Bush is a hero

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#167307 Aug 29, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
A surgical strike on Syrian military sites.
Syria is no threat to the USA.
Catcher1 wrote:
It's imperative.
Rather than launching a strike on a country that holds no threat to us, why not strike Iran instead. A country that is providing support to the Assad regime, a country that is developing nuclear weapons, a country that will destabilize the region and the world's oil supply, AND a country that is definitely a threat to us?
Catcher1 wrote:
<There are limits.
I know. The war powers act was supposed to give the president the ability to use the military against countries or groups that are an imminent danger to the USA... not to attack a country that doesn't like us, and we don't care for. We'd be improperly using our military to aid in replacing a regime that isn't a threat with one that very well might be.

The obama administration attacked Libya, which was no threat to the USA, and left a void that al-qaida was quick to fill. It cost us an ambassador, as well as other Americans... and lost us our presence, and our consulate in Eastern Libya.

And now obama wants to duplicate the same error in Syria. It makes no sense, unless barry's actually trying to assist the Muslim Brotherhood and al-qaida in coming to power in Middle East countries.

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#167308 Aug 29, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd like to talk with the luntics.
You live in the right state for those conversations.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#167309 Aug 29, 2013
BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>
You live in the right state for those conversations.
Better than your state: The state of confusion.

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#167310 Aug 29, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Better than your state: The state of confusion.
State of confusion, that would be our state's Democrats... but I'm no longer one of them.

I'm thinking that our state's Democrats being so confused and ineffective is a key reason why Texas is so business and jobs friendly... and the fastest growing state in the Union.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#167311 Aug 29, 2013
BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>
State of confusion, that would be our state's Democrats... but I'm no longer one of them.
I'm thinking that our state's Democrats being so confused and ineffective is a key reason why Texas is so business and jobs friendly... and the fastest growing state in the Union.
I'm thinking confusion and ineffectiveness, regardless of party affiliation, is a key reason why the vast majority of new jobs in Texas are part-time, minimum-wage, no-benefits, temporary, and/or seasonal, rather than full time, salaried, full benefits, permanent, and/or year-round.

But of course, that's just me...

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#167312 Aug 29, 2013
I see England and France have looked at the available Syrian intel, and have decided to hold off on taking any action until the UN Inspectors finish their examination of the chemical site. Apparently the information about who used the chemical weapons isn't as conclusive as this administration would have us believe.

But then, their leaders didn't make a silly "red line" statement that they feel a need to back up... regardless of which group actually used the chemical weapons.

Poor barry, he should stick to only reading the words being fed to him by the teleprompter-in-chief, and never express his thoughts when he thinks for himself.

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#167313 Aug 29, 2013
Germany has joined Russia and determined that military attacks on Syria are not warranted.

What's a Nobel Peace Prize recipient supposed to do? Act tough, and attack Syria unilaterally, backing up his "red line" silliness, or back off his current saber rattling and do nothing until he actually has the real facts.

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#167314 Aug 29, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>I'm thinking confusion and ineffectiveness, regardless of party affiliation, is a key reason why the vast majority of new jobs in Texas are part-time, minimum-wage, no-benefits, temporary, and/or seasonal, rather than full time, salaried, full benefits, permanent, and/or year-round.
But of course, that's just me...
With the new obamacare regulations, the jobs being created countrywide, not just in Texas, are mainly part-time. The jobs being replaced by those part-time jobs are those full time, salaried, full benefits, permanent, and/or year-round jobs. Unfortunately, the obama administration has re-defined full time as 30 hours, with severe cost to those that meet or exceed those hours, and states and businesses have responded accordingly.

Businesses are in business to make profit, not to support an inefficient and costly, government health insurance program. The quality of the new jobs available is simply one of the negative consequences.

