What is up with Rush???

[sam_w]

What does it say about someone's argument when the entire core consists solely of lies, deceit, and distortions? Disagreeing on the correct path to take is natural and healthy. What is not healthy is when one side engages almost entirely in dishonest discourse. The emergence of twats like Rush, Coulter, etc..have done nothing more than breath life into a whole new industry in our economy; the industry of debunking these loud mouth morons.

I wonder if the irony is lost on some that had people like Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Beck, etc.. not been such total lying douchebags, someone like Al Franken would be some unknown writer for SNL, and not the author of several best selling books and the host at Air America which helped launch his Senate bid. Being from Minnesota I can honestly say that prior to his book "Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot", Al Franken was down on the list of popular Jews from St. Louis Park (Thomas Friedman and Aaron Brown are also from St. Louis Park, which was long nicknamed St. Jewish Park).

Take the Daily Show, and more so Colbert, which mock almost exclusively Republicans. I do not accept this as an indictment against right leaning or conservative ideas on economics, justice, foreign policy, etc..The problem is at this moment so many nutjobs have gravitated to the Republican party (Caribou Barbie, Michelle Bachman anyone?) In fact there are many great thinkers and intellectuals who happen to be conservatives. Yet they have been pushed to non-existence by the emergence of talk radio clowns that seek more to sell ad space than actually provide insight or solutions. With that I will leave you with what former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel had to say about good old Boss Limbaugh:

Hagel takes aim at Limbaugh, Senate colleagues
CNN

"We are educated by the great entertainers like Rush Limbaugh," Hagel said Tuesday during a speech in Washington, according to the Huffington Post.

"You know, I wish Rush Limbaugh and others like that would run for office," a sarcastic Hagel continued. "They have so much to contribute and so much leadership and they have an answer for everything. And they would be elected overwhelmingly. [The truth is] they try to rip everyone down and make fools of everybody but they don't have any answers."

 

[BoyKagome]

Here are just a few



Please name 5 lies Rush Limbaugh has made? - Yahoo! Answers

Source:

The Way Things Aren't

So you want to play, well lets play.

1. Nicotine isn't addictive, the habit itself is. So by your logic all second hand smokers would have to start smoking would they not? Lets look at who profits from the concept of Nicotine being addictive IF it were true. Who sells the patches and other forms of anti-smoking equipment? Drug pharmacy's... Doctors also get a load from their cessation programs. Big Tobacco profits when people feel hopeless about quitting. The anti-smokers, whose goal is to control 'unacceptable' personal behavior, exaggerate the concept of addiction in order to generate a feeling of guilt, so that smokers (and their families and colleagues) will accept and tolerate the anti-smokers' intrusive intolerance. Lets not forget this also opens the door for the left to control other "unhealthy habit" life over eating and what not. 1 down...


2. Just saying the name isn't enough, show me anyone in the New York times where their article specifically lays out the pros and cons of the contract. I bet you you'll only find the Cons. If a puzzle is missing half of it's pieces... then it is incomplete.

3. "The federal government instituted the guaranteed student loan program to provide incentives to banks to make risky loans to students with no assets, no credit records, no full-time jobs and no permanent address. This is enormous risk. The government helps mitigate this risk. But, the government will only pay off defaulted loans if banks have followed a very careful, very detailed, very exacting set of procedures of servicing and collecting student loans. If banks don't follow the guidelines precisely, they won't be reimbursed by the government and they are left high and dry. That is risk." -- Fritz Elmendorf, Vice President for Communications, Consumer Bankers Association

4. IRS numbers don't seem to reflect your point of view, look at the tax burden shift for 1958.

5. Reagen didn't make budget cuts, he denied HUD money that they requested. There is a huge difference.

6. A implied contract is essentially nothing but say so, it has no foundation and is just a convenient excuse.

 

[BoyKagome]

You're new here, so here's some advice: don't go and dig up super old threads.

Obama Attacks America Again Ahead of Muslim Apology Tour

Newsmax.com - Rush Limbaugh Tells Sean Hannity That Obama Is Destroying America

Want more?

Thanks for the advice, but i'll debate as I see fit... k k? Thanks... So lets deal with your information.

