SOCIALISM
You have 2 cows.
You give one to your neighbor.
COMMUNISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and gives you some milk.
FASCISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and sells you some milk.
NAZISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and shoots you.
BUREAUCRATISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then throws the milk away...
TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell one and buy a bull.
Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows.
You sell them and retire on the income.
SURREALISM
You have two giraffes.
The government requires you to take harmonica lessons
AN AMERICAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows.
Later, you hire a consultant to analyze why the cow has dropped dead.
ENRON VENTURE CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows.
The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company.
The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more.
You sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States, leaving you with nine cows.
No balance sheet provided with the release.
The public then buys your bull.
A FRENCH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You go on strike, organize a riot, and block the roads, because you want three cows.
A JAPANESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk.
You then create a clever cow cartoon image called 'Cowkimon' and market it worldwide.
A GERMAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You re-engineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and milk themselves.
AN ITALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows, but you don't know where they are.
You decide to have lunch.
A RUSSIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You count them and learn you have five cows.
You count them again and learn you have 42 cows.
You count them again and learn you have 2 cows.
You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka.
A SWISS CORPORATION
You have 5000 cows. None of them belong to you.
You charge the owners for storing them.
A CHINESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You have 300 people milking them.
You claim that you have full employment, and high bovine productivity.
You arrest the newsman who reported the real situation.
AN INDIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You worship them.
A BRITISH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Both are mad.
AN IRAQI CORPORATION
Everyone thinks you have lots of cows.
You tell them that you have none.
No-one believes you, so they bomb the
crap out of you and invade your country.
You still have no cows, but at least now you are part of Democracy....
AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Business seems pretty good.
You close the office and go for a few beers to celebrate.
A NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION
You have two cows.
The one on the left looks very attractive.
A GREEK CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You borrow against the cows from the Germans
You kill the cows and make souvlaki
You can't pay the interest so the Germans lend you more money
You can't pay the interest so the Germans lend you more money
You can't pay the interest so the Germans lend you more money
You can't pay the interest so the Germans lend you more money
See the Australian way.... that about sums it up down here.
Laid back we are.
Michael
I got to the Aussie one and thought yep that is right.
Oh yamahon - you forgot obama-ism - or whatever it is called on the Faux news these days.
Cool.
Buddha.
Oh yes Buddha, Obamaism is where you take the country's cow population, sell them, give 90 percent to the government to invest in green energy ( Solindra ), pay back the uber rich and unions who got Obama elected, and then distribute what's left evenly among all 57 states---the same ones that Obama has visited. In case the return on the cows is insufficient, the government can always make up the difference by selling assault weapons to Mexican drug cartels.
BTW, Fox news beats the hell out of the main stream news that's all Obama---all good----all the time, ratings wise and otherwise. You can always tell what the left is most afraid of, they make it frightfully obvious, it's the only thing this administration is transparent about.
Hey OJ, you forgot to bash Omabacare and call him stupid.
Cool.
Buddha.
I believe that goes without saying.
Stand firm Buddha, it's times like this that the man needs you more than ever, and many more just like you to replace those of the previous flock that now believe what they see, feel, and know to be true rather than what the Wizard has tried to convince them of.
Quote from: ojstinson on December 08, 2011, 11:15:42 AM
I believe that goes without saying.
Stand firm Buddha, it's times like this that the man needs you more than ever, and many more just like you to replace those of the previous flock that now believe what they see, feel, and know to be true rather than what the Wizard has tried to convince them of.
I am not standing nowhere, I am just reminding you to complete the bashing.
Like I said before, voting only encourages the bastids.
Ron Paul needs to be encouraged ...
Michelle Backmann needs to be discouraged.
The rest meeh, I am not wasting the 2-3 hours voting.
Cool.
Buddha.
OK, I can dig that.
Note; If you can say cool I can say dig.
Quote from: The Buddha on December 08, 2011, 10:43:01 AM
Hey OJ, you forgot to bash Omabacare and call him stupid.
Cool.
Buddha.
thas okay. you just take the "communism" entry and replace with "Obamaism".
:)
(or maybe, take the INDIA one, replace "2 cows" with "1 Obama" and replace "indians" with "democrats" :)
As for the surealism entry.. that's Dadaism.
