The light at the end of the Iraq tunnel….

“WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama is expected to order all U.S. combat troops to leave Iraq by August of next year, administration officials said, closing the door on a war that has led to the deaths of at least 4,250 members of the U.S. military.

The pullout recommended by Obama’s security advisers would free up troops and resources for the war in Afghanistan, where Obama has said the threat to national security is acute. The Iraq withdrawal would be completed 18 months from now….

Obama built enormous grass-roots support for his White House bid by promising a quick end to the unpopular Iraq war. His 16-month withdrawal plan, based on removing roughly one brigade a month, had been predicated on commanders determining that it would not endanger U.S. troops left behind or Iraq’s fragile security….

The emerging plan now leaves Obama two months off his campaign pledge, and with between 30,000 and 50,000 troops still in Iraq to advise and train Iraqi security forces and to protect U.S. interests. The complete withdrawal of American forces will take place by December 2011, the period by which the U.S. agreed with Iraq to remove all troops.

Congress has approved more than $657 billion so far for the Iraq war, according to a report last year from the Congressional Research Service.”

This pullout, while inevitable, will come under circumstances far better than I had believed possible. At the very least, we have given the Iraqis a semi-functioning country and the chance to control their own future. As I’ve said in the past, I’ll be very surprised if Iraq hasn’t reverted to some kind of dictatorship five years from now, but I’ve been wrong before and hope to be wrong again.

144 comments Add your comment

Taxpayer

February 25th, 2009
1:19 pm

I don’t understand why Republicans get such a thrill out of wars. There’s no place for it on the Monopoly board or the Game of Life board. Where do they come up with these crazy notions that anyone, other than themselves, want to fight wars all the time. It’s almost as though they profit from wars or something at the taxpayer’s expense. Hmmm.

G

February 25th, 2009
1:23 pm

The war was a mistake, period.

We had no reason to go in there, Bush lied to win popular support, the occupation was a disaster, and he had no exit plan.

Bush’s only plan for Iraq after the illogical invasion was to run out the clock and let his successor solve the problems he created. Then again, he has done this on the economy, the environment, the deficit, our infrastructure, and any other matter that required some long-range vision of the nation’s future.

In short, Bush had no business being president.

getalife

February 25th, 2009
1:26 pm

Iran won and will start up their first nuclear plant.

Saddam bluffed and lost and with Iran’s help Iraq will be like Iran.

These two countries united with all that oil are in good shape.

Mrs. Godzilla

February 25th, 2009
1:28 pm

If he was going to have to fudge 3 months I would have preferred 13 to 16….but I trust President Obama’s judgement.

BDAtlanta

February 25th, 2009
1:41 pm

There is lots and lots and lots of money to be made waging war. Cheney was an ex-defense contractor so we were going to have a war one way or the other.

One bad side of Clinton’s legacy is that he downsized the military, outsourcing some basic military needs to private contractors. If those tasks were still in the US military’s hands, there wouldn’t be as much money to be made by private firms. Remember all those jobs in sanitation, food supply, etc. All that was outsourced to private contractors.

The no-bid contracts? Cheney and Rumsfeld greasing palms.

Like Cheney being an ex-defense contractor, Bush was an ex-oilman from an oil family. You could read the writing on the wall – high gas prices were inevitable. Gas prices were around $1.40 when he took office, peaked massively during his last summer in office and fell immediately after the election. If you think that is coincidence, ok, I have no proof. But……Remember those secret energy meetings Cheney and the energy suppliers had shortly after they took office? I wonder if gasoline was discussed in those meetings? I’m just saying….money is a very powerful motivator.

I’m just saying….

DB, Gwinnettian

February 25th, 2009
1:43 pm

At the risk of being a Maddow-bot, I really don’t like the timing of this announcement, which seems news-dumpish and designed to attract as little attention and scrutiny as possible. And if that’s the actual intent it’s doomed to fail.

right? except…looking at the google news home page, it’s barely visible (under “other news stories” on mine, anyway, wayyy at the bottom. Which says something about our gnat-like attention spans, I guess. But still.

Mort Merkel

February 25th, 2009
1:44 pm

I don’t give a rat’s rump if it does become dictatorship, invading Iraq was stupid, stupid, stupid. If they were going to invade it was stupid not to seal the borders before sprinting to Baghdad, where Saddam wasn’t anyway. If they were going to invade, it was stupid not to take the time to collect every enemy weapon along the way and destroy it. The failure to do these things was stupid and led to the Administration asking later, “Geez, where did all these AK-47s and RPGs come from?” Bush’s folly is criminal.

Copyleft

February 25th, 2009
1:46 pm

FINALLY. It’s not like there’s anyone left who can still claim, with a straight face, that invading Iraq was necessary. Let’s put this blunder behind us and focus on real problems, not imaginary ones.

BDAtlanta

February 25th, 2009
1:48 pm

Speaking of coincidence, isn’t it strange that between 1999 when Phil Gramm and Repubs with the help of Clinton dismantled the Glass-Steagall Act and the summer of 2008 when it became readily apparent McCain didn’t stand a chance to win, all the problems that caused the current economic situation were being overlooked, ignored, etc?

When it became apparant McCain wasn’t going to win, it looks kinda like they decided to go ahead and pull back the curtain to reveal the problem since the buck was about to be passed on to another party to solve the problem.

I’m just saying….maybe all this is coincidence.

Mike

February 25th, 2009
1:48 pm

Taxpayer –

On what do you base your assertion that “Republicans get a thrill out of war”?

The Democrats were just as vociferous in their support of the Afghan War and every war fought by the US in the 20th century, from WW1 to the Balkan War started with a Democratic administration.

getalife -

The Iran-supported parties were routed in the last election. The notion that Iraq will be a vassal state to Iran disregards hundreds of years of history.

BDAtlanta

February 25th, 2009
1:56 pm

I would like to have seen it divided up.

There is a reason the country could only be controlled by a crazed, trigger-happy guy like Saddam – those people hate each other to no end. He was able to keep order by pointing guns around.

If we leave, I think it will devlove even more until another strongman comes along who can get the country under his control…and then we will be back in the same position we were in with Saddam.

But at least we knew how to handle Saddam, the next guy might be quite different.

AJC/DNC Management

February 25th, 2009
1:57 pm

Ho hum-

The U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: “Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq”) is a status of forces agreement (SOFA) approved by the Iraqi government in late 2008 between Iraq and the United States. It establishes that U.S. combat forces will withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011, subject to possible further negotiations which could delay withdrawal and a referendum scheduled for mid-2009 in Iraq which may require U.S. forces to completely leave by the middle of 2010.

Wow, Jay giving Oblahmi credit for something he didn’t do.

Go figure.

Bosch

February 25th, 2009
2:00 pm

Mike Luckovich drew a cartoon a while back that had Ahmadinejad carrying off Iraq on a silver platter implying that he did so with our help (by invading Iraq). I loved that cartoon because it speaks to the core of the problem.

By weakening Iraq, we’ve basically handed them over to Iran. Iran will have a nuclear weapon in the next couple years, and we will be forced to deal with that.

