PDA

View Full Version : The Plain Truth.



Qtec
03-02-2011, 07:00 AM
http://crooksandliars.com/files/vfs/2011/03/MAX_GOV.jpg


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nonexistent Questioner: Oh. So why will destroying the public service unions who didn't vote for you solve your deficit problem?

Maximum Governor: Because unions that didn't vote for me are run by monsters who will never, ever, ever give me what I asked for.

Nonexistent Questioner: But that's just a lie. They just gave you everything you asked for.

Maximum Governor: It is not a lie, because...because while it may be true that unions did just give me everything I asked for now and it may be true that their imaginary uncooperativeness was the sole rationale I gave for destroying them, at some point in the future they might not give me what I want, which is why they must be destroyed right now....It's like "The Terminator". If I don't kill Sarah Conor now, she will one day give birth to Cesar Chavez III who will oppose me. </div></div>



LOL

So true.

Q

JohnnyD
03-02-2011, 07:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> http://crooksandliars.com/files/vfs/2011/03/MAX_GOV.jpg


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nonexistent Questioner: Oh. So why will destroying the public service unions who didn't vote for you solve your deficit problem?

Maximum Governor: Because unions that didn't vote for me are run by monsters who will never, ever, ever give me what I asked for.

Nonexistent Questioner: But that's just a lie. They just gave you everything you asked for.

Maximum Governor: It is not a lie, because...because while it may be true that unions did just give me everything I asked for now and it may be true that their imaginary uncooperativeness was the sole rationale I gave for destroying them, at some point in the future they might not give me what I want, which is why they must be destroyed right now....It's like "The Terminator". If I don't kill Sarah Conor now, she will one day give birth to Cesar Chavez III who will oppose me. </div></div> This appears to be the truth or is it? It may just be another one of life's scenario's.



LOL

So true.

Q </div></div>

JohnnyD
03-02-2011, 07:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> http://crooksandliars.com/files/vfs/2011/03/MAX_GOV.jpg


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nonexistent Questioner: Oh. So why will destroying the public service unions who didn't vote for you solve your deficit problem?

Maximum Governor: Because unions that didn't vote for me are run by monsters who will never, ever, ever give me what I asked for.

Nonexistent Questioner: But that's just a lie. They just gave you everything you asked for.

Maximum Governor: It is not a lie, because...because while it may be true that unions did just give me everything I asked for now and it may be true that their imaginary uncooperativeness was the sole rationale I gave for destroying them, at some point in the future they might not give me what I want, which is why they must be destroyed right now....It's like "The Terminator". If I don't kill Sarah Conor now, she will one day give birth to Cesar Chavez III who will oppose me. </div></div>



LOL

So true.

Q </div></div>Do not ever be afraid of the truth.The truth is there.Comprehend the truth.The truth will set you free.

Gayle in MD
03-02-2011, 08:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> http://crooksandliars.com/files/vfs/2011/03/MAX_GOV.jpg


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nonexistent Questioner: Oh. So why will destroying the public service unions who didn't vote for you solve your deficit problem?

Maximum Governor: Because unions that didn't vote for me are run by monsters who will never, ever, ever give me what I asked for.

Nonexistent Questioner: But that's just a lie. They just gave you everything you asked for.

Maximum Governor: It is not a lie, because...because while it may be true that unions did just give me everything I asked for now and it may be true that their imaginary uncooperativeness was the sole rationale I gave for destroying them, at some point in the future they might not give me what I want, which is why they must be destroyed right now....It's like "The Terminator". If I don't kill Sarah Conor now, she will one day give birth to Cesar Chavez III who will oppose me. </div></div>



LOL

So true.

Q </div></div>
<span style="color: #CC0000"> You know, you could substitute the word, "Union" with the word, "SADDAM" and it would all still be correct, LMAO!
</span>

Sev
03-02-2011, 08:59 AM
It was a real shame that the fall of Saddam also ended the continual rape of woman and children.

Is that what you are saying Gayle?

Soflasnapper
03-02-2011, 11:22 AM
There were reasons to oppose that war that weren't based on support of Saddam or his practices. Those practices, while horrific, did not rise to the level of justifying a war. Nor were those the reasons we used, until the 4th or 5th try to come up with something that justified it.

