Alright, replace “good” with “neccessary”.
Well he’s a goddamn idiot then. Not only is torture not neccessary, it doesn’t even work! Then we have to complete hypocracy of employing the same tactics the people we’re calling inhuman monsters are employing. Perform a simple cost benefit analysis, it ain’t fucking worth it!
a. We know Cheney is arguing this
b. We don’t know that Liberman would had he been in his shoes
c. If Lieberman had, then I’d be calling Liberman a goddamn idiot!
I’m against the action, not the individual. Replace Cheney and Bush with anyone, and I would simply replace Cheney and Bush in my rant.
Doesn’t matter if they’re Dem, Pub, Libertarian, etc.
See how easy that is?
Some lame-ass cite.
And let’s not forget that Katrina tried to put a dent in it.
Hey, quit talking about my sex life. That shit’s private.
Is that a quote from Lynne Cheney’s softcore novel? Or Scooter Libby’s? Or Bill O’Reilly’s phone transcripts?
Hmmm… Seem to have touched a nerve (or a gland).
You’re not a smart person, are you?
Nope.
Goodness gracious, I’m tired of you.
Bless his heart, he means well.
Or, to quote Gracie Slick, “bless its pointed little head.”
Did you wash your hands afterwards, before posting? :dubious:
Fighting pollution? Yes, the state is probably necessary.
Provide for transportation? If you mean providing the infrastructure, yes. Providing actual transportation to individuals, then no. This one’s a maybe.
Providing health care? No. The state is not necessary.
None of those things equal “[a] responsiblity to take care of and improve the lives of the poor and middle class”.
Not really, but if that’s the piece you want to talk about, that’s ok with me. As you’re the only one to actually make an intelligent reply, I feel beholden to you.
That’s kind of vague. Tax cuts in recessions are sound policy. They naturally benefit taxpayers; and typically those who pay more taxes. Tax cuts to the unemployed aren’t helpful economically for reasons that should be obvious. It’s not so much screwing the poor, as it is simply not helping them. A family of four needs to make about $50,000 before they pay any Federal taxes, after credits.
Seeing as cutting taxes and increasing spending is basic economics for getting out of a recession, how do you propose making tax cuts that don’t benefit the wealthy tax payer?
No. That’s just wrong. The unemployment rate is currently at 5%.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=1366522
That’s pretty much the best in the industrial world, I think.
Full employment is the unemployment rate when basically everybody who wants a job can find one. Because there is always turnover and people changing, there always jobs and people in transition. Full employment is generally considered to be arround 5-7%.
So, the unemployment data suggests an economy running at high optimum. In fact, the growth signs have been so strong that the Fed has been taking steps for the last year to brake the economy so it doesn’t overheat.
With all this empiric data generally available I don’t know how you come off with the statement that the economy or unemployment figures suck. They are very good.
If you think GDP is right where you would expect it to be, than how do you come off saying the economy sucks?
Again, if the economy sucks, than where are all these huge increasing profits coming from?
Your second point though is worthy of consideration. The growth in standard of living has been in steady decline for about 40 years. It’s an interesting concern, and we can have a valid and in depth discussion of it, but even you can’t blame a 40 year trend on Bush’s presidency.
I’d love to see you try though.
I think the war is very necessary. I don’t think your finger on the tap of the “national mood” is any more accurate than the economic acument you’ve demonstrated. That is, nonexistant.
Well, you’re free to editorialize. Personally, I think people that going around labelling whole groups as swine cunts are some pretty ignorant and malicious motherfuckers.
When someone like An Arky goes around saying that we’re no better than the terrorists, I know I’m dealing with a real moron.
The only thing the terrorists and our enemies have going for them is the wingnut left. It’s their only asset.
Ukelele Ike
Hey you incompetant dipshit, in post 123 lonesome loser is making fun of my name. As you should know from the Libertarian/Liberaltarian fiasco, deliberately misspelling a poster’s name to ridicule is against the board rules.
Why don’t you do me a favor, and get off your cowardly drive-by ass, do your job, and warn the puppy?
There’s another. There is an administration so enamored of being chest-beating bad asses that they alienate potential allies. People who ought to be ethusiasticly on our side are luke-warm, because we behave like imperial assholes.
The people we killed in Fallujah the other day weren’t our enemies five years ago. They are now. They are our enemies as a result of our own ham-fisted determination to assert our will, regardless. Power corrupts, and it also apparently endumbens.
So you show surprising wisdom when you seperate the groups, the terrorists and our enemies. We had the terrorists already, and now we have our enemies.
Didn’t have to be that way. But it is now.
You make a semi-intelligent response to a part of Aeschines post, and then you end it with this. How disappointing! Not only is this the very sort of hyperbole you earlier decried, it’s an exaggeration of a false claim. Even if they are entirely wrong in their criticisms, Americans talking about Bush’s mistakes is not an asset to terrorists. But, they aren’t entirely wrong. Iraq, for example, is a fantastic recruiting tool for jihadists; you might not know this since you apparently don’t follow the news, but the main reason OBL and associates attacked us was because of resentment over US bases in the middle east–do you think building more bases will make more people join that cause, or fewer? Of course, this argument might be mitigated if we were battling these terrorists in Iraq. But since foreign fighters account for a few percent of the insurgency, we’re only battling the new terrorists we create.
One last point. Since you apparently believe in the Bush doctrine, you must also believe that the left’s aid and comfort of the terrorists makes them equal to the terrorists. Which, of course, makes you guilty the “we’re no better than the terrorists”-style argument which you just said let’s you know you’re dealing with a moron. I don’t think you’re a moron, for what it’s worth, so you should think more highly of yourself.
Link please?
Semi-intelligent? Why semi? What fault do you find with the rest of it, that it’s only semi-intelligent?
First off, this we “create” terrorists meme is a load of crap. They’re responsible for their own actions.
Secondly, the idea of the wingnut left being the insurgents greatest ally is pretty unimpeachable.
Terrorism does not seek to win through military victory. It’s a PR and morale battle. It’s on record that the Vietnamese consider the protestor’s their greatest ally. By what crazy logic do you assume that the protests currently occur only in a vaccum?
The terrorists gained credibility and their cause was served by what happened in Abu Grahib. The reporting of this was factual, true, and responsible. Because of this the blame falls on those who committed the abuse, not those who reported it.
It is right and proper to criticize. It is right and proper to report atrocities. What is wrong to do is to make them up or hyperbolize them. Once that is being done one is no longer serving truth one is only serving the cause of the enemies. Doing so, whether maliciously or irresponsibly is treason the way I see it.
Does self-esteem have a theoretical limit, like neutron density?