# Iraq until 2009



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

President Bush has stated that he will not pull the troops out of Iraq during his administration.



> Total withdrawal "will be decided by future presidents and future governments of Iraq," he said.


http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/22/bush/

As such, the United States will be in Iraq at least until 2009.

According to the same CNN site 
"In a CNN poll released this month, 57 percent of respondents said sending troops to Iraq was a mistake, while 42 percent felt the war was not a mistake. Sixty percent believed that things were going badly in Iraq, and 67 percent believe that President Bush does not have a clear plan for handling the war."

The United States has caught on to the true intentions and incompetence of the Bush administration.

God bless America.


----------



## NDTracer (Dec 15, 2005)

MT I could have told you that time frame before the war started. In fact I believe The President did. I don't think a time frame was given but I know they said it will be a long drawn out war unlike any we have ever had.

I believe he has made some mistakes but he will NOT make the biggest mistake. That being pulling out early due to pressure from the opponents in HIS OWN COUNTRY. The media has tried to ruin him any way they can. He has had some bad decisions but going into war wasn't one IMO. I think someone such as yourself need to recall that they attacked us. Not once, twice or three times but numerous times and we didn't pay attention. This has been discussed and someone here posted a list of all the times they attacked and we hit the "snooze". Well we got a man in office now who said enough. I believe the first attack was during Carter but it may have been earlier.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Bush is doing a fine job at ruining himself. Going into this war was a huge mistake. We went in for false reasons, and Bush had it out for Iraq since the beginning of his presidency. Iraq has attacked us in the past, and we retailated with the Gulf War and sanctions. Saddam was no longer a threat.


----------



## T3|-| F7U&gt;&lt; C4P4C41 (Mar 22, 2006)

MT, lay off it for a while, you're going way out of whack. Obviously the only thing you're doing right now is causing a ruckus. I'm done flaming.


----------



## SODSUCKER (Mar 24, 2005)

Why do you guys even respond? MT is like an itch the more you scratch it the more it itches. Ignore *HIM* and he will go away.

_edited by Langager for content. No name calling please!_


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Evidently 60% of the country are brats too. Get with the program.


----------



## sotaman (Apr 6, 2004)

poke fun at him enough and maybe he will leave again.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I left on my own accord due to a lack of time to keep up with the forums. If I leave again, it will be a personal choice, not due to a lack of debaters or a surplus of insults. You impede the truth, but you cannot prevent it.


----------



## startown (Nov 14, 2005)

I find it interesting that the polls say that President Bush is wrong on this and wrong on that, but he won the last election, so the majority felt that he should be our president. You can rip him until you are blue in the face, but until the next election comes around, he is your president.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

He pulled the wool over many peoples' eyes for a few years, but they are starting to wake up. The longer he is in office the more scandals arise, the more his incompetence shows, and the more wearisome this war becomes.


----------



## startown (Nov 14, 2005)

He is still in office and many Americans love what he has done for our country. I really doubt that Hillary (not sure if it is one or two l's) will be the answer. Personally I think the democrats would have won that last two elections if they would reverse their position on two key issues, abortion and guns. They are pro choice and many democrats want gun regulation, or simply want to ban guns all together (exp. John Kerry). Lots of potential votes that went to Bush simply because of those two factors...


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Aproximately 60% of Americans greatly dislike what he has done. I would have to agree about those two factors. In addition, even Bush has admitted that 9/11 helped him to victory over Kerry.


----------



## startown (Nov 14, 2005)

How do you know 60% greatly dislike what he has done. Nobody ever asked me, or my wife, or some of my best friends, if we would have been asked, the percentage would be less probably only 50%.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

startown said:


> How do you know 60% greatly dislike what he has done. Nobody ever asked me, or my wife, or some of my best friends, if we would have been asked, the percentage would be less probably only 50%.


In polls, a random sampling of the nation is taken to create the numbers. It would be cost prohibitive to ask each household their opinion for every poll. Bush's disapproval rating is around 60% right now, which is not to mention how low the rest of his polls are.


----------



## NDTracer (Dec 15, 2005)

Star I missed out on my chance to do a GALLUP poll. They called when I was having a Bible study. I told them such so I am sure that I will not be called again. Afterall they like "diverse" people not the conservative opinions. I have done a few and they usually try to make you say things a certain way so they get the results they want. I had one stop before the survey was done cause I refused and answered the same every time although they worded it slightly different. They eventually read the question and said I guess your answer is .... to which I said yes.