Needs moar Surealism:
SURREALISM
You have two harmonicas
The government requires you to take giraffe playing lessons
Quote from: Phil B on December 08, 2011, 05:03:48 PM
thas okay. you just take the "communism" entry and replace with "Obamaism".
:)
Noooooooo ...... that cant be ...
Rush Limbaugh told me that Obamaism is a lot worse than communism.
Cool.
Buddha.
as heard on clinton broadcasting service. or all barack channel , worse than füx nudes
So where the heck did all those cows come from?
p.s. In the EC you can't have two cows, you need 1.8 cows but every third person has 2.3 cows to keep the books balanced.
Quote from: Cal Price on December 10, 2011, 05:13:58 PM
So where the heck did all those cows come from?
p.s. In the EC you can't have two cows, you need 1.8 cows but every third person has 2.3 cows to keep the books balanced.
and theres bull everywhere Eh? :cheers:
This is truly brilliant. I've seen this before and it seems to be growing!
I'm convinced it was inspired by one of Ben Franklin's best quotes:
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch."
Quote from: The Buddha on December 08, 2011, 08:05:43 PM
Quote from: Phil B on December 08, 2011, 05:03:48 PM
thas okay. you just take the "communism" entry and replace with "Obamaism".
:)
Noooooooo ...... that cant be ...
Rush Limbaugh told me that Obamaism is a lot worse than communism.
Cool.
Buddha.
What we have with Obama is an inexperienced politician who was raised to be an anti-Britain, anti-colonialist Marxist like his father (don't yell at me, read his book) who is married to Wall St. bankers who got him where he is. That's why were seeing him being a Mao wannabe on one hand, but a crony capitalist on the other. This is the formula of a one-term president. I think the people, uninformed as they are, will see this and throw him out.
Quote from: bill14224 on December 11, 2011, 06:54:31 AM
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch."
Yep, democracy is "mob rules".
Michael
Quote from: bill14224 on December 11, 2011, 07:30:00 AM
What we have with Obama is an inexperienced politician who was raised to be an anti-Britain, anti-colonialist Marxist like his father (don't yell at me, read his book) who is married to Wall St. bankers who got him where he is. That's why were seeing him being a Mao wannabe on one hand, but a crony capitalist on the other. This is the formula of a one-term president. I think the people, uninformed as they are, will see this and throw him out.
What you said bill is correct, however it is misleading in 1 aspect. The proof is in the actions not in whatever he (obama) has said.
Saying Obama is married to wall street bankers - I cannot see it as anything but untrue especially because he was putting in place the consumer protection agency and putting elizabeth warren as its cheif architect to police banks and wall street. Republicans blocked it, and they want to setup that agency as a committee. Which will let it get watered down.
Obama may have PAC contributions from wall street firms ... however PAC is political contributions from employees of that company - say I working @ wells fargo decide to donate $ to 1 specific PAC - it will go to that party/candidate with the wells fargo PAC label on it. That really doesn't indicate he is in the pocket of wells fargo.
Anyway Obama was begining to get tough on banks for a lot of their business practices, republicans have been blocking it. A consumer protection agency with elizabeth warren driving it would have really made a difference. Now the banks are parking their $ @ the fed and getting a small interest and not lending. She was proposing to charge them a fee for overnight deposits.
Seriously no one who isn't a big executive @ a bank was opposed to that.
Cool.
Buddha.
Quote from: bill14224 on December 11, 2011, 07:30:00 AM
This is the formula of a one-term president. I think the people, uninformed as they are, will see this and throw him out.
http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/858.html
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.
H. L. Mencken
US editor (1880 - 1956)
Quote from: Phil B on December 12, 2011, 10:04:44 AM
http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/858.html
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.
H. L. Mencken
US editor (1880 - 1956)
I however know a lot of people who made $$$ understanding the stupidity of the american public ...
Cool.
Buddha.
Quote from: The Buddha on December 12, 2011, 08:46:49 AM
Quote from: bill14224 on December 11, 2011, 07:30:00 AM
What we have with Obama is an inexperienced politician who was raised to be an anti-Britain, anti-colonialist Marxist like his father (don't yell at me, read his book) who is married to Wall St. bankers who got him where he is. That's why were seeing him being a Mao wannabe on one hand, but a crony capitalist on the other. This is the formula of a one-term president. I think the people, uninformed as they are, will see this and throw him out.
