political topic...

Oh yeah, the Arab Spring revolts were such a NATO conspiracy. They really had to spread it, topple a couple of other dictators peacefully, all that to be able to... whatever it is they're scheming to do.


Yes, and remember that the Afghan war was all about a pipeline. Then for a little while it was about minerals. I don't remember what it's all about now. Oh, and the Iraq war was all about oil too. Obviously. Also, the Cold War was all fake.

The general WTC conspiracy (ie. it was all done by the US government) is complete nutbars. It imagines a kind of omniscient foresight and complete control that it is quite clear the US government (and all of its fantastic, bumbling agencies) lacks.

It can be an oddly pleasing little fiction to imagine hyper-intelligent, all-powerful string pullers manipulating world events. The reality is that the guys at the top are, well, guys like George Bush - aggressive, not to smart, motivated by emotion and family grudges, and born in the right place to the right people to one day end up in power.

And this video is clearly made by disingenuous douchebags. They don't acknowledge and counter the "official explanation" (and there is official explanations for this stuff, it's not new material) - they just kind of hand-wave it away. If they said "well, this is the official explanation but here's why we still think there's issues" then I'd have a bit of respect for them. Instead, they pretend this is stuff that hasn't been responded to; the same approach you see in, say, anti-evolution videos. Douchebags.

Humorously, the "1500 engineers agree" crap is also common in anti-evolution videos; similarly, I'm sure it would be easy to respond with 1500 engineers named Steve who accept the general "official" version. If they had good arguments, they should have led with them, instead of trotting out the same tired crap and hiding behind the "big numbers" of engineers they found.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^marbles:
>> ^bcglorf:

And meanwhile you lament the loss of monsters like Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad. Well done.

Do you have a citation for that claim?
Meanwhile 1.5 million dead civilians in Iraq, untold thousands of dead civilians from drone attacks in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, hundreds of innocents locked up and tortured at secret prisons all over the world, terror bombings in North Africa, yeah... you've got the moral high-ground here.

And your problem is you hold Saddam guiltless for the Iraqi dead. You hold the Taliban and Al Qaeda guiltless for the Afghan and Pakistani dead. You hold Al Shabab guiltless for the Somali dead. You hold Gaddafi guiltless for the Libyan dead.
What kind of twisted world view do you have were you reject the evidence for the above, but fully and enthusiastically embrace the guilt of those fighting against Saddam, Gaddafi, the Taliban, Al Qaeada and Al Shabab?


Fuck you. That's 3 times now in this thread you've made the same baseless accusations against me. Fuck you. You want to ignore the world wide terrorism and murder that you support, so be it.

Using your standard, we should be invading/bombing China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and half of the world. And to go further, China, Russia, and whoever else should be invading/bombing the US trying to install the type of government they think we should have.

What kind of "twisted world view" is that?

>> ^marbles:

>> ^bcglorf:

And meanwhile you lament the loss of monsters like Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad. Well done.

Do you have a citation for that claim?
Meanwhile 1.5 million dead civilians in Iraq, untold thousands of dead civilians from drone attacks in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, hundreds of innocents locked up and tortured at secret prisons all over the world, terror bombings in North Africa, yeah... you've got the moral high-ground here.


And your problem is you hold Saddam guiltless for the Iraqi dead. You hold the Taliban and Al Qaeda guiltless for the Afghan and Pakistani dead. You hold Al Shabab guiltless for the Somali dead. You hold Gaddafi guiltless for the Libyan dead.

What kind of twisted world view do you have were you reject the evidence for the above, but fully and enthusiastically embrace the guilt of those fighting against Saddam, Gaddafi, the Taliban, Al Qaeada and Al Shabab?

LOL... oh, we're gonna play that game now.

So what do you call the stock market crashes post 9/11, 2007, 1987, all under your heroes - George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan? Guess your boys were... what did you call them... or, right... "clueless fking idiots".

Dude, seriously, check your facts before you post idiotic stuff like this.

Just to clarify, I'm not blaming Reagan or W. singlehandedly or even predominantly for those crashes. The drop today in fact has as much to do with European markets as it does the American markets. How exactly Obama could be blamed for that makes absolutely no sense.

About Bush's spending - completely laughable. The right was 100% on board with tax cuts (which contributed massively to the deficit, regardless if you want to count it as spending or not), and both the Afghan and Iraqi wars. About the only thing they were against was the senior citizens prescription drug benefit, and even then, I sure didn't hear a whole lot of opposition by them at the time. Compare that to Obama wanting to raise taxes on millionaires by a few percentage points and the right, including you, come out saying he's a communist or socialist, which is utterly ridiculous.

Name socialist programs that worked?

I define programs socialist in nature that cause the gov't to determine what is produced (related, how it is produced), who produces it, and/or who consumes it. With that said, here are the gov't programs that overall unquestionably the US is better for it.

