namelesstavern.net

Tossica wrote:Except nothing that you said is true.

Oh, and this: http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/29/lame- ... z1f7sb01bs

Narrock wrote:

Tossica wrote:He spent what he had to in preventing the financial collapse. Other than that, there is no ridiculous spending spree. He's actually been quite conservative on spending considering the financial climate.

. No didn't have to spend that much to prevent a financial collapse.

Ok, tell that to all the financial advisers that actually, you know, prevented the collapse and all.

I don't agree with the Wall Street bailout that Bush signed nor do I agree with all the spending under Obama's administration but I do understand that you MUST spend in order to break free of a recession. When the banks stop lending and money stops changing hands. The ONLY way to break free is to pump cash in to the marketplace and get people spending again. It's been proven over and over. It sucks but that's how it goes.

Take the Iraq and Afghan wars that Bush started out of the equation and Obama doesn't look like that big of a spender after all, does he?

Bush started the Afghanistan war?

I thought Osama Bin Laden did when he killed thousands of Americans on American soil.

I guess history is already being rewritten.

Harrison wrote:Bush started the Afghanistan war?

I thought Osama Bin Laden did when he killed thousands of Americans on American soil.

I guess history is already being rewritten.

I believe most of the hijackers were Saudi's and Bin Laden was killed in Pakistan. Bush put boots on the ground in both wars. Obama could have yanked the cord out the minute he was elected, I guess. That would have saved us a bunch of money.

The hijackers were Saudi, Bin Laden (who orchestrated their operation) was hiding in Afghanistan at the time under protection by the Taliban (sharing a border with Pakistan, where they also operate to and from regularly)

He was killed in Pakistan, 10 years later, so what is your point there exactly?

That we should have taken the hit and not done anything?

I'm glad this over, I'm hoping for some bipartisanship.

Is it me or when a president looks good is when the house and senate are controlled from the opposite party?

.

No the excuse for Iraq was WMD's. I thought I read somewhere years ago that it was also some type of retalition for an assassination attempt at Bush senior during his presidency but that could be just consipiracy theory bullshit, maybe we can have Clakar look up Snopes to prove me wrong though and call me a liar.

Fucking Iraq war was so wrong, so many lives lost for the wrong reasons.

Harrison wrote:Bush started the Afghanistan war?

I thought Osama Bin Laden did when he killed thousands of Americans on American soil.

he killed thousands?! but he didn't fly the planes...

Kaemon wrote:Clakar look up Snopes to prove me wrong though and call me a liar.

Ok ok, I said I was sorry

Kaemon wrote:No the excuse for Iraq was WMD's. I thought I read somewhere years ago that it was also some type of retalition for an assassination attempt at Bush senior during his presidency but that could be just consipiracy theory bullshit, maybe we can have Clakar look up Snopes to prove me wrong though and call me a liar.

Fucking Iraq war was so wrong, so many lives lost for the wrong reasons.

The attempted assassination of Bush Sr. was done by the IIS (Iraqi Intelligence Service)

That's not why we went to Iraq, but it should have been plenty reason to do so. That is an act of war, period.

I believe Clinton bombed their sites after that, it's before my time and I'd have to go back and read up on it.

Harrison wrote:The hijackers were Saudi, Bin Laden (who orchestrated their operation) was hiding in Afghanistan at the time under protection by the Taliban (sharing a border with Pakistan, where they also operate to and from regularly)

He was killed in Pakistan, 10 years later, so what is your point there exactly?

That we should have taken the hit and not done anything?

My point is that 10s of thousands of people are dead and trillions of dollars spent. I'm not buying the faux outrage on the right over the deficit, spending, etc. It's fucking BULLSHIT. They are just fine spending trillions of dollars to blow up brown people and "nation building" but how dare anyone suggest spending money on our OWN nation.

Tossica wrote:They are just fine spending trillions of dollars to blow up brown people and "nation building"

Those are lucrative contracts to defense and military manufacturers. Smart bombs, missiles, etc. are all expensive. So are planning and logistics, like creating impromptu bases in the middle of BFE, and housing and feeding the personnel stationed there.

War^H^H^H Nation-buidling can be very profitable....... if you're in the right industry.

I'm not advocating it -- but the fact that it makes certain people plenty of money isn't lost on me.

Menelvir wrote:

Tossica wrote:They are just fine spending trillions of dollars to blow up brown people and "nation building"

Those are lucrative contracts to defense and military manufacturers. Smart bombs, missiles, etc. are all expensive. So are planning and logistics, like creating impromptu bases in the middle of BFE, and housing and feeding the personnel stationed there.

War^H^H^H Nation-buidling can be very profitable....... if you're in the right industry.

I'm not advocating it -- but the fact that it makes certain people plenty of money isn't lost on me.

Absolutely. People are perfectly ok with the government handing billions of dollars to companies to make bombs, planes, tanks, etc that we will most likely never use but as soon as someone suggest we spend money on education, infrastructure, health care, etc, the bleating starts.