"David Emanuel Hickman. Doesn't that name just bring out a smile to your face?" said Logan Trainum, one of Hickman's closest friends, at the funeral where the soldier was laid to rest after a ceremony in a Greensboro church packed with friends and family.

Trainum says he's not spending time asking why Hickman died: "There aren't enough facts available for me to have a defined opinion about things. I'm just sad, and pray that my best friend didn't lay down his life for nothing."

He'd rather remember who Hickman was: A cutup who liked to joke around with friends. A physical fitness fanatic who half-kiddingly called himself "Zeus" because he had a body that would make the gods jealous. A ferocious outside linebacker at Northeast Guilford High School who was the linchpin of a defense so complicated they had to scrap it after he graduated because no other teenager could figure it out.

If obummer would have gotten us out of there when he promised this fine young man would be alive.

Obummers fault.

Reading this short article made me sad. I'm not sure what it was--I've read numerous articles about soldiers coming home in boxes. They've usually made me upset, but not exactly sad. It might have been the quote from the kid about her father: "He was nice." He was nice? This is how well a military kid knows her father? My god. I can't fathom this life, and I can't express the mix of emotions I felt upon reading that.
+++++

And Glasshouse, you're living up to the name others give you: Asshouse. How about "4000 other young men and women would still be alive if President Bush had not pushed us into this war"? I know this single death is going to be politicized like this, but really? You do know that if Obama had gotten us out on his original timeline, there still would have been a "last troop killed in Iraq," right? You probably still would have blamed that on Obama. Fool.

"If obummer would have gotten us out of there when he promised this fine young man would be alive."

If George W. Bush hadn't gotten us into this war in the first place, David Emanuel Hickman and many of his fellow brothers and sisters...

And they were mostly young. According to an Associated Press analysis of casualty data, the average age of Americans who died in Iraq was 26. Nearly 1,300 were 22 or younger, but middle-aged people fought and died as well: some 511 were older than 35.

Bush's fault.

Posted by pragmatist at 2011-12-18 10:45 AM

Thank you, pragmatist.

Bush's fault.

#4 | Posted by Hans

It was up until January 2009. We got a different CiC then, remember? Had the zero kept his campaign promises, there would be fewer dead.

To imagine that there is an ass hairs difference between The Bush and Obama warmongering policies Would be to deny the reality of our constant state of war.

Ron Paul 2012!

If obummer would have gotten us out of there when he promised this fine young man would be alive.

Obummers fault.

#2 | Posted by glasshouse at 2011-12-18 10:30 AM | Reply |

It was up until January 2009. We got a different CiC then, remember? Had the zero kept his campaign promises, there would be fewer dead.

#6 | Posted by goatman at 2011-12-18 10:54 AM | Reply |

Real fucking funny using a dead U.S. serviceman to try and push an asinine dialogue.

You two scumbags are fucking pathetic.

It is of course obvious. Destroy the hope of the coming generation that they will ever be able to find good jobs. They then turn to the military where they can be killed off "for the good of the country"

Of course who is going to pay the SS for all the old farts who have build these policies over a generation or two? Well the ones who built the policy don't give a shit and the ones who need SS well I guess we could have a "silver corp" or some shit to get rid of them too.

We are all soylent green.

Real fucking funny using a dead U.S. serviceman to try and push an asinine dialogue.

You forgot to add Han's post #4 to your diatribe, pinche loaf. He is the one who brought it up first. We responded.

You're welcome, you stupid partisan hack

Real fucking funny using a dead U.S. serviceman to try and push an asinine dialogue.

And the left wasn't doing that with their daily death counts when Bush was president, pinche loaf? LOL. They didn't do that when they demanded that the images of flag draped coffins being taken off the transports be made public (against the wishes of many of the grieving families) I guess your DNC handlers didn't tell you that part, did they, pinche loaf? Tell your handlers you are going to take your blinders off, look at the big picture, then respond, you mind controlled hack.

I wonder why those death counts from the left suddenly stopped on January 2009, btw?

Goatman, stop posting.

Goatman, stop posting.

If this first amendment and "rest of the story thing" bugs you, you are in the wrong place. Take your ass to one of the mindless echo chambers like Kos or Moveon where people like me aren't allowed and only lib is spoken.

Just a suggestion. But it may save your gritting teeth and get rid of those throbbing veins in your temples

lol Goat, give em shit and eat his shirt!

"How about "4000 other young men and women would still be alive if President Bush had not pushed us into this war"?

And...

"You do know that if Obama had gotten us out on his original timeline, there still would have been a "last troop killed in Iraq," right?"

Again, thanks, pragmatist.

As you so eloquently point out, getting into the war in Iraq is Bush's fault.

Just as the last troop's death is Bush's fault.

No war in Iraq (Bush's fault), no last troop's death ... regardless of who is the C-in-C at that last troop's death.

As you so eloquently point out, getting into the war in Iraq is Bush's fault.

And staying in it is Obama's fault.

Just as the last troop's death is Bush's fault.

Wrong, hans. The last troop was killed while Obama was CiC. Bush had long been out of the picture. Obama had the power to end the war much sooner (indeed, he promised he would while campagning, but he lied, obviously) but made a concious decision not to. How is Bush responsible for Obama's lies and decisions he makes while CiC? That's absurd.

Your'e welcome.

Why does being a partisan hack make people so stupid and unable to grasp the obvious?

well said Goat - good job eating his shirt.

Real fucking funny using a dead U.S. serviceman to try and push an asinine dialogue.
You two scumbags are fucking pathetic.

#9 | POSTED BY PINCHALOAF AT 2011-12-18 11:06 AM | REPLY | FLAG

Where were you when the Democrats were proudly batting about Bush's "Blood for Oil Death Count"?

good job eating his shirt.

That's what we goats do -- along with tin cans, pine cones, and a lot of lead paint.

(leaving troll bait here for you goat haters)

It was up until January 2009. We got a different CiC then, remember? Had the zero kept his campaign promises, there would be fewer dead.

Are you really going to sink so low as to hitch your wagon to asshouse's?

Why does being a partisan hack make people so stupid and unable to grasp the obvious?

Why do you ask something to which you already know, and exemplify, the answer?

Are you really going to sink so low as to hitch your wagon to asshouse's?

???

I'm hitching it to common sense and the truth. That glasshouse may have espoused the same sentiment earlier doesn't alter reality. If you agree with something axe or jackass said, are you hitching your wagon to them?

Why do you ask something to which you already know...,

I don't know the answer.

... and exemplify, the answer?

Not true. If so, what party do I hack for? It's been a while since I posted the list of my many idealisms that are 180 out from the republicans' and make me a bleeding heart liberal in the eyes of my co-workers.

I'm hitching it to common sense and the truth.