What was said was that we needed to resort to preventative war, against potential future dangers, and that was what G refers to, the preventative war 'justification.' The future danger used in this case was that he would start to TRANSFER his WMD to the TERRORISTS for their use on US.

Eisenhower as president condemned the notion of preventative war, and said it was the unique evil plan of the Nazis, that of course no moral society would emulate.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.

~Dwight D. Eisenhower</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> * All of us have heard this term "preventive war" since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In this day and time, if we believe for one second that nuclear fission and fusion, that type of weapon, would be used in such a war what is a preventive war?
I would say a preventive war, if the words mean anything, is to wage some sort of quick police action in order that you might avoid a terrific cataclysm of destruction later.
A preventive war, to my mind, is an impossibility today. How could you have one if one of its features would be several cities lying in ruins, several cities where many, many thousands of people would be dead and injured and mangled, the transportation systems destroyed, sanitation implements and systems all gone? That isn't preventive war; that is war.
I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing.
... It seems to me that when, by definition, a term is just ridiculous in itself, there is no use in going any further.
There are all sorts of reasons, moral and political and everything else, against this theory, but it is so completely unthinkable in today's conditions that I thought it is no use to go any further.
o News Conference of (11 August 1954)
o Variant: When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war. War settles nothing.
+ Quoted in Quote magazine (4 April 1965) and The Quotable Dwight D. Eisenhower (1967) edited by Elsie Gollagher, p. 219
</div></div>

Gayle in MD
03-02-2011, 01:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There were reasons to oppose that war that weren't based on support of Saddam or his practices. Those practices, while horrific, did not rise to the level of justifying a war. Nor were those the reasons we used, until the 4th or 5th try to come up with something that justified it.

What was said was that we needed to resort to preventative war, against potential future dangers, and that was what G refers to, the preventative war 'justification.' The future danger used in this case was that he would start to TRANSFER his WMD to the TERRORISTS for their use on US.

Eisenhower as president condemned the notion of preventative war, and said it was the unique evil plan of the Nazis, that of course no moral society would emulate.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.

~Dwight D. Eisenhower</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> * All of us have heard this term "preventive war" since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In this day and time, if we believe for one second that nuclear fission and fusion, that type of weapon, would be used in such a war what is a preventive war?
I would say a preventive war, if the words mean anything, is to wage some sort of quick police action in order that you might avoid a terrific cataclysm of destruction later.
A preventive war, to my mind, is an impossibility today. How could you have one if one of its features would be several cities lying in ruins, several cities where many, many thousands of people would be dead and injured and mangled, the transportation systems destroyed, sanitation implements and systems all gone? That isn't preventive war; that is war.
I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing.
... It seems to me that when, by definition, a term is just ridiculous in itself, there is no use in going any further.
There are all sorts of reasons, moral and political and everything else, against this theory, but it is so completely unthinkable in today's conditions that I thought it is no use to go any further.
o News Conference of (11 August 1954)
o Variant: When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war. War settles nothing.
+ Quoted in Quote magazine (4 April 1965) and The Quotable Dwight D. Eisenhower (1967) edited by Elsie Gollagher, p. 219
</div></div>
</div></div>
Thank you for another excelletn post.


Like, does snyone actually think that Bush and Cheney gave a damn about Iraqi civilians!

Incredible! They made no effort to protect civilians, none!


The only reason why that war was launched, was because Cheney was able to get billions upon billions in refinery Contracts for OIL CORPORATIONS. Did WE get that oil? Hell no!

And it served Cheney's hot issue, Removing limits on energy policies, and secondly, war set him up with an opportunity to expand presidential power, and remove checks and balances, and side track the EPA, ANd The congress, to benefit his own investments, and those of his cronies, AND the Bush DyNASTY.

AND Little Bushy, had a shot at out-doing Da Da, and getting back at Saddam, for supposedly trying to assassinate Da DA.

Every No Bid Contractor, in Iraq, had connections with either Cheney, Rice, the Bush Family, Rumsfeld, or someone in, or contributing to, The American Enterprise Institute!

"The Iraq War is about oil" Alan Greenspan

"...Forever A Black Mark on my career." Colin Powell

"The invasion and occupation of Iraq, was the worst Foreign Policy Decision in the history of America."
Five former Secretaries of State from BOTH Political parties.

And the right, STILL doesn't get it!