In the meantime, we gear up to send more troops into Afghanistan which I don’t think is such a good idea as things are now – same mistake of no real purpose or goals. But hopefully Obama won’t do that until we move out of Iraq, in the meantime, we can come up with a better game plan or what it is we want to accomplish.

AND, Obama has said numerous times that many of the programs he wants to implement can be paid for with money saved by not spending it in Iraq. Well, if he marches us into Afghanistan, then blammo, there go the savings.

And the problem after we leave, I see Iran basically annexing Iraq – which, again, is problematic for all.

Now, with that said, I do trust Obama not to blunder things as bad as Bush & Co. did, but my point is, why go into Afghanistan at all? Oh yes, there is that one particular guy we want so bad and his merry band of outlaws, but I say it does no good to keep stirring up the beehive and getting our asses stung when these people seem hell bent on blowing each other up. I say let ‘em – less work for us – it worked for Iran.

But I will say, as I have always contended, it serves no one’s interest to attack a country with a nuclear bomb, unless of course, they wish to themselves, very soon afterward face the fury of the entire globe and then themselves be wiped off. It doesn’t benefit no one, and even crazy fundamentalist jihadist know this.

Bosch

February 25th, 2009
2:02 pm

BDAtlanta@1:56,

My sentiments exactly – Saddam may have been a horrible, brutal dictator, but he knew how to keep order – and it’s insane logic to think there isn’t someone else – just as horrible and brutal and dictatorly (is that a word?) just waiting until we leave. And then – we’ve wasted all this time, money and lives for what?

DB, Gwinnettian

February 25th, 2009
2:05 pm

- just as horrible and brutal and dictatorly (is that a word?)

“Dic-ish”, I think, is the one you want.

Bosch

February 25th, 2009
2:09 pm

DB,

Yeah, I think that’s exactly what I was thinking. Thanks!!

tcoach

February 25th, 2009
2:10 pm

Taxpayer,
To amend the question since you have dodged it twice now.

Since you blame republicans for any and all instances that happen in republican controlled districts, areas, and states. Would you mind answering these questions.

Do you also place the violent crime rates of Chicago, L.A., New York, Detroit, and Washington D.C. on the democrats?

If you do not place blame with democrats for their districts, then who would you place the blame with? Also you have set a precedent that it cannot be individuals acting poorly it must be in conjuncture with a political party. Those are rules you chose to set by the tone and temperament of your postings.

Do you think more people were victims in these cities combined or in all of the peanut scandal you have been fondling yourself over?

These are easy OPINION QUESTIONS so sorry i cannot answer them for you, just very curious as to your opinion. Actually I am more curious to see how many different ways a person can dodge a question without just having to say I don’t want to answer that it will make things i have said in the past look stupid, and for whatever reason i value my false credibility on a blog.

Taxpayer

February 25th, 2009
2:15 pm

I think people must get a cheap thrill out of war when they have to come up with nonsense in order to justify them — everything from yellow cake with no frosting to preemptive strikes against rusted out shells of formerly mobile mass-producers of anything of non-bacteriological significance. But, I just offer up these little gems to tease. Truth be known, there are many reasons Republicans of a certain persuasion salivate at the mere prospect of war. The real-life games for one. The thrill of victory and the agony of de feet — marching through that hot sand will test the best that Dr. Shoals has to offer. And, how else is one to find out that those new-fangled turbines get all choked up in a desert sand storm without puttin’ to the test. Those simulators only go so far, you know. Then, as I mentioned before, Bush Jr. just wanted to keep his pappy’s likeness from gettin’ the foot any more and Rumsfeld was just interested in settling an old score with the man that he shook hands with. I mean, is there no honor amongst thieves anymore. Of course there’s always money involved. Did anyone hear about that covert ops dude, named Dusty, that went and got all caught up in a scandal involving money and paying off some other good old boy that was on the take. I think he also had something to do with some guy named Cunningham. Pizza anyone.

Mike

February 25th, 2009
2:24 pm

Taxpayer -

That is your rationale for your statement that “Republicans get a thrill out of war”? Why does that list of boilerplate rhetoric not apply to Hillary and John Edward’s support for the war? Did they do so for “Bush Jr.’s pappy”?

How does your silly “Dr Scholl’s” argument address the fact that Democratic administrations took America into every single war that it fought in the 20th century?

Could it be that this is just one more complex issue that you boil down to “Republicans bad. Democrats good”?

Taxpayer

February 25th, 2009
2:28 pm

Oh lookie,

tcoach wants me to play. Well, let’s keep this simplistic, shall we. Let’s start with your grand-slam opening trash talk:

Since you blame republicans for any and all instances that happen in republican controlled districts, areas, and states. Would you mind answering these questions.

Since I do nothing of the sort, I do mind and I will not even read any farther into your post. Now, if you want me to play along with your simplistic scenarios, then I must insist that you simply stick to factual statements, for starters. Also, I do also reserve the right to impose other constraints assuming you make it far enough for me to need to.

Wyld Byll Hyltnyr

February 25th, 2009
2:29 pm

Jay, it was big of you to write, “At the very least, we have given the Iraqis a semi-functioning country and the chance to control their own future. As I’ve said in the past, I’ll be very surprised if Iraq hasn’t reverted to some kind of dictatorship five years from now, but I’ve been wrong before and hope to be wrong again.”

Nonetheless, you should have gone farther to say.

As things now stand, Iraq has been established as a functioning democracy in the middle east and there is hope in some quarters that it will become a model for the barbaric middle east nations.

Also, we leave the Iraqi people free of the terrorism and rape rooms of the dictator Saddam Hussein.

Finally, were it left to President Obama, we would have left Iraq in defeat leaving the nation in chaos and creating a the largest killing field ever know to mankind, but President Bush’s unparalelled strength of character and courage led this nation to victory and forged a safer world by eviscerating Iraq’s previous terrorist regime.

Jay, you can still write those things, go ahead, you’ll feel better.

Taxpayer

February 25th, 2009
2:40 pm

I live in the present and the present that I live in has war-mongering Republicans and Democrats. Of course, I am generalizing and as anyone that thinks a little should be able to figure out without straining a muscle, there are always exceptions but that does not invalidate the generalizations. The fact is that neocons such as Cheney, Bush, Perle, Rove, etc., and so forth and so on love the notion of preemption and they just love the thought of having their little axes of evil and shocking and awing and it’s all rather well documented even all the way back to that Republican war-monger, Reagan, that Rumsfeld worked for and even before that. It was Reagan that sent Rumsfeld over there to get in bed with Saddam so they could get him to pick fights with Iran and anyone else they needed them to and of course there’s the close ties that they had with bin Laden back in the day too but that’s another story.

Joey

February 25th, 2009
2:44 pm

Jay? You support the pullout, but you hope you are wrong about Iraq becoming a dictatorship again. I cannot find any logic or any concern for the Iraqis in that position.

No matter at this point whether the war was right or wrong. We established a relatively effective and peacefully elected government. We must stay, my guess, 3 to 7 more years in order to allow and help that peaceful and peacfully elected government to mature.