By being incredibly literal and, sorry to say it, a hack.

There was going to inevitably be a last and it was going to inevitably be on Obama's watch.

But hey, if it makes you feel better to assign fault (as retarded as that is), go for it.

I don't know the answer.

HA

Not true. If so, what party do I hack for? It's been a while since I posted the list of my many idealisms that are 180 out from the republicans' and make me a bleeding heart liberal in the eyes of my co-workers.

Who gives a damn what your coworkers think.

Just about everything you post here is a snipe at Dems, even something as absurd as "It was up until January 2009. We got a different CiC then, remember?".

"make me a bleeding heart liberal in the eyes of my co-workers. "

Goatman's always blabbing about what some strangers that nobody gives a shit about say about him. It's exactly like Moder8 posting his brother's opinion. LOL

"There was going to inevitably be a last and it was going to inevitably be on Obama's watch."

Yep. Bush started it so the first troop's death is his fault. Bush started it so that the last troop's death is his fault. If Bush had not started it there would not have been a first or last death of an American troop.

By being incredibly literal and, sorry to say it, a hack.

There was going to inevitably be a last and it was going to inevitably be on Obama's watch.

So, IOW, let Han's words go unchallenged? That sure make it look like you are the hack, not me. After all, I was only responding to Han's assignment of blame. But you choose to go after me, not him, for laying blame.

I think it's clear who the hack is.

If you want to be a man and go back and make corrections addressing han's inclusion in this "assigning" of blame instead of making it solely a goatman/glasshouse issue, I'll respect that. I won't hold my breath, though.

...
Just as the last troop's death is Bush's fault.
...
#16 | Posted by Hans at 2011-12-18 11:55 AM

Yep. Bush started it so the first troop's death is his fault.

duh

BTW, jpw and pinche loaf don't like righties assigning blame. Good thing you are a leftie or they'd be all over you, too.

If you want to be a man and go back and make corrections addressing han's inclusion in this "assigning" of blame instead of making it solely a goatman/glasshouse issue, I'll respect that. I won't hold my breath, though.

I didn't take issue with hans' statement because I do view Bush as being more culpable considering he's the person who lied our way into this war to begin with.

But I also didn't take issue with Had the zero kept his campaign promises, there would be fewer dead because I think that's also true.

Sorry, it's not so simple as whoever is CiC gets 100% of the blame for what happens on his watch. This was a pre-existing mess and the consequences of that mess are due to the initial fuck up. However, this mess should have been cleaned up much earlier.

I didn't take issue with hans' statement because I do view Bush as being more culpable considering he's the person who lied our way into this war to begin with.

Both our statements were equally true. You chose to go after me. That makes you a hack. Deal with it.

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"

The Pigs

BTW, jpw and pinche loaf don't like righties assigning blame.

No goat, I think it's BS that people conveniently consider Presidencies as discrete blocks of time with little consideration for the past and how we got there.

If Obama had gotten us out of there earlier this guy would still be alive but we'd have discussed a different last anyway.

Both our statements were equally true. You chose to go after me. That makes you a hack. Deal with it.

Awesome.

I guess we get to be hacks together then.

Sorry, it's not so simple as whoever is CiC gets 100% of the blame for what happens on his watch.

Even when he doesn't end the war until two years after he promised? And even then, he didn't want to, but had to because of the Iraqi government. Sure. Bush's fault.

Hack.

The Obama administration's plan to keep thousands of U.S. soldiers in Iraq beyond the December 2011 deadline to withdraw fell through in October when the Iraqi government would not grant legal immunity to the troops.

Even when he doesn't end the war until two years after he promised? And even then, he didn't want to, but had to because of the Iraqi government. Sure. Bush's fault.

Take a deep breath. You're clearly a little worked up over this.

But I also didn't take issue with "Had the zero kept his campaign promises, there would be fewer dead" because I think that's also true.

Already addressed.

I guess we get to be hacks together then.

I've never denied being one unless I was wrongly accused of being a hack for a specific party or industry. I am a hack when it comes to my own personal beliefs and tenets.

BTW, I've long been on the side of disliking Bush as president. I'm sure you've heard me say it a lot. So why would I hack for him? One of the few things I dislike more than Bush, however, is a falsehood. I challenged hans' like not because I like Bush, but because I like the truth.

Take a deep breath. You're clearly a little worked up over this.

Hardly. I get worked up when stupid NOV engineers in Norway won't allow me access to the Step 7 code on their Siemen's PLCs. Shit like this blog work me up? LOL Hardly.

So why would I hack for him?

Because it lets you rip on Obama.

Defense of Bush isn't the purpose, bashing Obama is.

One of the few things I dislike more than Bush, however, is a falsehood. I challenged hans' like not because I like Bush, but because I like the truth.

If you're so in to truth how can you have the absurd notion that a single day in time suddenly magically changes everything and all blame now falls on a single person. It's ludicrous.

Like it or not Bush bears blame for every consequence of the Iraq war (yes, good and bad). Admitting that doesn't make one a hack, it makes on aware of reality.

Shit like this blog work me up? LOL Hardly.

It was meant to be a joke because I thought you were trying a little too hard at the whole hack thing.

Goatman's always blabbing about what some strangers that nobody gives a shit about say about him.

Not always. Only when it's relevent, dull one.

If you're so in to truth how can you have the absurd notion that a single day in time suddenly magically changes everything and all blame now falls on a single person.

Obviously one day doesn't change things. However, while on the campaign trail, Obama promised to have the war ended by the end of 2009. He didn't. I would think that anything after 2009 he is responsible based on his own words.

Like it or not Bush bears blame for every consequence of the Iraq war

Nope. Sorry. Maybe the first year. I am reasonable enough to admit that an immediate withdrawal on January 20, 2009 is absurd. But Obama didn't keep his promise to have the troops out by the end of 2009. He lied. That was not Bush's fault and no stretch of the argument can make it so.

"However, while on the campaign trail, Obama promised to have the war ended by the end of 2009.",

He never said that and you are either a political hack, just uninformed or, more likely, both. I notice you have been posting this nonsense up and down this thread, did you get a part time job working for the RNC posting talking points in your spare time on the rig? You sure sound like it when you post.

But Obama didn't keep his promise to have the troops out by the end of 2009. He lied. That was not Bush's fault and no stretch of the argument can make it so.

And only by a stretch of imagination can Obama's direct failings be called a consequence of the Iraq war.

This seems so blatantly obvious to me I can't believe I'm arguing it.

But Obama didn't keep his promise to have the troops out by the end of 2009. He lied.

No.

You are the liar in this picture.

Obama always cited "changing realities on the ground" as a qualifier when discussing withdrawal. The basic plan was to go from 150 000 troops on the ground in Iraq over 16 months down to nothing but contractors and a few residuals with no active battle brigades.

