Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
This is just an assjack statement.

Intentionally so, although even limited Great Society should have had hard sunset provisions.

Originally posted by taxwonk
If you want to talk treason, go buy and read The Death of a Thousand Cuts, Michael Graetz's book on estate tax repeal.

I will never be convinced of this. You are a tax wonk, so you are self-interested. I say to the oppressive government rapists, stop fucking the corpses of our recently deceased predecessors and stealing our wealth. eta: fwiw, fyi, unfortunately, in terms of expected inheritances, unless I remarry someone who stands to inherit something, by the old standard, or as amended, the estate tax will have no affect on any benefit I expect to receive in this lifetime.

Of course, thankfully, we always have our second amendment protections to fall back on.

Originally posted by taxwonk

Not this lib. I think apology resolutions are stupid and irrelevant. Besides, you know full well my motto: never explain, never apologize.

Word. I regret every apology I have ever made. At least I didn't cry, thank god, like that pvssy Durbin.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Maybe. He made the promise knowing what the obvious risks were. It certainly would have saved American lives.

Are you under the impression that he promised that Germany would never attack us?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Are you under the impression that he promised that Germany would never attack us?

I am under the impression that there is a clear meaning to the below quote:

In Boston on October 30 FDR said; “I have said this before but I shall say it again and again and again; your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.”

And that meaning is I will not send troops to Europe. A naval battle with Germany in the Atlantic did not require D-Day. and it is not like that above statement was made without the knowledge of what the handwriting on the wall was.

He lied and our boys died. I agree with his decisions, but that doesn't alter the characterization of his duplicity.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I love it when conservatives start fulminating about Roosevelt. You get these ridiculous statements like, "he did everything he could to provoke a confrontation in the Atlantic." This about a time when U-Boats were sinking ships within sight of Miami (for example).

It's 1940. You're Roosevelt. What do you do to stay neutral? Stop trading with England and Canada?

"His lies cost countless of American lives." Um, which lives were those?

Fulminating? I was not attacking Roosevelt. Or did you not read my post? And everything I have read about Roosevelt says that he wanted the US to enter the war but public opinion was against it. It is conventional wisdom that he was lying when he said "I won't send your boys in a foreign war to fight and die". The Lend Lease act was an act of war. He pretty much gave an entire fleet to the British for nothing. I support what he did. The point is that Roosevelts conduct prior to WWII was much more deceptive than Ws conduct prior to Iraqi Freedom.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
I support what he did. The point is that Roosevelts conduct prior to WWII was much more deceptive than Ws conduct prior to Iraqi Freedom.

2. taking it one step further, I expect the eventual result of W's conduct to be as successful as the results of Roosevelt's clearly duplicitous acts.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
The Lend Lease act was an act of war. He pretty much gave an entire fleet to the British for nothing.

The British got a bunch of junk. We got military bases worldwide. We came out ahead on that one.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
The British got a bunch of junk. We got military bases worldwide. We came out ahead on that one.

How are u valuing the saving of their sorry arses?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
And your grandson will say, "Make up evidence tying bin Laden to Iraq so we can invade!"

WASHINGTON POST: Why do you think bin Laden has not been caught?
W: Because he's hiding.

--Jan. 14, 2005

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
The British got a bunch of junk. We got military bases worldwide. We came out ahead on that one.

They were limited leases on non strategic bases. We got nothing. And protecting British shipping in international waters was an act of war. In case you guys forgot, we protected British ships with US Naval protection half way across the Atlantic. In addition, the Germans never sunk anything in our territorial water. Wasn't the Atlantic Charter signed while we were still "neutral"? We were having summits with the head of state of a country at war while supposedly Roosevelt was doing everything to keep us out of war. Before December 7th we instituted the draft and were pretty much mobilizing for war.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
They were limited leases on non strategic bases. We got nothing. And protecting British shipping in international waters was an act of war. In case you guys forgot, we protected British ships with US Naval protection half way across the Atlantic. In addition, the Germans never sunk anything in our territorial water. Wasn't the Atlantic Charter signed while we were still "neutral"? We were having summits with the head of state of a country at war while supposedly Roosevelt was doing everything to keep us out of war. Before December 7th we instituted the draft and were pretty much mobilizing for war.

Because he was lying. Obviously. Massively.

[SlaveNoMore]

Shape Shifter
The British got a bunch of junk. We got military bases worldwide. We came out ahead on that one.

A a country full of cheese-eating surrender monkeys got a permanent veto on the Security Council.

So who really made out on the deal?

[Penske_Account]

Are the senile feeble old justices, O'conner and Rehnquist, going to clutch at the edges of their blackrobes like petty tyrants until the grim reaper comes calling or will they actually have the decency and respect for our Consitution to step aside and let W do what we elected him to?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
They were limited leases on non strategic bases. We got nothing. And protecting British shipping in international waters was an act of war. In case you guys forgot, we protected British ships with US Naval protection half way across the Atlantic. In addition, the Germans never sunk anything in our territorial water. Wasn't the Atlantic Charter signed while we were still "neutral"? We were having summits with the head of state of a country at war while supposedly Roosevelt was doing everything to keep us out of war. Before December 7th we instituted the draft and were pretty much mobilizing for war.

Actually, I was thinking of the Destroyers for bases agreement, where we gave the British some useless destroyers for some naval bases. And I'm not disputing your point that the U.S. was engaged prior to formal declaration of war.

Anyone know anything about Russian tanks?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
A a country full of cheese-eating surrender monkeys got a permanent veto on the Security Council.

So who really made out on the deal?

China.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Are the senile feeble old justices, O'conner and Rehnquist, going to clutch at the edges of their blackrobes like petty tyrants until the grim reaper comes calling or will they actually have the decency and respect for our Consitution to step aside and let W do what we elected him to?

Who is this "we," kemosabe?

Sorta telling as to the faith they have in the President if they're gonna try and stick it out until their dying breaths. Here's hoping they last another three years.