You don't believe that Obama apologizing to communist and fascist leaders is a attack on the US? Listen to the mans words, he accepts all their insults and says at the end " I hope you don't blame me though." That is a attack on the US, we have done more for other countries then any other country ever... and Obama is violating the constitution which to me is destroying America since that founding document is what forged the US in the first place into the powerful free country it is today. A lot of people had their blood spilled because they believed in that document... and Obama deliberately tearing into the 10th amendment is to me... a insult on those brave mens sacrifice. Next?

 

[repeter]

1. Nicotine isn't addictive, the habit itself is. So by your logic all second hand smokers would have to start smoking would they not? Lets look at who profits from the concept of Nicotine being addictive IF it were true. Who sells the patches and other forms of anti-smoking equipment? Drug pharmacy's... Doctors also get a load from their cessation programs. Big Tobacco profits when people feel hopeless about quitting. The anti-smokers, whose goal is to control 'unacceptable' personal behavior, exaggerate the concept of addiction in order to generate a feeling of guilt, so that smokers (and their families and colleagues) will accept and tolerate the anti-smokers' intrusive intolerance. Lets not forget this also opens the door for the left to control other "unhealthy habit" life over eating and what not. 1 down...

Hehe, you're saying that Nicotine isn't addicting? As a matter of fact, nicotine causes chemical receptors in the brain to go off, giving off dopamine, and that causes the good feelings right? And the human brain craves dopamine right? So, the use of nicotine causes a craving for nicotine right? Thats an addiction.

I have no idea what exactly you're ranting about, but the fact of the matter is 1. Rush is completely hypocritical for calling Garcia a scummy whatever for doing the same thing he was doing, 2. Rush has made various claims which were untrue and you're saying that ingesting the excess from smoke causes addiction. Thats kind of like saying ingesting the chemical waste from Pepsi would cause you to like drinking Pepsi....your logic is extremely flawed.

And please don't come on this site thinking your going to take everyone down, you're not going to.

 

[repeter]

Thanks for the advice, but i'll debate as I see fit... k k? Thanks... So lets deal with your information.

You don't believe that Obama apologizing to communist and fascist leaders is a attack on the US? Listen to the mans words, he accepts all their insults and says at the end " I hope you don't blame me though." That is a attack on the US, we have done more for other countries then any other country ever... and Obama is violating the constitution which to me is destroying America since that founding document is what forged the US in the first place into the powerful free country it is today. A lot of people had their blood spilled because they believed in that document... and Obama deliberately tearing into the 10th amendment is to me... a insult on those brave mens sacrifice. Next?

What in the hell are you talking about??? It's like you see something you don't like, and decide to ignore it and go ahead on your own rant.

You completely ignored anything I said about Rush lying, and all you did was conduct an extremely partisan (FYI that's bad) attack on President Obama. To be courteous, I'll rebute your "points" but don't expect that from other people...

Could you also provide a source for the Obama apologizing to Communists? I prefer to know what I rebute. And what exactly are you talking about when you say "insult the US?" He's saying sorry, not saying, "we're retarded." Get your facts straight, and leave emotion at the door. FYI, the 10th Amendment states that the States can essentially regulate themselves, and that they can do what the Fed's don't.

 

[BoyKagome]

Hehe, you're saying that Nicotine isn't addicting? As a matter of fact, nicotine causes chemical receptors in the brain to go off, giving off dopamine, and that causes the good feelings right? And the human brain craves dopamine right? So, the use of nicotine causes a craving for nicotine right? Thats an addiction.

I have no idea what exactly you're ranting about, but the fact of the matter is 1. Rush is completely hypocritical for calling Garcia a scummy whatever for doing the same thing he was doing, 2. Rush has made various claims which were untrue and you're saying that ingesting the excess from smoke causes addiction. Thats kind of like saying ingesting the chemical waste from Pepsi would cause you to like drinking Pepsi....your logic is extremely flawed.

And please don't come on this site thinking your going to take everyone down, you're not going to.