And that's pretty much what happened.

Zogby seems to think Obama kept his promise.

"Congress is skidding toward a gridlock crash that could shut down the government and increase the payroll tax. Everyone in Washington, including President Obama, loses if either occurs. That's the bad news for Team Obama. But, after hours, he and his campaign staff can toast their good fortune of having Newt Gingrich take an even stronger hold as GOP front-runner and look forward to a protracted nomination fight that could really crack open divisions between the Republican establishment and Tea Party voters. Every day Republicans spend bashing each other and not Obama is a good day for the president. Best of all during the holiday season are the images of U.S. soldiers coming home from Iraq, making Americans feel good and reminding them of a promise kept by the president."

Zogby seems to think Obama kept his promise.

Who cares (well other than left wing history revisionists). He did not keep his promise.

* 2008 â€" As a presidential candidate, Obama promises to have all US troops out of Iraq within 16 months of taking office, which would be about May 2010.

* 2008 â€" As a presidential candidate, Obama promises to have all US troops out of Iraq within 16 months of taking office, which would be about May 2010.

www.telegraph.co.uk"

There's no sourced quote in that article, so the link is useless.

There's no sourced quote in that article, so the link is useless.

*yawn*

I provided a link.

As I said, You partisan hacks and your refusal to face the truth is one of the oddest things that happens on this blog.

"I provided a link."

There's no sourced quote in that article, so the link is useless.

#45 | Posted by nullifidian at 2011-12-18 03:22 PM |

I suppose you don't believe the NYT either, dull one. Funny how you lefties love to quote them when it suits you and abandon them when it doesn't. LOL

I love this self admission of hypocrisy from you guys. And you make it so easy!

There's no sourced quote in that article, so the link is useless.

Oh well. I know how you always make that point on the lefty links, so please spare me the faux outrage, dull one.

ANd honestly? What would one expect from a lefty like you other than disingenuity?

Your guy lied. You can't deal with it. The problem appears to be you, not the link, dull one.

If obummer would have gotten us out of there when he promised this fine young man would be alive.

Obummers fault.

#2 | Posted by glasshouse at 2011-12-18 10:30 AM

This death happened on a timeline set in place by Bush, a timeline crafted during Bush's term. Bush's fault.

"Your guy lied. "

He's not "my guy". Maybe he lied, maybe he didn't. The point is that you haven't made the case. Keep on googling, maybe you'll find something legitimate.

The point is that you haven't made the case.

So you say. If you were consistent on the rules for "making a case" and applied them to lefties, you would have some credibility and a point. As it stands, you have neither.

Your guy lied. Deal with it.

I concede I was off by 4 months, (I still think he made that promise, but I can't find the link yet, so I'll run with this one) but Obama lied.

Again. No, he did not.

Withdrawal was always conditional.

Obama promised to draw down responsibly and that's what he's done.

Spud would like to say that your pathetic attempts to once again nit pick and argue disingenuously were surprising but, ya know...

Or do you?

Be Well.

Withdrawal was always conditional.

Link? I don't see where it was until he got into office. While on the campaign trail making that promise there were no conditions.

Your guy lied. Deal with it

#50 | POSTED BY LIVE_OR_DIE

And if it weren't for Bush, 4,500 U.S. troops would still be alive today - not counting the hundreds of thousands of civilians who have died since Saddam was ousted.

On an unrelated note, death via war in the name of democracy is justified here in America - even if that equates to ten times the death toll brought about by a murderous dictator. Interesting. Admittedly, I'm not saying I disagree - just sounds heartless when articulated. In a world where "pick your poison" is a political reality even in the most globally prosperous country, it's interesting that way the poison is administered by the U.S. to other countries.

And if it weren't for Bush, 4,500 U.S. troops would still be alive today

And if Obama had kept his campaign promise that number would be lower.

#56 | POSTED BY GOATMAN

Which came first, Goat, the chicken or the egg?

And if it weren't for Bush, 4,500 U.S. troops would still be alive today - not counting the hundreds of thousands of civilians who have died since Saddam was ousted.

On an unrelated note, death via war in the name of democracy is justified here in America - even if that equates to ten times the death toll brought about by a murderous dictator. Interesting. Admittedly, I'm not saying I disagree - just sounds heartless when articulated. In a world where "pick your poison" is a political reality even in the most globally prosperous country, it's interesting that way the poison is administered by the U.S. to other countries.

#55 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2011-12-18 03:47 PM

But Iraq is winding down according to agreements in place before Obama was even in office. I find fault with his decision to rely on mercenaries once we're "gone" but otherwise I find it difficult to saddle him with the deaths of soldiers in Iraq when they are there and have been there as long as they have because of decisions all made by Bush.

Withdrawal was always conditional.
Link? I don't see where it was until he got into office. While on the campaign trail making that promise there were no conditions.
Your guy lied. Deal with it

That horse you're beating.

It's dead, Jim.

"As a candidate for president, I made clear my support for a timeline of 16 months to carry out this drawdown, while pledging to consult closely with our military commanders upon taking office to ensure that we preserve the gains we"ve made and protect our troops," Obama said. "Those consultations are now complete, and I have chosen a timeline that will remove our combat brigades over the next 18 months.

"Let me say this as plainly as I can: by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end."

See also:

We should note that the present agreement between Iraq and the United States calls for all troops to be out of Iraq by the end of 2011. The New York Times recently outlined a State Department plan to use private security contractors for diplomatic personnel, and some observers have questioned whether the 2011 deadline for troops leaving is realistic.

Here, though, we're rating Obama's promise to remove combat troops within 16 months of taking office. Technically, he's a few months over the deadline, but he often said "about 16 months" on the campaign trail. In February 2009, shortly after taking office, he set a deadline of August 31, 2010, and he's making that goal. Given the scale and complexity of removing combat troops from Iraq, we think he is substantially meeting the terms of his promise. We rate it Promise Kept.

Which came first, Goat, the chicken or the egg?

I'm not sure the relevance of that question. In fact, we all know that it is impossible to answer. However, here is a relevant question that does have a definite answer: What would the final American death count in Iraq had been if Obama withdrew the troops by May 2010 as he promised on the campaign trail?

You question is answerless. Mine isn't.

Sorry, deth-- quoting Obama AFTER he is in office doesn't count, silly. Of course he is going to say that to silence his critics. Do I really have to explain that?

Where is a link that shows him making the promise of a conditional withdrawal while actually on the campaign trail?

Sorry. Your guy lied. Deal with it or provide a quote from the campaign trail where he said his timeline was conditional.

Knows he isn't gonna shut up now.

So at least you are smart enough to know that I'm not going to let up on you and your lies. That's a good thing.

