The growing bipartisan consensus on Obama

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:Bush can fky an F-!5 . Obama would accelerate into the ocean like JFK jr.

You forgot to mention his bowling skillz.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:TheManWithAUserName AKA known as Jeff.

Actually, we're ALL Jeff, even...you!

Did I just blow your mind? Never mind - stupid question.

[Anonymous]

Obama fly jet and run economy like he play basketball.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50113UTU4AM

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I consider the Iraq war to be a success. Look at the arab world now, all of the dictators are falling one after the other - they owe that largely to Bush. There was a dictator sitting on one of the worlds largest oil reserves who had invaded two of his neighbors and committed genocide against his own people, had violated numerous UN resolutions, so the war was justified.

The only question is the cost. But if we are going to spend $500B a year on defense, we are going to be in a lot of wars - that is how it works.

That's so funny because I don't recall Iraq being a popular uprising. I do recall Libya being a us led military action and you are against it-- even though it is part of the Arab spring.

You are so full of shit you vpcan't even keep it all straight in your head.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:The only question is the cost. But if we are going to spend $500B a year on defense, we are going to be in a lot of wars - that is how it works.

There are also all the dead and injured and the destruction, but what the hey? - let's ignore those for now.

So the ONLY thing is the cost. Just the itty-bitty cost of those wars. No call to sweat that.

You're reasoning about how much we were spending is just bizarre. Don't criticize the cost of the wars, because wars are an inevitable result of military spending. Any rational person accepting your premise about inevitability - as many opposed to military spending do - would say that the solution is to cut military spending before wars start.

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only question is the cost. But if we are going to spend $500B a year on defense, we are going to be in a lot of wars - that is how it works.

There are also all the dead and injured and the destruction, but what the hey? - let's ignore those for now.

So the ONLY thing is the cost. Just the itty-bitty cost of those wars. No call to sweat that.

You're reasoning about how much we were spending is just bizarre. Don't criticize the cost of the wars, because wars are an inevitable result of military spending. Any rational person accepting your premise about inevitability - as many opposed to military spending do - would say that the solution is to cut military spending before wars start.

no, I agree with you. we need to cut military spending so we don't get into these wars. But if we are going to spend $500B+/year on defense, then we are going to want to use those shiny new tanks and planes, and implement the war planning and strategies, etc.

The casualties are pretty low. Horrible to lose even one life, but how many die each year in the military just from training? A ton.

But just to put an economic value on the war - what IS the dollar value in removing Saddam? Would $1T over ten years be worth it? $500B? You tell me. One dictator sitting on a shitload of oil who hated us, who started two wars and who was guilty of genocide, who in the past had a WMD program, is gone. That has to be worth something.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:no, I agree with you. we need to cut military spending so we don't get into these wars. But if we are going to spend $500B+/year on defense, then we are going to want to use those shiny new tanks and planes, and implement the war planning and strategies, etc.

This still makes no sense - you're still saying that if we're spending the money, we might as well go to war, and thereby spend more money. You are aware that the wars are far, far, more expensive?

Anonymous wrote:The casualties are pretty low.

If you don't count the tens of thousands of civilians.

Anonymous wrote:Horrible to lose even one life

The sincerity of your sympathy touches me.

Anonymous wrote:But just to put an economic value on the war - what IS the dollar value in removing Saddam? Would $1T over ten years be worth it? $500B? You tell me. One dictator sitting on a shitload of oil who hated us, who started two wars and who was guilty of genocide, who in the past had a WMD program, is gone. That has to be worth something.

In dollar terms, removing him was a terrible move. He was the only one keeping that place together.

[Anonymous]

But just to put an economic value on the war - what IS the dollar value in removing Saddam?

As of 2008, the conservative estimate was $3 trillion dollars. That's three-thousand-billion dollars for those who don't "get" math:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846.html

[Anonymous]

Everybody thought the GWB vision of democracy in the middle east was foolish and impossible. GWB was right and the critics were wrong. GWB left with AAA credit and the economy was strong enough for Obama to waste a whole year on hyper-partisan Obamacare. Obama is an idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everybody thought the GWB vision of democracy in the middle east was foolish and impossible. GWB was right and the critics were wrong. GWB left with AAA credit and the economy was strong enough for Obama to waste a whole year on hyper-partisan Obamacare. Obama is an idiot.

I didn't know conservatives did hallucinogens. Well anyway, when you sober up we can discuss reality again.