JohnRich 4 #1 December 20, 2011 Vent your hatred for the war, here! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #2 December 20, 2011 QuoteNews: U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) today released a new oversight report, “Wastebook 2011” that highlights over $6.5 billion in examples of some of the most egregious ways your taxpayer dollars were wasted. This report details 100 of the countless unnecessary, duplicative and low-priority projects spread throughout the federal government.Introduction: http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/6946d43b-bccf-4579-990e-15a763532b40.html Full report (pdf): http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=b69a6ebd-7ebe-41b7-bb03-c25a5e194365 Pick a favorite! $30 million for Pakistani mango farmers? $550,000 for a documentary about how rock music contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union? $765,828 to subsidize “pancakes for yuppies”? $18 million in foreign aid to China? $484,000 to build pizza restaurants? The list goes on and on... Chicken feed stuff. Why did he omit the $TRILLION+ spent on a war started under false pretenses.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #3 December 20, 2011 Or the multiple trillions spebt on entitlements? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dks13827 2 #4 December 20, 2011 QuoteQuote Chicken feed stuff. Why did he omit the $TRILLION+ spent on a war started under false pretenses. You mean like Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Hillary, and others who said that Saddam had such weapons ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DanG 1 #5 December 20, 2011 QuoteYou mean like Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Hillary, and others who said that Saddam had such weapons ? Because people on both sides of the aisle were all fucked up, that makes being all fucked up okay? - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #6 December 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote Chicken feed stuff. Why did he omit the $TRILLION+ spent on a war started under false pretenses. You mean like Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Hillary, and others who said that Saddam had such weapons ? Which one of them ordered the invasion?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites grimmie 173 #7 December 20, 2011 And if a democrat voted no to the invasion, they would have been slayed in the court of public opinion. And the latest estimates bring Iraq and Afghanistan in at around four plus trillion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jockeyshifter63 0 #8 December 20, 2011 Chicken feed stuff. _________________________________________________ A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon we're talkin' about real money. (Quote attributed to Sen. Dirksen. He spoke often and passionately about the debt ceiling, federal spending, and the growth of government.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #9 December 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Chicken feed stuff. Why did he omit the $TRILLION+ spent on a war started under false pretenses. You mean like Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Hillary, and others who said that Saddam had such weapons ? Which one of them ordered the invasion? Bill Clinton set the stage with the Public Law 105-235 and the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. As for Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Kerry... Clinton (D-NY), Yea Kerry (D-MA), Yea Back to you for the next attempt to distract.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites masterrig 1 #10 December 20, 2011 To me, that's a good reason for a lne-item veto power to the president. Cut the riders getting money to frivilous things. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #11 December 20, 2011 QuoteTo me, that's a good reason for a lne-item veto power to the president. Cut the riders getting money to frivilous things. Chuck I agree with the concept, but that's a sword that cuts both ways depending on the President at the time.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites masterrig 1 #12 December 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteTo me, that's a good reason for a lne-item veto power to the president. Cut the riders getting money to frivilous things. Chuck I agree with the concept, but that's a sword that cuts both ways depending on the President at the time. I can sure see your thinking on this. Good Lord! These elected officials have run us into the ground with stupid spending. I do believe that most of it is to appeal to the voters so they can keep 'serving' themselves. I'm curious what would happen if, riders were cut-out completely. Some Senator or congressman wants something for some special interest, let him introduce a seperate bill. I don't know. It all comes across to me like a 'gotchya' by the short hairs'! Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #13 December 20, 2011 QuoteTo me, that's a good reason for a lne-item veto power to the president. Cut the riders getting money to frivilous things. Not a fan of the separation of powers from the Founders? The Executive Branch already dominates the other two. Why would increasing this be a good thing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #14 December 20, 2011 QuoteOr the multiple trillions spebt on entitlements? those entitlements make multiple trillions, still. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 0 #15 December 20, 2011 Quote Vent your hatred for the war, here! Ja! I hate ze var! Vait. Vhich var? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #16 December 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Chicken feed stuff. Why did he omit the $TRILLION+ spent on a war started under false pretenses. You mean like Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Hillary, and others who said that Saddam had such weapons ? Which one of them ordered the invasion? Bill Clinton set the stage with the Public Law 105-235 and the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. As for Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Kerry... Clinton (D-NY), Yea Kerry (D-MA), Yea Back to you for the next attempt to distract. But WHO ordered the invasion? Who was the CinC that ordered the tanks to cross the border? Who's White House controlled the intel given to the Congress and the public?