Stunning ignorance and denial.!

LWW
03-02-2011, 05:20 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There were reasons to oppose that war that weren't based on support of Saddam or his practices.
</div></div>

Name them.

LWW

LWW
03-02-2011, 05:21 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Those practices, while horrific, did not rise to the level of justifying a war.
</div></div>

Then what would?

LWW

pooltchr
03-02-2011, 05:39 PM
You better check with Gee to make sure it's ok to say that...she was for the war before she was against it.

I'm thinking Q and G are both residing in the same fantasy world!

Steve

LWW
03-03-2011, 02:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You better check with Gee to make sure it's ok to say that...she was for the war before she was against it.

I'm thinking Q and G are both residing in the same fantasy world!

Steve </div></div>

I must correct you ... you was for the war when the democrooks told her she was for it and only became against it when they told her to be against it.

She also believed Saddamite Hussinsein had WMD stacked like firewood when the democrooks told her to believe that ... and believes he never had any at all now that they tell her to believe that.

Now, this could all be explained by someone receiving new data ... but Gee believes all 4 positions to be "TRUTH" because it came from the party.

LWW

JohnnyD
03-03-2011, 07:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You better check with Gee to make sure it's ok to say that...she was for the war before she was against it.

I'm thinking Q and G are both residing in the same fantasy world!

Steve </div></div>

I must correct you ... you was for the war when the democrooks told her she was for it and only became against it when they told her to be against it.

She also believed Saddamite Hussinsein had WMD stacked like firewood when the democrooks told her to believe that ... and believes he never had any at all now that they tell her to believe that.

Now, this could all be explained by someone receiving new data ... but Gee believes all 4 positions to be "TRUTH" because it came from the party.

LWW </div></div>The truth is there if she wants to find it.The truth will set her free.

LWW
03-03-2011, 03:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[Like, does snyone actually think that Bush and Cheney gave a damn about Iraqi civilians!

Incredible! They made no effort to protect civilians, none!</div></div>

I hereby nominate that as insane post of the year.

LWW

pooltchr
03-03-2011, 05:06 PM
I agree. The war could have been over in weeks, rather than years, if the Bush administration hadn't been worried about civilian casualty count. The rules of engagement that our service men and women are bound by actually put them in more danger, all in the name of protecting civilians.

Steve

LWW
03-04-2011, 05:53 AM
Make that minutes.

A few nukes lobbed on Baghdad, Basra, and Tikrit and the nation of Iraq is thoroughly finished and oil fields remain intact.

That isn't how America handles things, but it is exactly how the Islamofascist hordes would do America if they had the chance.

And, if and when the first WMD is set off on US soil, the far left will bleat at the tops of their collectivist lungs ...

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>"WHY DIDN'T SOMEBODY DO SOMETHING TO STOP THIS!!!!"</span>

LWW

Soflasnapper
03-04-2011, 10:56 AM
Could you briefly describe how that would have gone, to have been over in weeks?

I don't see how that would have been possible. Unless you mean that if we killed EVERYBODY, nobody would have been left fighting.

I presume you do not mean that method. So you have some other tactic in mind, which would have killed more civilians but worked quicker?

In my view, we were in for a long slog as soon as the fateful decision to not secure the 450 tons of cached RDX and HDX explosive stores (which had been locked up under UNSCOM monitoring), and the ill-thought out decision to disband the military. Those trained soldiers, all suddenly unemployed, pillaged the explosives and those later became the guts of the IEDs.

LWW
03-04-2011, 11:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In my view, we were in for a long slog as soon as the fateful decision to not secure the 450 tons of cached RDX and HDX explosive stores (which had been locked up under UNSCOM monitoring), and the ill-thought out decision to disband the military. Those trained soldiers, all suddenly unemployed, pillaged the explosives and those later became the guts of the IEDs.

</div></div>

In that we agree.

In one of Bush's many foolish decisions attempting to placate the moonbat crazy left in America, and the seditious congress ... which opposed him even though he was more often than not to the left of William Jefferson Clinton ... Bush allowed an insurgency to get a toehold.

Had the first looters ... most likely criminals released from the prisons by the Ba'athists as the fled like cowards ... been sent to Allah via the benevolence of the US taxpayer, much of the carnage which followed would almost certainly have been avoided.

LWW