Reply With Quote
Since when does government do anything but interfere? Maybe getting out of the way is the answer...
gut the EPA
gut financial regulation
try to kill ACA
defund the SEC
defund CFPA
Issa witch hunts Obama
Kill teacher tenure and bust teacher unions
let states, cities, counties go bankrupt to bust unions and destroy their pensions, destroying 100s of 1000s of jobs and impoverishing retirees.
witch hunt Muslims and block sharia law
block abortion for rape victims (incest victims up next)
etc, etc, etc.
Where are the proposals for jobs and the economy?
Last edited by boutons_deux; 02-02-2011 at 09:36 AM.
Since when does government do anything but interfere? Maybe getting out of the way is the answer...
Isn't that what deregulation was supposed to do, numb-nuts? ...for the love of God.
Forget the topic of this thread, the wording in the le seems more open to interpretation than anything.
Where are the proposals for jobs and the economy?
I hope we don't get into the battle of special prosecutors/inquisitors. That gets irksome real quick.
google Issa. He said he will subpoena the WH for essentially everything. Says Obama is the most corrupt President in history. I'm quite amazed he hasn't started, yet.
I wonder who was on Obama's Christmas card list? Lots of job and economic stimulus to be had there.
Issa concerned about hiring practices.... and the reasons why we went to war were never were truly investigated...
Speaking of which, Kenneth Starr's brother Jerry, is my Dad's barber.
They did negotiate to extend the tax-cuts before figuring out how we're going to make up for the lost revenue.
I guess they were against Keynesian economics before they were for it.
That's because Democrats got more political mileage out of just screaming "Bush lied and people died" for eight years than actually investigating the absurd allegations they hurled. If they had bothered, they would have had to shut the up when they found out that 1) most of them supported the AUMFs in both Iraq and Afghanistan, under which President Bush engaged those countries militarily, 2) that President Bush made his decisions based on the same intelligence available to Congress and over which virtually every Democrat declared Saddam Hussein a menace that had to be stopped; and, 3) that the wars were and are legitimate military actions.
It was easier and more politically beneficial for Democrats to .
What did Rumsfield mean when he said he knew where the wmds were? Around the Tikrit area if I recall... No, you're right we shouldn't even ask what these guys were talking about... or about those mobile weapons labs... that were known to not be as stated but yet somehow they were used as justification for war..you're right everyone had the same intel..no need to look back... I as an American have no right to know how so many things that came out after the war started were so wrong.. nothing to see here.. let's get back to nitpicking and investigating potetnial job offers..
I wish they had investigated. But, no, instead they resorted to unsubstantiated heckling and mock impeachments.What did Rumsfield mean when he said he knew where the wmds were? Around the Tikrit area if I recall... No, you're right we shouldn't even ask what these guys were talking about... or about those mobile weapons labs... that were known to not be as stated but yet somehow they were used as justification for war..you're right everyone had the same intel..no need to look back... I as an American have no right to know how so many things that came out after the war started were so wrong.. nothing to see here.. let's get back to nitpicking and investigating potetnial job offers..
I am still trying to figure out if Sec of defense was lying that day... but hey what's a few thousand dead GIs.. mere collateral damage I suppose
Last edited by George Gervin's Afro; 02-02-2011 at 11:07 AM.
I don't believe he was lying and what are you doing to "figure it out?" Posting on a minor political forum on the internet? That's significant.
Does the ever-popular Downing St memo count as unsubstantiated heckling? By that logic Nixon didn't authorize wire-taps because he wasn't prosecuted for it.
Pretty much, yeah. Especially since the entire criticism hinged on the meaning of the word "fixed" and that both Blair and Bush denied they had settled on any action at that early date. It doesn't help that Hussein's atrocities and insults were ongoing and stretched back over a decade since he agreed to place nice.
Guess you should have pushed harder for an official inquiry instead of letting the press do the grunt work.
He said we knew where the wmds were. Either he was lying our he had no idea what he was talking about.. again..nothing to look into
Or, he trusted intelligence that was wrong or, at the time he made the statement it was true and the wmds were moved, destroyed, or otherwise disposed before we arrived or, or, or, or...
Your assumption, driven by an opposition narrative, isn't the only possible answer.
powell already admitted the evidence for war was "deliberately misleading".
move on. we know the truth.
They're still translating the do ents, tbh
Well it's obvious you view the lives of the dead GIs with less value than I do..to each his own I suppose
Why? If it is a legitimate war, which I believe it is, it would be unreasonable to expect a military engagement without casualties.
I think it's obvious you view the sacrifices of the killed and injured with less value than do I.
too bad it wasn't legitimate.
"If it is a legitimate war"
You're still still lying.
There is no IF in BUSH LIED,
there is no IF in Iraq-was-for-oil.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