Pepsi isn't a addictive substance... you're the one with the flawed logic. You would have to say a addicted substance that doesn't cause addiction from it's fumes for your little analogy to have any kind of foundation. Nicotine however according to you is addictive so that makes it valid to the original context. That's like taking a analogy about people with depression and then proving your point by bringing up a position about anxiety... they both have similar characteristics but they are not the same animal....

I didn't say everyone, however currently I have yet to reach a challenging opponent.

 

[repeter]

Pepsi isn't a addictive substance... you're the one with the flawed logic. You would have to say a addicted substance that doesn't cause addiction from it's fumes for your little analogy to have any kind of foundation. Nicotine however according to you is addictive so that makes it valid to the original context. That's like taking a analogy about people with depression and then proving your point by bringing up a position about anxiety... they both have similar characteristics but they are not the same animal....

I didn't say everyone, however currently I have yet to reach a challenging opponent.

Pepsi contains caffeine, which creates essentially the same type of affect that Nicotine does, just not as powerful. :doh

And you still haven't rebuted the fact that Nicotine is addicting, and Limbaugh was addicted to drugs; you actually agreed with me. That's not a winning strategy.

 

[formerroadie]

So you want to play, well lets play.

1. Nicotine isn't addictive, the habit itself is. So by your logic all second hand smokers would have to start smoking would they not? Lets look at who profits from the concept of Nicotine being addictive IF it were true. Who sells the patches and other forms of anti-smoking equipment? Drug pharmacy's... Doctors also get a load from their cessation programs. Big Tobacco profits when people feel hopeless about quitting. The anti-smokers, whose goal is to control 'unacceptable' personal behavior, exaggerate the concept of addiction in order to generate a feeling of guilt, so that smokers (and their families and colleagues) will accept and tolerate the anti-smokers' intrusive intolerance. Lets not forget this also opens the door for the left to control other "unhealthy habit" life over eating and what not. 1 down...


2. Just saying the name isn't enough, show me anyone in the New York times where their article specifically lays out the pros and cons of the contract. I bet you you'll only find the Cons. If a puzzle is missing half of it's pieces... then it is incomplete.

3. "The federal government instituted the guaranteed student loan program to provide incentives to banks to make risky loans to students with no assets, no credit records, no full-time jobs and no permanent address. This is enormous risk. The government helps mitigate this risk. But, the government will only pay off defaulted loans if banks have followed a very careful, very detailed, very exacting set of procedures of servicing and collecting student loans. If banks don't follow the guidelines precisely, they won't be reimbursed by the government and they are left high and dry. That is risk." -- Fritz Elmendorf, Vice President for Communications, Consumer Bankers Association

4. IRS numbers don't seem to reflect your point of view, look at the tax burden shift for 1958.

5. Reagen didn't make budget cuts, he denied HUD money that they requested. There is a huge difference.

6. A implied contract is essentially nothing but say so, it has no foundation and is just a convenient excuse.

Like I've said about all Rush listeners, you have bought a huge pack of lies..... and those are just the tip of the iceberg. No wonder Rush thinks he's so important. HAHA.

 

[BoyKagome]

As I said before, I'll debate as I see fit. As long as I don't break any rules you shouldn't have a problem. If they are a weakness, expose them as such. Little logic goes a long way sometimes... Now explain to me how this is not a apology please.

"My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect. But if you look at the track record, as you say, America was not born as a colonial power, and that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there's no reason why we can't restore that." Obama

Uh yeah I know the 10th Amendment, thanks... forcing states to accept money whether their representative wants it or not is a breach of the 10th...

What the video talks about is Gitmo, and Obama can't get it closed. How is that a lie? Obama still hasn't closed Gitmo... You need to be specific if you want me to address a specific point.

Now as for Obama destroying the country which you say Rush is lying about... I think going against the constitution because its a "charter of negative liberties"... Right right it's a law term, who made up the concept of negative liberties anyway? Lets not forget is follow up though, it also expresses what the "government can't do to someone" and that's bad... But my point remains that his attack on the 10th amendment is a direct attack on our country's founding.

 

[sam_w]

As I said before, I'll debate as I see fit.

I suppose the idea of being honest is lost on you? What does this say about your position when you are required to lie? It means you lost the argument before you even began typing.