I think that was a gun control poll.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Certainly that logic would work if it was a few polls showing this information, but the results are universal (within just a few points). Good polls have very little or hopefully no bias. The idea that all or most national polls attempt to put in a liberal bias is ridiculous.


----------



## startown (Nov 14, 2005)

I was actually kidding about the polls, obviously I don't think my wife and I and a few friends would change the polls, but my point was who are they asking? After all, I saw John Kerry was leading the polls going into the election and he obviously didn't win. In Minnesota, Jesse Ventura was third in the polls going into the election for Governor and he then "shocked the world" as he put in.
Not much validity in polls.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Not every poll read out that Kerry was the winner. I'm certain not every poll went towards Ventura either. Every poll I have seen has Bush's disapproval ratings at 52% to 60%.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

MT in all the polls the one thing not reported but is available was the country while not happy with his job performance etc has been that the country as a whole do not see the Dem's with any better ideas or solutions. In fact I do believe it was the CBS poll a week or so ago that showed they have even less confidence in the Dem's of getting us out of Iraq without it damaging the US!

Those same polls also say that the US people want us to finish the job not pull out! So in simpleton terms, the sitting Pres has low ratings but the Dem's are not seen as a solution to the discord!

Polls also showed that the public would like to see the House or Senate come under Dem control, but when polls are done in districts where Rep are up for re-election it appears that the House and Senate will stay in Rep control. Few races are even close and if Bush keeps hammering on the wire tap issue and demanding the Dem's call for an end to the taps, it will be likely that gains will be made in both the Senate and House for Rep this fall.

I have a lot more years of watching and reading and understanding the polls. In 94 the national polls reported the Dem's would retain the House, but the info contained in those same polls showed the fact that the nation was fed up with the Dem's. This is not the case today, as most Americans see the Rep party as the only one that may curtail the runaway spending we have seen. They do not see the Dem's doing this. In fact the margin from the Gallup poll underscored that again.

People vote based in large part on taxes, Dem's are not taking spending control, but only increased taxation. That sounds good early in election cycles as people see the deficits and debt numbers. The polls swing the other way the closer to election time in favor of no new taxes.

I realize you are, to use a saying I heard growing up " still wet behind the ears" and do not have the knowledge gained from having so much of your pay check go to taxes, be it income from Fed or state,property taxes, costs associated with improving ones lot in life. That is why your opinions of such things as the polls and your statements are ridiculed at the level they are. You have no credibility from life experience.

A view garnered while one is still living at home, or dependent upon Mom and Dad most times does not gain traction. A fine example was a couple years ago when Ed Schulz was railing on keeping young people in ND. The polling data from those young people showed it was lack of a night life that they wanted more than anything. Not wages, etc. at the time the Leg was considering a $1000.00 bonus to retain newly graduated college students. All the talk of better job opportunity and things where made moot because of that! Most 18-25 year olds just have not gained the maturity level to be taken seriously on serious subject matter concerning taxation,and foreign affairs! It is why you do not see 25 year olds as Ambassadors!!!!!!!!


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

The numbers of the Democrats (NBC poll) on Iraq have fluctuated from 17 to 33% favorable, while the Republicans have got consistently lower (47 to 30%). These numbers are irrelevant however, as the Democrats are nearly powerless in Congress right now. Their current mission is not to provide another answer, but to point out the issues with the current administration until they can retake Congress and begin implementing their own ideas.

The Republicans didn't jump off the sinking ship USS Bush quickly enough, and will likely sink with him this fall.



> This is not the case today, as most Americans see the Rep party as the only one that may curtail the runaway spending we have seen. They do not see the Dem's doing this. In fact the margin from the Gallup poll underscored that again.


After creating the largest national debt in the country's history, I don't believe most people are willing to trust these neocons with their pocket book any longer. You are using the old mentality of conservatives being... conservative with the nation's money, but that is simply not so and the public has this Republican liberalism in action.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

The best thing about Bush is that on this issue he has the leadership to not give a rip what the polls say. Thats what makes him a great man.

I don't make decisions on what other people think and I don't want my president to do so either.

And the idea that 60 % of the people don't approve is laughable.

:eyeroll: 90 % of the people don't have a clue what the stakes are, what the long term impact is, in fact 90% of them don't even know anything about local issues, basic economics or even what direction the sun rises in much less geo-political issues.

Americans are political policy idiots, they don't know dogsqueeze about these issues, don't have access to the real facts and make their minds up based on some BS on ABC or some such rot.

