"I'm GGG and I approve this message."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Before 93 when Bush I was president discretionary spending was cut. After Clinton came to office, he cut discretioiary spending less than Bush I did. The 93 budget did not touch entitlements and raised taxes. So the only "courageous" thing about the 93 act was that it raised taxes. Your claims the Dems cut spending in 93 WERE FLAT WRONG. Republicans felt that the wrong way to deal with the deficit was to Tax our way out of it. Kerry from Nebraska had the same problem and and that is why he alsmost killed it. I am glad that that Freshman Congresswoman was voted out, because she was wrong to follow the philosophy of trying to tax our way out of that deficict.

Reagan didn't balance the budget. Nor did Bush I. Clinton did. Bush II didn't. There's a pattern there that we all can see.

If you think that cutting taxes spurs enough economic growth to recoup the lost government revenues, you are delusional enough to belong in today's GOP. If, OTOH, you're just saying that Republicans wanted to cut other stuff instead of what Clinton and the Congress did, you are merely underscoring that the GOP is full of all sorts of easy talk about fiscal rectitude when it's out of power, but cannot find a way to walk the walk.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
are you trying to play with the definition of "is" again?

Hil is bringing everyone home. flat out. Obama is bringing almost everyone home, leaving a small amount in Kuwait or somewhere else near so when "his plan" crashes and burn he can do a Jimmy Carte desert rescue or something.

It's not "anti-war" to oppose one war and support another. Nor does President Bush's failure thus far to go to war with Iran or France make him "anti-war."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's not "anti-war" to oppose one war and support another. Nor does President Bush's failure thus far to go to war with Iran or France make him "anti-war."

actually being anti-war is good. I'm just saying their particualr specie of anti-war leader won't be increasing troop levels in Afghanistan, or if they really intend to, maybe they should add that to their talk about bringing everyone home. You really can't admit even that?

in California can it be a lie to not say something when you have a duty to say it? can you lie by silence? not just in court, but ethically, can it be a lie?

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
neither list Afghanistan or fighting terrorism in the major issues on their homepages. curious.

Really? Where did you look? Because I found this huge snippet of a speech on the "foreign policy" link http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/ from the list of issues on his home page. (He's also got one called "Iraq" and one called "Homeland Security")

• “When I am this party's nominee, my opponent will not be able to say that I voted for the war in Iraq; or that I gave George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran; or that I supported Bush-Cheney policies of not talking to leaders that we don't like. And he will not be able to say that I wavered on something as fundamental as whether or not it is ok for America to torture — because it is never ok… I will end the war in Iraq… I will close Guantanamo. I will restore habeas corpus. I will finish the fight against Al Qaeda. And I will lead the world to combat the common threats of the 21st century: nuclear weapons and terrorism; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease. And I will send once more a message to those yearning faces beyond our shores that says, "You matter to us. Your future is our future. And our moment is now.”
  
  — Barack Obama, Des Moines, Iowa, November 10, 2007
  

There's a counter-terrorism speech linked there, too, http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/0...ma_the_w_1.php in which he talks about Afghanistan. Again, on the main "foreign policy" page.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Hil is bringing everyone home. flat out. Obama is bringing almost everyone home, leaving a small amount in Kuwait or somewhere else near so when "his plan" crashes and burns he can do a Jimmy Carter desert rescue or something.

My fellow Americans, we have achieved something like progress when a black presidential candidate is slurred as a "Carter-lover."

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
actually being anti-war is good. I'm just saying their particualr specie of anti-war leader won't be increasing troop levels in Afghanistan, or if they really intend to, maybe they should add that to their talk about bringing everyone home. You really can't admit even that?

in California can it be a lie to not say something when you have a duty to say it? can you lie by silence? not just in court, but ethically, can it be a lie?

From the speech I linked to:

• It is time to turn the page. When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.

(emphasis supplied, obviously)From Remarks of Senator Obama: The War We Need to Win

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
in California can it be a lie to not say something when you have a duty to say it? can you lie by silence? not just in court, but ethically, can it be a lie?

California's presidents say "no," though personally I'm inclined to disgree with them.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
honestly? you think voters who are going for hil's "i'll start bringing them home in 2 months," will be cool with troops being sent back out anywhere? you can't campaign on getting troops out of fights, then go back into some other one.