BTW, your guy lied.

And if Obama had kept his campaign promise that number would be lower.

And if and if and if...

Keep stretching while ignoring the point that Bush is culpable to some degree here.

Keep stretching while ignoring the point that Bush is culpable to some degree here.

???

It was [Bush's fault] up until January 2009. We got a different CiC then, remember? Had the zero kept his campaign promises, there would be fewer dead.

#6 | Posted by goatman at 2011-12-18 10:54 AM

On both points, you clearly lose, jpw. Simple math proves the former, my C&P from post 6 proves the latter.

...he often said "about 16 months" on the campaign trail...

Learn2english.

Be Well.

You are so cute when you think you've actually managed to finally make a point around here.

Oh, deth, not nearly as cute as you when after you fail to prove your point you start tap dancing, smother us with cutesy speak, and provide links to darling (I presume, I don't do links, but I know your style) jpgs.

Your guy lied. You are unable to prove otherwise. Deal with it.

Learn2english.

???

Is this an English word? LOL

Your guy lied. You are unable to prove otherwise. Deal with it.

#67 | Posted by goatman

You are unable to prove he lied. Keep googling! LOL

Sorry. Your guy lied. Deal with it....
#61 | POSTED BY GOATMAN

Campaign promises are meant to be broken, apparently. That's the hope people were looking for - the hope that Obama would keep his campaign promises. Considering the fact that people with your sentiments chastised Obama for wanting to bring the troops home at all is quite telling. People called him a quitter and an appeaser. Now your hating on him for not bringing them home earlier. What ever fits your argument best, right?

I won't appologize for Obama nor try to offer any of his reasoning as to why he did not bring them home earlier. Was it a campaign ploy? Hannity seems to think so. Though I don't.

Just remember, your guy got us into Iraq on false pretenses and kept us there long after he originally said. Again - Bush's mess that Obama is cleaning up. Using Bush is an old "liberal" tactic because it is so blatantly TRUE. Cons hate this fact so they attack it as though it weren't true. But it is. Especially in terms of Iraq. Bush should receive the blame...along with cheney of course.

You are unable to prove he lied.

If you think that the NYT misquoted someone, take it up with them. I'm not their spokesman.

And if you believe I was unable to prove my point, that's fine with me too. I've seen less reasonable PoVs from other drug addicts.

Keep googling!

Why?

Your guy lied. Deal with it, dull.

Considering the fact that people with your sentiments chastised Obama for wanting to bring the troops home at all is quite telling

You can do no better than to assign false positions? That makes you as uncredible as the dull one.

Just remember, your guy got us into Iraq on false pretenses ...

???

No, actually that was George Bush who did that. I've been quite consistent in my negative views on him as president while blogging here. I've also been consistent on my views on the war in Iraq. I've always been against it, and said so openly and unambiguously many times

No offense, but having two false positions assigned to me was all I can take. If I missed anything after the George Bush thing that was worthy of my time to read, please repost it without the lies.

Thanks

Goatman: So at least you are smart enough to know that I'm incapable of shutting up to the point where even after I'm dead my lips will continue to move for three days afterwords.

Still no proof, huh, deth? I guess I don't get how cutesy speak and cute jpgs make your point.

Your guy lied. Deal with it, adorable one.

#72 | POSTED BY GOATMAN

Granted, two false positions. However the point stands in terms of those who criticize the president in such a baseless manner such as you; most of which voted for Bush at least once. You may be one of those outliers (who did you vote for in 2004 then?), but the pettiness you express in outrage of Obama not maintaining this campaign promise mirrors those who put the guilty individual in power. If you're that dull to recognize such a notion, I will gladly move along. No point in discussing topical issues with a plate glass window.

"Campaign promises are meant to be broken, apparently."

Quite frequently. But breaking, or, delaying a campaign promise is not necessarily a "lie". To be a lie, it would have be an intentional attempt to deceive.

(who did you vote for in 2004 then?),

I wrote in Nader in 2004. Not because I like him or thought he had a chance, but because I am doing my small part to promote a third party and he seemed the best shot. I almost always do that when the outcome for my state is a given as it was in 2004.

But breaking, or, delaying a campaign promise is not necessarily a "lie".

How sad to have become so jaded about your elected officials that lies are not only expected, but actually acceptable.

"words"

#74 | POSTED BY GOATMAN

Reading your posts is kinda like watching a retarded pug dog gnawing on a squeaky rubber toy.

At first it's kinda amusing.

Then it's kinda sad.

Then it just gets old.

Be Well.

If you're that dull to recognize such a notion,

It's impossible to make my point to someone who excuses unkept campaign promises and thinks they are OK. My position has nothing to do with being dull. It has everything to do with expecting integrity from our elected officials.

Reading your posts is kinda like watching a retarded pug dog gnawing on a squeaky rubber toy

Reading yours is like watching a pathetic 45 YO fat man telling himself he is young and cool and hip just because he is wearing torn jeans, an Aeropostale Tshirt, and a backwards ballcap

45 YO fat man telling himself he is young and cool and hip just because he is wearing torn jeans, an Aeropostale Tshirt, and a backwards ballcap

#81 | Posted by goatman at 2011-12-18 05:13 PM

That doesn't work? Damn.

"But breaking, or, delaying a campaign promise is not necessarily a "lie"."

How sad to have become so jaded about your elected officials that lies are not only expected, but actually acceptable.

#78 | Posted by goatman

That's not a retort. That's just reasserting your opinion that delaying a campaign promise is a "lie." If there was no intent to deceive, it's not a "lie."

OK, zed. That was actually funny.

If there was no intent to deceive, it's not a "lie."

That just underscores my "jaded" point, dull.

If there is never any intent to deceive, then people running for office get a carte blanche and can never be believed. And if that is the case, how do we know what they stand for, what they will do, what their positions on the issues are? I refuse to go there.

This is one time where I agree with Hans who loves to repeat "People own their words" (though he is strangely quiet applying that maxim now. LOL)

I'm sure Obama thought:

"I'm going to lie to these rubes. Actually I won't get combat troops out in 16 months, but I will implement my sinister scheme to get them out in 20 months. Hahahahaha."

"NC Soldier, David Emanuel Hickman, 23, Was Last US Troop Killed in Iraq"

"How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake...."

- John Kerry
Testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 23, 1971

"I'm going to lie to these rubes. Actually I won't get combat troops out in 16 months,

Either he knew it was possible and he lied which is unacceptable or he didn't know it wasn't possible (as anyone running for president in 2008 should have known) in which case he was clueless -- also unacceptable.

Yet there will be idiots who vote for him again anyway.

"I'm going to lie to these rubes. Actually I won't get combat troops out in 16 months, but I will implement my sinister scheme to get them out in 20 months. Hahahahaha."