What you said bill is correct, however it is misleading in 1 aspect. The proof is in the actions not in whatever he (obama) has said.
Saying Obama is married to wall street bankers - I cannot see it as anything but untrue especially because he was putting in place the consumer protection agency and putting elizabeth warren as its cheif architect to police banks and wall street. Republicans blocked it, and they want to setup that agency as a committee. Which will let it get watered down.
Obama may have PAC contributions from wall street firms ... however PAC is political contributions from employees of that company - say I working @ wells fargo decide to donate $ to 1 specific PAC - it will go to that party/candidate with the wells fargo PAC label on it. That really doesn't indicate he is in the pocket of wells fargo.
Anyway Obama was begining to get tough on banks for a lot of their business practices, republicans have been blocking it. A consumer protection agency with elizabeth warren driving it would have really made a difference. Now the banks are parking their $ @ the fed and getting a small interest and not lending. She was proposing to charge them a fee for overnight deposits.
Seriously no one who isn't a big executive @ a bank was opposed to that.
Cool.
Buddha.
I don't disagree with anything you added but when he's running up more debt in the last three years than all previous administrations combined, the added bank regulations he wants don't seem to matter much.
I don't, however, favor more regulation in this area. The whole mortgage bubble/crash was not caused by lack of regulation. It was caused by elected officials (hello, Barney and Chris) pressuring bankers to make more and more bad mortgage loans under threat of new regulations. Many banks resisted the pressure, but some banks were less resistant than others, especially some larger ones. It kept going until, well, you all know the rest. Now the Annointed One presides over our great land, and he doesn't say or do a thing about it.
Quote from: bill14224 on December 12, 2011, 03:46:47 PM
Quote from: The Buddha on December 12, 2011, 08:46:49 AM
Quote from: bill14224 on December 11, 2011, 07:30:00 AM
What we have with Obama is an inexperienced politician who was raised to be an anti-Britain, anti-colonialist Marxist like his father (don't yell at me, read his book) who is married to Wall St. bankers who got him where he is. That's why were seeing him being a Mao wannabe on one hand, but a crony capitalist on the other. This is the formula of a one-term president. I think the people, uninformed as they are, will see this and throw him out.
What you said bill is correct, however it is misleading in 1 aspect. The proof is in the actions not in whatever he (obama) has said.
Saying Obama is married to wall street bankers - I cannot see it as anything but untrue especially because he was putting in place the consumer protection agency and putting elizabeth warren as its cheif architect to police banks and wall street. Republicans blocked it, and they want to setup that agency as a committee. Which will let it get watered down.
Obama may have PAC contributions from wall street firms ... however PAC is political contributions from employees of that company - say I working @ wells fargo decide to donate $ to 1 specific PAC - it will go to that party/candidate with the wells fargo PAC label on it. That really doesn't indicate he is in the pocket of wells fargo.
Anyway Obama was begining to get tough on banks for a lot of their business practices, republicans have been blocking it. A consumer protection agency with elizabeth warren driving it would have really made a difference. Now the banks are parking their $ @ the fed and getting a small interest and not lending. She was proposing to charge them a fee for overnight deposits.
Seriously no one who isn't a big executive @ a bank was opposed to that.
Cool.
Buddha.
I don't disagree with anything you added but when he's running up more debt in the last three years than all previous administrations combined, the added bank regulations he wants don't seem to matter much.
I don't, however, favor more regulation in this area. The whole mortgage bubble/crash was not caused by lack of regulation. It was caused by elected officials (hello, Barney and Chris) pressuring bankers to make more and more bad mortgage loans under threat of new regulations. Many banks resisted the pressure, but some banks were less resistant than others, especially some larger ones. It kept going until, well, you all know the rest. Now the Annointed One presides over our great land, and he doesn't say or do a thing about it.
except pad freddies fanny. er pad freddie and fanny. LW likes to blame this on bush. but no this started with a certain peanut farmer. with his community reinvestment act. and every single admin since has had a part to do with it. including obummer
Quote from: bill14224 on December 12, 2011, 03:46:47 PM
I don't disagree with anything you added but when he's running up more debt in the last three years than all previous administrations combined, the added bank regulations he wants don't seem to matter much.
