The all newer Random Thoughts Thread [R] (may contain Sawker or Religion talk)

http://fortune.com/2014/07/29/economic-growth-democratic-presidents/

"Nixon, Ford, and George W. Bush were unlucky to have their presidencies coincide with large increases in oil prices, while Democratic presidents, with the exception of Carter, served during a time of flat or falling energy prices, a dynamic that can provide big boosts to the domestic economy....

Democratic presidents were apparently lucky enough to preside over the economy during periods where advances in technology had a huge effect on the economy. The best example of this dynamic is the rise of the Internet during the Clinton administration, when many processes were made more efficient and the economy more productive by the development of that technology."

 

Dubya was "unlucky" when he started a massive, unessessary war with massive unessessary deaths. On both sides.
At least he rid the world of those pesky WMDs and the madman.

Clinton was lucky when he rid us of a national debt and left a massive surplus. . Then lucky Dubya made the most of that and spent it on his 2 wars.

Then I'd suggest that the US was unlucky when the Russians voted Trump into office.
Oh wait. Fake news, no collusion.

 

One guys take on yesterday's news.
(JohnR)

A complete jackass in Turkey is criticizing a complete jackass in Saudi Arabia. The U.S. jackass (President) wants to appease the Saudi Arabian jackass because that guy pays him money. To do that, the U.S. Presidential jackass will target a U.S. resident and send him to be the hostage (executed) for the Turkish jackass, so that the Turkish jackass will be grateful and will start being nicer to the Saudi jackass.

 

There are/were two very large problems with the Iraq War.

A) There was no coherent exit strategy and B) the notion that a country cobbled together from 3 people groups that don't get along could govern itself without a lot of strife is nutty.

 

Other than the biggest mistake that we shouldn't have been there. You're right.

What we shudda done was finished up "Properly" in Afghanistan. Got rid of the Talban Totally helped with them being self sufficient and got out.
Yeah I know Dubya said he'd beaten the Taliban 7 times ...that's why they're still there and we have an undersized coalition in a useless holding mode.

 

That's debatable.

If one assumes that there was no way to go in and get out and leave the country better off, of course you're right. I tend to agree with you, but the WMD question is very muddy, to my mind. SH had plenny time to truck stuff to Syria or wherever b4 troops got there. It's not like the gas and crap he was using wasn't portable.

Hindsight is always 20-20, so it looks really bad now, but we can blame that on lousy intelligence and overzealousness on the part of Bush.

I'm not cynical by nature, so I won't believe that the IW was a ploy by the war machine to make money. Hope I'm right.

 

A Liverpool fan from Toronto , Kristin Wilkinson , does these with pencils. So amazingly realistic.

 

Aw come on Chris. It has been debated over and over. Experts on the scene say there were never any WMDs. Even before the troops went in the Bush 5th column. The Gobbels the Condi Rice had changed her tune from 5 WMDs a sentence to 'Sadam is a madman and has to go' as their new reason to start the war.

Bush so wanted this war. He was still pissed over his dad pulling out. Which turned into a good thing by Not leaving the vacuum that Dubya did and sucked up
Insurgents that morphed into ISIS

Don't get me going.

 

Untrue.

SH was gassing Kurds in the late 80s and prior to that. They didn't find any WMDs in Iraq, yes. But, as I said, they could have been trucked into Syria.

 

Yeah, in the garbage truck that Colin Powell made a fool of himself and the US at the U N.
Sorry your arguments are sounding more like Trumps lies and deflections.
Like I said, even Bushs' junta stopped with the WMD excuse before he attacked

We should never have gone into that country. There were other ways to rid of Sadam...and avoided the massive loss of life during, after and still.

 

That is some Talent. I'm really in awe when I see what some people can do in art or music.

 

Jesus, you do live in GOP fantasy world, don't you?

 

I know where you live.

 

The really nutty thing, is that you, or any other (seeming supporter) of that particular batch of atrocities, feels they have any right to an opinion on the matter without some attempt to right the wrongs that were done and pay the price of the wreckage of human life and misery that your support of the will to war allowed; the whole thing was based on lies by particular abals o fself interested groups.It was not done under the urge to rectify the ********ed up lives of the people of a third world (pretend second world) country, despite the lip service of the vipe outh Condoleeza, et al ...

You should be ashamed of yourself. A christian willing to blow the limbs of of ten thousand people ...for no good reason ....

