Liberal Forum

You said he apologized to 'terrorists'. I don't see that.BTW, I agree with everything he said. Using torture did lower our standing in the world, and the United States did play a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government.Democratic elections like this one?Saddam 'wins 100% of vote'Iraqi officials say President Saddam Hussein has won 100% backing in a referendum on whether he should rule for another seven years. There were 11,445,638 eligible voters - and every one of them voted for the president, according to Izzat Ibrahim, Vice-Chairman of Iraq's Revolutionary Command Council. Not a very serious day, not a very serious vote and nobody places any credibility on it The government insists the count was fair and accurate. Saddam Hussein - who has ruled Iraq since 1979 - was the only candidate. Voters had been urged to show their support for the Iraqi leader in defiance of the demands for military action against him from the US and Britain. http://news.bbc.co.u...ast/2331951.stmSo you think that we shouldn't have killed Bin Laden?Au contraire. I believe we should have killed him under Clinton.

I'm much taller IRL. LOLAnd I'm sure you have a much bigger [male organ]. If it was any bigger, I'd walk with a limp and people would call me "Tripod".

Misty: So you think that we shouldn't have killed Bin Laden?Au contraire. I believe we should have killed him under Clinton.And you wouldn't have considered that for political gain? I don't like it when anti-military presidents use the military for their political gain....like Obama and the killing of Bin Laden.The old Obama is 'anti-military' talking point.Ask these people if they believe that.

I don't like it when anti-military presidents use the military for their political gain....like Obama and the killing of Bin Laden.The old Obama is 'anti-military' talking point.Ask these people if they believe that.Oh gosh, a picture. That proves everything.Ask them once they find out about this. Even Obama's Secretary of Defense initially opposed Obama's plans on slashing military spending.This budget guts defenseTuesdays Associated Press report that President Obama is considering large cuts in our strategic arsenal is just the latest of this weeks grim news about the presidents national-defense plans.On nukes, the administration is apparently pondering reductions of up to 80 percent of deployed warheads a breathtaking slash to our nuclear-deterrence posture. This comes on top of troubling plans outlined in the presidents fiscal year 2013 budget proposal.Put simply, the budget features a serious mismatch between the resources it gives our military and the likely global threats that our forces must contend with.Take a look at expected major military cuts.Navy: The fleet needs to get ready for some heavy budget seas. The Navy will have to mothball nine cruisers and amphibious ships and remove 16 more [ships] from the new construction plan, according to the House Armed Services Committee.Air Force: Fewer fighters will be going off into the Wild Blue Yonder when six squadrons are axed. The plan also dispenses with some 130 air-mobility planes such as the C-5 and C-130, which do critical logistics work.Ground Forces: The Army will decline by about 70,000 GIs, to some 490,000 soldiers, closing down eight Brigade Combat Teams. There will be fewer leathernecks, too, with the Marine Corps shrinking some 20,000, to around 180,000.Nor does Obamas budget take into account the looming sequestration (automatic reduction) of as much as $600 billion to national-security spending over a decade, as required by last years Budget Control Act. As recently as this week, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned that these new cuts would do severe damage to the militarys ability to project power and protect the country.With the Defense Department already in the process of slicing spending some $500 billion over the next 10 years, simple math tells you defense cuts may top $1 trillion in the same period, requiring a further fall in force structure.So, what does this all mean?If Congress passes the budget, well basically have to deal with expanding international-security challenges with a dwindling US military. Friend and foe alike will draw the obvious conclusions.Without a doubt, the disparity between threats and our defense resources will also raise the risks to our brave young men and women, while reducing our ability to shape and affect world events.For example, Team Obama talks about a shift or pivot away from the fights in Iraq and Afghanistan toward Asia to deal with what is unspoken by the administration but believed to be a rising China.No question: Asia, especially China, needs more attention but the smaller Navy is going to be hard pressed to deal with Beijings ever-expanding fleet in the vast Pacific Ocean, known for its tyranny of distance.Will we have the military capacity for dealing with an ever more belligerent Iran? Just yesterday, Tehran announced that it has a new generation of centrifuges for enriching uranium as well as its first locally produced nuclear-reactor fuel rods.Down the road, domestic fuel rods, if reprocessed into plutonium, could provide Iran with a second avenue to produce nukes beyond its ongoing program.Its worth noting our enemies get a say in when and where the next fight comes and war is a come-as-you-are affair. Yes, a strategy of nimble and flexible is attractive, but theres a certain quality in quantity even in todays high-tech battlespace.Defense spending shouldnt be held hostage to politics nor driven by pure budget numbers. Instead, it should be based on the international environment we face now and expect in the future and that doesnt look rosy at all.Peter Brookes is a Heritage Foundation senior fellow and former deputy assistant secretary of defense.Read more: http://www.nypost.co...N#ixzz1maIKBXJc

