Why are Republicans Wrong about Everything?

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 41961 - 41980 of total 52606 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Mar 21, 2013 - 06:38pm PT
I just wanna say how swell it is that we still spend billions every year in the ME --its working out soooo(sigh) grrrreat....


great googily moodily,, between the vacume the ME is, and duck penis studies,, its no friggin wonder we are broke.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Mar 21, 2013 - 06:51pm PT
billions, Ron?

us taxpayers are now out over two TRILLION dollars thanks to Bush invading Iraq over a lie


but to your point about the Middle East, obviously you disagree but this country long ago made a commitment to stand up for and support with our troops and money the rights of people to self govern, to rise up against brutal and oppressive governments around the globe, we give billions to Israel for example to help them sustain their democracy surrounded by Arabs that want them dead

of course, the fact that our entire American economy depends heavily on ME oil is another huge reason why we pretend to like the Saudis

the total amount of money we spend on "foreign aid" is an incredibly small amount of our budget
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Mar 21, 2013 - 06:55pm PT
100% hogwash that we HAVE to be dependent upon arab oil.. Thats just the propoganda fed to masses...


and what good did we do in Iraq? Afghanistan?? Is al- quway-duh wiped out?

How about Syria? Turkey? Egypt? Yemen or Iran or Lybia?? All complete shyt holes currently.. We done nothing but chew up good young folks of ours in vein attempts at "war"..


And Obama has done exactly whay bush did before him- illegal wars,, dumping money into bullshyt regimes and muslim brotherhood factions -- all fuggin brilliant.
jghedge

climber
Mar 21, 2013 - 06:56pm PT
"I just wanna say how swell it is that we still spend billions every year in the ME --its working out soooo(sigh) grrrreat...."


And thank you for voting for it, moron!

You voted to pour a trillion out into the sand, which, in turn, destroyed the repub party, and got Obama elected to 2 terms, and ensures there'll never be another repub president!

How's that feel?
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Mar 21, 2013 - 07:25pm PT
And Obama has done exactly whay bush did before him- illegal wars,, dumping money into bullshyt regimes and muslim brotherhood factions -- all fuggin brilliant.

no, President Obama has NOT

Bush got us into Iraq, Obama got us out, see the difference?

and no, the USA does NOT give money to terrorist muslim brotherhoods, period, never has

and El Queda? YES in fact it is almost completely destroyed by President Obama, he has been killing their leaders and disrupting their communications and command structure, and THEY were the ones who attacked us on 9/11 and you damn right we will not let them get their act together again
Bob D'A

Trad climber
Taos, NM
Mar 21, 2013 - 07:31pm PT
Ron is a complete nut job overwhelmed by his own stupidity and hate.
jghedge

climber
Mar 21, 2013 - 07:36pm PT
"And Obama has done exactly whay bush did before him- illegal wars,,"


Hahahahaha, sorry Rong, Obama hasn't gotten us into any wars, illegal or otherwise

Not even the stupidest, most deranged wingnut would make that claim, because the humiliation and embarrassment wouldn't be worth it.

You however seem to thrive on it...why? What's the point in making yourself into the laughing stock of SuperTopo?

Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Mar 21, 2013 - 07:49pm PT
The future of the Republican Party

From the Huffington Post:

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) is worried Obamacare is going to kill someone.

During a floor speech Thursday, Bachmann called on the House to repeal President Barack Obama's health care law, passed three years ago.

"Repeal this failure before it literally kills women, kills children, kills senior citizens," Bachmann said.

The remark comes as House Republicans have mounted their latest effort to kill Obamacare, a mission they've failed to accomplish in nearly 40 prior attempts.

During her speech, Bachmann insisted the American people "pay more and get less" under Obamacare.

Bachmann suggested Washington should stop the carnage before it's too late.

"Let's love people, let's care about people, let's repeal it now while we can," she said.

Bachmann was recently caught dodging CNN correspondent Dana Bash, who pressed the former Republican presidential candidate on the baseless comments she made at the 40th annual Conservative Political Action Conference about Obama's allegedly lavish personal lifestyle...

Hahahahahaha. All you can do is laugh--or cry, I suppose.

Curt

Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 22, 2013 - 08:05am PT
What If We Really Ran A Family Budget Like The Republicans Want Run The Government?