Thank God Bush doesn't worry about polls :beer: :beer: :beer:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Bush, and any president is put in office to represent the will of the people. Dictators rule without care for the feelings of their people. This is a _representative _democracy.

The last time I checked it was about 40% of the public who were politically astute. I would agree that many people don't know what is at stake, which is why there has not been an larger uproar concerning the unwarranted wiretapping program.

On another note, this is not an exit strategy for America, this is an exit strategy for Bush. He can leave the mess that he created and pass the buck on to the next president. If things go sour he could claim that things were fine when he left, and blame it on the next fellow. If things go well, he can chalk up the victory thanks to his "expert planning and execution". The Republican party is now the party of big spending, big government, and passing responsibilities on to the next guy. The Republican party has become the liberal party.


----------



## T3|-| F7U&gt;&lt; C4P4C41 (Mar 22, 2006)

Clinton didn't give a hoot about what other people thought either... but the people made more noise about that than this. What is worse- sending many young men and women into combat (mind you the civilian casualties) and destabilizing a country, or recieving oral sex from an aide? Humm... I believe that is self-explainitory :wink:


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

MT look at the face of the Dem party, they are advocating increased spending over what the Rep have passed! They want to do this by increasing taxes!!!!!! So wake up and smell the coffee of the political reality! New taxes for new spending is not going to win back the Senate or the House. The only way to do so is to have a plan in place to successfully disengage from Iraq, lower Gov spending and have a plan to seal the borders. They do not have it and will not push for it as they do not have the balls to!!!!!!

This is not a debate on opinion, but a factual face of the American public! Rep are still viewed as being more likely to hold down spending and keep taxes lower. Dem's are still seen as spending more and taxing more!!!!!!!! Zogby,Rasmussen,CNN-USA polls have all pointed this out in recent weeks! The numbers on these have change very little over the last 20 years. Heck Zogby asked in Feb which party is most likely to raise taxes and spending and it was 70+% Dem in there balanced poll! That is why the Pres numbers really only matter in the up coming election to those who are running in competitive races. Incumbents most times get elected again and again and again, regardless of how they have voted except in some of the small states in the US.

We do not have a conservative Rep in the White House, nor has the Senate been Conservative, they have been moderate at best. A change in course of going back to a more conservative fiscal stance can only come from the Rep side of the aisle because it would have base support. It does not have a base support in the Dem circle. Line item veto is really the only tool that is left to control spending growth. Then it will only work for 3 years every 8!

It is the cycle of politics and you have not figured this out, and do not have the drying time to see that!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> Bush, and any president is put in office to represent the will of the people.


No they are not, where did you get that idea?? They are elected because they are judged by the people to be the person best suited to make good decisions. And good decisions have nothing in common with the will of the people.

Especially when you claim only 40% of them are politically astute, which is way high, but just for the sake of discussion lets go with that. What percentage of them are fully informed??? less than .0001 %. none of us see what Bush and other presidents see if we did their decisions would make much more sense.

Let the Dems run on no domestic spying on calls to muslim nations and other such foolish positions. Like Bush said the other day if they believe in these things let them run on it :lol: :lol: .


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Taxes will have to be raised to pay for the huge deficit. Our programs are also sick, and need serious mending (Ex. FEMA).

The Democrats are not going to release a plan for Iraq when they cannot do anything to get it implemented. They would expend their ammunition before they could use it successfully, and the Republicans would take the credit. The Republicans may have balls, but they lack a brain.

The Republicans have shown that they will spend and cut taxes until kingdom come. This policy does not work. You can cut taxes and spending, or tax and spend.

I have not seen said results, and I won't take your word until I see them. As well, the idea that the Zogby poll contained 70% Democrats is silly. Said poll would hold no weight if it was so biased, yet it is one of the most trusted polls in the country.

The Republicans may indeed be the ones to solve this huge national debt crisis, but it won't be these Republicans. If new conservative Republicans attempt to get in the Republican base will be split between the two and give the Democrats a yet more decisive advantage.

On another note, the line item veto creates an imbalance between the three branches of government.



> What percentage of them are fully informed??? less than .0001 %. none of us see what Bush and other presidents see if we did their decisions would make much more sense.


So we should never question a president's actions because they are better informed than we are? What a crazy notion.

The Democrats are attempting to protect our Constitutionally protected rights. It is silly of you to let your fourth amendment be torn to shreds without opposition. They could certainly run on this issue if they informed the people as to what exactly is going on, but there is so much else to latch onto.



> What percentage of them are fully informed??? less than .0001 %. none of us see what Bush and other presidents see if we did their decisions would make much more sense.


