It's like if somebody stole your household's credit cards and ran them all up while your mom was married to George, but you didn't get the bills until she divorced Geoge and married Barry.

Then the dipshits will blame Barry because he was the one in charge of the house when all the credit card bills came in, even though it was George who didn't do anything to stop the spending when he could.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Tuesday, November 11th, 2008 2:07am PST - promote requested by kulpims.

Oh my, classic. "...ravages of market forces." Damn that market! Damn it all to hell! We need the government to control that evil market!

The 'experts' on this video can see the problem, but they have absolutely no clue what to do to fix it. Domestic "insecurity" is what the government should be addressing? What, now the Feds are supposed to make sure everyone is warm, well fed, healthy, happy, moral, educated, exercised, wealthy, insured, safe, and secure? When did the Feds acquire that responsibility, or that power? What if someone doesn't WANT to be warm, well fed, healthy, happy, moral, educated, exercised, wealthy, insured, safe, or secure?

Oh, and we aren't at war. Call it what you like, but it is not 'war.' Wars are declared by Congress. If you're in the military, and really love this country and it's Constitution, you may want to think twice (or even thrice) before you travel over seas to shoot people in their own homes and cities in a preemptive global police action instigated for monetary purposes. If China or Russia came over here and did the same to us, without even declaring war, we might be a little pissed off ourselves.

Soon all these imaginary empire videos by leftists will be mild memories compared to the coming Obama dictatorship. Buy a gun while you still can.

>> ^Sniper007:
What, now the Feds are supposed to make sure everyone is warm, well fed, healthy, happy, moral, educated, exercised, wealthy, insured, safe, and secure?


That's the general idea, yes.

It's called a government "for the people."

When was the last time the U.S. of A. was NOT involved in some kind of military involvement for more than a year?

>> ^quantumushroom:
Soon all these imaginary empire videos by leftists will be mild memories compared to the coming Obama dictatorship. Buy a gun while you still can.


Strange that you have such prescience regarding what Obama will do and such blindness to what Bush has already done.

almost every conclusion in this video is false.

Sniper, every read the Preamble to the Constitution?
Imstellar: prove it.

imstellar, economics is false.

>> ^Biminim:
Sniper, every read the Preamble to the Constitution?
Imstellar: prove it.


"theres a candy shop at the bottom of the ocean"

this video, like the assertions above, isn't even worth the time to disprove.

none on the conclusions in this video are backed with any evidence, so why would i even waste my time disproving random uncorroborated statements? its enough to simply state that i disagree.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Soon all these imaginary empire videos by leftists will be mild memories compared to the coming Obama dictatorship. Buy a gun while you still can.


Strange that you have such prescience regarding what Obama will do and such blindness to what Bush has already done.

We have Comrade Obama's record to go by, only the MSM denies it.

The only lasting scorn against Bush will be for the times he acted like a liberal, which was most of the time.

>> ^quantumushroom:
>> ^quantumushroom:
The only lasting scorn against Bush will be for the times he acted like a liberal, which was most of the time.


The reality is that the Republican party had a red president, house and congress in 2000. However they sold out their core ideals of curbing big government.

The opportunity finally came in 2000 to do something about the cancerous growth of government. This clear message led to the Republican success at the polls.

Once the Republicans were in power, though, the promises faded, and all policies were directed at maintaining or increasing power by trying to whittle away at Democratic strength by acting like big-spending Democrats.

The Republican Congress never once stood up against the Bush/Rove machine that demanded support for unconstitutional wars, attacks on civil liberties here at home, and an economic policy based on more spending, more debt, and more inflation -- while constantly preaching the flawed doctrine that deficits don't matter as long as taxes aren't raised.

i like how QM changed his tune.

SPLITTER!

it's hilarious that the only way you can keep your beloved "librul/kunservertive" paradigm going is to call Bush a liberal!

Your conscience must look like a pretzel.