2013/03/07
By State of thought
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/03/07/what-if-we-really-ran-a-family-budget-like-republicans-run-the-government/

Consider a homeowner who owes a typical mortgage on a house and makes just enough to keep up with the bills and maybe every once in a while treat the family to something nice like a dinner out or a trip to the zoo.

Does it make sense for that homeowner to sell the car he uses to get to work in order to pay down the mortgage faster?

How about if he skips paying for the annual licensing for his field of employment (required for his career)? Sound like a good plan?

In order to pay down that mortgage faster, does it make sense for that homeowner to stop buying food for the kids, getting reasonable check-ups and other medical attention as needed, and keeping the house warm enough that the pipes won’t freeze?


Should the homeowner cut out all trips to the library for books for the kids so as to save on gas and send bigger mortgage payments? How about toys? Should the homeowner never buy a toy again until the mortgage is payed off, even if it’s a just started 30 year mortgage and he has a newborn with no toys beyond a single teething ring?

Does any of that really, truly make sense?

How about investments? Should the homeowner stop contributing a modest sum to his retirement plan and an education savings plan for his kid? Even if both of those investments are expected to have a return higher than the interest on the mortgage?

And if the homeowner can reasonably expect to get significantly higher pay from investing in his career, what then? Let’s imagine this homeowner could put $1,000 on his low interest home equity line and get training and certification that on average increases a certified individual’s pay by $1,000 a year. Would it be more sensible, rational, and responsible for the homeowner to get this certification or to avoid taking on a little bit more debt?

Our government is this homeowner. Our debt is this manageable mortgage.

When we’re at full employment — unlike now — there would be no certification we could expect to be a safe bet to increase our income steadily. But we’re not there. Not even close.

When we’re well below full employment on account of a consumer demand shortfall — like now — just about any additional spending we have the government do can typically be expected to add to commerce and help push us that little bit closer to full employment. That means higher revenues. And that’s without even focusing it into the most useful spending, which we can and should do to get the most bang for the buck by spending on adding to infrastructure, R&D, and other investments known to build the most revenue.

It should already be an obvious choice. But unlike the homeowner, the government gets an additional win by investing that spending in increasing revenue. Since additional employment means less unemployment, medicaid, and other liabilities, the government reduces its costs by increasing its revenue. That’s not just a win-win … it’s a no-brainer. It’s stunningly obvious. We should be investing in raising our revenue by engaging some short term spending (preferably including long term investments in that short term spending).

Now if only the budget cutters in Congress could see that.
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Mar 22, 2013 - 09:36am PT
On Thursday, Rep. Michele Bachmann observed on the House floor that Obamacare was “literally” terrible.
“That’s why we’re here: Because we’re saying, Let’s repeal this failure before it literally kills women, kills children, kills senior citizens,” Bachmann said. “Let’s not do that. Let’s love people. Let’s care about people. Let’s repeal it now while we can.”

Few things are more lethal than expanded access to health care.

“Literally” describes, or used to describe, something that is actually in fact happening in real life in the world — like mothers decreasing the rate at which they opt to get Gardasil vaccines, proven lifesavers, for their daughters, pointing to trumped-up health concerns such as those raised by Bachmann during the Republican debates. To pick a random example.

From Wa Post
Bob D'A

Trad climber
Taos, NM
Mar 22, 2013 - 10:01am PT
Insanity by republicans.

They really are insane.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/22/ted-cruz-obamacare_n_2932740.html
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Mar 22, 2013 - 11:48am PT


who know's what the hell they are about?


Good question: What are they "FOR"?

We know what they are against.... but what are they are for?
Bharata

Mountain climber
Pune
Mar 22, 2013 - 02:37pm PT
Late night comedians who tell joke about Republicans
will get more tax exemptions but will get IRS audit if the joke
is about our great president.

This is how equal protection under the law should work to silence
abusers of the first amendment.

Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 22, 2013 - 07:35pm PT
The Sociocide of Iraq by Bush/Cheney

by Ralph Nader
Published on Friday, March 22, 2013 by Common Dreams
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/03/22-8

Ten years ago George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, as war criminals, launched the sociocide of the people of Iraq – replete with embedded television and newspaper reporters chronicling the invasion through the Bush lens. That illegal war of aggression was, of course, based on recognized lies, propaganda and cover-ups that duped or co-opted leading news institutions such as the New York Times and the Washington Post.