 

[BoyKagome]

Pepsi is addictive?... Speaking as someone who drank a case a day and then quit cold turkey after drinking it for about 5 years all I got to say is... wrong.

I don't deny that Rush was addicted to drugs... however his opinions are no less valid. Oxycontin is now seldom prescribed because of the horrible addictive nature it has on people. Rush does not hold himself out to be a bastion of morality. That is why his message is not damaged by his human failings. You see when a conservative has a moral flaw its spammed a crossed the Drive By media outlets and pushed onto the American people. But when a liberal has one, people are called racist, bigots or extremist for noticing it... Sad really. :lol:

 

[BoyKagome]

I suppose the idea of being honest is lost on you? What does this say about your position when you are required to lie? It means you lost the argument before you even began typing.

For one a lie as defined in the dictionary is done with the intent of denying the truth, however I do believe I am right. It is your job as my opposition to prove i'm wrong... or you can make a personal attack like this. Typically speaking the left is required to lie whenever it talks in my opinion anyway. God only knows what would happen if they came out and were honest about this 2 class system of the rich and poor only... and get rid of the middle class. To me the evidence is plain, but like I said; oppose my point and negate it with your knowledge.

 

[repeter]

"My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect. But if you look at the track record, as you say, America was not born as a colonial power, and that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there's no reason why we can't restore that." Obama

I never said he wasn't apologizing, I said he wasn't insulting America. Furthermore, what you quoted isn't bad, as America's Cheif Diplomat, it's his job to negotiate war settlements, and unless someone is completely blind, they can see we made mistakes when dealing with the Middle East. What he is saying is that we are trying to move past our mistakes, and to come anew, and stop the war, conflict and death. Is that really bad???

Uh yeah I know the 10th Amendment, thanks... forcing states to accept money whether their representative wants it or not is a breach of the 10th...

What the video talks about is Gitmo, and Obama can't get it closed. How is that a lie? Obama still hasn't closed Gitmo... You need to be specific if you want me to address a specific point.

Yes, the 10th amendment states that the States can take care of themselves. But, if is in the best interest of their consituents, then the Fed's can step in and assert their position. Maybe you don't know this, but no law in the Constitution is absolute. And the Constitution wasn't made at the birth of the USA, the Decl. of Ind. was.

Now as for Obama destroying the country which you say Rush is lying about... I think going against the constitution because its a "charter of negative liberties"... Right right it's a law term, who made up the concept of negative liberties anyway? Lets not forget is follow up though, it also expresses what the "government can't do to someone" and that's bad... But my point remains that his attack on the 10th amendment is a direct attack on our country's founding

Ok, this really makes no sense at all, try not do that. All I can make sense of is that Rush said Obama is destroying the country...and yet the country is still here, and the economy is on the recovery. The rest of what you said was a rant, and a senseless one at that.

 

[repeter]

Pepsi is addictive?... Speaking as someone who drank a case a day and then quit cold turkey after drinking it for about 5 years all I got to say is... wrong.

All I have to say is I quote, "As I said before, I'll debate as I see fit. As long as I don't break any rules you shouldn't have a problem." That in and of itself gives it away .

I don't deny that Rush was addicted to drugs... however his opinions are no less valid. Oxycontin is now seldom prescribed because of the horrible addictive nature it has on people. Rush does not hold himself out to be a bastion of morality. That is why his message is not damaged by his human failings. You see when a conservative has a moral flaw its spammed a crossed the Drive By media outlets and pushed onto the American people. But when a liberal has one, people are called racist, bigots or extremist for noticing it... Sad really.

It's not just the fact that Rush was on drugs, but the fact he criticised Jerry Garcia for it, insulted him in fact, while Rush was doing the same thing. That's worse then shooting yourself in the foot....maybe the crotch...

Rush doesn't hold himself out to anything except his ratings. He does what he does because the more controversial he is, the more ratings he acquires. And he has no message except vote Republican, and screw the Democrats (liberals in general really).

And could you give an example of your last 2 sentences? I'm sure you won't find one. And yet again, you make no sense, in the semifinal sentence.