Pulling out is the US, right now that is Democrats, willingly abandoning the people of Iraq at a critical point. A terribly wrong thing to do.

Taxpayer

February 25th, 2009
2:45 pm

Don’t you just love those “functioning” democracies, equipped with free fatherland security, courtesy of we the taxpayers. Why don’t we just buy their oil and let them hire their own security forces from the proceeds.

RealityKing

February 25th, 2009
2:47 pm

Sometimes war is the necessary answer.., as in Saddam’s case.

radiowxman

February 25th, 2009
2:47 pm

I was against the war as well.

However, instead of screeching about “Bush’s war!” and “No blood for oil!” or “get us out now!” I realized that once we were in, we had to finish the job.

The previous administration did a horrible job orchestrating the beginning of the peace, and threw in too many PR gaffes to mention. This made Iraq an easy lightning rod and made it too easy to gloss over the real inhumanity of the Saddam regime (check out his treatment of Iraqi Olympic athletes, for example).

However, I found it fascinating that after the initial problems, the steady progress in Iraq went ignored. Instead, we kept hearing about the “atrocities” our soldiers were engaging in, the “quagmire” and how the war was “unwinnable.”

Now? Obama should be thanking the Bush administration. He left a fairly stable Iraq in place, so the current administration can play the hero and pull us out.

Of course, this comes at the same time we are ramping up in Afghanistan. Let’s hope that we’re more successful than every other nation in history that’s tried to calm that state.

Mike

February 25th, 2009
2:50 pm

Taxpayer -

Well, if Reagan was a “war-monger” and never engaged in a war, what does that make Bill Clinton the executive of the Balkan War? Please demonstrate some consistency.

AmVet

February 25th, 2009
2:50 pm

No matter how Obama mishandles Afghanistan into Quagmire, Part Deux, the flummoxed GOP chickenhawks will convulse even further.

Do the pro-war neoliths support the commander-in-chief in this folly like the good little chest pounders they were for the past six years in supporting BushCos botched invasion and occupation of Iraq?

Or do they show their true Party-first, Party-last, Party-always colors by withholding support as they did when Clinton ended the genocide in Europe without losing a single American life?

No matter which way they go on this issue, and a host of others for that matter, they are essentially irrelevant in this day and age, except to their base here in the Moron Belt and other backwater locales like Oklahoma and Utah.

Duty calls, Later friends and fools…

Mike

February 25th, 2009
2:53 pm

AmVet –

I assume that when you are calling out “chickenhawks”, you are including Obama, Bookman, Hillary and all of the other supporters of the Afghan War who never served.

tcoach

February 25th, 2009
2:56 pm

taxpayer,
@11:51″Tell that to the 666 people sickened so far by peanuts processed in that Republican stronghold facility.”

So you did not say this?

Again at 11:51 “Just look at those poor dead people in that Imperial Sugar plant in that Republican stronghold and that Republican Saxby Chambliss and his attack on the one guy there that actually tried to save lives”
Exactly what do you mean by stronghold?

Both of these seem to be accusing the area “stronghold” and equating it to republicans.

See I told you that you would avoid questions.

Seriously it is only a question and answer can you be that gripped with fear?

Also I have on numerous occasions said things to others that you accused me of not doing anything about @12:30. Don’t believe them ask, or even better go back and look in archives. (if anyone can still get to them)Just saw they were not going to change so quit banging my head on the wall. I think sometimes they have valid and worthy points other times, I think they are either trying to p**s you all off or they really do have some issues with things. Either way it causes others to never take anything they say seriously and tune them out. I am trying to figure out if this is you.

Sorry just because I disagree with you does not mean that I agree with them. You seem to be a very prejudice labeling individual. You do know that not all people fit into your molds you have cast for us all right? I only say this because you have lumped me in with them before. This happens some here by others usually when I ask them something they do not wan to to truthfully answer either. But go back and read and if you still think I am in the same boat of thinking as those you accuse me of then it shows you are nothing more than a troll, wishing the worst for our country and for our division.

So again when can I expect an actual answer?

You also show yourself to be a phony if the amount of deaths from the peanuts bother you but the murders don’t.

See I’ll even help you from time to time, the murder rates are higher. Since you were unable to google that information for me, or maybe you were and once again chose to only use the information that you like.

Dodge, duck,dive,dip, and Dodge. ESPN ocho baby.

Mike

February 25th, 2009
2:58 pm

AmVet -

Be sure to tell the families of David Gibbs and Kevin Reichert that the Yugoslav War was fought without losing a single American life.

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/dgibbs.htm

As usual, your comments demonstrate ignorance of facts.

Paul

February 25th, 2009
2:59 pm

Jay

Nice. Very nice.

Kinda glad you were wrong on your first assumption. Hope you’ll be wrong on the second. But I doubt it.

Taxpayer

[[I don’t understand why Republicans get such a thrill out of wars.]]

Roosevelt and Johnson were Republicans?

G 1:23

[[Bush lied to win popular support]]

Please, that was stale five minutes after VP Gore’s chant.

[[Bush’s only plan for Iraq after the illogical invasion was to run out the clock and let his successor solve the problems he created.]]

Did you make that up yourself? From Jay’s excerpt, it’s pretty obvious there’s nothing left to solve. The remaining troops aren’t doing anything new. Or solving anything old.

[[Bush had no business being president]]

Except for the small detail that he was elected. Twice.

getalife

[[ran won and will start up their first nuclear plant.

Saddam bluffed and lost and with Iran’s help Iraq will be like Iran.]]

Bingo!

Hopefully G will think about “Bush lied” in the context of “Saddam bluffed and lost.”

As far as Iran going nuclear, didn’t I hear somewhere that Pres Obama and SecState Clinton have said we will not allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon? I really, really kinda think I heard that somewhere…. but I could be wrong…

Mrs. Godzilla 1:28

That’s fair. But I’ll bet the staff on MoveOn are in a tizzy ’cause they’re not all gone. I’ll have to cruise on over and check sometime. See their take on it –

BDAtlanta 1:41

[[outsourcing some basic military needs to private contractors.]]

That’s a common misperception. Law and policy on outsourcing refer only to those functions that are not inherently governmental. I’m reading your ‘needs’ as inherently governmental. Lots of people think of the Blackwater example – but they were not military units, primarily guards. Got way out of hand, though. May want to Google OMB Circular A-76 sometime.

As far as Pres Bush orchestrating the runup in oil prices given his oil background, that was a pretty slick accomplishment for a guy who’s such a bungler, isn’t it?

:-)

DB, Gwinnettian 1:43

I guess they couldn’t bring themselves to headline “we won” or “mission accomplished”?

Management 1:57

Isn’t that the Status of Forces Agreement Senate Dems were so upset over ’cause Bush hotdogged it through and the Senate didn’t get to vote on it so it was another example of a failed Bush policy?

Bosch 2:00

[[By weakening Iraq, we’ve basically handed them over to Iran. Iran will have a nuclear weapon in the next couple years, and we will be forced to deal with that.]]