I don't, however, favor more regulation in this area. The whole mortgage bubble/crash was not caused by lack of regulation. It was caused by elected officials (hello, Barney and Chris) pressuring bankers to make more and more bad mortgage loans under threat of new regulations. Many banks resisted the pressure, but some banks were less resistant than others, especially some larger ones. It kept going until, well, you all know the rest. Now the Annointed One presides over our great land, and he doesn't say or do a thing about it.
The reason the debt is increasing and no its not increasing more in 3 years than all previous administrations combined, Bush is in a leage all by himself there but understandable due to having to wage wars against Iraq and afganisthan, anyway, the growing entitlements are what is swelling the size of government, and the reason entitlements are growing is because people are starting to collect SS and spending on medicaid/care cos people are getting older.
Mmmm sorry, Dodd/Frank was instituted after the collapse - 2008 - look it up. In fact its still not being instituted its still got many aspects being debated.
The predominant thing that occoured during the housing bubble is that the rules for classifying mortgage and securitisation were re written to allow junk house loans to get graded as AAA and short term interest rates were kept so low that the loan originators borrowed on the short term market and loaned out on long term housing mortgages. That is just stupid.
Without regulation it will happen again. Without regulation there will be more Madoff's, more 100 million bonuses when the company goes under like MF global, more CEO's making millions when their company fails like lehmann and bear sterns and enron. With regulation its likely to happen on a smaller scale. I actually want such tight oversight that they cannot breathe wihtout someone approving it. The MF global type - missing 1.2 billion ... gee where did it go ... under the desk ? what about in the mattress ? I think they need to bring back debtors prison and toss these white collar criminals in with the hardended criminals pending investigation, and then take your time investigating ... Dude its 1.2 billion, where the fruck is it.
Cool.
Buddha.
Quote from: The Buddha on December 13, 2011, 08:20:10 AM
Without regulation it will happen again.
you make it sound like, 'if we can just make more rules, people will stop being dishonest with money".
That's about as accurate as, "if we can just make more laws, we wont need as many lawyers" (cause everyone will know what to do, and not break the law)
seems like we have a lot more laws than we did 100 years ago. Now, do we have more, or less, lawyers than back then?
I dont know about the numbers of lawyers, but we had the great depression in 1929.
We didn't have great depression yet in 2007-11.
Regulations stopped that. In fact regulations stopped that from happening and the regulations have been relaxed allowing the banks to not "mark to market" and hence the down turn is more prolonged.
Without regulations the stock market big wigs - aka goldman sachs and the big banks will rob the common man blind.
They handle deposits ... your pay check ...
What prevents them from waking up one morning and deciding they are keeping the $ and walking away wiht it ... yea regulations, and they have many different names, FDIC and the banking and whatever act of whenever ...
No regulations = you stuff your $ in a mattress and if you have a fire, flood or theft you're SOL.
Cool.
Buddha.
water proof canister ;), or in my properties case, a small cave
Quote from: The Buddha on December 15, 2011, 07:01:01 PM
...
What prevents them from waking up one morning and deciding they are keeping the $ and walking away wiht it ... yea regulations, and they have many different names, FDIC and the banking and whatever act of whenever ...
That's not regulations. that's "standardized deposit insurance".
If you tell a bunch of money-grubbing cheating swindling bankers, "you MUST do things this way, to stop you cheating people", they'll just find a newer more creative way to cheat people.
If, on the other hand, you say, "here's a standard, or a service: you can choose to make use of it or not", then it will be "market driven". If it's a good standard, then smart people will make use of it, and keep their money safe. And then for all the greedy swindlers, there are "non FDIC insured" alternatives, to offer all the greedy and stupid people.
THAT is basically why FDIC works. Not because it's an enforced anti-swindling regulation... but because, sadly, it gives the dishonest people room to cheat greedy/stupid people. So they dont bother the "safe" zones like FDIC backed areas.
Quote from: Phil B on December 16, 2011, 10:45:00 PM
Quote from: The Buddha on December 15, 2011, 07:01:01 PM
...
What prevents them from waking up one morning and deciding they are keeping the $ and walking away wiht it ... yea regulations, and they have many different names, FDIC and the banking and whatever act of whenever ...
That's not regulations. that's "standardized deposit insurance".
If you tell a bunch of money-grubbing cheating swindling bankers, "you MUST do things this way, to stop you cheating people", they'll just find a newer more creative way to cheat people.
If, on the other hand, you say, "here's a standard, or a service: you can choose to make use of it or not", then it will be "market driven". If it's a good standard, then smart people will make use of it, and keep their money safe. And then for all the greedy swindlers, there are "non FDIC insured" alternatives, to offer all the greedy and stupid people.
THAT is basically why FDIC works. Not because it's an enforced anti-swindling regulation... but because, sadly, it gives the dishonest people room to cheat greedy/stupid people. So they dont bother the "safe" zones like FDIC backed areas.
yeah bankers are greedy. LMAOsame as the unions that obama supports. why he sold GM to them. to me he should have allowed htem to go bankrupt FIRST. by law contracts would have been voided. forcing all to come to table for new ones. i bought 1 share in all 3 automakers main reason is to force them to show me budgets annually. only time i gfeel as though ceos shoudl be capped on pay is if theyre recieving bailout funds. people Buddha Loves You about CEO bonuses. yeah i feel they have a right to Buddha Loves You. that aside. by contract they have a right to it. that is why i keep saying they shoudl have been forced into bankruptcy, theyreby voiding all contracts, including theirs. courts would have agreed to this. and forced company to pay their bonuses had they sued. regardless if it was mroally right or not.
Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on December 17, 2011, 12:17:14 AM
yeah bankers are greedy. LMAOsame as the unions that obama supports.
Yup.
I think that unions are a microcosm of liberal politics.
The union BOSSES are like democrat politicians, "elected" by the people they represent, but mostly holding power and wealth for themselves. They hold power, by using what they have, to cater to special interests. And also to squeeze the resources available to them to give some small amount of kickbacks to those who voted for them... reguardless of whether it is good for the long term benefit of the company (aka the country).
FDIC is a instrument of regulation, it was created after the great depression.
The bunch of greedy crooks called bankers are being told you cant do it this way or it will be illegal, and they find a new way and more complicated way to be a crook - aka commit securities fraud and that is why you see people get charged with insider trading or with securities fraud ... there are a lot of rules and a lot of man power is required to enforce them, else ti falls apart.
And wasn't the auto bail out done by bush ? Look it up, started by bush, continued by obama.
Cool.
Buddha.
Quote from: The Buddha on December 17, 2011, 09:43:13 PM
FDIC is a instrument of regulation, it was created after the great depression.
The bunch of greedy crooks called bankers are being told you cant do it this way or it will be illegal, and they find a new way and more complicated way to be a crook - aka commit securities fraud and that is why you see people get charged with insider trading or with securities fraud ... there are a lot of rules and a lot of man power is required to enforce them, else ti falls apart.
And wasn't the auto bail out done by bush ? Look it up, started by bush, continued by obama.
Cool.
Buddha.
partially, but bush had nothing to do wiht selling GM to the uaw. btw hte obama initiated bailout has made a shovel ready job/s. in mexico. GM is building an engine plant. there. granted i can put blame on this to the unions. going back further than barack o'buyout unions i support are when htey look out for workers rights, not become greedy, and want more and more without chipping in anything themselves. ill use an old analogy. regarding why our companies are going overseas for labour. vcr's say buddha has a company building them. union staffed. theres overhead, the building, the pwoer, etc. cost of materiel, and hte staffing. now every dime buddhavision makes is by selling his product. say he got a hundred for each one sold. to hte middleman etc. anyhoo this is paying the bills fairly well, then contracts are up, buddha wont budge on pay. lets say hes already paying 25/hr. but union strikes, nothing being made. by anybody. well buddha caves, goes to 30/hr union contributes nothing. again lol. now profit margin shrinks, certain things cant be paid withouteither cutting staff, then production falls, ( self annihilation of com[any) or he finds a company in china or india, who can build these units for 10 each. anyhoo buddhavision closes up his plant and moves production to india. it is after all a business. not a charity, it has to make money. sure id LOVE to make CEO pay. it will motivate me to better myself to be able to perhaps GOD willing one day be able to do so
Every other automaker in the world ... every japanese one, and nearly every european one is propped up by their govt.
So is every transit system in the world, and nearly every electric system and transportation system. I dont think its possible to run it otherwise.
Cool.
Buddha.
Are their leaders propped up, controlled by, and beholden to high power unions and uber wealthy anti-American socialist/Communist, like what's is going on with this administration? I love how Obama trashes the rich, the rich got him to this place, this place far far above his pathetic level of competence.
Liberals kill me--Please give us higher taxes, bigger government/less freedom, send our jobs overseas, spend us into destruction, increase regulation to the point that it's kills incentive and destroys the capitalist system that sets us apart from all others, turn us into a welfare state that can be compared to the parasite that eventually kills it's host.
You're somehow dreaming that Bush was not owned by big busniess.
The TEA party is owned by the Koch brothers.
All the alternatives we ever had were bought and paid for several 1000 times over.
Obama's rhetoric is to curb and regulate wall street.
The Tea party and republicans have been blocking that.
Obama is owned by auto unions. However the bail out was initiated by bush.
There are no good options, its only a game of the lesser of evils.
However Government involvement in auto companies is simply a reflection of the rest of the world.
Cool.
Buddha.
News flash, Bush is no longer the president, now we have a much bigger and more dangerous idiot, and have had for 3 years. Wasn't this supposed to be the era of Hope and Change, transparency, a whole new way of doing business? We now have Bush 3 to the fourth power, Bush did it, Bush did it first-----that's pretty much all the guy has to run on---well, he did kill some people who really needed to die.
Buddha, that's what I'm talking about. I don't want new rules, I want to go back to the old rules, the ones that worked for generations. Barney and Chris have been in charge in congress for a long time, and as he housing bubble grew G.W. warned at least twice that something needed to be done about fannie and freddie, but barney stonewalled him, even suggesting Bush was against the poor. All the while Barney was holding the door open while the chicken coop was fleeced. Now don't get me started about mortgage backed securities. That sounds like something that's safe, not a ticking time bomb. That is a scam on its face.
I am not blaming bush for housing bubble. The potential presidential candidates in the last 30 years have al been owned by big business. No sense calling any one an Idiot and saying any one is in the pocket of big business, cos that implies the others are not. They are all corrupt, stupid or both.
I am however blaming bush for going to war against Iraq, that is one aspect that will not have occoured if someone else was president. Afghanisthan, no, everyone after 9/11 was going to fight afghanisthan. Iraq is a pet project of Cheney and his hand puppet.
The new rules - well, the old rules did exist to prevent most of it, the enforcement wasn't staffed.
And just as an example OJ - and I am not saying this really cos Obama hasn't shown any inclination to change it - Yes we do have a new president now, and yes we have had for 3 years. However the ill effects of 8 years of bush are still like a hangover. It may only take 10 mins to wreck something, it could well take 3 months to fix. Like a car run without oil. OK Obama isn't any different in a real aspect fro mbush, neither was McCain, and oddly Al Bore would have been even worse if he had ever got to the WH.
In fact the first Bush term in retrospect where Cheney had a full on presidential role would have been a lot worse if bush had lost.
Anyway guys stop dreaming any president was going to have been different. That's all I'm saying.
Cool.
Buddha.
congress approved iraq. making it a LEGAL war. not the illegal one in libya lol. ( wich never went before congress. yeah htey all run on what can they do to get back in. once htey become a lame duck, then were in a world of shaZam!. pray that obummer doesnt get back in. need to start fresh
Quote from: ojstinson on December 21, 2011, 12:21:22 PM
Liberals kill me--Please give us higher taxes, bigger government/less freedom, send our jobs overseas, spend us into destruction, increase regulation to the point that it's kills incentive and destroys the capitalist system that sets us apart from all others, turn us into a welfare state that can be compared to the parasite that eventually kills it's host.
It seems puzzling until you understand...
1 - the Young liberals are merely Useful Idiots. In their mind, equal means, we take the big house and share it up and we all have a big house. They cannot see that they end up with 2/5ths of stuff all. These are the Occupy Crowds as I've explained elsewhere in my research into Who they are - down here. Controlled by communists and socialists.
2 - The Elitist Liberals can weather any storm. Increase tax? Sure. I already have my $100 million and make $20 million a year. Won't make bugger all difference if I have to pay an extra million on tax - BUT -
it will help prevent others from getting as wealthy as me, thus I cement my elite position.
Michael
True, and those idiots fail to realize that under socialism/Marxism the masses become and remain Equally poor ( poor as in destitute/starving ), only those in control become wealthy and powerful.
Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on December 23, 2011, 05:25:06 AM
congress approved iraq. making it a LEGAL war. not the illegal one in libya lol. ( wich never went before congress. yeah htey all run on what can they do to get back in. once htey become a lame duck, then were in a world of shaZam!. pray that obummer doesnt get back in. need to start fresh
Yes congress approved Iraq based on the lies told to us by Cheney. Libya has a Nato and UN resolution. Iraq did not. The Libya premise has been supported by big voices on both sides, John McCain comes to mind immediately. The Nato troops needed support, in fact we were late in providing it. It was an easy war to win if we had acted 6 weeks before we did, and tied in better via communications.
Cool.
Buddha.
not cheney. cia. or other intel agencies. no matter who sent our guys into libya it was still an act of war, and is governed by our laws, including going before congress. is it not?
Supporting role in Libya the argument goes didn't need approval. I dunno why they didn't get approval, its likely to have been approved by congress anyway cos a bunch of republicans were for it. Anyway there is only drones and equipment, no soldiers.
Cool.
Buddha.
Quote from: The Buddha on December 27, 2011, 08:08:44 AM
Supporting role in Libya the argument goes didn't need approval. I dunno why they didn't get approval, its likely to have been approved by congress anyway cos a bunch of republicans were for it. Anyway there is only drones and equipment, no soldiers.
Cool.
Buddha.
wasnt a nato mission in beginning. soldiers on boat or elsewhere. they were involved. as far as i know had bush done this libya mission all hell would break loose. lol. it was turned over to nato after ops were underway
Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on December 28, 2011, 10:48:33 PM
Quote from: The Buddha on December 27, 2011, 08:08:44 AM
Supporting role in Libya the argument goes didn't need approval. I dunno why they didn't get approval, its likely to have been approved by congress anyway cos a bunch of republicans were for it. Anyway there is only drones and equipment, no soldiers.
Cool.
Buddha.
wasnt a nato mission in beginning. soldiers on boat or elsewhere. they were involved. as far as i know had bush done this libya mission all hell would break loose. lol. it was turned over to nato after ops were underway
Hell break loose, you mean like rush and Hannity is doing to OBama now ? Yes very unlikely, and that is after the war based on the lies ...
Cool.
Buddha.
Quote from: The Buddha on December 29, 2011, 07:22:32 PM
Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on December 28, 2011, 10:48:33 PM
Quote from: The Buddha on December 27, 2011, 08:08:44 AM
Supporting role in Libya the argument goes didn't need approval. I dunno why they didn't get approval, its likely to have been approved by congress anyway cos a bunch of republicans were for it. Anyway there is only drones and equipment, no soldiers.
Cool.
Buddha.
wasnt a nato mission in beginning. soldiers on boat or elsewhere. they were involved. as far as i know had bush done this libya mission all hell would break loose. lol. it was turned over to nato after ops were underway
Hell break loose, you mean like rush and Hannity is doing to OBama now ? Yes very unlikely, and that is after the war based on the lies ...
Cool.
Buddha.
like obama not giving credit to bush for ending iraq via hte treaty signed in 2006? calling for withdrawal by december 2011?
I actually saw Obama's speech where he give credit to bush for getting Bin Laden, I dont recall the 2006 withdrawl treaty though.
Cool.
Buddha.
Quote from: The Buddha on December 31, 2011, 04:47:16 PM
I actually saw Obama's speech where he give credit to bush for getting Bin Laden, I dont recall the 2006 withdrawl treaty though.
Cool.
Buddha.
no not binladen. thats nto at issue. the Sofa agreement was/ agreement/treaty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement
Aaaa after lying to us and getting into an illegal war There was a SOFA that specified withdrawl by dec 2011, sorry I forgot. Yes SOFA was there to make Obama withdraw. Got it.
Cool.
Buddha.