 

[repeter]

For one a lie as defined in the dictionary is done with the intent of denying the truth, however I do believe I am right. It is your job as my opposition to prove i'm wrong... or you can make a personal attack like this. Typically speaking the left is required to lie whenever it talks in my opinion anyway. God only knows what would happen if they came out and were honest about this 2 class system of the rich and poor only... and get rid of the middle class. To me the evidence is plain, but like I said; oppose my point and negate it with your knowledge.

So what you're saying is.....you're not lying, you're just wrong. Ok, thanks. :lol:

 

[BoyKagome]

What does the US have to apologize for? We are the envy of a lot of countries... and i'm not responsible for your understanding or lack there of. I believe apologizing is a form of submission and admitting we are wrong. I don't believe my country has anything to be sorry for. Basically this is based on opinion whether you believe saying sorry hurts the country... But I could give you a couple vids of US soldiers saying they felt insulted for Obama saying sorry, would you like to see those?

Who decides what is best for the state?... The state. There are terms in which the Feds can step in, giving money isn't one of them.:doh

The country's still here?... I wonder if Washington or Jefferson would recognize the current administration as being what the US was meant to be.

 

[repeter]

What does the US have to apologize for? We are the envy of a lot of countries... and i'm not responsible for your understanding or lack there of. I believe apologizing is a form of submission and admitting we are wrong. I don't believe my country has anything to be sorry for. Basically this is based on opinion whether you believe saying sorry hurts the country... But I could give you a couple vids of US soldiers saying they felt insulted for Obama saying sorry, would you like to see those?

Iraq, Afghanistan, just to name the top of the list. There are plenty of others which I don't really feel I need to bring up. 1.3 million citizens in Iraq have died. Plenty of infrastructure has been demolished. Afghanistan, pretty much the same story. And the "Democracy" we set up in Iraq....it has some neat ties with some very unsavory groups...like Hezbollah.

Some other things we should feel sorry for are coming in so late to WWI and WWII, simply entering Vietnam (we owe ourselves an apology there) and all of our wars of aggression (Spainish, Mexican, and war of 1812).

And whats the relevance of seeing say, 3 out of 300,000,000 people say their opinions?

Who decides what is best for the state?... The state. There are terms in which the Feds can step in, giving money isn't one of them.

The country's still here?... I wonder if Washington or Jefferson would recognize the current administration as being what the US was meant to be.

Who decides the interest rate for the country? The Feds. Who decides where and how our economy runs? The Congress. Together, they control the economy, not the States. And if the State, such as California, needs the money very badly, and their Governor refuses to take it, that's refusing to help the constituents you represent, and lead. That's bad.

And 100 years ago, Jefferson and Washington wouldn't have recognized the USA....

 

[Goshin]

Iraq, Afghanistan, just to name the top of the list. There are plenty of others which I don't really feel I need to bring up. 1.3 million citizens in Iraq have died. Plenty of infrastructure has been demolished. Afghanistan, pretty much the same story. And the "Democracy" we set up in Iraq....it has some neat ties with some very unsavory groups...like Hezbollah.

Some other things we should feel sorry for are coming in so late to WWI and WWII, simply entering Vietnam (we owe ourselves an apology there) and all of our wars of aggression (Spainish, Mexican, and war of 1812).

Ho-ley sh** dude, what did they teach you in History? "America is the source of all evil in the world?"

In one breath you condemn us for freeing (or at least, trying to free) Afgan from the Taliban and Iraq from the Baathists... and in the next breath you're apologizing that we didn't enter WW1 and 2 SOONER??? WTF?

Should we, or should we not, intervene in situations that might affect our national security but which AT THE MOMENT mostly involve "the affairs of other nations"?

Because that statement could characterize WW1 and 2, as well Iraq and Afganistan. Make up your mind... is saving people from a dictatorship good or bad? Pounding Germany to shreds (google the Firebombing of Dresden) and deposing Hitler was good, but deposing Saddam (and doing less damage to Iraq in the process than we did to Germany in ww2) was bad?

You could as well ask why we invaded Germany at all, when it was the Japanese who attacked us, and it would make about as much sense.

Some consistency?