I keep tellin’ ya’, man, don’t worry about it! Pres Obama’s said repeatedly that he won’t let that happen! He’ll do anything, whatever it takes!

[[I do trust Obama not to blunder things as bad]]

That’s funny! Realistic, but funny! “He can still screw things up, but it just won’t be as bad.” LOL!

Seriously, do you really think elements in this country would react with horror at the idea that, if we were hit with an Iranian-supplied nuke, that we would obliterate Iran? That they wouldn’t call for ‘proportionality’ – you know, they only lit off a small nuke in NYC so we should only light off a small nuke in a non-capitol city.

Personally, the Genghis Khan part of me would want to turn the entire country into a sheet of glass.

Mike 2:58

That’s the test of when we should unleash our military on another country? It’s okay as long as our guys don’t die?!!?

Taxpayer

February 25th, 2009
3:00 pm

Actually, I think all that New World Order stuff started with Bush Senior and his neo-con buddies. He was CIA, you know. They’re devilish little fellas with their preemptive ways.

Paul

February 25th, 2009
3:03 pm

Mike 2:58

Sorry about that last post. I read your comment completely incorrectly.

But the question still stands as a general one (though not to AmVet – we’ve hashed this over) – many people cite the US led, UN resisted, NATO drag along as a good thing ’cause of the paucity of casualties. That, in my opinion, is a dangerous way to evaluate the worthiness of intervention.

Wyld Byll Hyltnyr

February 25th, 2009
3:06 pm

NOW JUST HOLD ON THERE FOR A MOMENT!!!!

I just checked yesterday’s “The ‘50 percent pay no tax’ fraud, Part II” and have a bone to pick. Nothwithstanding, the erroneous and improper claims made against me, I did not enage in hate speach. It is hurtful to me that a clinical statement, such as that which I wrote, could be so heinously misrepresented by others. It would take a truly sick mind to categorize anything i wrote as offensive, let alone hate speach.

Incidentially, Jay, my research indicates that welfae benefits and food stamps are not taxable income and, as such, a personal wholly dependant on welfare-benefits and food stamps is not required to file a tax return. Which, to some extent, eviscerates your 38% number and proves up my theory.

Taxpayer

February 25th, 2009
3:06 pm

So, tcoach, you want to jump into my exchange with Dusty and proclaim yourself as having some understanding of the context. Well, I don’t believe you. Your next task is to pull up each post between Dusty and myself and explain to me what we were talking about. Then, we’ll see where it goes from there. K.

Mike

February 25th, 2009
3:07 pm

Paul -

I agree. If casualty count was the metric than the Viet Nam war was a more worthy endeavor than WW2.

Taxpayer

February 25th, 2009
3:14 pm

Roosevelt and Johnson were Republicans?

Who am I to say. Hey, if Perdue can be a Republican, anyone can. Even Phil Gramm started out as a Democrat and then changed to the Republican party once he figured out his true calling.

Observer

February 25th, 2009
3:19 pm

Taxpayer – In Jay’s earlier blog, I posted in reference to the debt service (interest) on the $787 billion bailout driving the true cost well north of a trillion.

Your response was, “By the way, $787 billion plus something as outrageous as a 10% annual interest rate would only be $866 billion.”

You are so far off the mark it’s laughable. The current yield on 30 year treasury bonds is 3.58%. Take $787 billion and pay 3.58% on it for 30 years and you come up with a total cost to the taxpayers of $2.3 TRILLION. Lucky for us that we’re not using your outragous 10% rate, huh?

I’ve got to go back into a meeting but I’ll check back later to see your response. I’m sure it will be another fact-filled gem.

tcoach

February 25th, 2009
3:22 pm

taxpayer,
I can stay at it.
It is there for all to see you my friend are guilty of lying about that, you did equate a district to a political party.
It is your honor and integrity in question. You asked I provided. See that is how it is done by rational adults. This would be your time for a rebuttal. But you know that you do not have one.

I have seen you operate on here, and anytime you can prove it wrong or somehow have a good fact to use you do. When there are none available you go and want others to do all of your research. I have seen you jump in on others dialog, while not providing a running log of the post. Yet now you want one.

I get it, you are old, angry with how YOUR life turned out and trying to find someone anything to affix the blame to. I am truly sorry you are so bitter. Do you not have friends and family to talk to about your anger? If you treat them as you do others though they most likely do not want to engage in conversation with you.

Sir I have given examples and you have even made me out to be a soothsayer, since I called exactly the ways you would respond.

I will keep at it though, day after day after day until I receive my answer. I truly have grown tired of you trying to bully others and act as if you are smarter than them. You are no better than anyone else here, there or anywhere. So why do you feel you are.

It is fine for you to make an assertion that something is fact without a source but complain when others do. You are truly hypocritical in almost every facet of your life that we see. So actually I guess in a strange way you are not hypocritical because you are so consistently hypocritical.

Just because you are older does not mean smarter that usually only last until like adulthood, then most have kinda caught up.

Paul

February 25th, 2009
3:23 pm

Taxpayer

In all seriousness, I think we’re going to see just a bit of military action out of this administration. They may dress it up as “humanitarian action” but it’s still using American military forces to impose America’s view of morality on the world. And, it’s already begun. George Clooney missed the Oscars so he could tell Pres Obama about the Darfur disaster. Get ready – we’re going in.

And if we find out Pres Obama’s statements on Iran weren’t (what was his phrase?) ‘campaign rhetoric’ then we can also get ready for (to use VP Biden’s words) “an uptick” in American casualties.

Bosch

February 25th, 2009
3:25 pm

Paul,

And I keep telling you man, there ain’t gonna be no nuclear attack. Now, I could be wrong, and Gods know I hope I am not (catch the ‘Gods’ ref.? ha, ha, only oh, I don’t know your the stopwatch), but if these freaking jihadist idiots were gonna do something like that, we’d be toast already – North Korea’s weirdo dictator is crazy as bat shit, yet smart enough to know his bat shit crazy self and country (who he doesn’t even care about the populace) would be blown to bits right back. It ain’t gonna happen. You watch way too much Battlestar Galactica (did you just spit coffee/water/Coke/drink of choice on your keyboard when you read that? I couldn’t resist).

Mike

February 25th, 2009
3:26 pm

Observer -

LOL. Did Taxpayer really say, “By the way, $787 billion plus something as outrageous as a 10% annual interest rate would only be $866 billion.”

That is hysterical. On this blog, it seems that the angrier you are the less knowledge of basic facts you posses.

$866 billion. LOL

NRB

February 25th, 2009
3:27 pm

So we’re out of Iraq in 18 months, which we probaby would have been anyways regardless of whos in office.

But now chicken-hawk Oblaham is sending 17,000 troops to Afghanastan to die for oil…where’s the left wing screeching over that tidbit?

I guess the AJC will just print more cute stories about Oblahma’s favorite bubblegum or somesuch nonsense as usual.

fed up

February 25th, 2009
3:27 pm

Not sure who on this said (or why for that matter) that Republicans love war. What kind of crazy statement is that? I thought that Dec. 2011 was already established as to when we left Iraq? If that’s right why is this something that Obama would get/take credit for?