So we should never question a president's actions because they are better informed than we are? What a crazy notion.

The Democrats are attempting to protect our Constitutionally protected rights. It is silly of you to let your fourth amendment be torn to shreds without opposition. They could certainly run on this issue if they informed the people as to what exactly is going on, but there is so much else to latch onto.

The president is a man elected by the people based on who they believe will fit their beliefs the best. We elect presidents to do what we want them to do, not make decisions simply based on their own feelings. If a president did what he felt was best and the entire country railed against these beliefs, he would be ousted, no matter if he was right or wrong. This is a representative democracy.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> The last time I checked it was about 40% of the public who were politically astute. I would agree that many people don't know what is at stake, which is why there has not been an larger uproar concerning the unwarranted wiretapping program.


The last time you checked _WHERE_? That is the biggest laugh I've had all day reading your post! :rollin:

40% of Americans knows politics? What part? What they see on NBC news? Heck most Americans don't even know who the Secretary of State is! Nor do they even know what the Sec of State's role in politics is!

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/467716.html

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... i_18399428

http://people-press.org/reports/display ... portID=200

:eyeroll:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I recall reading it in my AP gov book. It was off the top of my head, if you really want me to check for it, I will. You are so happy one might almost think that you weren't trying to catch me on a minor and inconsequential technicality.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

Sorry for the double post on 2 threads but had to do it.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200603150741.asp


----------



## T3|-| F7U&gt;&lt; C4P4C41 (Mar 22, 2006)

The irony is that each side is manipulating information and numbers to try to prove their point, when the reality is, the govermental organizations are so large and complex it is impossible to keep tabs on everything that is said and done. The media uses their articles to get the readers' "attention." Does this mean information may be manipulated and skewed to prove a point? Certainly! That is why most humans have the ability to reason. With that said, I am done flaming.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> The president is a man elected by the people based on who they believe will fit their beliefs the best. We elect presidents to do what we want them to do, not make decisions simply based on their own feelings. If a president did what he felt was best and the entire country railed against these beliefs, he would be ousted, no matter if he was right or wrong


Sorry Kiddo that just wrong, managers at any level, are hired to do what THEY think is best based on the info they have, period.

Leadership is not holding your moistened finger in the wind and making decisions based on what you percieve the public thinks. Leadership is doing the right thing to the best of your judgement, public or any other opinion, be damned.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Ben Elli said:


> Heck most Americans don't even know who the Secretary of State is! Nor do they even know what the Sec of State's role in politics is!


Oops, I think you meant her. :wink:


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

AMEN BOB!


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02158.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey- ... 13522.html

The manager at wal-mart isn't hired by popular vote nor a system of electors.

Bob you may describe leadership, but you don't necessarialy describe the job of a president. I suppose it is a mix of both.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

racer66 said:


> Sorry for the double post on 2 threads but had to do it.
> 
> http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200603150741.asp


Nice post racer... that should clear that answer up!

Ryan

.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

4CurlRedleg said:


> Ben Elli said:
> 
> 
> > Heck most Americans don't even know who the Secretary of State is! Nor do they even know what the Sec of State's role in politics is!
> ...


Yeah I caught that and changed it as soon as I re-read my post. I figured most on here were astute enough to catch that! I got to it quick and adjusted.... lest that be a comic point for someone!


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

racer66 said:


> Sorry for the double post on 2 threads but had to do it.
> 
> http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200603150741.asp


WOW! that should do it, Is this dated info from a rep source, it can't be............ It's a FACT!
FACTS don't carry alot of weight with some folks around here.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Actually, the National Review has a _heavy_ Republican bias. If you have ever read one you know what I mean. This issue is still up for debate, not all the facts have come out yet. From my camp, it looks illegal, from yours legal. So be it, let us wait for the chips to land where they may.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

SPANKED AGAIN!


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Ben Wrote:

40% of Americans knows politics? What part? What they see on NBC news? Heck most Americans don't even know who the Secretary of State is! Nor do they even know what the Sec of State's role in politics is!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which is "Spot On" to what I said to MT on another post

"You float a number of 80% ... well keep in mind about 66% of Americans don't vote and don't give a lick about what's going on outside their sphere when to comes to the President, National Policy or World Events ... "

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The ONLY polls that makes a bit of difference are the poll take on the first Tuesday in November &#8230; and the polls taken daily in the Courts all across America &#8230; all the rest is pretty much "Poppy-Cock."

