Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
8 years ago there was a Democrat in the White House and we weren't at war. I think I see the cause of your problem in being unable to answeri how the Republicans intend to pay for the war.
And saying the Democrats had a plan and that's why they were elected is not an answer for how the Republicans plan to pay for the war.
Eight years ago, it officially became US Policy to remove the Iraqi government.. I'm glad you finally acknowledge that a Democrat started all of this. Completely ignore this fact because its convenient for you to do so.
NEVER have I tried to answer how the Republicans inteded to pay for the war because again.. its IMPOSSIBLE for them to do so.. What part of this do you not understand?
In the end, the debt is there and the current question again is, WHOEVER is in CHARGE is responsible for paying the bill.. An issue you seem to want to ignore simply because its convenient for you.
I'm done with this debate.. I cant debate with someone who keeps throwing stones without debating the real issue and thinks that a valid answer to one side not knowing how to pay for it, is to simply blame the other side. You can throw stones all you want, but it doesnt change the fact that BOTH sides got us into this, and BOTH sides continue to ring up the bills so as long as BOTH sides are in power, then BOTH sides are responsible for coming up with a solution. Stop throwing stones because all that does is break windows, causing more spending, it solves nothing.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,333 posts, read 54,455,929 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
NEVER have I tried to answer how the Republicans inteded to pay for the war because again.. its IMPOSSIBLE for them to do so.. What part of this do you not understand?
Then WHY do you participate in a thread asking how the Republicans intend to pay for the war? Like I've said befor, if you just want to rant on Democrats start another thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
In the end, the debt is there and the current question again is, WHOEVER is in CHARGE is responsible for paying the bill.. An issue you seem to want to ignore simply because its convenient for you.
The last time I checked the CinC was Bush which would make him IN CHARGE of the war. Has there been a coup that I missed? Like YOU said:"WHOEVER is in CHARGE is responsible for paying the bill" So George--Pony up!!!!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
I'm done with this debate.. I cant debate with someone who keeps throwing stones without debating the real issue and thinks that a valid answer to one side not knowing how to pay for it, is to simply blame the other side. You can throw stones all you want, but it doesnt change the fact that BOTH sides got us into this, and BOTH sides continue to ring up the bills so as long as BOTH sides are in power, then BOTH sides are responsible for coming up with a solution. Stop throwing stones because all that does is break windows, causing more spending, it solves nothing.
Bye! SeeYa! MOD CUT
Last edited by NewToCA; 12-03-2007 at 04:56 PM..
Reason: no need for the excessive observations, point made
Because the Democrats continue to write the check. Neither political party deserves a pass at paying this bill.
Anyone who looks at the issue knows that with the slim, slim majority the Dems have in congress, means that they can't do much until they a) get a higher majority, b) get a Dem in the Whitehouse, or.... both.
The Democrats spent 6 trillion dollars on social programs that did little more than keep people in a state of dependency. But they are opposed to spending a small fraction of that amount to protect this nation. We must engage the enemy and destroy them regardless of the cost. Drawing them to a location far removed from our shores was a brilliant strategy.
A small fraction of that? Where on earth did you get your figures? Do you know how much money we spend PER DAY on the war?
The answer is to do the impossible...CUT SPENDING...never happened...never will!
and to head you off...the Clinton balanced budget was balanced with higher taxation...not less spending.
Our government owns the money printer...we own their debt.
You get a 1/2 star for saying one thing correct, and one thing absolutely wrong.
Taxes went up. Government spending went down (but not right away)
Again, NEITHER administration deserves a pass but the policy of outing the Iraq government began way before Bush was President, along with the faulty intelligence that was being passed onto BOTH administrations and since BOTH administrations got it incorrect, and BOTH administrations voted to go to war.. you can not sit here and properly request that the problem of paying for it should be placed upon one side or the other.
Clinton himself authorized $100 Million in tax funds to go towards the changing of the regime change back in 1998, three years before 9/11, and the Democrats can not blame JUST Bush, because Bush followed the official "policy" of the US, especially since the policy was created by the opposing administration. If the Clintons didnt believe that they were tyrants, then why first authorize $100Million to oust him (without any plans of paying the $100Million back), and then support the war?
Clinton signed the change in the US policy, which is what makes it laughable that he now claims to not be be supporting the "war"..
Um does "regime change" mean "fly our troops into Iraq with guns, bombs and tanks". It seems to me, if that was Clinton's intent, he would have done so. But he didn't. So don't parse and twist history to suit your argument.
Regime change can mean anything. It doesn't necessarily mean deploying your troops.
Last edited by roseba; 12-04-2007 at 12:28 PM..
Reason: Edited to add the last sentence about regime change
Anyone who looks at the issue knows that with the slim, slim majority the Dems have in congress, means that they can't do much until they a) get a higher majority, b) get a Dem in the Whitehouse, or.... both.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,333 posts, read 54,455,929 times
Reputation: 40736
It seems the sticking point is a timetable for withdrawal, since we were told major combat operations ended almost 5 years ago it seems it must be a mopping up operation we've been involved in for that period. Why shouldn't there be a scheduled withdrawal?
It's a poor Commander who puts his troops in a position where he can't support them and must search out someone else to blame.
So much for blaming the Democrats when even FAUX News says: "What is the Democratic majority good for? One thing and one thing only – to give their party control of the committees and the subpoena power that goes with it. The two House Democratic majority can only make noise and make trouble. It can’t pass legislation"
It's a poor Commander who puts his troops in a position where he can't support and must search out someone else to blame.
You lost me here. Who is President Faux? Didn't he go home to Guadalajara?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