Bosch

February 25th, 2009
3:28 pm

Paul,

Forgot:

“That’s funny! Realistic, but funny! “He can still screw things up, but it just won’t be as bad.” LOL!”

Are you making fun of me? You better not be, doodoo head.

Wyld Byll Hyltnyr

February 25th, 2009
3:29 pm

Observer, though I loathe it more than I loathe John Kerry, himself, I am, nonetheless called to defend.

For those educated in matters of finance, the concept that you use to arrive at 3.23 trillion is the sum of a stream of payments.

If you one desires to determine the “true cost” of such a stream of payments, one would calculate the “net present value.”

Let me explain, in a manner in which even the most simple liberal could understand, by asking if were to pay you a dollar, would your rather get it now or 30 years from now. A stream of payments must be discounted over its term to reflect anticipated expected returns to convert it into a present value.

As to you, Taxpayer, you are wrong about everything else.

Dusty

February 25th, 2009
3:34 pm

Wyld Byll @2:29,

You have posted a very fine piece…. right here in the middle of the white flagger, anti-war, cut’n'runners of our day.

Bush saw the danger to our country from Iraq. The CIA reported the dangers. Congress read the reports and knew the danger. British Intelligence saw the danger as did their Prime Minister. So Bush and ALL Congress except one did what was necessary for our protection.

If everything in reports was not accurate, what was in Iraq was most harmful as our military has proven. American hating terrorists swarmed to Iraq instead of heading to America. Iraq is now on its way to becoming a stable country in the MidEast (just as you said, Wyld Byll.) We still have to fight the terror loving Taliban in Afghanistan. Even Obama realizes that. It is almost more than his far left libs can bear.

White flaggers have tried everything against the Iraq conflict. They say Bush was doing it for more oil and money (He was already rich and we had other sources for oil). They blamed Cheney because they said he wanted to get rich (He was already rich being a smart business man.) They blamed Halliburton (one of the few companies large enough to handle world wide supplies). They blamed the Blackstone Security Company who was hired for non-military work. Blackstone employees treated as subversives by the press instead of security. Libs declared the Defense Department was not supplying our armed forces but complained about the cost of the war. They tried to use flag wrapped coffins from Iraq as propaganda. Nothing was too “low” for anti-war far left liberals to declare.

Now, what will these cut’n'run complainers say when Obama tells them again that more troops and supplies are needed in Afghanistan? Will they drag out their old book of complaints? How about a few protests? Will they burn Bush in effigy but not Obama?

Meanwhile Bookman does his little dance around dutiful dissent and other ways of getting around anti-Americanism. Someone said:”If you aren’t with us, you are against us.” Not so, say libs. They opine “If we are against you, we are all for you.” I haven’t figured that one out yet. That’s why I don’t run with their crowd.

gttim

February 25th, 2009
3:36 pm

Do you also place the violent crime rates of Chicago, L.A., New York, Detroit, and Washington D.C. on the democrats?

You should look up the word density, and then Google urban density and its effect on crime. That has nothing to do with political parties, it has to do with density. Man you guys are a few cards short of a deck.

BTW, I feel safer in an urban environment than I do paddling a canoe down a river through a red state. Plus, if something happens to me in an urban environment, it will probably be reported to the authorities. In red states with sparse populations and old white sheriffs, I bet most things never get reported officially.

Paul

February 25th, 2009
3:36 pm

Bosch

My good man, have you taken leave of your senses? Do you wish to cast doubt upon all your current and future arguments by stating someone can watch too much BattleStar Galactica?”

I sure hope you’re right. But you do see the position it puts America in when Candidate Obama, then President Obama, makes the statements he’s made?

Credibility goes out the window. And frankly, in such cases in international relations, a bit of fear on our enemies part is a good thing. But if they think they have nothing to fear (the phrase from long ago was “America as a paper tiger”) then there is little to inhibit another country’s actions.

And when you’re dealing with nukes and religious fanatics, you’ve got a dangerous mix.

NRB tellin' it like it is as usual

February 25th, 2009
3:38 pm

In the twentieth century, every war has been led by a democrat in the white house with the exception of the Persian Gulf Conflict. WWI, Wilson, WWII, Roosevelt, Korea, Truman, Vietnam, Johnson.

People will say its the republicans in congress, but since 1931, the republicans have been inpower a total of 16 years, many times the democrats held a filibuster proof majority, especially during the vietnam war, at one point in the 70s, there was a 74-16 democrat majority.

Mike

February 25th, 2009
3:38 pm

Byll –

NPV aside, Taxpayer’s assertion that the total cost of $787 billion at a 10% APR is $866 billion is sheer ignorance.

Mike

February 25th, 2009
3:40 pm

” In red states with sparse populations and old white sheriffs, I bet most things never get reported officially.

Right because old white people are intrinsically immoral. Thanks for that insightful statement.

gttim

February 25th, 2009
3:40 pm

Yeah, Hussein was a bad man. But remember, it was the Reagan administration that funneled him weapons through a back door so he could stay in power in the 80’s. Hussein was the GOP’s boy for a long time. The guys fighting over there now should remember that. So should the wingnuts!

gttim

February 25th, 2009
3:42 pm

Right because old white people are intrinsically immoral.

Old white sheriffs are historically immoral. History backs that up. Even looking at the limited scope of the civil rights movement, that is clear.

I didn’t say old white people. That is what you are trying to put in my mouth. DIdn’t work. Need smarter wingnuts!

American Made

February 25th, 2009
3:43 pm

Ummmmm…i am probably mistaken, often am, but wasn’t that the plan all along well before Obama became President?

Mike

February 25th, 2009
3:43 pm

gttim –

Hmmm. You ramble on with silly attacks on “old, white men” and you are the one calling people wingnuts? Please

NRB

February 25th, 2009
3:44 pm

Mike,

You have to remember that Democrats know squat about money and finance. That’s why all of them are broke and make poor decisions about money.

They refuse to learn, and instead choose to let momma government shelter them at a cost to those of us who are productive and know what we’re doing.

If only are laws were based on Darwin’s principals. We could weed out those of us who are holding us back as a nation and progress at a rate not seen since the industrial revolution.

Of course, Democrats hate true progress. Progress to them means setting a bottom level standard and forcing everyone on earth to remain at that level.

Sad.

gttim

February 25th, 2009
3:44 pm

Taxpayer’s assertion that the total cost of $787 billion at a 10% APR is $866 billion is sheer ignorance.

1/3 of that 787 billion is tax cuts- the largest tax cut ever passed. How come you are trying to add interest to tax cuts? Seems disingenuous at best. Are you saying tax cuts cost us more than the actual cuts? So you would be against them, right?

Bosch

February 25th, 2009
3:46 pm

Paul,

I was just kidding. Of course no one can watch too much Battlestar Galactica – sorry, that’s almost blasphemous talk – it’s Ash Wednesday and when I’m repenting later, I’ll ask for extra forgiveness – it’s late in the afternoon, and I thought it would be fun to wake you up a bit.

