Archive

Democrats Almost Unanimously Want Afghan Withdrawal

  • Footwedge
    Good luck with that getting it by the Nobel Peace Prize Winner who loves warv as much as anyone. . Don't these democrats know that we have to fight em over there so we don't have to fight em over here? LOL.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55903.html
  • stlouiedipalma
    I just don't see any reason why we should still be there, other than the Pakistani nuclear cache.
  • I Wear Pants
    ccrunner609;787085 wrote:Democrats must not be very good with their history........We had a chance to build a nation there 30 years ago and didnt....look where that got us.
    30 years of being the most powerful nation in history and "winning" the Cold War?
  • ptown_trojans_1
    stlouiedipalma;786631 wrote:I just don't see any reason why we should still be there, other than the Pakistani nuclear cache.

    Bingo.

    Sad thing is, we are all missing the root of the problem: The war between India and Pakistan. Solve that, and the reliance on Pakistan falls away and then the U.S. can remove itself.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    I Wear Pants;787275 wrote:30 years of being the most powerful nation in history and "winning" the Cold War?

    Ehh,. we left in 1990 when the Soviets withdrew. At the time it was a good idea, no need to stay. Hindsight is always 20/20.
  • I Wear Pants
    ccrunner609;788113 wrote:and that hindsight should tell everyone that we should stay.....but instead of pumping the military it needs to be building schools, roads and an economy.
    Why can't we do that here instead?
  • BoatShoes
    I Wear Pants;788226 wrote:Why can't we do that here instead?

    I know right? You borrow money and build a school in Pakistan amidst a land of tribal goat herders...ooh Rah, Freedom Loving, Pro-God Toby Keith Fan! You borrow money and build a school in Detroit with endless ready made infrastructure for renewal....Socialist, Business Hating, Anti-Capitalist AIDs spreading Gay.
  • believer
    BoatShoes;788318 wrote:I know right? You borrow money and build a school in Pakistan amidst a land of tribal goat herders...ooh Rah, Freedom Loving, Pro-God Toby Keith Fan! You borrow money and build a school in Detroit with endless ready made infrastructure for renewal....Socialist, Business Hating, Anti-Capitalist AIDs spreading Gay.
    hyperbole or hyper-bull?
  • Writerbuckeye
    We need to maintain a presence along the border, especially, for the reasons p-town cited. That doesn't mean, however, we can't minimize our presence there.

    Right now, the most critical threat to our country is the uncontrolled spending and debt we've incurred. If trimming back our worldwide military presence is one part of a way to significantly reduce spending and that debt -- we have to do it.

    Nothing is sacred in this effort, including defense, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
  • Footwedge
    Writerbuckeye;789865 wrote:We need to maintain a presence along the border, especially, for the reasons p-town cited. That doesn't mean, however, we can't minimize our presence there.

    Right now, the most critical threat to our country is the uncontrolled spending and debt we've incurred. If trimming back our worldwide military presence is one part of a way to significantly reduce spending and that debt -- we have to do it.

    Nothing is sacred in this effort, including defense, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
    Nice to see WB go through a political metamorphosis ...or is it political menopause...LOL.....as have countless and countless others of far right winged pundits on the national media front. Ron Paul's message that endless wars are a lose, lose situation...and that point is finally permeating the crania of the far right's political gurus.

    It's a damn shame that Dr. Paul is such a fossil, otherwise he would be the logical choice for the Republican party. Nobody gave a shat when W was running up the debt. But now that Barry has carried the torch, suddenly Paul's agenda is making more and more sense.
  • believer
    Footwedge;791861 wrote:Nice to see WB go through a political metamorphosis ...or is it political menopause...LOL.....as have countless and countless others of far right winged pundits on the national media front. Ron Paul's message that endless wars are a lose, lose situation...and that point is finally permeating the crania of the far right's political gurus.

    It's a damn shame that Dr. Paul is such a fossil, otherwise he would be the logical choice for the Republican party. Nobody gave a shat when W was running up the debt. But now that Barry has carried the torch, suddenly Paul's agenda is making more and more sense.
    You no doubt pulled the lever for the Nobel Peace Prize winning Prince of Hope & Change. Yet for some amazing reason, you save your sarcasm and disdain for the "far right political gurus." When are you going to - um - turn your guns to the left?
  • Writerbuckeye
    Make your cracks about my political acumen all you like, Foot, but I didn't vote for the people who made this economic mess about 10 times worse than it had to be. That would be Obama and the all Democrat congress that couldn't wait (after assuming power) to spend like a drunken sailor on a 10-day bender. It might have been okay, if they'd have spent money on ACTUAL infrastructure (speaking of roads and bridges) but they gave most of that pork to groups and organizations that had helped elect them and it did ZERO for the infrastructure or the economy.

