idrankwhat

Please help me understand how you see this as funding for the U.S. military. Please. This is getting pretty desperate. You're breaking out the scalpel now to try to carve out an argument. I thought were were talking about "paying for the Iraq war". I'll help you understand. It's money that is appropriated for the DoD so that they can keep paying for the war. Seems to me that when Congress is supposed to be coming up with the cash it's all "money for the troops". But since you bring it up, I'd love to see how that money is allocated.

I tried earlier but you didn't seem to like it. How about this one from Wolfy in 2003? "There's a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people. ... The oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 billion and $100 billion over the course of the next two to three years. ... We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon." Before the righties ask for a cite, that was from Wolfowitz's testimony to Congress, March 27, 2003. And I hate to be the one to point it out, (ok, that's a lie) but Wolfy's pie in the sky estimates of oil revenues, if realized, might have covered ONE of our "emergency" spending requests.

If I had read this before I posted my last post I would have levied a hearty "Boooooyahhhh" at the end of it. But to answer this one, no. All of their pre and most of their post war claims have all been utter bullshit. Especially with regard to their sales pitch for the war, they got EVERYTHING wrong! Why we were going in, how many troops it was going to take, how long we were going to be there, how it was going to be paid for, that we weren't going to be occupiers, we know where the weapons are....blah blah blah. If you missed all of that then I understand why you take the positions you do. The rest of us heard it.

I tried earlier but you didn't seem to like it. How about this one from Wolfy in 2003? "There's a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people. ... The oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 billion and $100 billion over the course of the next two to three years. ... We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."

I see. It's simply a matter of filling in the blank with the most inflamatory option. I love it. What chu talkin' 'bout Willis? Everything they said about this war fits that description. They were wrong about ever assertion. Gotta love the internet. It's a great way to illustrate how they make themselves look like idiots.

you haven't been paying attention. It's none of your business - only your wife/servant/sexslave's's not only can she make the decision without you knowing, she is encouraged to for the sake of self determination How can you sit and effectively enslave her like 'man' has been doing to 'woman' over the last few millenium? Take off the chains, dude, evolve, kum bi ya, kum bi ya, hmmmmmmmm No way dude. I'm the man around the house. And when she says that I can make a decision, I do.

I never hear the "pro-life" folks worrying about what happens to them after they're born. Typically after they come out of the womb the song changes to "why should my tax dollars go to pay for the welfare and education of that lazy, good for nothing, deadbeat drain on the system?"

Hmm I thought the Iraqui Oil was going to do that. Look! You gotta quit taking the ravings posted on those loony, leftwing, moonbat sites as beacons of truth. You calling Wolfowitz a " left wing, loony, raving, moonbat"? When he was questioned on the issue, and the UPPER estimate that was out there was $95 billion TOTAL, he said....."To assume we're going to pay for it all is just wrong". Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that just about the amount of only the most recent, off budget "emergency" spending request? It's easier to make a list of the things they got right. 1).....

I think it's about $5.62 each, Give or take $560.00 LOL Ooops. Got lost in the zeros I guess. When they get that high that's when the fuzzy math kicks in. Apparently larger debt figures are more acceptable. That reminds me, I wonder when they're going to increase the debt ceiling again. Gotta be any day now.

Funny how you inferred all that from my post. From another story last week: How much does that work out per living American? I think it's about $5.62 each, whether they're working or not. But don't sweat the principal. We're only paying less than the minimum on that interest only loan and we know how good those agreements are for the economy

You mean this? I'm confused. I thought that petroleum was our preferred energy source. So THAT's why Ford is making the "Fusion". Heck, I'll drive one. It would be the bomb! Also, did you highlight the wrong sentence?

When it's mine or my wife's, I will. In the meantime I'm going to concern myself with my government's bad habit of taking innocent lives of people who are born, weaned, walking, playing, working, talking and learning but who just happen to live over top of our preferred energy source.

I don't know. Abortion conditions/circumstances vary. And I'm not the one to ask. I think I'll leave that to the Dr and the patient. Wacky idea, I know.

You've been following me around a lot lately, imitating my style of debate. Are you stalking me? "Imitation is the highest form of flattery." Mimic, mock. I see how some might get them confused.

The right not to indiscriminately terminated. Abortions are not indiscriminate by any stretch of the definition. Please elaborate. in·dis·crim·i·nate ADJECTIVE: 1. Not making or based on careful distinctions; unselective: an indiscriminate shopper; indiscriminate taste in music. 2. Random; haphazard: indiscriminate violence; an indiscriminate assortment of used books for sale. 3. Confused; chaotic: the indiscriminate policies of the previous administration. 4. Unrestrained or wanton; profligate: indiscriminate spending. I would not use any of those words to describe the decision to terminate a pregnancy. And I'd imagine that most of the women who have them wouldn't either. On the other hand, one could argue that those terms might apply to "collateral" terminations of life in a voluntary and arguably illegal nation building project.