The "AVERAGE AMERICAN" couldn't care less about anything outside his/her personal sphere of life &#8230; they take whatever information is served to them and they take it from wherever it comes from &#8230; and that's good enough for them &#8230; they live on Emotion and think with some part of their body not located between their ears.

Any poll which utilizes that grade of "concern for having a handle on the realities in America" ought to be ignored &#8230; but I know, I know &#8230;

Emotion works real well for "The Left" &#8230; but MT,

Folks on this board actually pay attention &#8230; and this sort of crap just don't fly.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

An unpopular president is not simply unpopular because voters say so, he is unpopular because the American people say so. Though many may be disconnected, they still have an opinion, and they are still the constituents of the president.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

MT,
If I were you I would call it a night; you've been exposed for being wrong on almost every thread here today!
Go regroup and rethink some of your silly post.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> This is a _representative _democracy.


WRONG! We are a Republic. This kind of government was designed to try and curtail what ended up being the demise of the romans. Namely, the government always gives the people what it wants, instead of what it needs. I vote for the people whom I believe have the citizens best interests in mind, *EVEN WHEN IT MEANS DENYING THEM*!!!

Unfortunately, we're being trained everyday to give into the notion of democracy, so that in the end, the citizens can have what ever they want, so long as they vote on it.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Didn't I post on this just yesteday or the day before ... ?????


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Just for the record, this is a representative democracy and a federal republic.

It seems to me that most people vote for a president who they believe will do what they want them to. For instance, many voted for Bush because he would lower taxes, not necessarily because it was the right thing to do.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

MT Wrote:

For instance, many voted for Bush because he would lower taxes, not necessarily because it was the right thing to do.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just a thought from where I sit ...

Are you implyng that you are the one who nows "The right thing to do?"

Bush lowered Taxes and after the results were becoming known, he was Re-Elected ... by the same bunch who elected him the first time.

What is that old saying ... "Fool me once, shame on you ... fool me twice and shame on me."

And since most of the complete Morons don't vote ... guess they weren't feeling too bad about things


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

It was an example. One could put in any number of his campaign promises and the statement would work.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

DecoyDummy said:


> MT Wrote:
> 
> For instance, many voted for Bush because he would lower taxes, not necessarily because it was the right thing to do.
> 
> ...


*



For instance, many voted for Bush because he would lower taxes, not necessarily because it was the right thing to do.[/quote

Click to expand...

*


> ]
> 
> So why did people vote for slick willy? He also promised to lower taxes on the middle class, and in FACT INCREASED THEM!


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

MT Wrote:

It was an example. One could put in any number of his campaign promises and the statement would work.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

OK ... fine ... Pick any "example" you like ...

I'll swap the words in my statment and it will still stand up to argument ...


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> WRONG! We are a Republic


Unfortunatly most people don't even know what that means.

At the close of the Constitutional Convention on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic if you can keep it"

Jefferson once wrote: "Yes, we did produce a near-perfect republic. But will they keep it? Or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom?

The Founding Fathers had as much fear and hatred of a democray as they did of a monarchy. The term republic had a significant meaning for all of them and all early Americans. It meant a lot more than just representative government and was a form of government in stark contrast to pure democracy where the majority dictated laws and rights.

Those that think we have a Democracy in this country, you better hope the hell we don't.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Lowering taxes was alnd always is the right thing to do it has fired up a sagging economy. If the american people are allowed to keep their money they will put it to more productive use than any govt beuracrat on either side of the aisle.

Too bad the Rep can't get themselves to quit spending money. :eyeroll:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

ABBK recall that papa bush promised "no new taxes" too. Also recall that Clinton left office with a hefty national surplus.

Decoy, how about gun control? Many people voted for Bush due to that issue not because he necessarialy thinks it is right, but rather because they knew he would act as such, representing their beliefs.

Again, we live in a representative democracy and a federal republic.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> ABBK recall that papa bush promised "no new taxes" too. Also recall that Clinton left office with a hefty national surplus.


A _projected_ surplus, based very heavily on the dot.com bubble that was due to burst at any given moment. Dont blur the facts MT.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Clinton left office with a federal surplus of $127 billion.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Clinton left office with a federal surplus of $127 billion.


FALSE! Dems Fuzzy math coming up!


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

http://www2.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02 ... udget.html


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

http://www.dailyhowler.com/h082799_2.shtml


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

If there is one news source I trust, it is the Daily Howler.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

http://www.cbpp.org/7-1-99bud.htm

Quote from the article...