    Oh and I'm not late to this party at all. I hated it when Bush was spending too much, and I like it even less now because we've moved ourselves ever closer to that point of no return where interest on the debt will be an anchor that keeps dragging the economy down a perpetual rabbit hole.
  • Footwedge
    believer;791915 wrote:You no doubt pulled the lever for the Nobel Peace Prize winning Prince of Hope & Change. Yet for some amazing reason, you save your sarcasm and disdain for the "far right political gurus." When are you going to - um - turn your guns to the left?
    Nope. I did vote for hope and change...but didn't vote for Barry.
  • Footwedge
    Writerbuckeye;792057 wrote:Make your cracks about my political acumen all you like, Foot, but I didn't vote for the people who made this economic mess about 10 times worse than it had to be. That would be Obama and the all Democrat congress that couldn't wait (after assuming power) to spend like a drunken sailor on a 10-day bender. It might have been okay, if they'd have spent money on ACTUAL infrastructure (speaking of roads and bridges) but they gave most of that pork to groups and organizations that had helped elect them and it did ZERO for the infrastructure or the economy.

    Oh and I'm not late to this party at all. I hated it when Bush was spending too much, and I like it even less now because we've moved ourselves ever closer to that point of no return where interest on the debt will be an anchor that keeps dragging the economy down a perpetual rabbit hole.
    I was referring to your softening stance regarding Afganistan, nothing more than that.
  • Writerbuckeye
    I don't think my stance has softened at all. I wanted us in there strong to kick out the Taliban and get a new government in place. It's been 10 years now; time for the new government to start taking care of themselves and (mostly) running the show.

    However, so long as Pakistan remains so volatile because of all the Islamic extremists so close to the seat of power, I don't think we have any choice but to maintain some presence along the border; and kill as many remaining al queda as possible through the use of drones or special forces.

    P-town is right: if we could somehow get Pakistan and India to stop hating each other so much, we could withdraw even more from the region.
  • believer
    Footwedge;792635 wrote:Nope. I did vote for hope and change...but didn't vote for Barry.
    Good. Why not spew some of your anti-war venom Barry's direction for a while?
  • jmog
    Footwedge;791861 wrote:Nice to see WB go through a political metamorphosis ...or is it political menopause...LOL.....as have countless and countless others of far right winged pundits on the national media front. Ron Paul's message that endless wars are a lose, lose situation...and that point is finally permeating the crania of the far right's political gurus.

    It's a damn shame that Dr. Paul is such a fossil, otherwise he would be the logical choice for the Republican party. Nobody gave a shat when W was running up the debt. But now that Barry has carried the torch, suddenly Paul's agenda is making more and more sense.

    You are incorrect. Those of us who are conservative did have a huge problem with W (and his democratic congress mind you) increasing the debt.

    However, to compare the deficits under W to what we have now under Obama is laughable.

    I don't like deficits/debts no matter what letter the man in the White House had next to his name on the ballot.
  • Footwedge
    jmog;792904 wrote:You are incorrect. Those of us who are conservative did have a huge problem with W (and his democratic congress mind you) increasing the debt.

    However, to compare the deficits under W to what we have now under Obama is laughable.

    I don't like deficits/debts no matter what letter the man in the White House had next to his name on the ballot.
    I made no such comparison. Why respond to a quote of mine in such fashion?

    But since you brought it up, Obama's deficits closely mirror those of W in his last 2 terms...a fact that many are too partisan blind sighted to understand. Before you spew, better check the "fiscal years" when citing numbers. Bush blew out the deficit numbers in 07 and 08.
  • Footwedge
    believer;792882 wrote:Good. Why not spew some of your anti-war venom Barry's direction for a while?
    I've done it plenty....pay attention once in awhile. I've even started threads on the subject. What's the matter with you?
  • believer
    Footwedge;793572 wrote:But since you brought it up, Obama's deficits closely mirror those of W in his last 2 terms.
    Did Bush serve more than 2 terms?
  • jmog
    Footwedge;793572 wrote:I made no such comparison. Why respond to a quote of mine in such fashion?

    But since you brought it up, Obama's deficits closely mirror those of W in his last 2 terms...a fact that many are too partisan blind sighted to understand. Before you spew, better check the "fiscal years" when citing numbers. Bush blew out the deficit numbers in 07 and 08.

    Year-Budget Deficit
    2007-$167 billion
    2008-$459 billion
    2009-$1.7 trillion
    2010-$1.1 trillion
    2011-$972 billion

    You do realize that Obama took office in January of 2009 right? Please show me how the "levels" of deficits are remotely close.This year, the projected deficit is the lowest under Obama (partially due to talks in the repub House right now) and it is STILL twice the highest it ever was under Bush.

    Again, I hated Bush's deficit spending, but to even compare his levels to Obama's is laughable at best.
  • BoatShoes
    jmog;794294 wrote:Year-Budget Deficit
    2007-$167 billion
    2008-$459 billion
    2009-$1.7 trillion
    2010-$1.1 trillion
    2011-$972 billion

    You do realize that Obama took office in January of 2009 right? Please show me how the "levels" of deficits are remotely close.This year, the projected deficit is the lowest under Obama (partially due to talks in the repub House right now) and it is STILL twice the highest it ever was under Bush.

