Gingrich at Republican Fundraiser Says Obama’s ‘Already Failed’

nope.

well to be fair the handouts i want to send out are mostly bullets and bombs.

of course i am afraid of the muslims. and of course the price of freedom is that you have to fight. and i am not really a republican. i am far more liberal than barack obama on social issues. as far as i can tell, barack is a primitive religious idiot with crazy religious right wing values.

what is your point?

i dunno what you mean "we are next" . madrid and london and new york already know quite well what it is liked to be bombed by muslims.

i dunno what you are talking about. i am not for sending aid all over the place. i am for toppling a regime in afghanistan that was crazy and harbored terrorists that murdered my neighbors. and i am for toppling a regime in iraq that was destabilizing a very volatile region and had invaded its neighbor and murdered political dissidents and oppressed ethnic groups.

does that mean i favor bombing every country that acts up, like iran and north korea? if they invade their neighbors like iraq, or harbor folks like bin laden, yes.

 

Impasse #1 solved.

Costs money.

See, we do agree, to some extent at least, that something needed to be done about bin Laden.

But beyond that, I'm not so sure. Saddam was going nuts, but I'm confused why we took the lead as we did. The imminent threat to the US was... cost of oil? We took the lead in Iraq and you want us to take the lead in similar circumstances, but the cost to taxpayers is extensive, and what do we get for it? A more stable geopolitical environment? Cheaper oil? The moral authority? Do other countries not hold a more prominent stake with countries such as Iraq, Iran, and North Korea? Is it all part of a bigger game to keep China and Russia in check?

Do you feel like we, and we alone, are responsible for keeping the planet from going to sh!t? My point before was trying to understand what you think will happen if we don't immediately throw our bones in for wrongs done on the other side of the globe. It costs a lot of money to spend bombs and bullets on countries like Iraq.

 

whatever you say, dude.

freedom aint free.

and the failed nation that harbored him.

had saddam kept kuwait, he would have had even more oil, more money. that means a better military, more power, more ambition for saddam. that we stopped him when we did was a great service to the earth. and now that we totally finished him, the world knows how we do things, and it makes it more stable.

not necessarily. depends on the circumstance. right now i want us to do absolutely nothing with north korea and iran, or really anywhere else.

that is exactly what we get, and it has value.

despite what the media tells you, our leaders dont really give a damn about the price of oil. bush didnt, cheney didnt, and no one else really does.

moral authority is a stupid concept that doesnt matter and is trumpeted by the media for no other reason that the media are idiots.

yes, it is important for everyone that world is stable. that the US has been willing to do the dirty work is why we are far more respected than the idiots in the media would have you believe.

incidentally here are the people who do not like the US:

1. german cowards who have had their soul crippled with guilt by german history and are afraid of any sort of of power or violence, no matter how necessary
2. unemployed french college students with beards and berets and gay tendencies.
3. muslim lunatics.

no, but when nobody else has any balls whatsoever, there is not much you can do about that.

when a free iraq is prospering, and their neighbors the iranians (and of course this is happening a little bit right this second) learn that freedom is better than primitive radical nonsense, it will be a domino effect and lead to secular democracy, which along with capitalism is the thing that will save the world. that has a little bit of value.

the number one goal right now in terms of global politics is to bring backward cultures into the modern world. china is doing it. south korea is already awesome. next is the middle east. then after that africa will go through the same things. once these places get decent leaders and democracy, they wil no longer be threatening. and eventually the whole world will be peaceful like a bunch of canadas.

of course a big stumbling block is that religion is pervasive and ruins everything, everywhere. so i do my part in reminding everyone who is not atheist that they are acting like a ****ing retard.

 

I wasn't aware that Iraq was threatening our freedom.

I suppose it is more cost effective and peaceful to send welfare to Afghanistan than to simply declare war on Afghanistan to facilitate the capture of bin Laden. Now we are sitting on our hands, more or less, trying to figure out how to deal with Pakistan. If one believes in the "war on terror" shouldn't it extend into and against Pakistan, a nation that is harboring terrorists?

We may have done a service to the people of the world by toppling Saddam and working to stabilize Iraq, but it cost a lot of money. Iraq was no direct threat to the US, except that a stronger Iraq may put a hurting on our wallets via oil. We led the charge against Iraq the first and second time when other countries at more direct peril followed us in the first time and shuffled their feet the second time. What harm would come from making other nations stand up to problems in their neck of the woods? If they won't stand up and end up getting smacked for it, isn't that really their own problem? Do we really have to protect other countries that won't stand up for themselves?

A lot of the biggest American companies make a lot of money on middle eastern oil. If the cost of oil goes up, it has a huge effect on the US economy. But our leaders don't care about it?