Credit is a financial innovation... it's emotional to say all debt is bad. It can make enormous financial sense to borrow money and invest it in ways that yield greater benefits than the costs of the modest interest you'll pay on that money. To do otherwise would be under-utilizing your assets.

The lower classes manage debt poorly, the middle classes avoid debt, and the upper classes manage debt intelligently.

The question isn't whether or not we should have debt; it's how big should our debt be. (Yes, it's too big, particularly after the Bush administration.)

^chilaxe,

I agree that high debt is not always necessarily bad but you caveat that yourself by saving that it should be investment into the economy to bring forward benefits via the multiplier effect.

However I fail to see that occurring anywhere in the way the Bush administration has overseen the budget, with high increases in military and security spending and high level of contracting which due to no bid assignment of contracts meant that these firms failed to meet their objectives. I would mention AEGIS as one of those companies.

With regards to different classes managing debt, the higher classes and most firms and corporations are able to hire or or offset or hell set up HQs in tax free heavens. This is why I disagree with Regaenesque trickle down economics and tax cuts for the rich. I do support progressive taxation.

and where do the storm troopers fit in?

I suppose it's naive of me to expect people who rally behind a video like this to at least stop blaming the Iraq war on American greed?

"Affordable housing units" are only $10,000 each? Used formaldehyde-ridden FEMA trailers cost more than that. And we could always cut the $21 billion and NOT rebuild Iraq... that'd be smart...riiiiiight.

Granted, running up debt isn't exactly the most wise of financial policies, but this video is, to say the least, an extreme exaggeration.

The GOP is no longer the party of Goldwater and Reagan. Republicants like QM are just sour that their leaders fucked up so spectacularly.


Given that Reagan funded the Afghan Mujahideen and Saddam I'm not sure he compares all that favorably to Bush.

>> ^Sniper007:
Oh my, classic. "...ravages of market forces." Damn that market! Damn it all to hell! We need the government to control that evil market!
The 'experts' on this video can see the problem, but they have absolutely no clue what to do to fix it. Domestic "insecurity" is what the government should be addressing? What, now the Feds are supposed to make sure everyone is warm, well fed, healthy, happy, moral, educated, exercised, wealthy, insured, safe, and secure? When did the Feds acquire that responsibility, or that power? What if someone doesn't WANT to be warm, well fed, healthy, happy, moral, educated, exercised, wealthy, insured, safe, or secure?
Oh, and we aren't at war. Call it what you like, but it is not 'war.' Wars are declared by Congress. If you're in the military, and really love this country and it's Constitution, you may want to think twice (or even thrice) before you travel over seas to shoot people in their own homes and cities in a preemptive global police action instigated for monetary purposes. If China or Russia came over here and did the same to us, without even declaring war, we might be a little pissed off ourselves.


"shoot people in their own homes and cities..."
Do you really mean to make it sound like civilians are the intended targets?

"in a preemptive global police action"
Removing a dictator that committed genocide against his own people, annexed a neighboring sovereign country and failed at annexing a second is pre-emptive?

"instigated for monetary purposes"
Really? Even after this video and the well documented down turn the American economy is going through? Are you sure?

"If China or Russia came over here and did the same to us..."
Oh yeah, let's go really far out into left field. Let's pretend that the insurgence in Iraq is fighting to reinstate the toppled Baathist regime. Let's ignore that the true liberation army of Iraq, the Peshmerga army of Iraqi-Kurdistan, is fighting alongside American troops. Let's even pretend that American citizens are just as unhappy with their government as Iraqi's were with Saddam. That's an insult to every man, woman and child now buried in the mass graves of Northern Iraq.

let's ignore the many decades of western powers fucking around in that region because it powers their wars.

ffs, iraq isn't even a country, it's a line drawn by invaders.

no american forgets their history after 100 years, so why should the iraqis/iranians/israelis/syrians/jordanians/saudis?

blah blah you debate the latest war as if it had zero context.