MistyBlue, on 15 February 2012 - 09:22 PM, said:...the United States did play a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government.Democratic elections like this one?Saddam 'wins 100% of vote'Iraqi officials say President Saddam Hussein has won 100% backing in a referendum on whether he should rule for another seven years.Iraq and Iran. Apples and oranges.Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh had popular support.The United Kingdom and the United States decided to overthrow him because he nationalized Iran's oil.Then they installed the Shah, and Mosaddegh's supporters were rounded up, imprisoned, tortured or executed.And this is why they hate us.It's called blowback.Ask Ron Paul.

MistyBlue, on 16 February 2012 - 04:52 PM, said:The old Obama is 'anti-military' talking point.Ask these people if they believe that.Oh gosh, a picture. That proves everything.Maybe I should have used your method of proof and called the troops to ask them if they think that Obama is anti-military.I called someone familiar with this bill and was told.....yadda yadda yadda.I made a call and did some accurate research.Read more: http://www.nypost.co...N#ixzz1maIKBXJcThe NY Post.....another Murdoch rag.And Peter Brookes a Heritage Foundation senior fellow. I guess you need a think tank to tell you what to think. ROFL Edited by MistyBlue, 16 February 2012 - 05:16 PM.

The NY Post.....another Murdoch rag.And Peter Brookes a Heritage Foundation senior fellow. I guess you need a think tank to tell you what to think. ROFLWhen I express my own opinion, you reject it and lie that I don't cite sources.Or lie that you've "never seen" them.When I cite sources, you reject them mindlessly out of hand. Clearly you have no interest whatsoever in the truth.But speaking of flying monkeys, could a sane honest person believe the following?restan, on 27 October 2010 - 04:36 PM, said:What Are The Progressives/liberals Going To Do About The Economy?Well we sure as hell know that the Republicans are not going to do anything about it.

When I express my own opinion, you reject it and lie that I don't cite sources.Wrong Puss, because unlike you I know the difference between an opinion and a statement of fact.You don't need sources when you state an opinion.Also unlike you, though I may disagree with someone's opinion, I would never call it a lie.An opinion by it's very definition cannot be a lie.1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. 2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal. It is ridiculous to call someone's belief or personal view a lie, and yet you do it constantly.

When I express my own opinion, you reject it and lie that I don't cite sources.Wrong Puss, because unlike you I know the difference between an opinion and a statement of fact......It is ridiculous to call someone's belief or personal view a lie, and yet you do it constantly.Read my statement again, moonbat. You lie that I "don't cite sources." Yet you have many, many, many times left posts in my threads in which I cite many sources. What, somehow they all escape your vision?Lie much?Regarding your overall drivel, could a sane, honest person hold the following, snicker, "opinion" about Republicans?(Little Miss Marxist)We say we support the troops but really don't. We piss on all those who won Purple Heart.

Iraq and Iran. Apples and oranges.Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh had popular support.The United Kingdom and the United States decided to overthrow him because he nationalized Iran's oil.Then they installed the Shah, and Mosaddegh's supporters were rounded up, imprisoned, tortured or executed.And this is why they hate us.It's called blowback.Ask Ron Paul.Who built Iran's oil fields? It wasn't the sand jockeys. It was the British and American oil companies that pumped $$$$ into their oil fields. If it wasn't for us, they'd still be nomads riding camels. They tried to steal the property that didn't belong to them, just as Egypt did with the Suez Canal. Nationalizing other people's property is still theft.