Wars of aggression – this one blowing apart a country of 25 million people ruled by a weakened despot surrounded by far more powerful adversaries – Israel, Turkey and Iran – are major crimes under international law and the UN Charter. The Bush/Cheney war was also unconstitutional, never declared by Congress, as Senator Robert Byrd eloquently pointed out at the time. Moreover, many of the acts of torture and brutality perpetrated against the Iraqi people are illegal under various federal statutes.

Over one million Iraqis died due to the invasion, the occupation and the denial of health and safety necessities for infants, children and adults. Far more Iraqis were injured and sickened. Birth defects and cancers continue to set lethal records. Five million Iraqis became refugees, many fleeing into Jordan, Syria and other countries.

Nearly five thousand U.S. soldiers died. Many other soldiers committed suicide. Well over 150,000 Americans were injured or sickened, far more than the official Pentagon under-estimate which restricts nonfatal casualty counts only to those incurred directly in the line of fire.

So far the Iraq War has monetarily cost taxpayers about $2 trillion. Tens of billions more will be spent for veterans disabilities and continuing expenses in Iraq. Taxpayers are paying over $600 million a year to guard the giant U.S. Embassy and its personnel in Baghdad, more than what our government spends for OSHA, whose task is to reduce the number of American workers who die every year from workplace disease and trauma, currently about 58,000.

All for what results? Before the invasion there was no al-Qaeda in Saddam Hussein’s secular dictatorship. Now a growing al-Qaeda in Iraq is terrorizing the country with ever bolder car bombings and suicide attacks taking dozens of lives at a time and spilling forcefully over into Syria.

Iraq is a police state with sectarian struggles between the dominant Shiites and the insurgent Sunnis who lived together peacefully and intermarried for centuries. There were no sectarian slaughters of this kind before the invasion, except for Saddam Hussein’s bloodbath against rebellious Shiites. The Shiites were egged on by President George H.W. Bush, who promptly abandoned them to the deadly strafing of Saddam’s helicopter gunships at the end of the preventable first Gulf War in 1991.

Iraq is a country in ruins with a political and wealthy upper class raking off the profits from the oil industry and the occupation. The U.S. is now widely hated in that part of Asia. Bush/Cheney ordered the use of cluster bombs, white phosphorous and depleted uranium against, for example, the people of Fallujah where infant birth deformities have skyrocketed.

As Raed Jarrar, an Iraqi-American analyst observed: “Complete destruction of the Iraqi national identity” and the sectarian system introduced by the U.S. invaders in 2003, where Iraqis were favored or excluded based on their sectarian and ethnic affiliations, laid the basis for the current cruel chaos and violence. It was a nasty, brutish form of divide and rule.

The results back home in our country are soldiers and their extended families suffering in many ways from broken lives. Phil Donahue’s gripping documentary Body of War follows the pain-wracked life of one soldier returning in 2004 from Iraq as a paraplegic. That soldier, Tomas Young, nearing the end of his devastated life, has just written a penetrating letter to George W. Bush which every American should read.

The lessons from this unnecessary quagmire should be: first, how to stop any more wars of aggression by the Washington warmongers – the same neocon draft dodgers are at it again regarding Iran and Syria. And second, the necessity to hold accountable the leading perpetrators of this brutal carnage and financial wreckage who are presently at large – fugitives from justice earning fat lecture and consulting fees.

In the nine months running up to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, at least three hundred prominent, retired military officers, diplomats and national security officials publically spoke out against the Bush/Cheney drumbeats to war. Their warnings were prophetically accurate. They included retired Generals Anthony Zinni and William Odom, and Admiral Shanahan. Even Brent Scowcroft and James Baker, two of President George H.W. Bush’s closest advisors strongly opposed the invasion.

These outspoken truthsayers – notwithstanding their prestige and experience – were overwhelmed by a runaway White House, a disgraceful patsy mainstream media and an abdicatory Congress. Multi-billionaire, George Soros was also courageously outspoken. Unfortunately, prior to the invasion, he did not provide a budget and secretariat for these men and women to provide continuity and to multiply their numbers around the country, through the mass media and on Capitol Hill. By the time he came around to organizing and publicizing such an organized effort, it was after the invasion, in July 2003.

Nine months earlier, I believe George Soros could have provided the necessary resources to stop Bush/Cheney and their lies from stampeding the government, and country, into war.

Mr. Soros can still build the grassroots pressure for the exercise of the rule of law under our constitution and move Congress toward public hearings in the Senate designed to establish an investigative arm of the Justice Department to pursue the proper enforcement against Bush/Cheney and their accomplices.