    Again, I hated Bush's deficit spending, but to even compare his levels to Obama's is laughable at best.

    See now you're a smart guy but all you're demonstrating by saying that you're more upset about the 2009-2011 budget deficits is that you have a fundamental misunderstanding about the role of government deficit spending in normative orthodox economics. It is not the size of deficits that should be a concern but the when of deficits. The time you should be upset is when we are running deficits when we have 4% unemployment, not 9-10% in a liquidity trap with interest rates at the zero bound!

    And furthermore, you have to acknowledge that half of those deficits run by Obama are the result of cuts in revenue which is the desirable conservative fiscal policy!



    And this right here is why people like Footwedge don't take Conservatives seriously. Every Conservative I know has been like "Oh, well, I disagreed with Bush too..." but where was the anger???

    Footwedge is a Ron Paul guy and was all about TEA parties before it was cool to do so and Hannity started giving them coverage. I'm sure he's seen it for several decades. The average republican doesn't give a damn about deficits until they don't have the presidency. It is really that simple. In fact, because our country ran deficits at the wrong time, we lacked the political capital to have large enough deficits that would have actually have turned the recession around as opposed to merely prevent a depression. the 2009 budget deficit should have been twice as big.

    If Conservatives during the Bush years really had a problem with debt increases, when they had the Congress and the presidency they could have passed a law that required matching spending cuts if you're going to cut revenue. If they were really Conservative, they would not have put money on the credit card once they decided to drastically cut revenue in 2001. But no, the concern back then was "don't want to pay off the debt too fast" and "deficits don't matter, ask Ronny Reagan."



    If all these Conservatives want to say that they care about deficits, those tax cuts that they passed should have been offset by spending reductions. They always say that borrowing increases and spending increases ought to be offset by spending cuts. Well, the same ought to hold true for revenue cuts. Otherwise, revenue cuts do contribute to the deficit despite they're saying otherwise. I can virtually guarantee that neither Jmog nor Writerbuckeye were making these demands back then. And no Writer, most of Obama's fiscal stimulus was 1. Aid to States and 2. Cuts in Revenue! (what you love!) which is why Martin Feldstein came out against it because take relief is a bad stimulus! But, Obama doesn't have the political balls to tell Republicans that their lies are wrong and caves. Austan Goolsby just resigned and stated as much; how Obama and he's boys would not listen to economic sense because he didn't want to upset Republicans. What a joke! Don't sit here and act like you would have supported more socialist direct spending! C'mooooon!



    If we're to take you guys seriously, the 10 years of Afghan war that footwedge has been against from the start and now Writerbuckeye is pretending he was, should have been offset by spending cuts just like they're trying to do with the Debt ceiling now (which is insanity). But no, they make their living running deficits and then suddenly get mad when major deficit was finally justifiable

    Footwedge is onto you.

    Though I disagree with Footwedge's beliefs on Hard Money, etc. he and other paleo-conservatives are the only ones I will take seriously.

    And furthermore, though Footwedge has made it clear his distaste for Obama's policies, why would he constantly trump them up here when this place is an anti-Obama circle-jerk?? I'm sure he spends time around more libertarian sites where they share their contempt for Republicans and Democrats as a whole. If he wants to convince people toward his way of thinking, in this place anyway, would he not be better served to try and convince Conservatives of what he believes to be the error of their ways?
  • believer
    ^^^You post a couple of hocus pocus graphics from the Congressional Budget Office (lol) and a leftist Obama-loving blog site and want us to see the error of our ways?

    Obama's $800 Billion Porkulus Package saved us from a depression and would coulda turned the recession around? Stop drinking the Kool Aid. wow
  • tk421
    It's hard to talk about withdrawing from Afghanistan when we are secretly bombing other Middle East countries. What does this make it, war #4? I thought Obama was hope and change and bringing the troops home, not starting even more conflicts in the ME? Liberals, what's going on?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/09/world/middleeast/09intel.html?_r=2&hp
    The Obama administration has intensified the American covert war in Yemen, exploiting a growing power vacuum in the country to strike at militant suspects with armed drones and fighter jets, according to American officials.

    On Friday, American jets killed Abu Ali al-Harithi, a midlevel Qaeda operative, and several other militant suspects in a strike in southern Yemen. According to witnesses, four civilians were also killed in the airstrike. Weeks earlier, drone aircraft fired missiles aimed at Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical American-born cleric who the United States government has tried to kill for more than a year. Mr. Awlaki survived.
  • BoatShoes

    He's not the peace loving marxist liberal that QuakerOats pretends him to be that's what happened. Liberals were duped. He's a pragmatist.