"Either he knew it was possible and he lied which is unacceptable "
#88 | Posted by goatman

There's no evidence that he deliberately lied. I may or may not vote for him, but that's just partisan hackery. Case closed.

"Either he knew it was possible and he lied which is unacceptable or he didn't know it wasn't possible (as anyone running for president in 2008 should have known) in which case he was clueless -- also unacceptable."

So your demand of anyone running for office is he knows the challenges he's never met, secrets he's never heard, and obstacles he never imagined. And, by God, if he falls short, blame him for the opposition.

"It's impossible to make my point to someone who excuses unkept campaign promises and thinks they are OK. My position has nothing to do with being dull. It has everything to do with expecting integrity from our elected officials."

I have to disagree. I expect integrity, but I came to the conclusion--which I apply to all politicians, not just those whom I support--that campaign promises are more like declarations of intent. "If the stars align, I will..." The person is saying what he/she will work to achieve. It's not within a president's power (nor within the power of most politicians) to do, all by him/herself, most of the stuff he/she promises. And you can't sell yourself on "IF Congress supports me, IF the money exists, IF I can work all the appropriate power dynamics, I might succeed in achieving my goal to..." No one will vote someone that wishy-washy.

So I hear your point about integrity, but I don't think that campaign "promises" or failure to keep them show a lack of integrity. One has to look at a bigger picture: Did the politician TRY to live up to that promise? Did he/she work to achieve that purpose?

Does this make some level of sense to you, Goat? I'd like it to. : )

"There's no evidence that he deliberately lied."

There is if you redefine the word "lie".

But Goat sees right through him and is onto his nefarious game.

Assigning false positions and moving goal posts is as pathetic as cutesy speak, deth.

There's no evidence that he deliberately lied.

He didn't keep his promise.

Case closed.

LOL That unsure of your ability to defend your position, huh, dull?

"Case closed."

Of course, I'm glad to see Danforth and Pragmatist pick up the baton and trash Goatman's sophistic "argument" some more. LOL *grin*

So your demand of anyone running for office is he knows the challenges he's never met, secrets he's never heard, and obstacles he never imagined.

???

Um, no. Did I say that?

"He didn't keep his promise."

Was it because he was purposely misleading folks while knowing better when he made the original statement, or was it because the opposition had more votes? There's a difference, and not acknowledging it is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

So I hear your point about integrity, but I don't think that campaign "promises" or failure to keep them show a lack of integrity.

Where is the line drawn for acceptability? 50% promises kept? More? Less?

Was it because he was purposely misleading folks while knowing better when he made the original statement, or was it because the opposition had more votes?

It's irrelevent. I don't want to be lied to and even more importantly I don't want justifications why lying is OK. These people are running the most powerful country in the world for fuck's sake (latch onto that one, the idiotic amongst you). I expect to know what my leaders are going to do and what they aren't going to do.

To a blind partisan, this issue isn't as important. I understand that completely. They will pull either the R or the D handle regardless of campaign promises. But there are still a few of us out here who vote for the person, not the party (or in my case, encourage a 3rd party when pragmatically possible). In order to honestly weigh the merits of each candidate, we depend on their own honestly. To derive that honestly and integrity from us makes our vote meaningless. I want my vote to count

Of course, I'm glad to see Danforth and Pragmatist pick up the baton and trash Goatman's sophistic "argument" some more. LOL *grin*

???

OK. I'm glad that hyperbolic translation of their posts works for you. Actually I think your "keep googling" posts upthread are more impressive. LOL *grin*

You, OTOH, will not acknowledge that the casualties would have been fewer if Obama had not lied.

I acknowledged that the number of casualties would have been lower if he'd pulled them out sooner. See #28 and the reiteration in #33.

Then on top of that you assign a false position to me.

Your post indicates you only hold Bush accountable for a short period of time after Obama took office, no? In other words, you don't hold Bush accountable for any and all deaths that occurred past some arbitrary point in Obama's first year, right?

Unless those two statements are incorrect, I haven't assigned a position to you at all.

#92 -- prag -- My #100 post was written with yours in mind as well. It think it clarifies my position on why I expect more honesty and integrity than a lot of other people. In the end, I know they lie. But they should not get a get out of jail free card for it. They should be held accountable for their campaign promises. Otherwise you just have a bunch of kidnappers who get the ranson they demand every time.

By Goatman "logic" every president "lies" if he doesn't implement every campaign promise on his first day in office. LOL. *grin*

Your post indicates you only hold Bush accountable for a short period of time after Obama took office, no?

Yes. For a year and later revised to his campaign promise of 16 months when I realized I may have been wrong on the year mark.

In other words, you don't hold Bush accountable for any and all deaths that occurred past some arbitrary point in Obama's first year, right?

You are almost correct. Replace "aritrary point" with "May 2010" (16 months after he took office based on Obama's promises) and you are correct.

I do not think Bush should be held accountable for Obama's failure to keep his promises. Clearly there are those who disagree with me.

#92 | Posted by pragmatist

Excellent post and a dose of rationality in this thread.

By Goatman "logic" every president "lies" if he doesn't implement every campaign promise on his first day in office. LOL. *grin*

???

assigning false positions only weakens your position, dull. Surely you must know this?

No?

Also, the promise was 16 months after he took office, not the day of. I know it is trite, but I say this because I don't honestly think you are stupid: I think it is the drugs that make you say these silly things that are completely out of context with the topic and my positions

Oh, yes, you seem to love this:

LOL *grin*

I've a question for any of you folks who are cool with campaign lies:

What are people who vote for the candidate (not the party) supposed to base their decisions on if it as assumed lying is acceptable?

I've a question for any of you folks who are cool with campaign lies:

...
#108 | Posted by goatman

Don't hold your breath waiting for Goatman to denounce Republican campaign lies. LOL *grin*

-and obstacles he never imagined

whoa....I don't blame obama for any obstacle he has faced from the GOP but you are giving him a pass for never imagining them.

that is bullshit. I imagined them, in fact, I would have expected them.

Don't hold your breath waiting for Goatman to denounce Republican campaign lies. LOL *grin*

OK One deflection from a coward afraid to answer the question.

Any one else? I mean a real answer, not another cowardly deflection.

-Was it because he was purposely misleading folks while knowing better when he made the original statement

I must have a much higher opinion of Obama than the lions share of the left here because even I think he is smarter than that.

funny, when leftists here have to accept that obama is a real live politician who makes promises that aren't kept, then they have to reduce him to some naive idiot to justify it.

So ends another war, with people who did nothing to us. Yet congress will not file war crimes against our politicians. What a joke....

So ends another war, with people who did nothing to us. Yet congress will not file war crimes against our politicians. What a joke....