As it should be. What list of rights should it have? The right not to indiscriminately terminated. Abortions are not indiscriminate by any stretch of the definition.

But were not talking equal rights. Presently the unborn child has few, if any, rights. As it should be. What list of rights should it have? Who gets to define that list? We can't agree on rights for people who are alive and in/near combat or alive and working to pick our fruit. Is this going to be another case where the loudest and best financed political group gets to decide what individual rights an unborn fetus/zygote has?

All the while taking away the rights of the woman. You know... the slave owners of the 1800s felt the same way about their rights. You guys need to go back to the appropriate thread for this discussion. We're trying to talk clones, seat belts and Drano snorting here

Well, when I don MY liberal hat, I get really pissed off and want to shoot the care takers in the head and then help the kids. Of course I get ticked off when this sort of thing happens anywhere. Not just when it supports my continuing search for a justification for a massive geopolitical and human rights screw up.

What? Is there a typo in there somewhere or have we all been elevated to deity status? If the latter, then I'm going to leave work early today go to the games. Zeus and Thor are headlining the Celebrity God Grudge Match and I hear that Aphrodite will be holding a sexual rapture clinic. Word on the aether is that her boob job looks great! whoosh.......... Ooops! You're busted! You can't make that sound if you're not part of nature.

What? Is there a typo in there somewhere or have we all been elevated to deity status? If the latter, then I'm going to leave work early today go to the games. Zeus and Thor are headlining the Celebrity God Grudge Match and I hear that Aphrodite will be holding a sexual rapture clinic. Word on the aether is that her boob job looks great!

maybe if some day rockets will stop flying out of Gaza, you will be proven wrong. let me put it in simple words. Israel controls its side of the border with Gaza and it has the right to decide what crosses this border. the gaza strip has a very long border with egypt as well, but it seems most of the things crossing that borger have a trigger on them... i have no intention of starving the gaza strip, but if the palestinians voted for a government that wants war with israel, how can they expect israel to provide them with supplies? btw, the ban of the PA was now lifted since now there is a government without Hamas (at least in the west bank) so let me tell you why. for once, it wasn't hezbollah, but palestinian groups within lebanon. in case you dont know, there have been bloody clashes lately between the lebanese government and these groups. they are simply trying to drag israel into that mess (same reasons missiles were flying out of gaza while the Palestinians were fighting amongst themselves. open your eyes. not once have they tried the peaceful way. every time you give them a chance it blows in your face. O I enjoy getting your viewpoint because your of your proximity/perspective. And I apologize if I allow my frustration to seep into the discussion. I'm looking at this as an almost complete outsider and I constantly need to remind myself that I would also probably have a different view if I had rockets, bombs and missiles exploding within miles of my house for years. I'd imagine that it's rather desensitizing. All I want is for people to acknowledge that there are at least two sides to this issue. We don't get it portrayed as such over here. And listening to the news on the way home I realized that I'm just going to have to accept that my government is going to continue to buy the governments that it wants. Maybe the influx of money will help out in the short term. But I also realize that we're just taking another step towards not solving the problem. I hope I'm wrong.

I won't disagree with that assessment. But I will also not ignore those actions by my country that did nothing but fuel the division.

and yet again you are ignoring the hundreds of missiles launched from Gaza at Israeli towns for no reason. That would be like saying that Israel fired those 5100 missiles for no reason. As far as I can tell the shooting never stopped coming from both sides. the proposed maps suggest that some of the larger settlements closer to the border will remain in exchange for lands elsewhere, mostly near Gaza where land reserve are a problem. Then what are all of those little blue triangles supposed to be? And what is that strip along the Jordan river? The proposal shows a hacked up land of varying sovereignty/autonomy that is littered with Israeli settlements, that is surrounded by Israeli security control. http://www.pmwatch.org/pmw/maps/finalstatus/2000israeliproposal.jpg and as for your other claim, Israel has taken a part the settlements in Gaza (and some in the west bank) when it decided to pull out, so your conclusion is flawed. excellent point. oh wait, that's exactly what we did in Gaza. there is no one to talk to so we pulled out completely. but instead of showing the world that they can start building a nation they kept firing rockets and... well, you see whats going on there. first of all, thats not true. Israel supplies Gaza with fuel, food and other supplies. That's right, Israel has complete control. It controls what comes in, goes out, power, water, sea, air, everything. They also want to decide who should lead the Palestinian "democracy". That's my point. There was no such thing as this "complete withdrawl" claim. It seems disingenuous to have Israel control absolutely everything and then complain about the results or get upset when the inhabitants resist. I still think that if you treat people like animals then you shouldn't be surprised when they act like animals. P.S don't know if you've heard, 3 rockets were launched from Lebanon yesterday into a civilian town. why? can you think of a good reason? I have no idea. Is the Israeli Air Force still terrorizing its neighbors like it has been documented as doing for years? I'm not sure because the UN observation post in that area was blown up by the IDF. O