G

 

[BoyKagome]

Well lets see then, should I count all the apologies these countries owe us? What about counting all the lives we saved? You know there was a interesting number going around during the war that showed 69% of the deaths caused in Iraq were not caused by Americans... You seem like you get the math there so i'll only expound if you need me to... I never said the democracy we set up was perfect, however compared to a man who killed sports teams who lost, tortured people for the fun of it... I think its a dramatic improvement, maybe you think Sadam was more just and fair I tend not to agree.

These states that rejected the money didn't need it, further more taking this money came with certain provisions that allowed Obama to have partial control over their finances. He wasn't giving hand outs, he basically threatened them with a " take it or else." Kind of like telling AIG " I'm the only thing standing between you and the pitch forks." But i'm sure that was just a friendly warning...

 

[Goshin]

I don't know, I'm wondering who remembers September 11, 2001 anymore.

On September 12, GW Bush could have stood before the cameras and said, "We have nuked the middle east, everything east of Israel is radioactive glass," and 75% of the country would have cheered. That was the mood of the country then.

When the Taliban in Afgan wouldn't hand over Bin Laden, most Americans were so pissed they would have been perfectly content to nuke Afganistan from border-to-border, and if Iran or Iraq complained we might well have nuked them too. People were ANGRY that it took Bush so long to decide who to attack and to actually go after them. You don't realize that compared to the mood of a majority of Americans, Bush acted with RESTRAINT and humanity.

If I recall you're 15? You were 7 when it happened? I don't know if you comprehend how enraged (and scared) people were, in the weeks and months following 9-11.

I had a 5yo, and had already been rejected by the Army due to hearing a decade earlier, and my friends had to talk me out of trying again to enlist. It's a small miracle of forebearance than hundreds of muslims in the US didn't get lynched....there was a lot of talk about it. If there had been one more major successful attack in the CONUS it would have happened.

The Middle East should be down on it's collective freaking KNEES, thanking us that we acted with such restraint, and didn't take our vengeance on the whole region, and left one single swinging dick alive in either Afganistan or Iraq!


G.

 

[repeter]

Ho-ley sh** dude, what did they teach you in History? "America is the source of all evil in the world?"

In one breath you condemn us for freeing (or at least, trying to free) Afgan from the Taliban and Iraq from the Baathists... and in the next breath you're apologizing that we didn't enter WW1 and 2 SOONER??? WTF?

Should we, or should we not, intervene in situations that might affect our national security but which AT THE MOMENT mostly involve "the affairs of other nations"?

Because that statement could characterize WW1 and 2, as well Iraq and Afganistan. Make up your mind... is saving people from a dictatorship good or bad? Pounding Germany to shreds (google the Firebombing of Dresden) and deposing Hitler was good, but deposing Saddam (and doing less damage to Iraq in the process than we did to Germany in ww2) was bad?

You could as well ask why we invaded Germany at all, when it was the Japanese who attacked us, and it would make about as much sense.

Some consistency?


G

When did I say America is evil? Oh yeah, that's right, you pulled it out of now where.

The problem with Afghanistan and Iraq was we went in there for the wrong reasons, and we didn't accomplish much other then getting thousands of people killed. Had we adopted a wait, and think approach, our military could have gotten prepped for a counter insurgency style doctrine, and our politicians could have justified it some more, and gotten more allies in there.

Afghanistan was a brilliant success at first, but then we didn't bring in the necessary troops to do anything but establish a most minimal presence there. Now, we are fixing that problem. Again, a wait and think approach would have worked brilliantly.

I'm not saying the near utter destruction of a city of millions was good, I'm saying that we should have entered the war right after Dunkirk. That was a rallying cry from Britain, that they can fight, but need help, and we ignored for nearly 2 years before we helped them out. By that time, in the Pacific, Japan controlled the Pacific, and we had to fight them all the way back to their mainland. Had we entered before that, we would have more capital ships, more destroyers, and more men all around. The only debatable part of the Pacific was that Pearl Harbor rallied the American People against the Japanese, and for that alone, delaying our entry in the Pacific was somewhat justified, looking back at it from present-day.

Unless you are completely unexperienced in war, and conflict, you know that each and every situation (tactically and strategically) is different. Therefore, our response to each must be different as well.

And the Germans declared war on us smart one.....