That's because the ones who would have to file are themselves complicit

He is a hero.

God Bless him and all of our soldiers.

What are people who vote for the candidate (not the party) supposed to base their decisions on if it as assumed lying is acceptable?

I think Prag's post says everything that needs to be said about campaign "lies".

Achieving something outside of the time frame originally given is not a "lie", particularly something as complex as withdrawl from an occupation we've been conducting for nearly a decade.

Now if he'd said we were going to stay in Iraq then he pulled the troops out, that would be a "lie". If he said he was going to pull the troops out and didn't, that would be a "lie".

Taking longer than expected is not a lie.

He is a hero.

God Bless him and all of our soldiers.

#115 | Posted by MURPHY

Oh that's sweet. War-mongering politicians like the ones that you support sent him to his death.

"That's because the ones who would have to file are themselves complicit"

NW.

Oh that's sweet. War-mongering politicians like the ones that you support sent him to his death.

Actually , this particular death could have been avoided if your guy had ended the war earlier, dull one.

You're welcome.

I think Prag's post says everything that needs to be said about campaign "lies".

That's true, but it doesn't answer my question:

What do people who base their voting decisions rely on if campaign lies are assumed to be OK?

Actually , this particular death could have been avoided if your guy had ended the war earlier, dull one.

#119 | Posted by goatman
w.drudge.com/read-comment/
151522/3890816

Ah, so Obama took his time when it came to cutting and running?

I'd say the two ideas don't really go together. Interesting, however, how many Republicans have no problem holding such conflicting notions simultaneously.

Oh that's sweet. War-mongering politicians like the ones that you support sent him to his death.

Murphy never struck me as an Obama supporter

He was deployed (sent there, dull) in May of this year.

#121: See post #122

That's true, but it doesn't answer my question:

You're right, it doesn't.

It doesn't because your question is stupid and disingenuous.

If you really want an answer though, I'd say whether or not they've driven across their state with the body of their dead infant for their extended family to hold.

It doesn't because your question is stupid and disingenuous.

As one who bases his voting decisions on how a politician stands, it is not.

I'm surprised you don't understand that people who vote for a person, not a party, need to know their stances and what they will do in office. n (we can't read their minds, you know) You never struck me as that stupid until now.

If you really want an answer though, I'd say whether or not they've driven across their state with the body of their dead infant for their extended family to hold.

I'm not sure how that states their position on global warming, fracking, education in the country, unemployment solutions, or the importance EPA, but I guess I'm not as smart as you.

As one who bases his voting decisions on how a politician stands, it is not.

As one who's been arguing Obama lied it is.

As one who's been arguing Obama lied it is.

Precisely. I'm less likely to vote for a lying incumbent because I can't believe his stated positions.

GOATMAN

You were 'never likely' to vote for Obama.

At least you didn't vote for W after all his lies. I hope.

You were 'never likely' to vote for Obama.

That's true. That doesn't diminish my point about wanting truth in campaign promises, however.

Any guess as to what Goatman's rhetoric will be about his chronic liar/flip flopper Messiah--Newt?

Any guess as to what Goatman's rhetoric will be about his chronic liar/flip flopper Messiah--Newt?

Considering your silly goatman obsession and your life being so empty that you are unable to find anything better to do with it, I'm sure you'll be the first to come up with something, dull.

We'll wait and see what it is.

Oh, yes, just to keep you happy:

LOL *grin*

Precisely. I'm less likely to vote for a lying incumbent because I can't believe his stated positions.

But your definition in this case is so absurd it leads me to believe you don't vote at all since they all must be lying.

"But your definition in this case is so absurd it leads me to believe you don't vote at all since they all must be lying."

A safe assumption, JPW.

Que the unsourced, out-of-context "live in the now" "retort."

Dance goat... dance.

;0)

Que the unsourced, out-of-context "live in the now" "retort."

OK. If I had such a meaningless life that I archived a blog and referenced it years later, I would be able to source it. Unfortunately, I have better things to do. So you'll just have to do with this, hypocrite, as per your request:

Live in the now.

Hans
Posted by Hans at 2008-03-18 11:07 AM

Live in the now.

Hans
Posted by Hans at 2008-02-20 09:00 PM

Live in the now.

Hans
Posted by Hans at 2008-02-20 08:44 PM

Live in the now.

Hans
Posted by Hans at 2008-02-05 07:28 PM

Live in the now:
...
Hans
Posted by Hans at 2008-02-05 06:34 PM

Live in the now:
...
Hans
Posted by Hans at 2008-02-02 10:47 PM

Would you like to see your posts about "making small meaningless points about people you don't know" too, hans?

LOL

BTW, why did it take so much of my goading you until you finally bit at my bait? I was about to give up, but now you finally jumped into my boat albeit a day or two later than I commanded you to.

Que the unsourced, out-of-context "live in the now" "retort."

Que is Spanish for "what". The word you are struggling with is "queue".

You're welcome

"The word you are struggling with is "queue"."

I think the word he was looking for was "cue".

This is a success for you? Thinking that you're scoring a small, meaningless point against someone you don't know?

#50 | Posted by Hans at 2011-12-17 09:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

I think the word he was looking for was "cue".

That one works, too, but I assumed the one with the Q because of the first letter. But maybe it was the C word. It works better, actually.

I am not sure where you guys are getting 20 months that it took Obama to bring the troops home by my count it is 35. He said 16 if it had been 20 I would agree that it was kept but 35 of 48 months sorry no way he needed 35 months and if he did then his advisers on the campaign trail sucked to not have informed him of what he would face.

I might have even accepted his 35 months if he had not tried to keep troops there longer but was told no and if the merc's were not staying. Those two points make his intent of the withdrawal pretty obvious and the intent was perpetual war.

Goat to answer your question I look at a candidates stated positions vs. previous record or employment. EG. Cain was a former employee of the Fed which I would like see dissolved therefore I would never have voted for him assuming that if he claimed to agree with me it was a lie and if he didn't agree with me why would I vote for him? If there is a lack of information then I trust them. However if they lie I don't vote for them again.

99 + 103--My point is, he didn't lie. He campaigned on a goal. I don't believe that campaign promises are actually promises. "I will" means "I will do my damnedest, using all available protocols and in keeping with my philosophy as presented to you, to achieve that which I set out to do." So my question for Mr. Obama or Mr. Bush or whomever is, Did you follow through on your declaration of intent? Now, whether Mr. Obama did or did not do so is a valid question.
+++++

106--Thanks, JPW.
+++++

112--Apparently, Eb does not consider me a leftist.
+++++

120--You judge sincerity; it's all you have to go on when you're voting anyway. (Sure, there's voting record, but is that where you judge character?
+++++

"That one works, too, but I assumed the one with the Q because of the first letter. But maybe it was the C word. It works better, actually."