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 0 #17 December 21, 2011 I'll give you a hint: it rhymes with "Halliburton". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,400 #18 December 21, 2011 >>Which one of them ordered the invasion? >Bill Clinton . . . It seems like only yesterday that the right wingers were swelling with pride that their hero GWB had taken action against the evil Saddam Hussein. Wave another flag! Cue the patriotic music and show another picture of the Twin Towers! Now they're trying to blame the war on Clinton. Reality can really come back and bite you in the ass sometimes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #19 December 21, 2011 It's so fun watching you and John scramble.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #20 December 21, 2011 Quote Bill Clinton set the stage with the Public Law 105-235 and the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. If that's the logic, then didn't Bush Sr. set the stage by invading it the first time, leaving it standing with full Guard strength, and then signing an inadequate surrender treaty? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites grimmie 173 #21 December 21, 2011 Stop making sense. Stop it right now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #22 December 21, 2011 QuoteQuote Bill Clinton set the stage with the Public Law 105-235 and the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. If that's the logic, then didn't Bush Sr. set the stage by invading it the first time, leaving it standing with full Guard strength, and then signing an inadequate surrender treaty? If it had been a solo effort by the US, sure - however, the UN coalition wasn't in favor of overthrowing Hussein.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites grimmie 173 #23 December 21, 2011 That's hilarious. The UN. You mean the organization that told GWB they couldn't find any WMD's? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #24 December 21, 2011 QuoteThat's hilarious. The UN. You mean the organization that told GWB they couldn't find any WMD's? So Bush Sr. is bad for going with what the UN wanted, and Bush Jr. is bad for going against what the UN wanted? Nice set of mutually inconsistent statements you have, there.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites grimmie 173 #25 December 21, 2011 Thanks for reinforcing my point. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 1 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
DanG 1 #5 December 20, 2011 QuoteYou mean like Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Hillary, and others who said that Saddam had such weapons ? Because people on both sides of the aisle were all fucked up, that makes being all fucked up okay? - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #6 December 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote Chicken feed stuff. Why did he omit the $TRILLION+ spent on a war started under false pretenses. You mean like Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Hillary, and others who said that Saddam had such weapons ? Which one of them ordered the invasion?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites grimmie 173 #7 December 20, 2011 And if a democrat voted no to the invasion, they would have been slayed in the court of public opinion. And the latest estimates bring Iraq and Afghanistan in at around four plus trillion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jockeyshifter63 0 #8 December 20, 2011 Chicken feed stuff. _________________________________________________ A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon we're talkin' about real money. (Quote attributed to Sen. Dirksen. He spoke often and passionately about the debt ceiling, federal spending, and the growth of government.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #9 December 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Chicken feed stuff. Why did he omit the $TRILLION+ spent on a war started under false pretenses. You mean like Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Hillary, and others who said that Saddam had such weapons ? Which one of them ordered the invasion? Bill Clinton set the stage with the Public Law 105-235 and the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. As for Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Kerry... Clinton (D-NY), Yea Kerry (D-MA), Yea Back to you for the next attempt to distract.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites masterrig 1 #10 December 20, 2011 To me, that's a good reason for a lne-item veto power to the president. Cut the riders getting money to frivilous things. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #11 December 20, 2011 QuoteTo me, that's a good reason for a lne-item veto power to the president. Cut the riders getting money to frivilous things. Chuck I agree with the concept, but that's a sword that cuts both ways depending on the President at the time.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites masterrig 1 #12 December 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteTo me, that's a good reason for a lne-item veto power to the president. Cut the riders getting money to frivilous things. Chuck I agree with the concept, but that's a sword that cuts both ways depending on the President at the time. I can sure see your thinking on this. Good Lord! These elected officials have run us into the ground with stupid spending. I do believe that most of it is to appeal to the voters so they can keep 'serving' themselves. I'm curious what would happen if, riders were cut-out completely. Some Senator or congressman wants something for some special interest, let him introduce a seperate bill. I don't know. It all comes across to me like a 'gotchya' by the short hairs'! Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #13 December 20, 2011 QuoteTo me, that's a good reason for a lne-item veto power to the president. Cut the riders getting money to frivilous things. Not a fan of the separation of powers from the Founders? The Executive Branch already dominates the other two. Why would increasing this be a good thing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #14 December 20, 2011 QuoteOr the multiple trillions spebt on entitlements? those entitlements make multiple trillions, still. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 0 #15 December 20, 2011 Quote Vent your hatred for the war, here! Ja! I hate ze var! Vait. Vhich var? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #16 December 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Chicken feed stuff. Why did he omit the $TRILLION+ spent on a war started under false pretenses. You mean like Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Hillary, and others who said that Saddam had such weapons ? Which one of them ordered the invasion? Bill Clinton set the stage with the Public Law 105-235 and the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. As for Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Kerry... Clinton (D-NY), Yea Kerry (D-MA), Yea Back to you for the next attempt to distract. But WHO ordered the invasion? Who was the CinC that ordered the tanks to cross the border? Who's White House controlled the intel given to the Congress and the public?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 0 #17 December 21, 2011 I'll give you a hint: it rhymes with "Halliburton". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,400 #18 December 21, 2011 >>Which one of them ordered the invasion? >Bill Clinton . . . It seems like only yesterday that the right wingers were swelling with pride that their hero GWB had taken action against the evil Saddam Hussein. Wave another flag! Cue the patriotic music and show another picture of the Twin Towers! Now they're trying to blame the war on Clinton. Reality can really come back and bite you in the ass sometimes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #19 December 21, 2011 It's so fun watching you and John scramble.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #20 December 21, 2011 Quote Bill Clinton set the stage with the Public Law 105-235 and the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. If that's the logic, then didn't Bush Sr. set the stage by invading it the first time, leaving it standing with full Guard strength, and then signing an inadequate surrender treaty? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites grimmie 173 #21 December 21, 2011 Stop making sense. Stop it right now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #22 December 21, 2011 QuoteQuote Bill Clinton set the stage with the Public Law 105-235 and the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. If that's the logic, then didn't Bush Sr. set the stage by invading it the first time, leaving it standing with full Guard strength, and then signing an inadequate surrender treaty? If it had been a solo effort by the US, sure - however, the UN coalition wasn't in favor of overthrowing Hussein.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites grimmie 173 #23 December 21, 2011 That's hilarious. The UN. You mean the organization that told GWB they couldn't find any WMD's? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #24 December 21, 2011 QuoteThat's hilarious. The UN. You mean the organization that told GWB they couldn't find any WMD's? So Bush Sr. is bad for going with what the UN wanted, and Bush Jr. is bad for going against what the UN wanted? Nice set of mutually inconsistent statements you have, there.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites grimmie 173 #25 December 21, 2011 Thanks for reinforcing my point. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 1 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
grimmie 173 #7 December 20, 2011 And if a democrat voted no to the invasion, they would have been slayed in the court of public opinion. And the latest estimates bring Iraq and Afghanistan in at around four plus trillion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jockeyshifter63 0 #8 December 20, 2011 Chicken feed stuff. _________________________________________________ A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon we're talkin' about real money. (Quote attributed to Sen. Dirksen. He spoke often and passionately about the debt ceiling, federal spending, and the growth of government.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #9 December 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Chicken feed stuff. Why did he omit the $TRILLION+ spent on a war started under false pretenses. You mean like Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Hillary, and others who said that Saddam had such weapons ? Which one of them ordered the invasion? Bill Clinton set the stage with the Public Law 105-235 and the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. As for Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Kerry... Clinton (D-NY), Yea Kerry (D-MA), Yea Back to you for the next attempt to distract.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites masterrig 1 #10 December 20, 2011 To me, that's a good reason for a lne-item veto power to the president. Cut the riders getting money to frivilous things. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #11 December 20, 2011 QuoteTo me, that's a good reason for a lne-item veto power to the president. Cut the riders getting money to frivilous things. Chuck I agree with the concept, but that's a sword that cuts both ways depending on the President at the time.