Well, hell, of course, Candidate Obama is gonna say that – about Iran and nuclear weapons and we won’t let them get them and we’ll do anything, blah, blah, blah. That’s to appease the war nutters. You know, the guys who scream “but Democrats are soft on national security!!!!! YYYYYAAAAAA!!!!!” You know the type.

“And when you’re dealing with nukes and religious fanatics, you’ve got a dangerous mix”

So incredibly true. But it doesn’t scare me – how they gonna get it over here? In one of their Air Force jets? Oh yeah, they don’t have one.

And who are they anyway? Now I’ve confused myself.

Religious fanatics are more likely to blow themselves up with such a device – they ain’t that smart – the smart ones know you cripple an enemy with wiping out their bank accounts – you know, like what’s going on here.

gttim

February 25th, 2009
3:47 pm

You ramble on with silly attacks on “old, white men” …

Mike why do you feel the need to lie repeatedly. I attacked old, white sheriffs. Again, history is on my side. And wingnut fits. Are you wingnuts going to start throwing stones in your glass houses? You guys toss around more personal insults and names than anybody else I have ever seen.

Mike

February 25th, 2009
3:47 pm

gttim -

“Old white sheriffs are historically immoral. History backs that up.”

What nonsense. Back up the statement that an “old white sheriffs” are “historically” immoral than say, Sidney Dorsey.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9804EFD9143DF935A2575BC0A9649C8B63

Get over your bigotry and recognize that an individual’s morality has nothing to do with his age, race, political affiliation or residence.

Taxpayer

February 25th, 2009
3:48 pm

Observer, it is truly sad that you have to make yourself look like such an udder cow over something so simple. We were talking at the time about annual spending and so, as with the deficit, one typically refers to annualized amounts. On top of that, I did not even attack your silly response in a serious manner but if you wish, let us talk about the whole story instead of your ridiculous little excerpt from time. Look back over the Bush years, for example, and tell me how much interest has been paid out on the nearly 3 trillion dollars in debt that he added to our national debt. Now, run along and do your homework, little fella.

Taxpayer

February 25th, 2009
3:52 pm

I gave you your assignment, tcoach. Now run along like a good little boy and do it or else I will no longer reply to your childish accusations and name-calling again. That’s a good boy.

Mike

February 25th, 2009
3:52 pm

gttim -

When did I “lie repeatedly”?

You are the one who said that “old, white sherrifs are historiclly immoral.” What makes these folks different than other sherrifs who are more moral in your eyes? The fact that they are “old, white people”.

As for the personal insults and names, the only one I throw around is bigot, which your own statements demonstrate you to be. Stop complaining about name calling in a paragraph in which you call people “wingnuts” twice. Also, read the posts above and tell me that conservatives are any more likely to name call than liberals.

Your hypocrisy is laughable.

Mike

February 25th, 2009
3:53 pm

Taxpayer -

I can’t wait to tell my wife that the total payout of our mortgage is only the principal plus 6%. LOL

Mike

February 25th, 2009
3:54 pm

Taxpayer –

When are you going to run along and answer a single question that gets posed to you?

Paul

February 25th, 2009
3:56 pm

Bosch

I’ve gotta duck out for a couple hours, but I knew you were kidding – you can never get too much BSG!!!

Y’know, early on in the Clinton Administration officials pretty much laughed at OBL’s threats and statements because he was just a guy in the mideast with no air force or army – kinda like Stalin’s dismissal of the Pope of “how many divisions does the Pope have?”

All sorts of scenarios exist – and I’m sure Pres Obama’s been briefed on a few – but Israel and our ties to them are a likely possibility. As far as a homeland attack, more than one novel’s been done – heck, I think one was a Vince Flynn novel – where the device sailed into Galveston Harbor, home of more oil and gas storage tanks than just about anywhere, on board a cargo ship. You know, the ones we inspect…

Thinking about the unthinkable. Sobering stuff.

later -

Wyld Byll Hyltnyr

February 25th, 2009
3:56 pm

Mike, please forgive me. I have been hanging around Jay’s blogs for a while; it goes without saying that Taxpayer is ignorant, uninformed, and, most of all wrong in the broader scope of things.

However, as best as i can figger, ol’ pea brain arrived at the $866b by adding the corpus ($787b) plus one year’s interest at 10%(78.7m.) Of course this is falacious as one can not reasonably expect the debt arising from the transaction to be repaid in one year. Nonetheless, Taxpayer is incorrigible and i did not feel it worth the effort.

On the other hand, I still hold out hope that Observer can become a productive participant, so I took the time to “Herman Cain” him.

Byll –

NPV aside, Taxpayer’s assertion that the total cost of $787 billion at a 10% APR is $866 billion is sheer ignorance.

Mike

February 25th, 2009
3:57 pm

gttim -

“1/3 of that 787 billion is tax cuts- the largest tax cut ever passed. How come you are trying to add interest to tax cuts?”

Uh, I was pointing out the simplicity of the math that Taxpayer laid out. Take it up with him.

gttim

February 25th, 2009
3:58 pm

When did I “lie repeatedly”?

Every time you said I said something I didn’t. You said I said “Old, white men,” and “Old, white people.” I didn’t.

You are the one who said that “old, white sherrifs are historiclly immoral.” What makes these folks different than other sherrifs who are more moral in your eyes? The fact that they are “old, white people”.

If I say my dog is white, it does not mean all dogs are white. You either a liar, or are stupid. Or both. Study logic a little.

What nonsense. Back up the statement that an “old white sheriffs” are “historically” immoral than say, Sidney Dorsey.

Because one, or more, “old, black sheriff” was immoral does not mean that “old, white sheriffs” were not. Again, I suggest you study logic a little. You are claiming false equivalencies. You can look that word up.

“Old, white sheriffs” have a long history of immorality. You can Google that.

Taxpayer

February 25th, 2009
3:58 pm

Taxpayer
In all seriousness, I think we’re going to see just a bit of military action out of this administration. They may dress it up as “humanitarian action” but it’s still using American military forces to impose America’s view of morality on the world. And, it’s already begun. George Clooney missed the Oscars so he could tell Pres Obama about the Darfur disaster. Get ready – we’re going in.
And if we find out Pres Obama’s statements on Iran weren’t (what was his phrase?) ‘campaign rhetoric’ then we can also get ready for (to use VP Biden’s words) “an uptick” in American casualties.

Paul,

I suppose time will tell. As I have said before, our going into Afghanistan was justified since the Taliban were clearly in bed with those that attacked us. I cannot say the same for Iraq unless one views it as a gigantic mistake on the part of the US back in Reagan’s day. Then, one could look at Saddam’s reign of terror as being at least partially our fault and that we needed to undo that mess and then get out and let things develop as they should — without our nose in it. Then, there is Obama goodwill effort with the Gaze rebuilding and the message that sends and Iran is now wanting to start up serious talks with us. We will see how things go.