I would say it's not just better, but the only apt choice. : ) (I'd say a person can queue up or get in the queue; but audio is cued or cued up. I'd say. I'm not looking it up. I'm a professional, after all. Don't try this at home.)

Until another Bush gets elected anyway...

4,500 GIs dead. 1,000,000 Iraqis murdered. 4,000,000 Iraqis displaced (professionals that could afford to escape). 230,000 US soldiers with brain injuries which the Pentagon makes every effort to declare a pre-existing condition. 56,000 GI suicides (18/day). A $5 trillion black hole. The Iraqis hate us. Invading their country was the biggest foriegn policy disaster in the history of the United States.

56,000 GI suicides (18/day)

got a link for that?

#146 -- I sorta questioned that on myself, Bruce. Surely that high of a daily number (hell, even if it was monthly) would have a lot more news coverage.

But nutcase (as his name implies) has spewed so much crap in the past, I didn't waste my time asking for a link. I'm glad you did, though.

Great to see Goaftfuck get called out for his ridiculous douchebag posts...

Hey, Goatfuck, do you know the name of last soldier to die for his country in the..

1. Revolutionary War
2. War of 1812
3. Civil War
4. WWI
5. WWII
6. Korean War
7. Vietnam War
8. Grenada
9. Desert Storm

... only a dumbass teabagger and moronic nutjob would try and blame the commander-in-chief of each and every one of those conflicts for allowing that one last soldier to be KIA...

... fucking idiot.

.. only a dumbass teabagger and moronic nutjob would try and blame the commander-in-chief of each and every one of those conflicts for allowing that one last soldier to be KIA...

That's been my exact point idiot. Calm down.

Funny though, hans and dullifidin don't strike me as teabaggers. Be sure you let them know how you feel and that they are "dumbass teabaggers and moronic nutjobs", not me.

...fuckin idiot

Indeed. LOL

Not true. If so, what party do I hack for? It's been a while since I posted the list of my many idealisms that are 180 out from the republicans' and make me a bleeding heart liberal in the eyes of my co-workers.

It's nice that you bring this up.

You're a Republican because you espouse republican views far more than you espouse the views of Democrats. I didn't make the rules, but that's the way it is.

It shouldn't really be a surprise to you, though. You spent a lot of time being ambivalent during the years bush was in office and you were active on this forum. Once a democrat took control of government you became a lot more vocal and critical of government and the direction it was taking. I do seem to recall some times, though I have neither the time nor the inclination to search for the posts, where you excused the behavior of the bush administration because it was "keeping us safe".

Not that there's anything wrong with being critical of your government, but when your posts changed from neutral to "everything democrats are doing is bad" on Nov 4, 2009, you're a Republican.

@ Nutcase's claim -- The best data I can come up with is this --

It was up until January 2009. We got a different CiC then, remember? Had the zero kept his campaign promises, there would be fewer dead.

#6 | Posted by goatman at 2011-12-18 10:54 AM

How long do you think it takes to end an occupation of the scale as the one in Iraq?

How long do you think it takes to end an occupation of the scale as the one in Iraq?

Posted by DARTHCHENEY at 2011-12-19 10:53 AM |

Given the DNC was given Congress in 2007 and the White House in 2009 on promises to do that very thing, I would say less than the 4 years it has taken.

"If obummer would have gotten us out of there when he promised this fine young man would be alive."

If George W. Bush hadn't gotten us into this war in the first place, David Emanuel Hickman and many of his fellow brothers and sisters...

And they were mostly young. According to an Associated Press analysis of casualty data, the average age of Americans who died in Iraq was 26. Nearly 1,300 were 22 or younger, but middle-aged people fought and died as well: some 511 were older than 35.

...would likely still be alive today.

Bush's fault.

#4 | Posted by Hans

Actually, Hans, unless you know the reason for invading Iraq and toppling the Hussein regime, this thread is inappropriate.

To use a soldier's death to further your political agenda is inappropriate.

The real reason for the invasion of Iraq was to continue and improve the influence of the American Empire. It was a economic war.

You and I benefit greatly from the outcome of that war.

I would have elected not to go into Iraq in favor of dismantling the Empire and risk losing most or all of the wealth I have now.

How long do you think it takes to end an occupation of the scale as the one in Iraq?

The zero, being privy to much more than I am didn't even know -- how could I? LOL

The zero, being privy to much more than I am didn't even know -- how could I? LOL

#154 | Posted by goatman at 2011-12-19 10:57 AM

I wasn't asking about the vastness of your ignorance. All you need to do is concede that withdrawal would take longer than an instant. Let's test your logic with a simple case. If withdrawal could be accomplished in a week then by your logic any casualties sustained in that week would be 'Obama's fault'. So even if he ordered the military out of Iraq right after his inauguration he would have blood on his hands, by your logic.
So your claim that responsibility for starting the Iraq invasion is something that is passed on and Obama got stuck with, like some sort of tar baby, is flawed at best.

Given the DNC was given Congress in 2007...

#152 | Posted by kanrei at 2011-12-19 10:56 AM

Are you claiming that Congress has authority over the armed forces?

All you need to do is concede that withdrawal would take longer than an instant.

I already did that in this thread.

You were saying something about "vast ignorance"? LOL

Are you claiming that Congress has authority over the armed forces?

Posted by DARTHCHENEY at 2011-12-19 11:11 AM

Funding, yes. 100%. No funding means no war.

Funding, yes. 100%. No funding means no war.

#157 | Posted by kanrei at 2011-12-19 11:13 AM

So you live in a world where Congress would strand hundreds of thousands of troops overseas and where the CiC would stand by when this happened without doing nothing? I'm sure it takes quite a bit of cognitive dissonance to believe something like that would work, but then again so does being a libertarian, so maybe it's not a stretch for you.

So you live in a world where

Classic Strawman preamble. Stopped right there. I knew Darth Cheney was too immature for an adult conversation.

Bottom line is we invaded a country that did not do anything to us.

Bottom line is we invaded a country that did not do anything to us.

And dropped bombs on another one that did nothing to us, right truthteller? I'll bet you're all tore up about Libya too, aren't you? LOL

Bottom line is we invaded a country that did not do anything to us.

#160 | Posted by truthteller101

Actually they did. Along with Iraq, Libya, and Venezuela, they were aggressively challenging the Oil Cartel. If they would have succeeded, then the American dollar would have collapsed.

This was a economic war and you are inappropriately using it to your own political advantage. Using death to your advantage will not bring you your desired result.

Actually they did. Along with Iraq, Libya, and Venezuela, they were aggressively challenging the Oil Cartel. If they would have succeeded, then the American dollar would have collapsed.