Universal primary/secondary education
Federal grants and scholarships
Environmental regulation
Food and Drug Administration (before it, it wasn't safe to assume the food you bought from the grocery store wouldn't kill you)
Social Security (say what you want, but even critics have to agree Social Security has run very well, and benefitted the economy for most of its existence)
Medicare (seniors are happier with their health care than any other age group, and the vast majority are on medicare, medicare has been in existence for over 45 years)
Medicaid
VA hospitals

BTW, you can't say something has been a failure just because it's having problems today. If the program has existed for decades and was fine up to this point, it clearly can be run properly. Instead of questioning its existence, it's perfectly rational to look at how to reform it to allow it to work again.

And yes, public schools are underfunded. That's clear as day. And your rationale to not spend more is preposterous. Carried to its absurd conclusion, we should eliminate all funding for education in any manner whatsoever. Kids will learn just as much outside without shelter, books, or even teachers! Funding does matter. It doesn't determine everything about achievement. The #1 factor of student achievement is actually the socio-economic class of the students' parents. However, if the school is drastically underfunded, that child's performance will be inhibited.

See, I taught public schools, so I actually know wtf I'm talking about. You explain to me how routine classes of 37 8th grade students, 24 of them with learning disabilities, in a single class with no special education help (because there weren't enough special edu teachers to go around because it's impossible to find enough special edu teachers, because, oh wonder of wonders, nobody wants to go to spend the money to go to college to become a special edu teacher because their salaries are crap, just like every other teacher, and the job is even harder than other teaching jobs) doesn't qualify as ridiculous underfunding. This wasn't an inner city school, either. It was suburbia in a comparatively well off county in Virginia. Our textbooks were 15 years old and above reading grade level and falling apart. The county didn't have enough schools, so most of the schools had outside trailer classrooms. And no, there wasn't embezzling, or major issues with misallocation of funds. The area was heavily conservative; voters would rather have low taxes than well functioning schools, and it showed. Then you have idiots who claim the schools suck, and say it's because they're public schools, and the government can't do anything right. The government failed because it did what the people wanted - lowest taxes regardless of the consequences.

>> ^quantumushroom:

The Dow dropped 500 points today (04 Aug). Are you awake yet? People are voting with their $$$ and they have zero confidence in the Kenyanesque Hawaiian (a true label, as Papa was Kenyan and Barry is from Hawaii) who has proved to be a clueless fking idiot.
(If you don't want to believe Obama is clueless, a more terrifying conclusion awaits you: everything about his lifelong ideology, thinking America is the #1 threat in the world which must be stopped [or slowed down] is 100% true).
I know you want to believe this debt crap is a 'victory' for the right. It's nothing of the kind. We are in serious trouble and both sides ain't worth sh1t, but only one side is even trying to steer away from the cliff and rocks below.
The "spending cuts" are smoke and mirrors. Allow me to explain. Say you wanted to buy a car for 100K but instead buy one or 20K. The government would call that an 80K "spending cut". The government has NEVER cut spending.
As for your assessment of me, I don't remember enough about you to make a similar assessment, you seem to always be in attack dog mode but rarely do I see you drawing on facts for arguments. The left judges programs on what they're supposed to do, not how well they work (or not). That kind of insanity can only be measured in good intentions and resources wasted. You're standing on the edge of a cliff wearing Styrofoam wings, believing you can fly because that's the intent of the wings. Gravity says otherwise.

I've said it before and will again: I wish you lefties could prove me wrong with results: e.g. actual created jobs and prosperity, real evidence the (Bush created) scamulus worked, proof social programs work efficiently without counting good intentions, and stable financial markets attractive to investors the world over. There is no consumer confidence and zero trust now.

The left's incessant demonization of "the rich" is to win class warfare votes. It can do nothing else. Obama has already apent 3 trillion dollars in 3 years. Do you think "the rich" have more than 3 trillion hidden away? Democrat spending never stops and Republican spending barely slows down.
You can be pissed at me all day long, but I'm even more pissed at the disastrous results of this piss-poor excuse of an administration.

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^quantumushroom:
The Kenyanesque Hawaiian never met a spending cut he liked. He's overclocked this economy because he wants to cripple it. Here comes the broom to sweep the moonbats out of the belfry.

Did you not notice the economic bill he just fucking signed. Spending Cuts EVERY FUCKING WHERE...and Obama saying that it's wonderful...he didn't add any fucking taxes either. You've WON EVERYTHING by supporting the richest in the nation...and you're still bitching about something that's been proven COMPLETELY wrong.
This is my problem with you QM...you're just wrong, even using your own logic and facts, you're just always fucking wrong. I've met conservatives that were smart and made good arguments and I can have a conversation with...you could be one of those people but you're just fucking not. You're given a lot of shit on here but you're also given a lot of leash I would've banned your ass a long time ago just for being stupid.

you know, something i had to explain over and over and over again to my afghan counterparts while i served there was that security has literally nothing to do with trust or probability and everything to do with security. They had a hard time wrapping their minds around the fact that we would search their vehicles when they entered our FOB. to them it was because we didnt trust them and didnt want to be friends. trust has nothing to do with it

as a police officer, if you cant control the situation then your job is essentially meaningless.

I love how he actually mentions that he uses his rifle to "protect Afghan citizens" when he could have just said, "It's the rifle I use to protect your freedom!!!".

And why is that? Because even soldiers tend to be a lot smarter than people with yellow "support our troops" magnets on their cars.