Hey libbies

the true benefits of this government shutdown will not manifest themselves until 2014 when the voters retaliate at the republicans for causing it, imo.
 
maineman said:
the true benefits of this government shutdown will not manifest themselves until 2014 when the voters retaliate at the republicans for causing it, imo.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is possible that the American sheeple would be stupid enough to put Democrats in charge again. The American sheeple do have a very short collective memory.

My guess is that as this massive train wreck of Obamacre begins to emerge and become a reality in the conscience of the American sheeple, and with continued malaise in economic job opportunity and growth, the American sheeple will have finally had enough of this arrogant buffoon of a President and kick ass clowns like Harry Reid to the curb with new Republican majorities in the Senate.

You see, even the most brain dead dullard will realize this President was a terrible mistake of immense magnitude; of course this would exclude you and the cabal of incredibly stupid gullible Lefttards on this forum.

The last time the American sheeple were duped into putting Democrats in charge of the purse strings we saw the deficit surge from $161 billion to over $1.4 trillion in two short years. Yes, the same liars who claimed Republicans were spending like drunken sailors and fiscally irresponsible. Of course, ignoramuses like you fell for it thinking one can fund war spending through surpluses and that lying Democrats who were for the war were so stupid they were fooled by the "dumbest" man in America into voting for war. Why Bush was so clever, he even per-fooled Clinton and his administration.

:rolleyes:
 
Bush lied. Bush told us there was absolute certainty regarding WMD stockpiles. there was not. Bush suggested that Saddam's boys had met with OBL's boys prior to 9/11. they had not. Bush's boys told us the war would largely be funded by Iraqi oil revenue. it was not. no country in the history of mankind has ever attempted to wage war without raising the revenues to fund it... until Bush tried it.
 
maineman said:
Bush lied. Bush told us there was absolute certainty regarding WMD stockpiles. there was not. Bush suggested that Saddam's boys had met with OBL's boys prior to 9/11. they had not. Bush's boys told us the war would largely be funded by Iraqi oil revenue. it was not. no country in the history of mankind has ever attempted to wage war without raising the revenues to fund it... until Bush tried it.
Click to expand...

While I am thoroughly enjoying your attempts to bring up the Iraq War as it relates to the current shut down, could you please tell me where I could be directed to LBJs tax increases to fund our activities in Vietnam? In fact, in 1965 the top marginal rate decreased from 16% to 14%.

So not only did LBJ start a war and not raise the funds to pay for it, he also cut taxes on the rich. To top it off he gave us a nice big entitlement called WELFARE that he didn't pay for. All things you accuse George W. Bush of.

I really hope that you can correct me on these salient points as I would hate for you to have that big pile of shit spread on your face for the rest of the weekend.

God bless.
 
Another incredible massive pile of leftist bile.

maineman said:
Bush lied.
Click to expand...

Once again and for the millionth time, if Bush lied, so did Kerry, Clinton, Pelosi, Gore the Prime Minister of Britain, the Prime Minister of Australia and thousands of others who believed the same intelligence.

But you’re a hyper partisan dumbass inclined to ignore facts, reality or the truth.

maineman said:
Bush told us there was absolute certainty regarding WMD stockpiles. there was not.
Click to expand...

Once again and for the millionth time, so did Kerry, Clinton, Pelosi, Gore the Prime Minister of Britain, the Prime Minister of Australia and thousands of others who believed the same intelligence.

But you’re a hyper partisan dumbass inclined to ignore facts, reality or the truth.

maineman said:
Bush suggested that Saddam's boys had met with OBL's boys prior to 9/11. they had not.
Click to expand...

Please post credible links to support this claim.

maineman said:
Bush's boys told us the war would largely be funded by Iraqi oil revenue. it was not.
Click to expand...

Please post credible links to support this claim.


maineman said:
no country in the history of mankind has ever attempted to wage war without raising the revenues to fund it... until Bush tried it.
Click to expand...

Please provide one shred of evidence of ANY nation that conducted war by funding it first and not running deficits. Such claims are made by dullards, gullible asshats and buffoons that have incredibly low IQ’s and the historic memory of a lemming.