First off, you're just being Hank here. Ordinarily, I wouldn't indulge you. However, I think I actually fall into a category you have labeled as impossible to believe.

I would vote for either Obama or Clinton if they were to say:

"Iraq was wrong. We don't need 170,000 troops there to maintain some modicum of civil order. I'm ordering 70,000 troops to be brought home over the next 36 months.

"However, I believe the wholesale slaughter of innocents in Darfur is a crime against humanity that can no longer be ignored. Over the next 6 months, we will be dispatching 25,000 troops to act as guardians and protectors for the people in refugee camps in Darfur."

I also find the two statements to be entirely consistent, unless you can prove to me that what both Obama and Clinton have said is that "the exact same soldiers who are presently in Iraq will be deeployed elsewhere." Otherwise, I believe you are what we tax lawyers call "full of shit."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
actually being anti-war is good. I'm just saying their particualr specie of anti-war leader won't be increasing troop levels in Afghanistan, or if they really intend to, maybe they should add that to their talk about bringing everyone home. You really can't admit even that?

in California can it be a lie to not say something when you have a duty to say it? can you lie by silence? not just in court, but ethically, can it be a lie?

When I hear them talk about bringing the troops home, I do not hear that as a promise to prevent the troops from taking vacations, and nor do you.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
actually being anti-war is good. I'm just saying their particualr specie of anti-war leader won't be increasing troop levels in Afghanistan, or if they really intend to, maybe they should add that to their talk about bringing everyone home. You really can't admit even that?

This was the talk that I got. I don't think anyone in that basketball stadium thought that Afghanistan isn't going to get more attention, especially given this part:

My job will be to keep you safe. And I will not hesitate to strike against any who would do us harm. I will do whatever is required. But part of keeping you safe is maintaining the finest military in the world, and that means providing our troops with the proper equipment and the proper training and the proper rotations.

And it means caring for our troops when they come home, not forgetting about our troops. No more homeless veterans; no more begging for disability payments; no more waiting in line for the V.A. We have a solemn obligation to honor those who have served on our behalf.

But part of keeping you safe is also deploying our military wisely. And the war in Iraq was unwise.

(APPLAUSE)

It distracted us from the fight that needed to be fought in Afghanistan against Al Qaida. They're the ones who killed 3,000 Americans. It fanned the flames of anti-American sentiment. It has cost us dearly in blood and in treasure.

I opposed this war in 2002. I will bring this war to an end in 2009. It is time to bring our troops home.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Yes WE can.

Barrack Obama is Magic, just like Jesus!

I'm pretty sure it was Bob the Builder who said that.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
The lie is that they are going to bring the troops home. Troop levels in Iraq will probably decline some under either Dem president, but they aren't going to get anywhere near zero.

Happy now?

Am I missing something here? When Clinton ran he critisized every foreign policy move Bush I made, and then continued all his policies when he got in. MFN for China, Somalia, Haiti, NAFTA etc. And when Bush II ran he said he would change all of Clinton foreign polilcy stuff (i.e. getting our troops out of Bosnia and I believe they are still there) and continued all of Clinton's policies. Everyone running right now is going to critisize what Bush II did, and promise to change stuff which they can't, or shouldn't. Why would it be any different? For a while I think Obama actually believed he was going to do the stuff he said he was going to do, but now I am pretty sure he has been sucked into the game.

If American Presidents made their foreign policy decisions based on what the majority of Americans wanted, it would be a disaster. Its a damn good thing we live in a Republic and not a true Democracy.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski

from Obama's-

. . . He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.[/list]

neither list Afghanistan or fighting terrorism in the major issues on their homepages. curious.

I thought al Qaeda was the terrorist threat, right?

S_A_M

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Reagan didn't balance the budget. Nor did Bush I. Clinton did. Bush II didn't. There's a pattern there that we all can see.

I know you're using this as a rhetorical device, but the pattern over the last 50 years is that no one balances the budget. Clinton is an outlier, but so was the internet bubble during the time the government ran a surplus during Clinton's term.

If you insist on using the pattern, I will insist that you look at political control of Congress as the causative factor. The only time when the country has run a surplus in the last 50 years is when both houses are controlled by republicans.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I thought al Qaeda was the terrorist threat, right?

S_A_M

No, dumbass. It's Democrats who are the terrorists. Pay attention, will you?