> To remain within the FY 2000 caps will entail cutting discretionary programs billions of dollars below the FY 1999 level. No one expects this to occur. Leaders of both parties have acknowledged that a number of appropriations bills cannot pass unless funding for these programs is restored.
> 
> The caps for FY 2001 and 2002 are even more unrealistic than the FY 2000 cap; the caps for those years are significantly lower than the FY 2000 cap when inflation is taken into account. Moreover, the CBO and OMB projections assume that for years after 2002, total expenditures for discretionary programs will remain at the level of the severe cap for FY 2002, adjusted only for inflation in years after FY 2002. This means the surplus projections assume levels of discretionary program expenditures for fiscal years 2001 through 2009 that are lower, when inflation is taken into account, than the highly unrealistic FY 2000 cap that almost certainly will not be met.
> 
> Moreover, both parties have proposed significant increases in defense spending in coming years. Defense spending constitutes about half of overall discretionary expenditures. In addition, legislation enacted last year requires increases in highway spending in coming years.


Like I said, _projected,_ and it was crap.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> http://www2.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/13/cq/budget.html





> None of these figures is realistic because the budget surpluses counted on to finance tax cuts may prove to be only a mirage.


Why didn't SLICK WILLY pay down the NATIONAL debt then since that's the objective of a surplus, isn't it? because you can't pay with only a mirage.
SMOKE AND MIRRORS AT IT's BEST!


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Why didn't SLICK WILLY pay down the NATIONAL debt then since that's the objective of a surplus, isn't it? because you can't pay with only a mirage.
> SMOKE AND MIRRORS AT IT's BEST!


Oh my Lord...


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

Whose Lord mine or yours?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

hill billy said:


> Whose Lord mine or yours?


Believe it or not, he is the same guy!


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

Oh really, so you are a Christian today?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I always have been. Even if I was a Muslim extremist, it would be the same God.


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

this is for you MT...

Maybe you are a Muslim Extremist.. One would think so after all the Bush bashing you been doing and all the bashing you do of the military. All you do is complain about this great country that we live in. All you see is problems in everything. You think everything is a debate. You talk so much trash about our country that it is pitiful. This goes beyond all your little BS post on this forum this is bigger than that. You are a horrible american. It is people like you that keep other people in this country down. You could find a 100 dollar bill on the ground, but before you picked it up you would debate about it, then ***** about having to bend over to get it. It is sad that you dont stand behind your country. Even in bad times we are still supposed to back our country and our soldiers. Let me ask you a question, What have YOU done that is so good for our country?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Supporting a leader against your personal beliefs just for the purpose of nationalism is how despots get and keep power. I see many things wrong with how this war is being handles, much less this administration, and I will use my right to free speech as an American to voice it. I criticize this administration because I love my country.


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

Hey MT what do you see? You see what is on the [email protected]$% TV in front of you. Why dont you go over there and really see what is going on. Why dont you go see all the Iraqi kids that run up hugging the american soldiers. If we help Iraq now, years to come we may need them for help. Also it may seem they hate us now but when they stop all this fighting and realize what a good government will do for them then I am sure they will be greatful. Reporters that are over there only report what they feel people around the world want to see, the blood and death, destruction and mayhem. The reason you are so against it is because that is all you know of it cause all you do is watch TV and read the news. Suddam already had a bone to pick wih us and he would have been a perfect ally for terrorist. By taking him out of power, we can better manage how terrorist move and operate through that part of the world. The more allies we have on this war on terror the better. The Iraqi people will come around, just because it is bad now dont mean it will always be bad. 20 years from now we might be able to take a vacation there. You are stuck in a sad confused little world. I hop eone day your country dont turn its back on you, the way you turned your back on your country. I hope that my God has mercy on your soul.....


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

> I criticize this administration because I love my country.


WOW!

I thought Slick Willy and CO were stinking up the White house and the Country and I didn't go around running my mouth when he was in office.
The Citizens of this great Country voted his sorry a$$ into office as much as that bother me but then when he and congress increased taxes on the middle class his 2nd month in power caused the VOTERS to FIRE the DEMs in congress thus losing their power over the people.

My point here is; VOTERS sometimes get slickered into something and quickly can reverse things, contrary to your belief that they're all morons.
Our system works pertty good, it's not perfect.

GOD BLESS THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA :beer:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Your scenario assumes that things will end up well in Iraq. That remains to be seen, but I certainly hope so. Why do you think that the first Gulf War was reported on differently? The public loved that war, and the supposed "liberal media" was there then.