After all, the Justice Department had such a special prosecutors’ office during the Watergate scandal and was moving to indict a resigned Richard Nixon before President Ford pardoned him.

Compare the Watergate break-in and obstruction of justice by Nixon with the horrendous crimes coming out of the war against Iraq – a nation that never threatened the U.S. but whose destruction takes a continuing toll on our country.

as a Dr.F footnote,
Bush wouldn't let Iraqi Refugees come to America, we couldn't afford them.
his message, "go some where else and die, losers"


some patriotic Veterans have gone back to Iraq, and made friends with the same people they were ordered to kill, and apologized to them, the Iraqis could understand, it wasn't the soldiers fault, they were also victims of the Bush Admin. Inflicted Terrorism
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 22, 2013 - 08:19pm PT
Credit: Dr. F.
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 22, 2013 - 08:22pm PT
The US Invasion of Iraq Was a Crime and Its Perpetrators Are Murderers

On the criminology of the Iraq War on its tenth anniversary

by Paul Savoy
Published on Tuesday, March 19, 2013 by Common Dreams
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/03/19-10

Ten years after the invasion of Iraq, it is astonishing in a nation dedicated to the rule of law that every aspect of the war has been debated except the relevant law.

To be sure, a vast array of articles, books and films have documented how pre-war intelligence was "manipulated" or "misrepresented" or "twisted" or "cherry-picked" or "fixed around the policy," and how the Bush Administration's inadequate planning produced a "fiasco," a "blunder," and a "disaster" -- terms used to convey the sinister nature and catastrophic effect of White House miscalculations without actually accusing anyone of anything so incriminating as a felony.

Two notable exceptions are former Los Angeles prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi's book, "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder," which encountered a virtual boycott by the major news media when published in 2008, and "United States v. George W. Bush et al.," by Elizabeth de la Vega, a former Assistant U.S Attorney who meticulously presents the case for criminal fraud under a little-known federal statute that does not require monetary loss by the victim as a condition for conviction. Both books rest their case on proof of deliberate deception by the President and members of his war cabinet -- not an easy hurdle to overcome in a criminal trial, which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Intentional killings based on a mistake are not accidents... if the mistake was predicated on an unreasonable belief about the justification for the killing.

Contrary to common belief, however, an American president can be found guilty of criminal conduct without proof of the corrupt state of mind of the deliberate liar or the malignant motives of Nazis on trial at Nuremberg. The criminal mind also encompasses the all-too-common consciousness of human beings acting carelessly in deciding to kill other human beings, however justified their conduct may seem in their own eyes.

On the tenth anniversary of the invasion, the only truly serious question about the war is whether President George W. Bush and those who participated in the decision to invade Iraq did anything illegal or unconstitutional or criminal.

To raise such a question about a war initiated by own's own country is always "a vocation of agony," as Martin Luther King, Jr. said of the war in Vietnam when he finally chose in 1967 to break his silence about the conflict. Whatever the reasons for avoiding the Iraq question, whether it is President Obama's understandable fear of further polarizing a sorely divided nation, or out of respect for the 4,422 Americans who gave their lives fighting for what they believed was a just cause, or because the legal issues are too big or too difficult, we must finally say about Iraq what Dr. King said about Vietnam. "We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak."

The whole litany of excuses for the catastrophe in Iraq has been recited in the language of mistake and misadventure, as if the war were a tragic accident, like a colossal train wreck caused by an act of God.

Intentional killings based on a mistake are not accidents, however, if the mistake was predicated on an unreasonable belief about the justification for the killing. This is the case whether the person on trial is a police officer who killed an innocent citizen in the mistaken belief that the suspect had a gun and presented a lethal threat, or a president who ordered the invasion of Iraq in the mistaken belief that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs that posed a threat to America's national security.

If a police officer's belief that his victim posed a deadly threat was not only wrong, but unreasonable, in the sense that a prudent police officer exercising due diligence in similar circumstances would not have fired his weapon, the killing constitutes criminal homicide. There is considerable disagreement among the courts and legal commentators about whether the homicide is murder or is to be treated more leniently, either as voluntary manslaughter or the lesser offense of negligent homicide, but there is universal agreement that carelessness in the use of deadly force is criminal.

What did the President know and when did he know it? Wrong question. The proper question is: What should a reasonably prudent president have known about the legal justification for invading Iraq and why didn't the President know it?