But, of course, workers are glad to be able to get one of those new jobs, and Texas just happens to have more jobs available than most states... regardless of how obamacare has altered the job types.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#167315 Aug 29, 2013
BobinTX wrote:
I see England and France have looked at the available Syrian intel, and have decided to hold off on taking any action until the UN Inspectors finish their examination of the chemical site. Apparently the information about who used the chemical weapons isn't as conclusive as this administration would have us believe.
But then, their leaders didn't make a silly "red line" statement that they feel a need to back up... regardless of which group actually used the chemical weapons.
Poor barry, he should stick to only reading the words being fed to him by the teleprompter-in-chief, and never express his thoughts when he thinks for himself.
Yh, it was probably the US backed FSA. It doesn't make sense for Assad do use chemical weapons. I'm with the conspiracy nutters on this one.

Why America is even going after Syria when Russia is clearly against it, it's beyond me. If Russia doesn't back off, they r either gonna start WW3 or nothing is gonna happen. They are probably just up to something else and r trying divert the public's attention.

I agree with you about the governments making the public too dependent on them.

What political party or view do u support?

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#167316 Aug 29, 2013
BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>
Syria is no threat to the USA.
<quoted text>
Rather than launching a strike on a country that holds no threat to us, why not strike Iran instead. A country that is providing support to the Assad regime, a country that is developing nuclear weapons, a country that will destabilize the region and the world's oil supply, AND a country that is definitely a threat to us?
<quoted text>
I know. The war powers act was supposed to give the president the ability to use the military against countries or groups that are an imminent danger to the USA... not to attack a country that doesn't like us, and we don't care for. We'd be improperly using our military to aid in replacing a regime that isn't a threat with one that very well might be.
The obama administration attacked Libya, which was no threat to the USA, and left a void that al-qaida was quick to fill. It cost us an ambassador, as well as other Americans... and lost us our presence, and our consulate in Eastern Libya.
And now obama wants to duplicate the same error in Syria. It makes no sense, unless barry's actually trying to assist the Muslim Brotherhood and al-qaida in coming to power in Middle East countries.
I told ya, it just doesn't make sense, but there must be a hidden reason that we r not understanding. America might not be moral but it ain't stupid. They're up to something.

Well, your president did make this speech;



He called Christianity evil but apparently Islam is about peace. Maybe he's a closet Muslim? lol

Saudi Arabia told America to take care of Iran but for some reason they r letting Iran live. Maybe they like Iran! We can only guess, they know the real truth!

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#167317 Aug 29, 2013
BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>
With the new obamacare regulations, the jobs being created countrywide, not just in Texas, are mainly part-time. The jobs being replaced by those part-time jobs are those full time, salaried, full benefits, permanent, and/or year-round jobs. Unfortunately, the obama administration has re-defined full time as 30 hours, with severe cost to those that meet or exceed those hours, and states and businesses have responded accordingly.
Businesses are in business to make profit, not to support an inefficient and costly, government health insurance program. The quality of the new jobs available is simply one of the negative consequences.
But, of course, workers are glad to be able to get one of those new jobs, and Texas just happens to have more jobs available than most states... regardless of how obamacare has altered the job types.
Was Massachusetts a test case for this theory?

http://mittromneycentral.com/resources/romney...

Highlights of what RomneyCare has accomplished after 5 years of being in affect:

1 - Nearly every Massachusetts citizen is covered. A recent study showed that 98.1% of adults and 99.8% of children now have medical insurance. This is by far the highest rates in the nation. The overall national rate is 83%, with Texas having the worst rates in the nation at 74%. In Texas, one out of every six children is uninsured.

2 - Many more businesses are offering medical insurance to their employees. Now 76% of employers offer medical insurance to their employees, compared with 70% just five years ago. The national rate remained at 60%.

3 - The overall costs of the program to the state have not exceeded expectations. At the time of passage, Romney predicted that the new law would add just 1 to 1.5% to the state budget. Last year the additional cost to the state was only 1.2%– precisely where Romney predicted it would be even though the costs to the state would be much lower if the Massachusetts legislature and Governor Patrick (Romney’s successor) hadn’t added significant costs to the healthcare law.(This is covered more thoroughly in Section 6 – What changes would Romney make to RomneyCare?)

4 - The cost of health care premiums for individuals who buy insurance without the help of an employer have gone down dramatically. According to FactCheck.org , individuals who bought insurance on their own “saw a major drop in premiums, as much as a 40% decline, according to some figures.” On average, premiums dropped between 18%-20% for the average individual buying health insurance on their own.