> You are stuck in a sad confused little world. I hop eone day your country dont turn its back on you, the way you turned your back on your country. I hope that my God has mercy on your soul.....


I love my country, which is why I don't want to see her citizen's killed and her dollars wasted in an unnecessary war.

If indeed this mission was simply to overthrow Saddam, why did Bush have to lie to us in the first place? Somehow I don't think the war would have gone over so well at the outset if the American people and Congress knew Bush's true intentions.

Thank you for your prayers. I too hope that you will see the light.



> I thought Slick Willy and CO were stinking up the White house and the Country and I didn't go around running my mouth when he was in office.


Many Republicans did, especially those in Congress. Good to hear that you aren't a hypocrite.



> My point here is; VOTERS sometimes get slickered into something and quickly can reverse things, contrary to your belief that they're all morons.
> Our system works pertty good, it's not perfect.


Indeed, which is why I can't wait for the elections this year.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

The light for you may be a train so get off the tracks.


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

Bush didnt lie, he was relying on facts presented to him. It's not like he was over there and saw the Weapons of Mass Destruction first hand. They were wrong. Or how do you know that we didnt find any and just covered it up so we could secretly keep them over there for our own personal use. Again you werent over there you dont know. That would be smart huh, leave them over there that way nobody thinks we have any over there. Makes you think huh. On the Gulf war situation, you see we helped out Kuwait, now they are our allies. Now that we are helping out Iraq maybe in 15 years they will be our allies aswell.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Or how do you know that we didnt find any and just covered it up so we could secretly keep them over there for our own personal use.


Huh?



> Makes you think huh


No, no it doesn't.



> On the Gulf war situation, you see we helped out Kuwait, now they are our allies. Now that we are helping out Iraq maybe in 15 years they will be our allies aswell.


We protected Kuwait from a foreign power, we didn't overthrow their government.


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

But we had the Iraqi gov. overthrown so we could protect the Iraqi people..


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

We supposedly went in for WMDs. The reasoning for why we went in has changed six times since the war began.


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

Could you specify the 6, I am just curious...


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

I dont want a link to some lame website either I want you to type it..


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> > Or how do you know that we didnt find any and just covered it up so we could secretly keep them over there for our own personal use.
> 
> 
> Huh?
> ...


WRONG! The Iraqis ANEXED KUWAIT and We thru the IRAQIS out of KUWAIT! Thus overthrowing the Dictatorship that was in place in Kuwait after the invasion by the IRAQIS! And Trust me on this one; the Kuwait people LOVE US and think we're the best thing since CANNED BEER! :beer: :beer:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I heard that number on the radio. Here is a list of 25 different reasons that have been used as to why we invaded Iraq.

1. War on Terror
2. Prevention of the proliferation of WMD
3. Lack of Inspections
4. Remove Saddam Hussein regime
5. Saddam Hussein is evil 
6. Invading Iraq would allow us to gain favor in the Middle East
7. Example to other terror states
8. Liberate the Iraqi people
9. Broken Promises - Iraq had made commitments to the UN and the world
10. Revenge for Iraq's attempt on the life of President H.W. Bush
11. Threat Saddam posed to the region
12. Because We Can - There would be little conflict or struggle, little price to pay for entering the country, the war would be easy.
13. Cleaning up unfinished business in Iraq from the first Gulf War
14. War for Oil - The US' oil interests in the Middle East and Iraq serve as a reason for wanting to invade the state and topple its leader.
15. Sake of History - Pres. Bush claimed history had called on the US to take action against Iraq
16. Disarmament - total elimination of ALL weapons in Iraq
17. Safety of the World - Iraq as a terrorist nation could sell weapons to other terrorists and thus posed a threat to the entire world
18. Commitment to the Children - America should give its children and the world's children a better future.
19. Imminent Threat - The uncertainty of Iraq's weapon power and future plans.
20. Preserve Peace - Iraq posted a threat to the peace of the world by its continued terrorist involvement and its increased tension in the Middle East
21. Threat to Freedom - By oppressing its people and threatening the world with possible terror acts, freedom was prevention from spreading through the Middle East and was lessened in those nations that feared terror in their backyards.
22. Link to al Qaeda
23. Iraq Unique - Rumsfeld declared that Saddam Hussein in combination with the weapons potential in Iraq made Iraq different than the other "axis of evil" countries, and therefore a great immediate threat.
24. Relevance of UN - The UN was put on notice that it would face illegitimacy if it did not support the cause of the United States.
25. Iraq had broken international law - Colin Powell said that violations of UN resolutions broke international laws established in the UN Charter.

http://www.newshounds.us/2004/09/27/the ... n_iraq.php

ABBK, Iraq invaded and annexxed Kuwait against their will. One could argue that they were part of Iraq at that point, but because the annexation was not willing I would still argue that they were a foreign power.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

> I love my country, which is why I don't want to see her citizen's killed and her dollars wasted in an unnecessary war.