 

apparently......

but that's what it takes, I suppose ....

 

Saddam Hussein was a very bad man. He killed people who were innocent of everything except being a member of a group that he thought posed a threat to his regime.

For a while the US was satisfied that he brought a measure of political stability to an otherwise chaotic region. Make no mistake. Iraq was a disaster waiting to happen. In fact, the whole Middle East is a mess, from Yemen to Turkey, from the Egypt to Iran. As long as there are Muslim sects, as long as Israel exists, as long as there is radical Islamic terrorism, there will be war there, on some level. Whether the US plays a part is a political issue, obviously, but it's not a simple matter of blaming Bush or Cheney or whomever you think was in it for the money. History will not be kind to the administration that prosecuted the Iraq War, but your notion that it was completely mercenary falls short of fact.

 

Where to start with this drivel...

There are lots of "very bad" men out there ruling countries who we haven't gone to war to remove. Using that argument for going to war is a simplistic argument used to get simplistic people to support a war waged for other reasons.

If Iraq was a disaster waiting to happen, it was a disaster of the US and its Allies (primarily Britain) making. They created the partition which forced rival factions to be joined together and then brought to power and supported SH in order to control it and fight a proxy war against Iran.

You are right that the presence of Israel is an issue for the middle east, but as a right winger I assume you are okay with this because of a few lines in Revelations. Some light reading for you on the subject of Zionism https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news...the-jewish-historic-right-to-israel-1.6654428

Yemen is a mess because we are supporting the Saudi war there. I'm not sure I'd describe Turkey, Egypt and Iran as a mess. They currently have governments that we can't easily control, but that doesn't necessarily constitute a mess.

You mention the presence of Muslim "sects" as a fundamental cause of strife in the region. These "sects" are simply groups of people with shared beliefs, culture and heritage. They are no different than similar groups in Europe, Africa Asia, or the Americas. The problem is with the political structures that have been imposed on a large portion of them which leave them with no representation or security, and all the wealth in the hands of few. In a power vacuum, like that created by the Iraq war, a battle to fill that void will ensue. There is nothing inherently different about Muslims that make them more likely to be at war.

Radical Islamic terrorism is a straw man used to frighten those already afraid of the "other". Its been used as an excuse to spend trillions in an effort to "keep us safe", while its radicalized homegrown right wingers who are actually killing us.

Our military-industrial complex is in it for the money. To suggest otherwise is naive.

Its no coincidence that Cheney goes from Defense Secretary to Haliburton CEO to VP candidate who argues for war with Iraq before he's even elected, to VP who starts the Iraq war and hands out billions in no bid contracts to his buddies at Haliburton.

 

I assume you are making this point because you are what is commonly called an anti-Semite, though that term is too loosely applied, since "Semite" doesn't only refer to Jews.

 

I agree with all of this , very well put , dcc.

 

. You're right. Questioning the logic of supporting the theft other's land and setting up an apartheid state based some supposed divine right established a few thousand years ago, does come from a deep seeded hatred of Jews.

But, honestly I'm not surprised you'd jump straight to that accusation considering you know "the bible tells me so" isn't going to win many debates around here and the facts don't support your position.

 

This is the most repeated FALLACY of recent times.
If we did indeed have 'massive surplus' as you'd lead us to believe, the outstanding national debt would have fallen during this period. Instead, just like under every other president, the national debt continued to increase under his stewardship. There was no surplus, just budgetary gimmicks.

 

Straight from the repugnant handbook of talking points.
Do you still want to compare even your amended totals to F'kin Dubyas after his wars. Or even "Why don't we just print more money" is Trumps answer to the debt that stand now at about $21 trillion. Give or take a dollar.
Clinton's surplus was a paltry $150 billion. Just chicken feed

Here's a quick fact checker for you by a non partisan group. It's worth a read by all.
If you call if "fake news" I'll be on your doorstep termorrer.

https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

 

If you're wondering to yourself "what is that stupid prick, Patrice Evra, up to these days?" Wonder no more...

Salmonella is a silent killer. Think on, Patrice. https://t.co/Lc1mTy9EGQ

— Nooruddean (@BeardedGenius) November 21, 2018

 

I think you're both sort of right here. Clinton did run budget surpluses for several years, but the overall national debt level continued to grow (presumably due to interest on outstanding debt among other things) but at a significantly slower rate, and represented a smaller percentage of GDP year over year.