NRB

February 25th, 2009
4:00 pm

Why do I have the feeling that “taxpayer” is more like “welfare recepient”.

Democrats hardly pay any taxes at all…if anything they get back more than what they ever pay into “the system”. The free lunch express.

I could never sleep at night knowing that I was letting the government steal from others,at gunpoint, on my behalf so that I could just take easy street and work 8 hours per day at a lame job that a 12 year old could do.

gttim

February 25th, 2009
4:01 pm

Uh, I was pointing out the simplicity of the math that Taxpayer laid out. Take it up with him.

You didn’t answer the question. Plus, my point supports Taxpayers claim that the trillion dollar thing you wingnuts keep bringing up is wrong, and Taxpayer is right. If Taxpayers math was so simplistic, why didn’t you point out the other wrong parts. Oh, because they did not assert you wingnuts lie?

GodHatesTrash, Superstar

February 25th, 2009
4:03 pm

gttim, the Bookman RightWingnutterbutters think slavery, lynching, and Jim Crow were all moral.

So naturally they think those ol’ white sheriffs were just nice good ol’ boys.

Taxpayer

February 25th, 2009
4:04 pm

Hey, what do you kids expect. I’m one lone retiree trying to teach a whole class that all has its hands up at the same time. It’s really cool — all the interest — but my little ole phalanges can only move so fast and on top of that, I had to leave to pick up my daughter from school and then come back and figure out where I left off and start up my posts again. I have not had this much excitement since earlier today with my exchange with Dusty.

Taxpayer

February 25th, 2009
4:05 pm

Oops. The “kids” reference was not meant for all such as Paul, Mrs. G, Midori, BD, DB, well, you know.

NRB

February 25th, 2009
4:11 pm

Yeah, we really care.

Mike

February 25th, 2009
4:12 pm

gttim –

“Every time you said I said something I didn’t. You said I said “Old, white men,” and “Old, white people.” I didn’t.”

First of all, as I demonstrated it wasn’t a lie. Second of all, even if it was, it was a single event. Do you know what repeatedly means?

“If I say my dog is white, it does not mean all dogs are white. You either a liar, or are stupid. Or both. Study logic a little.”

Thanks for the silly ad-hominem attack. My response actually was a very logical argument. You just aren’t capable of understanding it. To use your analogy, what you said is “Dogs are historically white”, not “your dog”.

“Because one, or more, “old, black sheriff” was immoral does not mean that “old, white sheriffs” were not. Again, I suggest you study logic a little. You are claiming false equivalencies. You can look that word up.”

Again, you are very confused, but most bigots are.

I was simply pointing out that you don’t have to white to be an immoral sheriff. I never claimed that there are no immoral white sheriffs. (I am saying “are” instead of “were”, as your intital bigoted comment was in the present tense.)

Can you provide any logic for your statement that “old, white” sheriffs are more likely to be immoral than other sheriffs?

““Old, white sheriffs” have a long history of immorality. You can Google that.”

Hmm. That sounds like a Midori line. When pressed to back up one of her silly claims, she tells people to just Google it. Well, I did and it provided nothing to back up your claim. How about you backing up your bigoted argument.

And remember, your argument has to be “logical”, meaning that the exisitence of a few immoral “old, white sheriffs” does not prove that they tend to be immoral, as you claimed.

Frankly, I just think you have apply a bunch of stereotypes from movies and tv to the real world. Thats what bigots do.

Mike

February 25th, 2009
4:15 pm

Trash –

“gttim, the Bookman RightWingnutterbutters think slavery, lynching, and Jim Crow were all moral.”

What a silly statement. Please give any supporting evidence to your claim that anyone on this board thinks slavery, lynching and Jim Crow laws were moral. I know that your twisted, ignorant and bigoted mind likes to think this, but please present any evidence.

“So naturally they think those ol’ white sheriffs were just nice good ol’ boys.”

Nah, we just think that bigoted stereotypes like the ones you throw out every day are rooted in ignorance.

DebbieDoRight

February 25th, 2009
4:15 pm

Doesn’t anyone remember the treaty that Bush signed with the Iraqis before he left office? You know the one where All American troops would be out by the end of 2011?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2008-12-14-bush-iraq_N.htm

Taxpayer

February 25th, 2009
4:16 pm

All right, you mathematically challenged kids. Someone in the thread below, possibly Observer, made the claim that the 787 billion dollar package would cost over a trillion dollars with interest added and the context, as I recall was with respect to the deficit spending of over 1 trillion dollars that Bush left us with. If I am wrong about the context then pull up the series of posts to point it out. Anyway, to keep the comparison in an apples-to-apples sort of consistency, one would need to add in the annualized interest to the 787 billion and I jokingly threw in a 10 APR value to prove that even that outrageous amount would not push the 787 billion to the trillion dollar deficit level that Bush left us with and that is assuming that the trillion dollar level even included things like the war expenditures and interest. Does it? Anyone. K. Any more questions on this topic?

Chad Harris

February 25th, 2009
4:19 pm

At this moment, there have been no significant political decisions made in Iraq. They have been kicked down the road continually, and I don’t expect them to be made by 2011. Oil division and administration is still a bone of contention among the 3 factions there. Territorial division among the 3 has not been decided. The disposition of Muqtada el-Sadir’s massive force that can turn Iraq into a killing freny.

Tom Ricks has called the surge an uncategorical political failure, because the above problems were supposed to be resolved during the surge and not a finger has been lifted to resolve them.

This has been emphasized by every credible journalist who has spent most of the entire occupation on the ground in Iraq including Ware from Time, Richard Engle, NBC’s Chief Foreign Correspondent, and Tom Ricks who has been there at length many times.

I would put the chances of Obama’s drawing down to 50-60,000 by 2011 at about 30-70.

I don’t know how many of you have been to Vatican City, but that’s the size of the enormous fortress of an embassy that has been constructed. The secret cost estimates are well over a billion.

In case you haven’t been to Vatican city but have been to or seen a football game, the new embassy is the size of 80 (eighty) football fields. Why the cost and size is so prodigious or Ginormous is a great question that no one seems to want to answer.

“What kind of embassy is it when everybody lives inside and it’s blast-proof, and people are running around with helmets and crouching behind sandbags?” Edward Peck, a former American diplomat in Iraq, asked in 2006.

The cost of running this boondoggle will be so off the wall high that plans are being made to rent out part of it–to whom, and how security is going to work when and if that is done is a novel question but it sounds plain whacky.

Many have suggested that it be built far underground.

What we have succeeded in buiding is an exponentially increasing upward curve on the graph of female suicide bombers.

Mike

February 25th, 2009
4:19 pm

gttim -

“You didn’t answer the question.”

Yes I did, but let me be more explicit: I never made any statements as to ultimate cost of the stimulus. I was simply pointing out how ignorant Taxpayer’s math was.

“Plus, my point supports Taxpayers claim that the trillion dollar thing you wingnuts keep bringing up is wrong, and Taxpayer is right”

OK. If Taxpayer is right, provide the formula for how he arrived at his $866 number. Personally it looks to me that he multiplied $787 time 10% and added it to the principal which comes to $865.7 which rounds up to $866.