5 - RomneyCare remains exceptionally popular among state residents. Studies repeatedly confirm that 67-84% of Massachusetts residents are happy with the plan and would not go back to the old system if given the chance.

Please pay particular attention to item number 2.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#167318 Aug 29, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Better than your state: The state of confusion.
Catcher, r u supporting the war?

They're gonna bomb babies again, I'm tellin' ya! Innocent people will die and the evil people will take power, nothing will change. Actually, life for the Syrian people will get worse!!

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#167319 Aug 29, 2013
Clementia wrote:
<quoted text>
Yh, it was probably the US backed FSA. It doesn't make sense for Assad do use chemical weapons. I'm with the conspiracy nutters on this one.
I don't think Assad was the one that used the chemical weapons either. His government forces were turning things around, and were beating back the rebels, without needing to resort to using chemical weapons. There was no upside for him to use them, but there was a lot to be gained by the rebels to use them and blame Assad.
Clementia wrote:
Why America is even going after Syria when Russia is clearly against it, it's beyond me. If Russia doesn't back off, they r either gonna start WW3 or nothing is gonna happen.
The Russian's aren't going to start a war over Assad. They may interfere with our ability to execute our missile strikes, but I don't see Russia going head to head with the USA over Syria... or at least, that's what I hope. I think Putin is much smarter when it comes to foreign policy decisions than our clown king.
Clementia wrote:
They are probably just up to something else and r trying divert the public's attention.
My, aren't we cynical...
Clementia wrote:
I agree with you about the governments making the public too dependent on them.
What political party or view do u support?
I was a Democrat for over 40 years, but now I'm an independent conservative. I'm a fiscal conservative, but in many ways, a social liberal.

For instance, I'm all in for amnesty for all working illegal immigrants and their immediate families... but I'm not for amnesty for any illegals that are living off our social systems, and not working. BUT, before we even discuss any amnesty, I feel we must secure, and constantly verify, the security of our borders. If not, in another 25 years, we'll be discussing what to do about ten times as many illegal immigrants living in this country.

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#167320 Aug 29, 2013
Clementia wrote:
<quoted text>
Catcher, r u supporting the war?
They're gonna bomb babies again, I'm tellin' ya! Innocent people will die and the evil people will take power, nothing will change. Actually, life for the Syrian people will get worse!!
Clementine, if the Syrian government has used chemical weapons to kill people, I don't think we (and by that I mean any decent people) can stand by and do nothing. There are moral limits, and this crosses them for me.

And mind you, I have been against all other U.S. military activity in the Middle East.

What are you doing over here? Get over there where you belong.
UIDIOTRACEMAKEWO RLDPEACE

United States

#167321 Aug 29, 2013
BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think Assad was the one that used the chemical weapons either. His government forces were turning things around, and were beating back the rebels, without needing to resort to using chemical weapons. There was no upside for him to use them, but there was a lot to be gained by the rebels to use them and blame Assad.
<quoted text>
The Russian's aren't going to start a war over Assad. They may interfere with our ability to execute our missile strikes, but I don't see Russia going head to head with the USA over Syria... or at least, that's what I hope. I think Putin is much smarter when it comes to foreign policy decisions than our clown king.
<quoted text>
My, aren't we cynical...
<quoted text>
I was a Democrat for over 40 years, but now I'm an independent conservative. I'm a fiscal conservative, but in many ways, a social liberal.
For instance, I'm all in for amnesty for all working illegal immigrants and their immediate families... but I'm not for amnesty for any illegals that are living off our social systems, and not working. BUT, before we even discuss any amnesty, I feel we must secure, and constantly verify, the security of our borders. If not, in another 25 years, we'll be discussing what to do about ten times as many illegal immigrants living in this country.
So many Illegal in US because of US militaristic Neo-imperialist interventionist world hegemonic Agendas, Us plunders other nations raw resources, making it poor and steal its intellectual capitals and US make slaves of other nations low skilled laborers ... this has a ill concurrent consequences leading to enmasses of Illegals into the US, US caused msot f this mess at home and abroad. There goes our US! You really need to critical analyze on why US become what is today and into future if don't heed signs our warring corrupted/greedy US leaders don't care about us Americans let along people of the world, see you all as roaches... BWHHAHAHHAA
UIDIOTRACEMAKEWO RLDPEACE