I forgot you believe in might alone. :hihi:

Hasn't Iran been one of the most westernized Muslim nations in the world for a while now?

You are a saint. :thumb:

 

guys pay attention, red isnt for too much or too little, he is for the amount that is just right. so unless you favor the wrong amount, you agree with him. also please do not ask about specifics.

 

hitler wasnt really threatening us either, but his ambition and power was growing dangerously.

one good thing about obama is that he claims that he is not afraid to go and fight in pakistan, without their permission. as far as forced regime change for pakistan goes, maybe so. lets hold off on that for a moment and see how things shake out on their own for a sec, though.

i agree that would be great. but most countries are too cowardly or weak to manage things. i hope china gets serious and threatens north korea with total destruction, and north lorea takes them seriously. but who knows if they will. what i do know is that if bush made a threat north korea would take it seriously.

well, i should have said our smarter leaders. the dumb ones think they can control everything.

oil prices are for the most part controlled by OPEC, who dont care what american politicians think. and anyways, higher oil prices drive money into alternatives that might reduce our dependence, or even save the earth, if you are into that sort of thing. plus, it isnt the job of the government to manage prices.

well, not more than qatar or dubai or something. but more than pakistan. at any rate, what is happening there now could shake out to be really good. and long term i think the modernization of iraq is gonna be really important. it can only help the young secular kids in iran to see progress in their neighbor. especially 10 years from now when the iraqi oil money has had a chance to make that country rich, like it should be.

 

Comparing Round 2 Saddam to Hitler is laughable, so I'll assume you mean Round 1 Saddam. Where was Saddam going to go? Iran? Saudi Arabia? Turkey? Egypt? Israel? There isn't a lot of steam he could have picked up.

When did bin Laden slip over the border? Sometime around 2003? That's a bit longer than a sec.

I don't know if China is interested in blowing up N Korea, but they can't like where N Korea is taking this. N Korea was acting up all during Bush's tenure and all Bush offered was empty words.

Iraq going nutty would likely affect production, thus affecting the price of oil. Right?

Sounds great. Did you say you weren't a neocon?

 

We can certainly debate the merits of Obama's spending proposals and make educated estimates how these policies will affect the deficits. The bipartisan CBO has done such and they estimate much higher deficits then Bush ever had. You don't want to debate the merits of their projections or make a case why they may be overestimated.

Not speculating at all. Anyone with half a brain can see what his proposals will do to the national debt.

I find it very suspicious that you are so eager to blame Bush for his deficit spending but are hesitant to criticize Obama's policies after the bipartisan CBO warned of ensuing deficits much larger than Bush's. Are you not intelligent enough to look at the CBO's data along with Obama's proposals and come up with your own conclusion? Are you just going to sit by passively and not have any opinions on Obama's fiscal policies until he's out of office? Once again, I ask how long are you going to give Obama before you critique his policies? Your 68 Billion you make reference to is nothing but a drop in the bucket compared to Obama's proposed budget.

You can't come up with a feasible scenario based on Obama's proposed policies and economist predictions that contradict the CBO's huge deficit projections.

This is not telling us anything. Adequate taxes and adequate government can mean something completely different to someone on the left, in the middle, or on the right. In fact it can mean something completely different within the aforementioned groups. It could mean you are for $1 in taxes as long as spending doesn't go over $1. Or it could mean you are for 100 trillion in taxes as long as government spending is 100 trillion or less.

I don't expect you to become hysterical. I was just looking for some of that proper balance you often advocate and just a hint of concern over these CBO deficit projections. I haven't seen an ounce of either from you.

It may be too early to write off Obama but is it too early to start critiquing his proposed policies and to discuss the merits of the CBO's projections?

You're too much on the defensive. Why are you scared to debate the merits of the CBO's projections?

 

they are the same person. finishing him is part of the statement that we have sent to the world about aggression. take over a neighbor, and you will be defeated, and not only that, you will have oppressive rules placed on you, and you will not be able to continue your old ways. if you dont obey the rules, you will be taken down entirely.

a leader now, who contemplates an invasion, he knows that he will not only be sent back home, he will be sent home with rules that he hates, and they really must obey or be killed. that pretty much means the next hitler will stop before he starts.

if you are arguing that we should invade pakistan, i dunno if i agree. maybe i do. i will think about it.

empty words? says who? bush is the only politican on earth whose words are not empty. that crazy cowboy loves to go to war.

bush should have done nothing, which is basically what he did. how could you disagree with that? what did you want?

i suppose. i am not sure what you are trying to say. oil prices are not really a concern. this wasnt a war for oil.

when you tire of classifications that dont apply and are simply misleading, let me know.

pay attention, he wants the amount that is proper and adequate. are you some extremist opposed to the correct amount of taxes?