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites masterrig 1 #12 December 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteTo me, that's a good reason for a lne-item veto power to the president. Cut the riders getting money to frivilous things. Chuck I agree with the concept, but that's a sword that cuts both ways depending on the President at the time. I can sure see your thinking on this. Good Lord! These elected officials have run us into the ground with stupid spending. I do believe that most of it is to appeal to the voters so they can keep 'serving' themselves. I'm curious what would happen if, riders were cut-out completely. Some Senator or congressman wants something for some special interest, let him introduce a seperate bill. I don't know. It all comes across to me like a 'gotchya' by the short hairs'! Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #13 December 20, 2011 QuoteTo me, that's a good reason for a lne-item veto power to the president. Cut the riders getting money to frivilous things. Not a fan of the separation of powers from the Founders? The Executive Branch already dominates the other two. Why would increasing this be a good thing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #14 December 20, 2011 QuoteOr the multiple trillions spebt on entitlements? those entitlements make multiple trillions, still. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 0 #15 December 20, 2011 Quote Vent your hatred for the war, here! Ja! I hate ze var! Vait. Vhich var? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #16 December 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Chicken feed stuff. Why did he omit the $TRILLION+ spent on a war started under false pretenses. You mean like Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Hillary, and others who said that Saddam had such weapons ? Which one of them ordered the invasion? Bill Clinton set the stage with the Public Law 105-235 and the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. As for Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Kerry... Clinton (D-NY), Yea Kerry (D-MA), Yea Back to you for the next attempt to distract. But WHO ordered the invasion? Who was the CinC that ordered the tanks to cross the border? Who's White House controlled the intel given to the Congress and the public?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 0 #17 December 21, 2011 I'll give you a hint: it rhymes with "Halliburton". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,400 #18 December 21, 2011 >>Which one of them ordered the invasion? >Bill Clinton . . . It seems like only yesterday that the right wingers were swelling with pride that their hero GWB had taken action against the evil Saddam Hussein. Wave another flag! Cue the patriotic music and show another picture of the Twin Towers! Now they're trying to blame the war on Clinton. Reality can really come back and bite you in the ass sometimes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #19 December 21, 2011 It's so fun watching you and John scramble.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #20 December 21, 2011 Quote Bill Clinton set the stage with the Public Law 105-235 and the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. If that's the logic, then didn't Bush Sr. set the stage by invading it the first time, leaving it standing with full Guard strength, and then signing an inadequate surrender treaty? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites grimmie 173 #21 December 21, 2011 Stop making sense. Stop it right now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #22 December 21, 2011 QuoteQuote Bill Clinton set the stage with the Public Law 105-235 and the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. If that's the logic, then didn't Bush Sr. set the stage by invading it the first time, leaving it standing with full Guard strength, and then signing an inadequate surrender treaty? If it had been a solo effort by the US, sure - however, the UN coalition wasn't in favor of overthrowing Hussein.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites grimmie 173 #23 December 21, 2011 That's hilarious. The UN. You mean the organization that told GWB they couldn't find any WMD's? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #24 December 21, 2011 QuoteThat's hilarious. The UN. You mean the organization that told GWB they couldn't find any WMD's? So Bush Sr. is bad for going with what the UN wanted, and Bush Jr. is bad for going against what the UN wanted? Nice set of mutually inconsistent statements you have, there.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites grimmie 173 #25 December 21, 2011 Thanks for reinforcing my point. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 1 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
masterrig 1 #10 December 20, 2011 To me, that's a good reason for a lne-item veto power to the president. Cut the riders getting money to frivilous things. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #11 December 20, 2011 QuoteTo me, that's a good reason for a lne-item veto power to the president. Cut the riders getting money to frivilous things. Chuck I agree with the concept, but that's a sword that cuts both ways depending on the President at the time.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #12 December 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteTo me, that's a good reason for a lne-item veto power to the president. Cut the riders getting money to frivilous things. Chuck I agree with the concept, but that's a sword that cuts both ways depending on the President at the time. I can sure see your thinking on this. Good Lord! These elected officials have run us into the ground with stupid spending. I do believe that most of it is to appeal to the voters so they can keep 'serving' themselves. I'm curious what would happen if, riders were cut-out completely. Some Senator or congressman wants something for some special interest, let him introduce a seperate bill. I don't know. It all comes across to me like a 'gotchya' by the short hairs'! Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #13 December 20, 2011 QuoteTo me, that's a good reason for a lne-item veto power to the president. Cut the riders getting money to frivilous things. Not a fan of the separation of powers from the Founders? The Executive Branch already dominates the other two. Why would increasing this be a good thing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #14 December 20, 2011 QuoteOr the multiple trillions spebt on entitlements? those entitlements make multiple trillions, still. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #15 December 20, 2011 Quote Vent your hatred for the war, here! Ja! I hate ze var! Vait. Vhich var? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #16 December 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Chicken feed stuff. Why did he omit the $TRILLION+ spent on a war started under false pretenses. You mean like Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Hillary, and others who said that Saddam had such weapons ? Which one of them ordered the invasion? Bill Clinton set the stage with the Public Law 105-235 and the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. As for Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Kerry... Clinton (D-NY), Yea Kerry (D-MA), Yea Back to you for the next attempt to distract. But WHO ordered the invasion? Who was the CinC that ordered the tanks to cross the border? Who's White House controlled the intel given to the Congress and the public?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 0 #17 December 21, 2011 I'll give you a hint: it rhymes with "Halliburton". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,400 #18 December 21, 2011 >>Which one of them ordered the invasion? >Bill Clinton . . . It seems like only yesterday that the right wingers were swelling with pride that their hero GWB had taken action against the evil Saddam Hussein. Wave another flag! Cue the patriotic music and show another picture of the Twin Towers! Now they're trying to blame the war on Clinton. Reality can really come back and bite you in the ass sometimes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #19 December 21, 2011 It's so fun watching you and John scramble.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #20 December 21, 2011 Quote Bill Clinton set the stage with the Public Law 105-235 and the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. If that's the logic, then didn't Bush Sr. set the stage by invading it the first time, leaving it standing with full Guard strength, and then signing an inadequate surrender treaty? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites grimmie 173 #21 December 21, 2011 Stop making sense. Stop it right now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #22 December 21, 2011 QuoteQuote Bill Clinton set the stage with the Public Law 105-235 and the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. If that's the logic, then didn't Bush Sr. set the stage by invading it the first time, leaving it standing with full Guard strength, and then signing an inadequate surrender treaty? If it had been a solo effort by the US, sure - however, the UN coalition wasn't in favor of overthrowing Hussein.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites grimmie 173 #23 December 21, 2011 That's hilarious. The UN. You mean the organization that told GWB they couldn't find any WMD's? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #24 December 21, 2011 QuoteThat's hilarious. The UN. You mean the organization that told GWB they couldn't find any WMD's? So Bush Sr. is bad for going with what the UN wanted, and Bush Jr. is bad for going against what the UN wanted? Nice set of mutually inconsistent statements you have, there.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites grimmie 173 #25 December 21, 2011 Thanks for reinforcing my point. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 1 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Andy9o8 0 #17 December 21, 2011 I'll give you a hint: it rhymes with "Halliburton". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #18 December 21, 2011 >>Which one of them ordered the invasion? >Bill Clinton . . . It seems like only yesterday that the right wingers were swelling with pride that their hero GWB had taken action against the evil Saddam Hussein. Wave another flag! Cue the patriotic music and show another picture of the Twin Towers! Now they're trying to blame the war on Clinton. Reality can really come back and bite you in the ass sometimes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #19 December 21, 2011 It's so fun watching you and John scramble.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #20 December 21, 2011 Quote Bill Clinton set the stage with the Public Law 105-235 and the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. If that's the logic, then didn't Bush Sr. set the stage by invading it the first time, leaving it standing with full Guard strength, and then signing an inadequate surrender treaty? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grimmie 173 #21 December 21, 2011 Stop making sense. Stop it right now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #22 December 21, 2011 QuoteQuote Bill Clinton set the stage with the Public Law 105-235 and the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. If that's the logic, then didn't Bush Sr. set the stage by invading it the first time, leaving it standing with full Guard strength, and then signing an inadequate surrender treaty? If it had been a solo effort by the US, sure - however, the UN coalition wasn't in favor of overthrowing Hussein.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grimmie 173 #23 December 21, 2011 That's hilarious. The UN. You mean the organization that told GWB they couldn't find any WMD's? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #24 December 21, 2011 QuoteThat's hilarious. The UN. You mean the organization that told GWB they couldn't find any WMD's? So Bush Sr. is bad for going with what the UN wanted, and Bush Jr. is bad for going against what the UN wanted? Nice set of mutually inconsistent statements you have, there.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grimmie 173 #25 December 21, 2011 Thanks for reinforcing my point. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