 

[repeter]

Well lets see then, should I count all the apologies these countries owe us? What about counting all the lives we saved? You know there was a interesting number going around during the war that showed 69% of the deaths caused in Iraq were not caused by Americans... You seem like you get the math there so i'll only expound if you need me to... I never said the democracy we set up was perfect, however compared to a man who killed sports teams who lost, tortured people for the fun of it... I think its a dramatic improvement, maybe you think Sadam was more just and fair I tend not to agree.

This immediate topic isn't about other countries owing us their lives, it's about the USA making mistakes. We had enormous popularity around the world, right? People loved us. They use to say, "I can't wait to go to America." I'm currently living in a dorm with plenty of foreigners, and they all say, "Screw George Bush." Do you know why??? They all, unanimously agreed that the wars in the Middle East are the reason. Do you know why they dislike what has happened in the Middle East? We lied to go in there, lied to stay in there, and we very well might have to lie to get out. Sure Saddam was bad, sure the people who died were killed by terrorists, not Americans, but people don't care. They see the numbers before us in there, and they see the numbers after we arrived. The conclusion they draw is the same: it's America's fault. It's good we took out Hussein, I agree fully, but the way in which we did it was wrong. We accused him of 9/11...he didn't do it. We accused him of WMD's....he didn't have them. We said a lot of untrue things, and used them to stage an invasion. Then, we stayed there, when we weren't prepared to. These things all collided to provide the World a reason to hate America...and that was our mistake.

These states that rejected the money didn't need it, further more taking this money came with certain provisions that allowed Obama to have partial control over their finances. He wasn't giving hand outs, he basically threatened them with a " take it or else." Kind of like telling AIG " I'm the only thing standing between you and the pitch forks." But i'm sure that was just a friendly warning...

Could you provide your source for the information that states that rejected it don't need it?

 

[repeter]

I don't know, I'm wondering who remembers September 11, 2001 anymore.

On September 12, GW Bush could have stood before the cameras and said, "We have nuked the middle east, everything east of Israel is radioactive glass," and 75% of the country would have cheered. That was the mood of the country then.

When the Taliban in Afgan wouldn't hand over Bin Laden, most Americans were so pissed they would have been perfectly content to nuke Afganistan from border-to-border, and if Iran or Iraq complained we might well have nuked them too. People were ANGRY that it took Bush so long to decide who to attack and to actually go after them. You don't realize that compared to the mood of a majority of Americans, Bush acted with RESTRAINT and humanity.

If I recall you're 15? You were 7 when it happened? I don't know if you comprehend how enraged (and scared) people were, in the weeks and months following 9-11.

I had a 5yo, and had already been rejected by the Army due to hearing a decade earlier, and my friends had to talk me out of trying again to enlist. It's a small miracle of forebearance than hundreds of muslims in the US didn't get lynched....there was a lot of talk about it. If there had been one more major successful attack in the CONUS it would have happened.

The Middle East should be down on it's collective freaking KNEES, thanking us that we acted with such restraint, and didn't take our vengeance on the whole region, and left one single swinging dick alive in either Afganistan or Iraq!

G.

That's why the majority of America isn't in the White House. Our leader is expected, required to think more, think better, and act better then the average American. Bush was smart for delaying the atatck, but when we invaded, we went to the wrong place, we went for the wrong reasons (publically) and we weren't prepared for what followed.

Had Bush given the military....4 months more to get ready to go into Iraq and Afghanistan, the outcome would have been much better. If he had told them that they should be prepared to hunker down, and get ready to be an occupying force, they would have done that, and things would have been better off. Lastly, had Bush simply said that we are giong to invade Afghanistan and Iraq for Osama Bin Laden, instead of for WMD's and because Hussein did it to us, the world wouldn't hate us as much. These small things could have prevented so many deaths, so much pain, and so much anger.

But of course, we shouldn't expect our President to act logically, we shuold have him think without regard for the political stage, and without care for military requirements. Yeah, we elected him to be an average American....

 

[Goshin]

When did I say America is evil? Oh yeah, that's right, you pulled it out of now where.