> Quote:
> Militant_Tiger wrote on Mar 10, 2005 6:36 pm " I really couldn't give any less of a damn if our soldiers are being shot at or not, that's war."


Aaaah yes, we see how you love this country and her citizens.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Racer that comment is out of context as usual, and was dumb on my part. I was quite angry at this administration and took out my anger in the wrong place.


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

Hardly any of that has ever been used to justify going to war with Iraq. Half of that stuff is all the same thing in 3 or 4 diff. sentences. No wonder you dont know what you are talking about half the time, you read crap like that. I am sure we went to war BECAUSE WE CAN, thats bull. You are retarded to read such crap..


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

MT,
You might stand a chance to gain creditability if you chose your battles more wisely!
You seem to spray bullets wherever you here noise and just run around with an MT gun! ....get it........ MT gun!


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

No he dont get it, it would have to be on CNN or some stupid website for him to get it. hahaha


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I don't agree with all the reasons, but the majority have been used. I was searching for reasoning that we went to war. Unfortunately I can't find a list of the six major ones.


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

Oh so you dont know them you have to search and find a list huh, I figured you wouldnt know, anything you talk about you have to do a search for huh. You will debate a lil while then search a lil while huh..


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Have a NICE DAY  , I'm going out to KILL a BEAR!

PEACE OUT!


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

> Racer that comment is out of context as usual, and was dumb on my part. I was quite angry at this administration and took out my anger in the wrong place.





> Quote:
> Militant_Tiger wrote on Mar 10, 2005 6:36 pm " I really couldn't give any less of a damn if our soldiers are being shot at or not, that's war."


I don't care where you put that statement, it is what you said and reflects your feelings for our troops.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Actually, the context matters quite a bit. I'm certain that it doesn't to you though, because you are simply trying to get a knee jerk reaction.


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

Hey MT you are back, almost thought you didnt have anything left to say. I should have known..


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

I know he/she wasnt talking about the soldiers, not MT. That dont surprise me, after all he/she complains about everything else, so why not the people who protect us. I think I am going to make that quote of his my signature,


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

MT you dont have to PM me all the time. Man you PM more than you post.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Some folks just don't learn...


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

Exactly my point about you....


----------



## kills 4 fun (Jan 29, 2006)

I thought this forum was to debate and express ones views about politics, not to gang up on or try to put one person out because you dont agree with their opinions. Come on People.


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

You should read some of his post and you will see why nobody agrees with him......


----------



## kills 4 fun (Jan 29, 2006)

Okay I have read some of his post and it seems to me that you guys are the root of the problem. I am not on here to get into it with anybody, just dont hold it against me that I agree with some of his ideals thats all.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Kills 4 what????????????????
It's odd circumstances that all of a sudden MT has support. Your not one of his relatives or playmates are you.

I keep noticing these macho names tied to ultra pacifist attitudes. What's with that?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

More conspiracy theories eh plainsman?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

No, just that they are very new, and they have the same ideas as you. Like I say odd.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

You're more liberal than I gave you credit for.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

kills 4 fun said:


> Okay I have read some of his post and it seems to me *that you guys are the root of the problem*. I am not on here to get into it with anybody, just dont hold it against me that I agree with some of his ideals thats all.


What planet did you say you were from? 
So you see all of MT's silly post's and think everyone but MT, is wrong!
He has ZERO creditability because he's been caught several times (too many to count) manufactoring the truth and making false claims and spining what little truth that he does find.

Please...........GIVE ME A BREAK!


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

hill billy said:


> MT you dont have to PM me all the time. Man you PM more than you post.


Yea he does that when you get under his skin, if you want him to stop just copy and post his message then he'll act like he didn't do it, and stop. :beer:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Actually, I was warning him to not put my quote in his signature line, because I got in trouble for it before. Take the advice or not, no skin off my back.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Actually, I was warning him to not put my quote in his signature line, because I got in trouble for it before. Take the advice or not, no skin off my back.


MT, 
You might stand a chance to gain creditability if you chose your battles more wisely! 
You seem to spray bullets wherever you here noise and just run around with an MT gun! ....get it........ MT gun!


----------

