KaskadskyjKozak Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Let's see, $3.5 billion a year under Obama is unacceptable, but $100 billion a year under Bush was OK. Got it. Wrong. And I've said it before here many times. Bush spent too much - most (fiscal) conservatives agree and never liked it. That 3.5 billion can be spent better elsewhere, add up a few billion here and there across a few hundred ill-conceived, wasteful budget line items and you could save several hundred billions a year. That and stop proposing huge, new big government social engineering projects. And forget about a moon base or trips to Mars as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 That and stop proposing huge, new big government social engineering projects. You mean the ones that could potentially create thousands of jobs? Right...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 You mean the ones that could potentially create thousands of jobs? Right...... Not working too well is it, kev? 9-10% unemployment despite massive spending by Barry. BTW, your guy, Ron Paul, would slash way more of the Federal gov't and the "jobs" you are claiming are created by said entity. Make up your mind - are you pro Ron Paul, or pro big-gov't. Geez. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 You mean the ones that could potentially create thousands of jobs? Right...... Not working too well is it, kev? 9-10% unemployment despite massive spending by Barry. BTW, your guy, Ron Paul, would slash way more of the Federal gov't and the "jobs" you are claiming are created by said entity. Make up your mind - are you pro Ron Paul, or pro big-gov't. Geez. I am neither. I am just a troll...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 You mean the ones that could potentially create thousands of jobs? Right...... Not working too well is it, kev? 9-10% unemployment despite massive spending by Barry. BTW, your guy, Ron Paul, would slash way more of the Federal gov't and the "jobs" you are claiming are created by said entity. Make up your mind - are you pro Ron Paul, or pro big-gov't. Geez. I am neither. I am just a troll...... At last, honesty! I pre-ordered that CD. If it sucks, I'll blame *you*. ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 I pre-ordered that CD. If it sucks, I'll blame *you*. ;-) I pre-ordered it as well. Not sure how this can suck. I have heard every track. I have not been this excited about a new album in 15 years. [video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7BT-aFUPEU&feature=related Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Not impressed with this one on first listen. :-/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 [video:youtube] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 "Stay Frosty" is pretty cool Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Carter wasn't really a dove wrt Central America and Iran. carter was certainly a dove on iran - jesus christ in a jump suit, what do you think either of our last 2 presidents would have done w/ something like the iran hostage crisis? obama woulda used drones to kill everyman on the street in tehran, and bush would have gotten so excited he'd accidentally invade iraq Dovishness and its opposite, like political leanings, aren't measured on a moving scale. The Carter Doctrine viz the Middle East ("Don't touch our oil under their sand or we'll kill you") combined with Brzezinski's handy work in Afghanistan (arming the Taliban and other Mujahedin to provoke Soviet intervention) shows very well that the Carter admin was anything but dovish. A full scale military intervention in Iran would have been a total quagmire, which points more to Carter not being a moron rather than a dove. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Wrong. And I've said it before here many times. Bush spent too much - most (fiscal) conservatives agree and never liked it. If true, why did you and other so-called "fiscal conservatives" argue for attacking Iraq, and defended intervention for years after that? Don't you remember that left wingers were telling you in 2003 that cost estimates for the war were grossly understated? Why did you, as late as 2010, argue for continuing to give tax breaks to the wealthy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Wrong. And I've said it before here many times. Bush spent too much - most (fiscal) conservatives agree and never liked it. If true, why did you and other so-called "fiscal conservatives" argue for attacking Iraq, and defended intervention for years after that? Don't you remember that left wingers were telling you in 2003 that cost estimates for the war were grossly understated? Why did you, as late as 2010, argue for continuing to give tax breaks to the wealthy? You're making stuff up again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 (edited) combined with Brzezinski's handy work in Afghanistan (arming the Taliban and other Mujahedin to provoke Soviet intervention)... That's an interesting take on history. Better check your facts. Edited February 2, 2012 by Fairweather Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 combined with Brzezinski's handy work in Afghanistan (arming the Taliban and other Mujahedin to provoke Soviet intervention)... That's an interesting take on history. Better check your facts. Straight from the horse's mouth: Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct? Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention. Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it? B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would. Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today? B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists? B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war? Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Wrong. And I've said it before here many times. Bush spent too much - most (fiscal) conservatives agree and never liked it. If true, why did you and other so-called "fiscal conservatives" argue for attacking Iraq, and defended intervention for years after that? Don't you remember that left wingers were telling you in 2003 that cost estimates for the war were grossly understated? Why did you, as late as 2010, argue for continuing to give tax breaks to the wealthy? You're making stuff up again. I have other things to do than digging out your posts but I see that you are trying to run away from your record, AGAIN! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 combined with Brzezinski's handy work in Afghanistan (arming the Taliban and other Mujahedin to provoke Soviet intervention)... That's an interesting take on history. Better check your facts. Straight from the horse's mouth: Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct? Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention. Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it? B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would. Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today? B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists? B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war? Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998 There's a big difference between "arming" the Mujaheddin--as in your original false claim--and providing general assistance as portrayed in the piece you provided. In other words, you've made quite a leap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottP Posted February 2, 2012 Author Share Posted February 2, 2012 . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 (edited) There's a big difference between "arming" the Mujaheddin--as in your original false claim--and providing general assistance as portrayed in the piece you provided. In other words, you've made quite a leap. Unfortunately for you and your weak attempts at spin, Brzezinski himself acknowledges that financial assistance to the Mujahedin was "mostly for the acquisition presumably of weapons" around 2:40 mark: [video:youtube]v=RGjAsQJh7OM Bonus. A series of article by a respected author that blows apart the conservative myth of "Carter the dove": http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174814/roger_morris_the_cia_and_the_gates_legacy Edited February 2, 2012 by j_b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Maybe the CIA can pay for this with their Facebook stock. Was that not the best investment ever!?!?! "Yes, I'll take my dividends in the form of toppled North African and Middle Eastern regimes." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.