The problem with Afghanistan and Iraq was we went in there for the wrong reasons, and we didn't accomplish much other then getting thousands of people killed. Had we adopted a wait, and think approach, our military could have gotten prepped for a counter insurgency style doctrine, and our politicians could have justified it some more, and gotten more allies in there.

Afghanistan was a brilliant success at first, but then we didn't bring in the necessary troops to do anything but establish a most minimal presence there. Now, we are fixing that problem. Again, a wait and think approach would have worked brilliantly.

I'm not saying the near utter destruction of a city of millions was good, I'm saying that we should have entered the war right after Dunkirk. That was a rallying cry from Britain, that they can fight, but need help, and we ignored for nearly 2 years before we helped them out. By that time, in the Pacific, Japan controlled the Pacific, and we had to fight them all the way back to their mainland. Had we entered before that, we would have more capital ships, more destroyers, and more men all around. The only debatable part of the Pacific was that Pearl Harbor rallied the American People against the Japanese, and for that alone, delaying our entry in the Pacific was somewhat justified, looking back at it from present-day.

Unless you are completely unexperienced in war, and conflict, you know that each and every situation (tactically and strategically) is different. Therefore, our response to each must be different as well.

And the Germans declared war on us smart one.....

Don't teach your Gramma to suck eggs, kid. I know Germany declared war on us, I was making a point.

You didn't answer my question: Justify intervening in WW1 and WW2, and justify not entering Arganistan or Iraq, without contradicting yourself. If it was good to take out Hitler, why was it bad to take out Saddam. Oh, you said it was GOOD to take out Saddam? Then why should we apologize for Iraq and Afganistan? Oh, because we aren't PERFECT and didn't do everything JUST RIGHT?

Screw that. I repeat, you don't seem to understand that "think and wait" was just NOT HAPPENING in the months following 9-11. We wanted blood and were not particularly choosy whose.

You're oversimplifying the issue of WMD and 9-11 connections. To my recollection no one said Saddam was behind 9-11, only that he did have some connections to terror organizations, which was true.

WMD? In the 90's through 2000-some most of the freaking WORLD thought Saddam had WMD, so I guess everyone in the UN and UK and so on are idiots or liars too.

I was angry and dissapointed that we apologized for nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

[repeter]

Don't teach your Gramma to suck eggs, kid. I know Germany declared war on us, I was making a point.

You didn't answer my question: Justify intervening in WW1 and WW2, and justify not entering Arganistan or Iraq, without contradicting yourself. If it was good to take out Hitler, why was it bad to take out Saddam. Oh, you said it was GOOD to take out Saddam? Then why should we apologize for Iraq and Afganistan? Oh, because we aren't PERFECT and didn't do everything JUST RIGHT?

Maybe you didn't read what I posted. I said each and every military situation is different. WWI, our allies absorbing massive casualties, and we didn't really do much aside from a shift in morale. The Germans were disheartened, our allies relieved.

WWII, the Japanese attacked us, causing us to rally against them. Had we moved troops to support Great Britain, without declaring war on anyone, the Japanese might have launched an attack earlier, and more ferociously. Had they done that, we would simply have rallied more, and the Germans would declare war on us and we would have been in a nice position to beat them down.

Iraq, we should have gotten our military ready for sustained operations on the other side of the globe, and the same thing in Afghanistan. And we weren't close to perfect, more close to horribly flawed when it comes to these wars.

Screw that. I repeat, you don't seem to understand that "think and wait" was just NOT HAPPENING in the months following 9-11. We wanted blood and were not particularly choosy whose.

You're oversimplifying the issue of WMD and 9-11 connections. To my recollection no one said Saddam was behind 9-11, only that he did have some connections to terror organizations, which was true.

You don't seem to understand that the President isn't supposed to let emotion, and blood lust cloud his emotion! And if our President isn't strong enough to do what's best for the country, then he shouldn't have been there in the first place.

WMD? In the 90's through 2000-some most of the freaking WORLD thought Saddam had WMD, so I guess everyone in the UN and UK and so on are idiots or liars too

It's a given the UN is constantly stumbling over itself, and the UK follows our lead. And there was evidence given to us by Iraqi exiles saying there were nukes in Iraq.