I suppose in an "ideal world" nothing we value would carry a cost... but, um... what's wrong with putting a dollar value on anything the govt. does?
This isn't another lame attempt to say, "Deficit spending doesn't matter because of why we have it" is it?
You must be kidding.
This is the most laughable attempt at 'bait and switch' I've read to date.
If it's priceless IN THE MONETARY SENSE OF THE TERM you should be insulted everytime Bush puts a price on it by asking for money!
Otherwise: when Bush initiates a budget request, discussion should follow.
Geez... so much semantics... so little objectivity.
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
Yes, I disagree.
Kennedy's remarks were/are not pertinent to deficit spending.
The comment was given in the context of a finite mortal speaking to finite mortals which by default is understood to rule out the option of doing everthing (anything) that is impossible such as relegating the numerical continuum and all contained conceptual absolutes to political nonexistence by spending imaginary money.
But even assuming that Kennedy was off his rocker and claiming, "I don't care if I have to turn invisible and breathe fire, I will bring down the USSR," your second 'bait and switch' still doesn't cover your first 'bait and switch' because we're talking about:
So... are you upset when Bush does so by requesting money?
A 'Yes' or 'No' will suffice.
"In the outskirts of Ramadi, the local populace was so tired of terrorism that when a stranger approached a local to ask where was the best place to put an improvised explosive device, the locals detained the stranger and beat him with a metal bar. The would-be IED planter only survived thanks to police officers and the soldiers of the 1-9 "Abel" company who noticed the ruckus as more neighbors wanted to join in on the beating."
You want us to believe we went into Iraq for the liberty of the Iraqi people..
You want us to believe that Bush was just following up on what Clinton wanted..
You want us to believe that JFK was talking about the 'new found liberty' of the Iraqi people...
Let's see..
We went into Iraq because they posed a "danager" to the USA and they were a breeding ground for weapons of mass destruction (never found) and also because they were the training ground or spring board to the people of 911 (found to not have helped those guys)
Yet you want us to believe we went in to "liberate" them from the Sadman Hussein.
JFK was speaking about the nuclear age and how we as a people could be destructive or could work through it with peace and you want us to believe that he was telling the people of the USA that we should bear any cost, pay any price for anyone's liberty.
You had better rethink your thoughts in that post.
You are way off base...
Honestly, anyone that has attacked his neighbors and killed his own people is a threat to regional stability should be taken out. If this wasn't done we would have been dealing with a Hitler like mad man in control of the worlds oil supply.
We didn't go into Iraq for that reason though.
It has been said MANY times by this President that it had nothing to do with the oil in the region.
We didn't go into Iraq because of the way he was treating his people, if that was the case, then we should have done it years ago, and we shouldn't stop with Iraq.
So what about all the other countries?
There are many countried that aren't treating their people well.
They are straved, beaten controlled beyond belief.
Under your premise we should have invaded them also..
Which country do you want to invade next?
If you need a list of "opportunities" please let me know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by carpro I may or may not be stretching but you're not reading very well either.
Try again.
Uh huh. That's what I figured.
Putting words in my mouth is part of your game.
But, back on topic...
"The left's initial reaction to the surge's success in reducing violence in Iraq was to declare Gen. David Petraeus a liar. Now, a new tack has become necessary -- finding creative ways to deny credit to the surge. Democrat Rep. David Obey from Wisconsin says insurgents are simply "running out of people to kill."
Meanwhile, democrats drive to surrender goes unabated.