>> ^MINK:
let's ignore the many decades of western powers fucking around in that region because it powers their wars.
ffs, iraq isn't even a country, it's a line drawn by invaders.
no american forgets their history after 100 years, so why should the iraqis/iranians/israelis/syrians/jordanians/saudis?
blah blah you debate the latest war as if it had zero context.


Mind explaining which context I should add? Hossein Khomeini, Ayatollah Khomeini's grandson, enthusiastically supported the current war and refused to call it an invasion but the liberation of Iraq. Am I to believe he too is ignorant of the region's history? In what context was Saddam not a monster the world is better off without?

ROFLMAO.

The Khomeini's would obviously support an action to remove Saddam Hussein who attacked Iran in the 80s resulting in the Iran-Iraq war that killed nearly a million. They also hate America. Your point is so ridiculous.

>> ^Farhad2000:
ROFLMAO.
The Khomeini's would obviously support an action to remove Saddam Hussein who attacked Iran in the 80s resulting in the Iran-Iraq war that killed nearly a million. They also hate America. Your point is so ridiculous.


Actually, Hossein Khomeini is a big fan of America and considers his own grandfather a "F@#%!#& queer". He's even gone so far as to hope that America would remove the regime in Iran next. He and most of the other youth in Iran blame the Iran-Iraq war dead largely on his grandfather's attempts to fight it with human waves.

If you think Iran is unique in the region for wanting Saddam removed maybe ask the Kurds, Kuwait, Jordan, Saudia Arabia, Egypt, Israel if they would rather return to the days of Saddam's rule.

I don't need to ask anyone, I live in Kuwait. People are still sour at Iraqis and Saddam and are still pressing for the new Iraqi regime to honor all post 1991 debts.

But to say that people wanted the removal of Saddam Hussein due to some altruistic feelings is simply false when looking at these issues on a international level. The secular wedge of Iraq divided the Sunni and Shia worlds of Saudi Arabia and Iran, and threatened them at the same time something neither liked but something that was used to great affect by the Americans to secure beneficial trade and oil agreements and massive weapon sales.

Iran didn't start the war, it was Iraq who needed something to unite the people for after the prolong political cleansing that Saddam inflicted on the government.

Hussein Khomeini is in league with the fallen Shah government that was installed in a CIA backed coup, the religious regime that came in was no better then the Shah. But I would not give any voice to someone who is sympathetic to the neoconservative cause.

Yes he was a bad bad man, but to say that the American invasion and removal by force is the best way to deal with such instances is just lunacy.

>> ^Farhad2000:
I don't need to ask anyone, I live in Kuwait. People are still sour at Iraqis and Saddam and are still pressing for the new Iraqi regime to honor all post 1991 debts.
But to say that people wanted the removal of Saddam Hussein due to some altruistic feelings is simply false when looking at these issues on a international level. The secular wedge of Iraq divided the Sunni and Shia worlds of Saudi Arabia and Iran, and threatened them at the same time something neither liked but something that was used to great affect by the Americans to secure beneficial trade and oil agreements and massive weapon sales.
Iran didn't start the war, it was Iraq who needed something to unite the people for after the prolong political cleansing that Saddam inflicted on the government.
Hussein Khomeini is in league with the fallen Shah government that was installed in a CIA backed coup, the religious regime that came in was no better then the Shah. But I would not give any voice to someone who is sympathetic to the neoconservative cause.
Yes he was a bad bad man, but to say that the American invasion and removal by force is the best way to deal with such instances is just lunacy.



Here is what I actually said:

"shoot people in their own homes and cities..."
Do you really mean to make it sound like civilians are the intended targets?

"in a preemptive global police action"
Removing a dictator that committed genocide against his own people, annexed a neighboring sovereign country and failed at annexing a second is pre-emptive?

"instigated for monetary purposes"
Really? Even after this video and the well documented down turn the American economy is going through? Are you sure?