Please provide me with your formula, and no calling me a wingnut and a liar is not a formula. LOL

Taxpayer

February 25th, 2009
4:20 pm

Wyld Bull,

I have called you out before and you declined. Are you now accepting my offer to put it on the line for Jay to decide? Any time dude. Put up or shut up, like I have had to tell you repeatedly now.

gttim

February 25th, 2009
4:21 pm

First of all, as I demonstrated it wasn’t a lie. Second of all, even if it was, it was a single event. Do you know what repeatedly means?

I documented two. Two is repeatedly. Can you not count either?

Thanks for the silly ad-hominem attack. My response actually was a very logical argument.

It was not “ad-hominem.” It was directly on point.

I was simply pointing out that you don’t have to white to be an immoral sheriff.

Which I never expressed, nor disagree with.

Can you provide any logic for your statement that “old, white” sheriffs are more likely to be immoral than other sheriffs?

Here is one. This will also show you how to find others.

And remember, your argument has to be “logical”, meaning that the exisitence of a few immoral “old, white sheriffs” does not prove that they tend to be immoral, as you claimed.

Actually, there are lots of cases, and finding a high number would be able to allow you to claim that ” “old, white sheriffs” does not prove that they tend to be immoral.”

Another one! Not in the civil rights time.

Sorry, I don’t have time to do research for you.We know I am right, however.

Mike

February 25th, 2009
4:21 pm

Taxpayer -

Ohhhh. Taxpayer was just joking when he was dead wrong. That’s so much easier than just admitting he was wrong. LOL

gttim – Why don’t you ask Taxpayer your tax cut question? You can call him a wingnut and a liar if it soothes your fragile ego.

gttim

February 25th, 2009
4:23 pm

Actually, there are lots of cases, and finding a high number would be able to allow you to claim that ” “old, white sheriffs” does not prove that they tend to be immoral.”

Should be:

Actually, there are lots of cases, and finding a high number would be able to allow you to claim that “old, white sheriffs do tend to be immoral.”

Copy and paste error.

gttim

February 25th, 2009
4:25 pm

Mike, be a man and accept that you are wrong, and quit trying to deflect blame. You wingnuts always whine that it is somebody else’s fault! That is not what real men do! They accept blame when they are wrong. Suck it up. Your whining is really unbecoming.

NRB

February 25th, 2009
4:25 pm

“The long-term cost of the $825 billion economic recovery package before Congress could rise to $1.2 trillion over 10 years, a top budget official said Tuesday.”

http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/27/news/economy/stimulus_spending/index.htm?postversion=2009012709

caz1158

February 25th, 2009
4:26 pm

I’m tryin to figure out “burger boy” claim that the right love war’s. Enlighten us oh great one (in your own mind),what party was in power when the majority of wars were started? Like all normal humans,I wish there other ways to solve problems besides war. But as long as there are LOONEY’S in this world that do TERRIBLE things there will be war. Can anyone tell me of a time in the history of man when there was’nt a war somewhere? You don’t have to think hard-there has’nt been a time.

Mike

February 25th, 2009
4:26 pm

gttim -

LOL. You are so predictable. I knew you would throw Bull Conner out there. LOL

Yes. Bull Conner was a bad man. And the source of his badness? The fact that he was old and white. LOL

How about googling “old white sheriffs” like you said?

Your bigotry is pathetic, but hey, if you think that one’s age and race is a good indicator of your morality, good for you.

Taxpayer

February 25th, 2009
4:27 pm

From gttim, …Need smarter wingnuts…

Now wouldn’t that be a pleasant change. Then again, they would no longer be wingnuts. Such a conundrum — we desire smarter wingnuts so we can finally have decent exchanges with the knuckle-draggers yet they would necessarily evolve into non-wingnuts in order for that decent exchange to take place.

Mike

February 25th, 2009
4:29 pm

gttim -

Please tell me what I was wrong about.

The fact that I don’t think being old and white makes you more likely be an immoral sheriff

or

The fact that I think that Taxpayer’s math was a joke

Be specific and feel free to call me a wingnut or some other silly attack.

gttim

February 25th, 2009
4:32 pm

“The long-term cost of the $825 billion economic recovery package before Congress could rise to $1.2 trillion over 10 years, a top budget official said Tuesday.”

One month ago. More than the actual plan passed. Again, interest on tax cuts? Plus, the only reason the number could possibly be that high is because we are still paying Reagan and Bush and Bush’s debt still. It is hard to pay off debt when you are saddled with the debt of previous spendthrifts.

Still, way to high. Why do you guys suddenly trust a number coming from the government?

Hey, I would love to play longer, but I have a life!

Taxpayer

February 25th, 2009
4:33 pm

You guys toss around more personal insults and names than anybody else I have ever seen.

gttim,

Some of them even get all bent out of shape if you call them Republicans. They even resort to calling themselves Constitutionalist whatevers and Liberated Libertarians, etc., and all while proudly proclaiming to have voted for the Republican candidate.

Mike

February 25th, 2009
4:34 pm

gttim –

Here is some logic for you

A) Taxpayer said:

“I will no longer reply to your childish accusations and name-calling again”

b) Taxpayer then said:

“Such a conundrum — we desire smarter wingnuts so we can finally have decent exchanges with the knuckle-draggers yet they would necessarily evolve into non-wingnuts in order for that decent exchange to take place.”

c) Taxpayer is a hypocrite

I’d call him a wingnut too, but apprently that term can only be applied to people who disagree with him. On the other hand, AmVet and GodHatesTrash are reasonable fellow by virtue of the fact that they hate conservatives too.

Pogo

February 25th, 2009
4:35 pm

If anyone here thinks that only Republican politicians benefit from war and they only are susceptible to the enticements of the money to be made from wars, then these people are simplistic fools. The Democrats are as much involved in the allocation of defense monies and they have been for quite a while now. Don’t fool yourselves into thinking that Democrats haven’t been wined and dined by the defense contractors, the oil companies and anyone else with a vested interest in Iran. They are just as vunerable as the Republicans. What always amazes me the most about this blog is just how simplistic and how easily you people think you can define the differences between conservatives and liberals. It is not a case where the specifics are black and white folks. It is more a case of gray and there are plenty of our politicians on both sides that just “love to be loved” (in the words of David Bowie)who live operate in this gray zone. Simply stated, they play you all for suckers by throwing out this idealistic “us against them” bull tripe which so readily swallow.

Mike

February 25th, 2009
4:38 pm

gttim –

“Still, way to high. Why do you guys suddenly trust a number coming from the government?”

Yeah, why should we trust the Director of the CBO when we can use Taxpayer’s brilliant math.

Are you ever going to “be a man” and provide the formula that backs up your assertion that “Taxpayer was right?”. Or you could “be a man” and admit that you were wrong.

Let me guess. You will do neither and call me a liar, a wingnut or something else..

Mike

February 25th, 2009
4:38 pm

Pogo -

Well said and every word is the truth.