Not only are you an incredibly uninformed leftist asshat, but an incredibly stupid one at that.
 
No democrat, with the exception of Al Gore, after he was a private citizen, ever said that there was absolute certainty about Saddam's stockpiles. sorry.

If you don't know about the "supposed" meeting between Atta and Saddam's intelligence personnel that "supposedly" happened in Prague prior to 9/11, you've been living under a rock. Wanna link to Cheney's assertion about that meeting, go find it yourself. God knows the links are out there.

Similarly, I have no intention of finding quotes from Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz that categorically predicted that Iraqi oil money would largely fund the war and the reconstruction. If you don't remember them, the rock thing applies here as well.

YOu twist my words about war funding and revenue raising. When you address MY words and not the ones you try to put in my mouth, we can talk about that at that time.
 
I Love America said:
While I am thoroughly enjoying your attempts to bring up the Iraq War as it relates to the current shut down, could you please tell me where I could be directed to LBJs tax increases to fund our activities in Vietnam? In fact, in 1965 the top marginal rate decreased from 16% to 14%.

So not only did LBJ start a war and not raise the funds to pay for it, he also cut taxes on the rich. To top it off he gave us a nice big entitlement called WELFARE that he didn't pay for. All things you accuse George W. Bush of.

I really hope that you can correct me on these salient points as I would hate for you to have that big pile of shit spread on your face for the rest of the weekend.

God bless.
Click to expand...

I'd be happy to correct you.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/25/shared-sacrifice-war-taxes-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html

"In 1968, a 10% surtax was imposed to pay for the Vietnam War, which raised revenue by about 1% of GDP."
 
Im telling you this little faction of the right wants this government dead.

at least they are beginning to admit it
 
maineman said:
No democrat, with the exception of Al Gore, after he was a private citizen, ever said that there was absolute certainty about Saddam's stockpiles. sorry.
Click to expand...

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

DUMBASS
 
maineman said:
Once again for the unintelligent:

If you don't know about the "supposed" meeting between Atta and Saddam's intelligence personnel that "supposedly" happened in Prague prior to 9/11, you've been living under a rock. Wanna link to Cheney's assertion about that meeting, go find it yourself. God knows the links are out there.
Click to expand...

I am amused that you think others are unintelligent when the extent of your presumed evidence contains nothing but “supposedly”, hearsay and nothing more substantive than “because you say so.” I asked for evidence not OPINION.

You made the moronic claims; it is incumbent on you to support them, not mine to go out and find what doesn’t exist you dumbass.

maineman said:
Similarly, I have no intention of finding quotes from Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz that categorically predicted that Iraqi oil money would largely fund the war and the reconstruction. If you don't remember them, the rock thing applies here as well.
Click to expand...

That would be because you can’t find anything credible to support your baloney claims.

maineman said:
YOu twist my words about war funding and revenue raising. When you address MY words and not the ones you try to put in my mouth, we can talk about that at that time.
Click to expand...

I don’t twist anything, you make amazingly stupid claims that you cannot support or substantiate with anything more than bloviating then whine like a little vagina when you get called on it.

I was very clear; please provide credible proof of ANY nation that fought wars with surpluses or balanced budgets…..ANY. It is an incredibly moronic claim that only whiney vagina bitches like you can make.

Once again you are illustrative proof of the low information dipshits that helped elect this inexperienced buffoon of a President on nothing more substantive than "hope and change." How is that working for you right now??
 
maineman said:
I'd be happy to correct you.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/25/shared-sacrifice-war-taxes-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html

"In 1968, a 10% surtax was imposed to pay for the Vietnam War, which raised revenue by about 1% of GDP."
Click to expand...

Wrong again dumbass:

US Combat Units deployed in 1965; war ended in 1973
US deficits:
1965 $1.4 billion negative
1966 $3.6 billion negative
1967 $8.6 billion negative
1968 $25.1 billion negative
1969 $3.2 billion positive
1970 $2.8 billion negative
1971 $23 billion negative
1972 $23 billion negative
1973 $14.9 billion negative

Look it up dipshit and become informed instead of a dullard leftist asshat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top