This is actually 100% true. It was not reported much in the wake of 9/11 and the run up to war, but Saddam was moving Iraq off the dollar and to the Euro. It would have cost America billions.

Obama's 16 month timetable actually began in January of 2007 and ended in spring of 2008. He wrote it down in a pathetic piece of legislation he authored that couldn't even make it out of committee. It was called "The Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007." The bill went nowhere and Obama just kept resetting the start date for his timetable. Lefty press gave him a free pass.

Good war. Great victory. Troops deserve heartfelt thanks, if not parades.

Good war. Great victory. Troops deserve heartfelt thanks, if not parades.

#164 | Posted by rhinomaximus

Let me guess. "Limited government" conservative, right?

"However, while on the campaign trail, Obama promised to have the war ended by the end of 2009.",

He never said that and you are either a political hack, just uninformed or, more likely, both. I notice you have been posting this nonsense up and down this thread, did you get a part time job working for the RNC posting talking points in your spare time on the rig? You sure sound like it when you post.

www.politifact.com

#41 | Posted by danni

"That is why today, I'm introducing the Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007. This plan would not only place a cap on the number of troops in Iraq and stop the escalation, it would begin a phased redeployment of U.S. forces with the goal of removing of all U.S. combat forces from Iraq by March 31st, 2008 consistent with the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group that the President ignored."

Yeah Danni. He never said end of 2009. He said spring of 2008. Were you too high?

Link to Obama's introduction of his Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007:

"He said spring of 2008."

But not on the campaign trail, as you claimed. Danni is correct.

"Actually they did. Along with Iraq, Libya, and Venezuela, they were aggressively challenging the Oil Cartel. If they would have succeeded, then the American dollar would have collapsed."

Funny that no gov't leader tried to sell the war to us in this way. It was all fear-based. I said then that I could have had respect for Bush on this one if he had been honest about the reasons. I still wouldn't have thought it a good idea, but I would have had more respect for the president. And Kanrei--it would have cost us billions? And instead cost us trillions?

#168 Obama wasn't campaigning in Jan 2007? Sorry about that -- seems like he's been campaiging constantly. I lost track of Obama's various offers to surrender in humiliation.

Kanrei--it would have cost us billions? And instead cost us trillions?

#169 | Posted by pragmatist

This is what the Republicans call a good deal. Especially if the poor and middle class pay for it.

Kanrei--it would have cost us billions? And instead cost us trillions?

#169 | Posted by pragmatist

This is what the Republicans call a good deal. Especially if the poor and middle class pay for it.

#171 | Posted by donnerboy

Actually, it would have sent the American Empire into free fall decline or there would be a world war.

172--If the case is compelling, present it to the fucking people.

Actually, it would have sent the American Empire into free fall decline or there would be a world war.

#172 | Posted by Eddie

Yer a fool if you think we needed to invade Iraq to prevent the downfall of America. We had Iraq right where we wanted them. Just like Libya...no need to invade. Just like Iran and North Korea. No need to invade any of these countries.

Good war. Great victory. Troops deserve heartfelt thanks, if not parades.

#164 | Posted by rhinomaximus

Let me guess. "Limited government" conservative, right?

#165 | Posted by nullifidian

Are you being ignorant on purpose?

He's a Bush Republican or he's trolling. A "Limited Government" position is more in line with Ron Paul who is and was against the war and nation building.

Actually, it would have sent the American Empire into free fall decline or there would be a world war.

#172 | Posted by Eddie

Yer a fool if you think we needed to invade Iraq to prevent the downfall of America. We had Iraq right where we wanted them. Just like Libya...no need to invade. Just like Iran and North Korea. No need to invade any of these countries.

#174 | Posted by donnerboy

Again, don't shoot the messenger. I'm just telling you the facts.

Go back 99 years into the history of the American currency and banking regulation. You will begin to understand what the truth is.

Actually, it would have sent the American Empire into free fall decline or there would be a world war.

#172 | Posted by Eddie at 2011-12-19 09:16 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag:

172--If the case is compelling, present it to the fucking people.

#173 | Posted by pragmatist

Really? Do you see any Bush Republicans bringing this truth to the masses? Any Democrats? Hell *f^cking* NO! If the so-called leaders talked about the real reason for the Iraq war, then Neocons (Bush and Obama supporters) would lose power. Think about it. If the reason for going to war was to support the ever increasing influence of the American Empire, would the American people support it? The Democrats in office need the American Empire to expand as much as the Neocons do.

Politicians thrive on spending Federal Government money. If they push to limit or shrink government, they lose votes. If they raise taxes, they lose votes. If they borrow (print) the money, then everyone gets to eat their cake and have it too.

Hickman will not be the last death due to combat in iraq although he may be the last american KIA extracted from Iraq.

We also have combat vets lingering in VA's all around the country and some will not survive.

So while we enjoy this christmas season and discuss politics of the day, let's also remember those who have suffered far more than most.

Bless those families who will observe this holiday with an empty chair at the dinner table and a gold star in the window and I hope their children will heal from their loss and remember the mess we adults created and learn from our mistakes.

Bless those who have fought and returned and bless those who didn't. Gabriel is playing taps for you to bring you home just follow the sweet sound of angels.

Why won't this do nothing congress file war crimes? We invaded two countries that did not do anything to us. No wonder they have a 8% approval rating.

Why won't this do nothing congress file war crimes? We invaded two countries that did not do anything to us. No wonder they have a 8% approval rating.

#179 | Posted by truthteller101

Did nothing? Bullsh!t. They didn't bow to the will of the American Empire and the Neocons who control it.

If you are going to be active in change it then join the movement to end the British/American Imperial Complex.

It's going to hurt. No more richer than stinking rich. No more Wal-mart. No more Chinese-manufactured-you-put-
it-together crap (btw, I was talking to my nephew in Iran and he said that the US gets the good Chinese crap, we get the crappy Chinese crap, LOL!)

We are going to have to work the dirty jobs and play nice in the world just like every other nation.

You're welcome, you stupid partisan hack

#11 | POSTED BY GOATMAN AT 2011-12-18 11:15 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

ROFLMAO

177--If the people don't support it, we shouldn't do it. That's my point. When Bush said, circa October 2001, "This isn't the time for a national debate," I thought, "Are you fucking kidding me?! It's EXACTLY the time for a national debate." And yes, I think a fair number of Americans would say, "Yes, do what is needed to keep us on top." You don't?
+++++

"We are going to have to work the dirty jobs and play nice in the world just like every other nation."

Good. We should. (And yes, I know my life will change if these things happen.)

we didn't even win a cup of coffee...

we lost again!

Does anyone know the last USA war that was actually fought to defend the USA and its borders, instead of fought because of entangling alliances?

Washington's Farewell Address.