United States

#167322 Aug 29, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Clementine, if the Syrian government has used chemical weapons to kill people, I don't think we (and by that I mean any decent people) can stand by and do nothing. There are moral limits, and this crosses them for me.
And mind you, I have been against all other U.S. military activity in the Middle East.
What are you doing over here? Get over there where you belong.
neoconservative Michael Ledeen in his article “The War on Terror will not end in Baghdad” in the Wall Street Journal, on September 4th, 2002

The machiavelian threefold game of the neoconservatives
by Laurent Guyénot

"We do not want stability in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and even Saudi Arabia: we want things to change. The real issue is not whether, but how to destabilize.

===

How do you know Syria have or no chemical weapons, you falling into same trap like so many American, US could had plant another False Flag operation...?

I got to agree with Clementina on this, sorry Catcher1!

“Pillars of Creation....”

Since: Jan 11

Into this world we're thrown

#167323 Aug 29, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Clementine, if the Syrian government has used chemical weapons to kill people, I don't think we (and by that I mean any decent people) can stand by and do nothing. There are moral limits, and this crosses them for me.
And mind you, I have been against all other U.S. military activity in the Middle East.
What are you doing over here? Get over there where you belong.
You opposed the war in Iraq yet Hussein used chemical weapons on his own people. Your hypocrisy shows yet again.

I guess it only matters whose in office at the time eh chaser?

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#167324 Aug 29, 2013
Clementia wrote:
<quoted text>
Catcher, r u supporting the war?
They're gonna bomb babies again, I'm tellin' ya! Innocent people will die and the evil people will take power, nothing will change. Actually, life for the Syrian people will get worse!!
Let's think about this for a minute.

You do know there has been a war in Syria for two years that's killed +/- 100,000 people and created about 2 million refuges, right?

Assad is killing people now. He's using his aircraft and his military to do that, and now he has allegedly used chemical weapons, perhaps for the second time.

A joint U.S. British strike would be aimed at his military, not the civilian population. Yes, some people will die as a result of those attacks, and some of them may be innocents - but the goal would be to reduce Assad's ability to kill people.
UIDIOTRACEMAKEWO RLDPEACE

United States

#167325 Aug 29, 2013
neoconservative Michael Ledeen in his article “The War on Terror will not end in Baghdad” in the Wall Street Journal, on September 4th, 2002

(The machiavelian threefold game of the neoconservatives
by Laurent Guyénot)
"
We do not want stability in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and even Saudi Arabia: we want things to change. The real issue is not whether, but how to destabilize.
UIDIOTRACEMAKEWO RLDPEACE

United States

#167326 Aug 29, 2013
A Strategy for Israel in the Eighties

an essay written for the World Zionist Organization in February 1982, Oded Yinon, a former senior official in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

put forward a strategy to exert control over the Middle East through the fragmentation of Israel’s neighbors, beginning with Lebanon

The machiavelian threefold game of the neoconservatives
by Laurent Guyénot

The total disintegration of Lebanon into five regional localized governments is the precedent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and the Arab peninsula, in a similar fashion. The dissolution of Egypt and later Iraq into districts of ethnic and religious minorities following the example of Lebanon is the main long-range objective of Israel on the Eastern Front. The present military weakening of these states is the short-term objective. Syria will disintegrate into several states along the lines of its ethnic and sectarian structure, as is happening in Lebanon today.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 2 min Aura Mytha 880,211
selena coleman (Aug '12) 18 min Imetuatatittybar 10
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 44 min sangili karuppan 7,647
Any females wanna skype? 46 min jblizzz 1
The Christian Atheist debate 56 min Critical Eye 3,983
Makutyiwane e Mmotherwell 1 hr Tobey-black 1
Tamil vs Kannada. Which one is the oldest langu... (Oct '12) 1 hr Anitha 1,870
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 hr marge 603,438
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 2 hr dollarsbill 8,287
More from around the web