"If China or Russia came over here and did the same to us..."
Oh yeah, let's go really far out into left field. Let's pretend that the insurgence in Iraq is fighting to reinstate the toppled Baathist regime. Let's ignore that the true liberation army of Iraq, the Peshmerga army of Iraqi-Kurdistan, is fighting alongside American troops. Let's even pretend that American citizens are just as unhappy with their government as Iraqi's were with Saddam. That's an insult to every man, woman and child now buried in the mass graves of Northern Iraq.


I never suggested what the 'best' way was. I just stated that the current situation in Iraq, as bad as it is, isn't as bad as the genocide that Saddam was continually pursuing. More over, one can hardly look at pre-war Iraq under Saddam and say that some kind of collapse and ensuing civil war wasn't already on the way. You can't say that the factionalism that the American's have blundered into worsening, wasn't being fed even worse by Saddam's heavy handed oppression of all Kurdish and Shiite people.

More importantly, the main point I was addressing is the notion that the video speaks of, the cost to American tax payers of the war. It is pretty ridiculous to suggest that the Iraq war could have been anticipated to be good for the USA's economy by anybody, and so talk of a war based on American greed is just hyperbole. The only benefit to America of removing Saddam is the same enjoyed by many other countries the world over, one less dictator encouraging war, genocide and division. Pretending the disaster that is the current state of Iraq wasn't well in the works since even before the first Gulf War is extraordinarily dishonest(though that lie was pushed the most by Bush/Cheney pre-War)

>> ^bcglorf:
The only benefit to America of removing Saddam is the same enjoyed by many other countries the world over, one less dictator encouraging war, genocide and division. Pretending the disaster that is the current state of Iraq wasn't well in the works since even before the first Gulf War is extraordinarily dishonest(though that lie was pushed the most by Bush/Cheney pre-War)


I'm still having a tough time seeing what it is you're saying.

Killing over 1,000,000 Iraqi civilians and creating 3,000,000 Iraqi refugees does not really seem like a fair trade for saving "Kurdistan" which America never meant to do in the first place and still doesn't really give a fuck about.

America doesn't give a damn about genocidal dictators and that should be clear to you by now; they only care when that genocidal dictator is not doing as he's told.

You seem to be justifying the US invasion of Iraq because it helped the Kurds, and that seems to be your only justification.

Killing over 1,000,000 Iraqi civilians and creating 3,000,000 Iraqi refugees does not really seem like a fair trade for saving "Kurdistan" which America never meant to do in the first place and still doesn't really give a fuck about.


I'd like to see the source for your numbers, the Iraqi Ministry of Health estimates less than 200-300 thousand violence related deaths since the war began. Even the Lancet survey covering ALL deaths since the invasion estimates under 700,000 deaths.


For starters, lets assume your numbers are bang on. 3 million refugees since the war began is an improvement, as the entire Kurdish population were fighting for their lives to maintain even a refugee like lifestyle. That's 4-6 million right there alone. So the refugee situation in Iraq is better now than under Saddam.

1 million civilian deaths simply has to include ALL deaths and is the highest estimate that anyone has made. If you want to assume the highest estimates are right, at least 1.3 million were killed under Saddam. The numbers of course don't tell the whole story. The deaths attributed to Saddam are of direct executions, many of them buried in mass graves that are still being dug up. From the Lancet study(the highest reported deaths I can find at 700-800 thousand) includes "the number of excess deaths caused by the occupation, both direct (combatants plus non-combatants) and indirect (due to increased lawlessness, degraded infrastructure, poor healthcare, etc.)." I really needn't point out the importance that difference should make.

Lastly, the majority of deaths in Iraq now are a direct result of the sectarian hatred and resulting violence. Can you in good conscience tell me that hatred wasn't worsening every day under Saddam far more than it has since his removal? Saddam used that hatred to his advantage throughout his entire reign, and the American contribution to it has been through incompetent efforts to lessen it.

*money

Adding video to channels (Money) - requested by paul4dirt.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by therealblankman.

rasch187 has fixed this video's dead embed code - no Power Points awarded because rasch187's points are already fully charged.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by arvana.