Who built Iran's oil fields? It wasn't the sand jockeys. It was the British and American oil companies that pumped $$$$ into their oil fields. If it wasn't for us, they'd still be nomads riding camels. They tried to steal the property that didn't belong to them, just as Egypt did with the Suez Canal. Nationalizing other people's property is still theft.One might consider the oil under their land their property.

Who built Iran's oil fields? It wasn't the sand jockeys. It was the British and American oil companies that pumped $$$$ into their oil fields. If it wasn't for us, they'd still be nomads riding camels. They tried to steal the property that didn't belong to them, just as Egypt did with the Suez Canal. Nationalizing other people's property is still theft.One might consider the oil under their land their property.Oil companies didn't duly lease or buy the land from which they produced oil?If so, it was theft.

Why do Conservatives/Republicans hate this system that benefits them the most?Looks like the places where the GOP is the strongest is the same place that hates social services the most, and are coincidentally, the same places more people are receiving government benefits. http://www.nytimes.c...map.html?ref=us

Because free people resent the government forcing itself upon them. We recognize that those "services" come with a price, and that price is liberty

Because free people resent the government forcing itself upon them.We recognize that those "services" come with a price, and that price is libertyI don't think the government is forcing anyone to take Social Security, Medicare or Food Stamps.Anyone who thinks that accepting those things means they have to sacrifice their liberty, can always turn them down.So many Americans who say they support cutting government programs dont realize just how much they benefit from them. Remember, for example, when a town hall attendee famously told his congressman to keep your government hands off my Medicare? http://economix.blog...nment-programs/ Edited by MistyBlue, 20 February 2012 - 01:04 PM.

Why do Conservatives/Republicans hate this system that benefits them the most?Looks like the places where the GOP is the strongest is the same place that hates social services the most, and are coincidentally, the same places more people are receiving government benefits.Hey moonbat, if someone pays for decades into S.S. and Medicare for the rotten return they offer, of course they expect to receive it when they retire.Yes, elderly people move from generally colder, high-cost liberal Democrat-run states to warmer, low-cost Repub governed states.So? That has nothing to do with your stupid, false Propaganda.Not to mention, both S.S. and Medicare are headed quickly toward bankruptcy, threatening the entire country with Systemic Economic Collapse.Do Obama and your party have a solution? No, they're perfectly happy to use both as political issues for political gain.And I'll bet blind that your graph includes deceitful fake "subsidies," like Alaska being "subsidized" by pumping oil that should belong to the state, i.e. the Alaskans, not the federal government.

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by RichClem . View it anyway?WTF do you want Jackhole?I'm not in the mood for you today.Get lost.It's not like you ever have anything new to say anyway.I know.....yadda yadda yadda.....I'm a liar. Edited by MistyBlue, 20 February 2012 - 01:07 PM.

I don't think the government is forcing anyone to take Social Security, Medicare or Food Stamps.Anyone who thinks that accepting those things means they have to sacrifice their liberty, can always turn them down.Your chart says "more than 50" programs. Why do you NOW say only three? And of them three, two of them are direct taxes that are supposed to go right back to the person who paid them. The government wants everybody to be a victim of something so the government can force them to accept their "help"The more "help" the people accept, the less free they are.

It's like this

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by RichClem . View it anyway?WTF do you want Jackhole?I'm not in the mood for you today.Get lost.Yeah, can't let reality get in the way of your bulls***, can you.But moonbat, anyone and everyone following the thread can see my points, even if you keep your eyes scrunched shut.Chuck!, on 20 February 2012 - 12:56 PM, said: Because free people resent the government forcing itself upon them. We recognize that those "services" come with a price, and that price is liberty I don't think the government is forcing anyone to take Social Security, Medicare or Food Stamps.Anyone who thinks that accepting those things means they have to sacrifice their liberty, can always turn them down. Note how absolutely crooked little Miss Marxist is. Americans are coerced by federal law under penalty of imprisonment to pay for S.S. and Medicare.But we're, snicker, "free" not to accept the benefits in our retirement after we paid for them. Edited by RichClem, 20 February 2012 - 01:19 PM.