We are so used to war and the threat of war as a legitimate adjunct of foreign policy that we easily lose sight of the reality that war consists of acts which, if performed by a private citizen or organization, would constitute serious felonies: mass murder, assaults with deadly weapons, maiming, arson, kidnaping, and the malicious destruction of property. The law immunizes political leaders from criminal liability so long as the war is legally justified. As a matter of international law, this generally means in compliance with the U.N. Charter. In terms of domestic law, it means in compliance with the U.S. Consitution, which requires either a declaration of war or a congressional authorization for the use of military force.

A careful reading of the Authorization for the Use of Force adopted by large bipartisan majorities in both the House and Senate shows the congressional authorization was hardly the "blank check" the news media portrayed it as. Congress limited the President's use of military force against Iraq by authorizing war only to:


(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

The use of the word "and" after the first paragraph is critical. While Congress did not require an imminent or immediate threat, it was not prepared to authorize the President to go to war over a violation of a Security Council Resolution involving WMDs unless there was also some likelihood that if left unchecked, Saddam would present a "continuing threat" of using those weapons against the United States in the foreseeable future.

In fact, there was no continuing threat because Saddam did not actually possess any WMDs. Nor were there reasonable grounds to believe at the time of the invasion that Saddam Hussein presented such a threat. The October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (pdf), prepared for the President by the CIA and other intelligence agencies and made available to him five months before the invasion, made clear that while there were reasonable grounds to believe that "Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons," Saddam would not use them against the United States unless Iraq were attacked by us or threatened with an "imminent or unavoidable" attack.

The NIE, originally classified as Top Secret and released to the public in July 2003, contained this Key Judgment: "Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW [chemical and biological warfare] against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraq involvement would provide Washington a stronger case for making war. Iraq probably would attempt clandestine attacks against the US Homeland if Baghdad feared [that] an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable, or possibly for revenge."

In other words, a reasonably prudent president would have known from reading the NIE that as long as the United States did not attack or threaten to attack, Iraq posed no continuing threat to the United States, as the congressional authorization required. A reasonable president therefore would have known that invading Iraq would have been unconstitutional.

If President Bush knew he had no constitutional authority to go to war, then he knowingly broke the law and a properly instructed jury would have little difficulty in finding him guilty of murder. Even if he was not conscious of any wrongdoing, which seems more likely, a jury would still be warranted in finding him guilty, at the very least, of criminally negligent homicide if it found that his ignorance constituted a failure to perform the duties of his office with due diligence.

The mother whose dead body was found in the bombed ruins of Baghdad, holding her baby so tight they could not be pried apart and had to be buried together, can no longer be dismissed as "collateral damage." That mother and child, and the more than 3,000 Iraqi civilians killed directly by U.S. bombs and artillery fire in the first month alone, as well as the Iraqi troops killed while defending their country against an arguably unlawful and unreasonable attack, may have been victims of criminal homicide.

Without criminal trials, we will never know. The law, Justice Holmes reminded us, is nothing more than a prediction of how courts will rule in particular cases, and in cases involving jury trial, we should add, a prediction of what jurors will decide in applying the law to the facts. Until we have court decisions and jury verdicts, statements about the legality or constitutionality or criminality of the war in Iraq, or enhanced interrogations, or targeted killings, or the "war on terror" itself, will remain on the Opinion Page and continue to elude even the judgment of history.
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
Mar 22, 2013 - 08:28pm PT
Doc Fry...Unlike the pansy democrat liberals , the repubs are strong on national security..Never mind that brain surgeon Georgy boy let a rag tag group of saudis hijack our Airliners and kill thousands of Americans...He more than compensated by showing those Al Quaeda hoodlums who's boss by attacking the Iraqis'...More conservative logic in action...
johnboy

Trad climber
Can't get here from there
Mar 22, 2013 - 08:31pm PT
Late night comedians who tell joke about Republicans
will get more tax exemptions but will get IRS audit if the joke
is about our great president.

This is how equal protection under the law should work to silence
abusers of the first amendment.

Another tin hat full of fiction.
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 22, 2013 - 08:34pm PT
Stupid liberal peaceniks, they just don't know how to invade helpless countries for pillage. no wonder we have a revenue problem, not enough stealing from other countries to balance to books after giving away the treasury to Wall Street and the banksters
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Mar 22, 2013 - 08:43pm PT
Messages 41961 - 41980 of total 52606 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews