[ucodegen]

But the left is more anchored in reality and the pragmatic needs of human beings and other living matter on earth.

The right is obsessed with God and the afterlife. The right has set the moral bar so high for themselves that they always sound like hypocrites when they fail to set the example.

Sounds like NPD.

[ucodegen]

But the left is more anchored in reality and the pragmatic needs of human beings and other living matter on earth.

The right is obsessed with God and the afterlife. The right has set the moral bar so high for themselves that they always sound like hypocrites when they fail to set the example.

Sounds like NPD.

[ucodegen]

But the left is more anchored in reality and the pragmatic needs of human beings and other living matter on earth.

The right is obsessed with God and the afterlife. The right has set the moral bar so high for themselves that they always sound like hypocrites when they fail to set the example.

Sounds like NPD.

[ucodegen]

I thought that we were the liberators of the Iraqi people. Remember the parades of flowers and candy?

Since when did we become the attackers?

Focusing on a nit to avoid the point. There is a difference between attacking a country or its government and attacking its people. The US took considerable pains to avoid ‘collateral’ damage. As for being the ‘liberators’.. that is an arguable description.

Oh, ok. Trickle down protection. I’m sure the Europeans love that. We protect them first and some benefits trickle down to us. Why should they lift a finger when we are doing the lifting?

I thought that conservatives believed that our national interests should take first priority.

Huh?? I noticed that you took the quote out of context, which included “You said it.. not I…”. The first statements does not make sense and seems to be a bad attempt at an analogy to ‘trickle down economics’. Not the same thing. As we are seeing during the mortgage implosion, European economics and US economics are interlocked, though to which state they are really interlocked is hard to determine.

So why are we doing all the hard work for the Europeans who don’t appreciate us? So we bitch about their bitching. Our men are dying and our treasure is being spent.

To some extent, I wonder about this too.. which is why I even stated it . I do know that even though the EU is the primary consumer of Middle East oil and does not have coal nor shale-oil reserves, the effect on the EU due to changes in the Middle East will affect the US to some extent. Is the expense we are spending in lives and money worth what we could potentially get back in return through preventing economic or other problems.. not likely. Another item to note; of the EU nations, only Britain, which is technically not in the EU, has a ‘usable’ military. The rest largely depend upon the US’s through the UN.

If the Europeans feels that security welfare is an entitlement, then they have no incentives but to sit on their asses and collect the welfare. They don’t even pay taxes for that welfare. What a great deal for them!

You’ll get no argument from me here. To some extent, that it the point I was making. For another interesting point, look at the amount that the US contributes to the UN.. and then look at the general UN behavior.

[ucodegen]

I thought that we were the liberators of the Iraqi people. Remember the parades of flowers and candy?

Since when did we become the attackers?

Focusing on a nit to avoid the point. There is a difference between attacking a country or its government and attacking its people. The US took considerable pains to avoid ‘collateral’ damage. As for being the ‘liberators’.. that is an arguable description.

Oh, ok. Trickle down protection. I’m sure the Europeans love that. We protect them first and some benefits trickle down to us. Why should they lift a finger when we are doing the lifting?

I thought that conservatives believed that our national interests should take first priority.

Huh?? I noticed that you took the quote out of context, which included “You said it.. not I…”. The first statements does not make sense and seems to be a bad attempt at an analogy to ‘trickle down economics’. Not the same thing. As we are seeing during the mortgage implosion, European economics and US economics are interlocked, though to which state they are really interlocked is hard to determine.

So why are we doing all the hard work for the Europeans who don’t appreciate us? So we bitch about their bitching. Our men are dying and our treasure is being spent.

To some extent, I wonder about this too.. which is why I even stated it . I do know that even though the EU is the primary consumer of Middle East oil and does not have coal nor shale-oil reserves, the effect on the EU due to changes in the Middle East will affect the US to some extent. Is the expense we are spending in lives and money worth what we could potentially get back in return through preventing economic or other problems.. not likely. Another item to note; of the EU nations, only Britain, which is technically not in the EU, has a ‘usable’ military. The rest largely depend upon the US’s through the UN.

If the Europeans feels that security welfare is an entitlement, then they have no incentives but to sit on their asses and collect the welfare. They don’t even pay taxes for that welfare. What a great deal for them!

You’ll get no argument from me here. To some extent, that it the point I was making. For another interesting point, look at the amount that the US contributes to the UN.. and then look at the general UN behavior.

[ucodegen]

I thought that we were the liberators of the Iraqi people. Remember the parades of flowers and candy?

Since when did we become the attackers?

Focusing on a nit to avoid the point. There is a difference between attacking a country or its government and attacking its people. The US took considerable pains to avoid ‘collateral’ damage. As for being the ‘liberators’.. that is an arguable description.

Oh, ok. Trickle down protection. I’m sure the Europeans love that. We protect them first and some benefits trickle down to us. Why should they lift a finger when we are doing the lifting?

I thought that conservatives believed that our national interests should take first priority.

Huh?? I noticed that you took the quote out of context, which included “You said it.. not I…”. The first statements does not make sense and seems to be a bad attempt at an analogy to ‘trickle down economics’. Not the same thing. As we are seeing during the mortgage implosion, European economics and US economics are interlocked, though to which state they are really interlocked is hard to determine.

So why are we doing all the hard work for the Europeans who don’t appreciate us? So we bitch about their bitching. Our men are dying and our treasure is being spent.

To some extent, I wonder about this too.. which is why I even stated it . I do know that even though the EU is the primary consumer of Middle East oil and does not have coal nor shale-oil reserves, the effect on the EU due to changes in the Middle East will affect the US to some extent. Is the expense we are spending in lives and money worth what we could potentially get back in return through preventing economic or other problems.. not likely. Another item to note; of the EU nations, only Britain, which is technically not in the EU, has a ‘usable’ military. The rest largely depend upon the US’s through the UN.

If the Europeans feels that security welfare is an entitlement, then they have no incentives but to sit on their asses and collect the welfare. They don’t even pay taxes for that welfare. What a great deal for them!

You’ll get no argument from me here. To some extent, that it the point I was making. For another interesting point, look at the amount that the US contributes to the UN.. and then look at the general UN behavior.

[ucodegen]

I thought that we were the liberators of the Iraqi people. Remember the parades of flowers and candy?

Since when did we become the attackers?

Focusing on a nit to avoid the point. There is a difference between attacking a country or its government and attacking its people. The US took considerable pains to avoid ‘collateral’ damage. As for being the ‘liberators’.. that is an arguable description.

Oh, ok. Trickle down protection. I’m sure the Europeans love that. We protect them first and some benefits trickle down to us. Why should they lift a finger when we are doing the lifting?

I thought that conservatives believed that our national interests should take first priority.

Huh?? I noticed that you took the quote out of context, which included “You said it.. not I…”. The first statements does not make sense and seems to be a bad attempt at an analogy to ‘trickle down economics’. Not the same thing. As we are seeing during the mortgage implosion, European economics and US economics are interlocked, though to which state they are really interlocked is hard to determine.

So why are we doing all the hard work for the Europeans who don’t appreciate us? So we bitch about their bitching. Our men are dying and our treasure is being spent.

To some extent, I wonder about this too.. which is why I even stated it . I do know that even though the EU is the primary consumer of Middle East oil and does not have coal nor shale-oil reserves, the effect on the EU due to changes in the Middle East will affect the US to some extent. Is the expense we are spending in lives and money worth what we could potentially get back in return through preventing economic or other problems.. not likely. Another item to note; of the EU nations, only Britain, which is technically not in the EU, has a ‘usable’ military. The rest largely depend upon the US’s through the UN.

If the Europeans feels that security welfare is an entitlement, then they have no incentives but to sit on their asses and collect the welfare. They don’t even pay taxes for that welfare. What a great deal for them!

You’ll get no argument from me here. To some extent, that it the point I was making. For another interesting point, look at the amount that the US contributes to the UN.. and then look at the general UN behavior.

[ucodegen]

I thought that we were the liberators of the Iraqi people. Remember the parades of flowers and candy?

Since when did we become the attackers?

Focusing on a nit to avoid the point. There is a difference between attacking a country or its government and attacking its people. The US took considerable pains to avoid ‘collateral’ damage. As for being the ‘liberators’.. that is an arguable description.

Oh, ok. Trickle down protection. I’m sure the Europeans love that. We protect them first and some benefits trickle down to us. Why should they lift a finger when we are doing the lifting?

I thought that conservatives believed that our national interests should take first priority.

Huh?? I noticed that you took the quote out of context, which included “You said it.. not I…”. The first statements does not make sense and seems to be a bad attempt at an analogy to ‘trickle down economics’. Not the same thing. As we are seeing during the mortgage implosion, European economics and US economics are interlocked, though to which state they are really interlocked is hard to determine.

So why are we doing all the hard work for the Europeans who don’t appreciate us? So we bitch about their bitching. Our men are dying and our treasure is being spent.

To some extent, I wonder about this too.. which is why I even stated it . I do know that even though the EU is the primary consumer of Middle East oil and does not have coal nor shale-oil reserves, the effect on the EU due to changes in the Middle East will affect the US to some extent. Is the expense we are spending in lives and money worth what we could potentially get back in return through preventing economic or other problems.. not likely. Another item to note; of the EU nations, only Britain, which is technically not in the EU, has a ‘usable’ military. The rest largely depend upon the US’s through the UN.

If the Europeans feels that security welfare is an entitlement, then they have no incentives but to sit on their asses and collect the welfare. They don’t even pay taxes for that welfare. What a great deal for them!

You’ll get no argument from me here. To some extent, that it the point I was making. For another interesting point, look at the amount that the US contributes to the UN.. and then look at the general UN behavior.

[ucodegen]

I had no idea that unemployment was that bad in San Diego.

It is that bad, in fact I suspect it may be worse. Part-time, under-employed are not counted in the figures.

[ucodegen]

I had no idea that unemployment was that bad in San Diego.

It is that bad, in fact I suspect it may be worse. Part-time, under-employed are not counted in the figures.

[ucodegen]

I had no idea that unemployment was that bad in San Diego.

It is that bad, in fact I suspect it may be worse. Part-time, under-employed are not counted in the figures.

[ucodegen]

I had no idea that unemployment was that bad in San Diego.

It is that bad, in fact I suspect it may be worse. Part-time, under-employed are not counted in the figures.

[ucodegen]

I had no idea that unemployment was that bad in San Diego.

It is that bad, in fact I suspect it may be worse. Part-time, under-employed are not counted in the figures.

[ucodegen]

ucodegen wrote:
almost like the scenario during the last Iraq war.. so we won, now what.. no real good plan for the population of Iraq)

Sounds like nation building. I though that we weren’t going to do that after Kosovo anymore.

Quote is out of context
You are arguing the nits here and ignoring the points. If you go and attack a country and take out its government and military, you have a responsibility to make sure its people are safe. By taking out their military and government, you have created a power vacuum that many exploitative elements(including neighboring countries now that the attacked country does not have an effective military and government) would like to fill. As the ‘attacker’, you have put the people of that country at risk of these elements.
If you are not willing to help ensure the populace remains safe, reconsider the original attack. If you have already committed the attack, follow through with the security of the populace.

If Obama is doing what Bush would have done, then what is the Republican beef?

We, progressives, should be upset.

No beef… as I pointed out.. Conservatives are pointing out that there is really no real change, other than more government in our lives.. and Obama presented himself as ‘yes we can’ to change! The only change the Conservatives are seeing is a further buildup in Afghanistan, a country that really has no tactical value. If you are going to expend money and lives, make it count!

So does it mean that we are sending our men and resources to protect European interests? Wouldn’t that make us gullible?

You said it.. not I…
Though protecting European interest does eventually trickle down to us (stabilizing oil prices in the long run, general foreign market balance). Might be interesting to see the squawking from the Euro block if their oil price goes through the roof. Then they will want us to do something. Right now, it is easier for them to condemn us. The only EU country set up enough to run without foreign oil is France(nuclear) and Norway(oil – they have their own). The second problem of not stabilizing oil is that it would allow Russia a bigger voice in the future of the EU.

[ucodegen]

ucodegen wrote:
almost like the scenario during the last Iraq war.. so we won, now what.. no real good plan for the population of Iraq)

Sounds like nation building. I though that we weren’t going to do that after Kosovo anymore.

Quote is out of context
You are arguing the nits here and ignoring the points. If you go and attack a country and take out its government and military, you have a responsibility to make sure its people are safe. By taking out their military and government, you have created a power vacuum that many exploitative elements(including neighboring countries now that the attacked country does not have an effective military and government) would like to fill. As the ‘attacker’, you have put the people of that country at risk of these elements.
If you are not willing to help ensure the populace remains safe, reconsider the original attack. If you have already committed the attack, follow through with the security of the populace.

If Obama is doing what Bush would have done, then what is the Republican beef?

We, progressives, should be upset.

No beef… as I pointed out.. Conservatives are pointing out that there is really no real change, other than more government in our lives.. and Obama presented himself as ‘yes we can’ to change! The only change the Conservatives are seeing is a further buildup in Afghanistan, a country that really has no tactical value. If you are going to expend money and lives, make it count!

So does it mean that we are sending our men and resources to protect European interests? Wouldn’t that make us gullible?

You said it.. not I…
Though protecting European interest does eventually trickle down to us (stabilizing oil prices in the long run, general foreign market balance). Might be interesting to see the squawking from the Euro block if their oil price goes through the roof. Then they will want us to do something. Right now, it is easier for them to condemn us. The only EU country set up enough to run without foreign oil is France(nuclear) and Norway(oil – they have their own). The second problem of not stabilizing oil is that it would allow Russia a bigger voice in the future of the EU.

[Author]

Posts