Reply By: danielost Posted: Monday, August 06, 2007
"i have answered your points

but your too dumb to know it. "


You have not answered anything. You just post BS pure and simple. The results prove the policies Bush have failed on every major issue.

Only in your fantastic little mind, oh Colonel of the pup tent!

OK it is real simple no one fixes their infrastructure unless it breaks. as when i asked you about your house. the only other time anyone fixes things in their house and it hasn't broken is when they buy it. that is why i said it didn't count that you had all of those things fixed. because you did what everyone else on the planet does.


we won't fix our house but we will go done the block and help someone else fix theirs. this is what we are doing in Iraq. that and the fact that we helped to break it.


but i expect you won't understand this.

Reply By: Gideon MacLeish Posted: Monday, August 06, 2007
The results prove the policies Bush have failed on every major issue.


Only in your fantastic little mind, oh Colonel of the pup tent!

If you are saying the results of the past 7 years show we have made progress on Social Security, Medicare, Trade, Education, Energy, The Deficit, Health care, Immigration or Iraq, you deny reality. You could ask 1000 people if they believe we have made progress on these important issues under the leadership of GWB and I doubt that more then one or two would say we have made progress on ANY of them. If you are one of the one or two, it shows you have totally lost touch with reality and have not looked at the actual results. No one who looks at the deficit, the millions that have come into our country illegally since 2000, the fact we are MORE dependent on Foreign Oil then when the two oil men took office could say these things are better today then in 2000 when GWB took office. There was no war in 2000 in which our troops were being killed each week in a Civil war that we enabled to begin. Please do not spout the BS that we were attacked on 9/11 because you and I know that has nothing to do with Iraq! In fact those that did attack us are still not killed or captured, Dead or Alive as the BIG BAD Bush put it. Al-Qaeda after 6 years of fighting is about as strong as it was in 2002 according to our Intelligence report. Yes GWB has done NOTHING about the problems that existed what he took office but make them worse and has created several new problems for our country. GREAT JOB Mr. Bush!

Go Ahead show us the data that disproves ANYTHING I have said in this post!

I'm pretty sure Bush's policy of lowering taxes has succeeded in growing the economy. Or maybe that's just a myth too.

As soon as the story recedes from the headlines so does the debate about infrastructure lol.

of course it is a myth. anything good that bush has done wasn't bush ask gene boy.

If Gene ever made the argument that Bush cornered himself into the role of lame duck president he would be right about that one. Bush may have done some, right and wrong, but right now its hard to find that he is doing anything but marking time and keeping troops in Iraq. Oh yeah, and spending lots of money and mortgaging the future of the nation.

everybody in washington is spending lots of money.


even the city has spent all of its money.

Well I didn't say it was just Bush, but certainly going to war in Iraq without an exit strategy and then staying forever in order to never score a loss, isn't a responsible decision making process, financially as well as in other terms.

There is no question congress should stop excessive spending, but nobody seems to agree on ways to enforce that, or which of the spending is excessive and which is not.

What I will say in regards to this thread, is that this bridge collapse is not an indication of a systemic failure of infrastructure because there are tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands just like it, that do not collapse with people on it. Even if it were an indication, the bridge should have been condemned and not driven upon until the congress figured out where the money to fix it was going to come from.

that's the whole point we haven't loss.



all of it.



not their job it was the cities job. they decided to spin the money on a new stadium first. now of course the feds have to go in and save their butts.

we cannot keep increasing spending across the board 5% a year. without a new income source. and taxing the rich isn't going to help.

"not their job it was the cities job"

How is an interstate highway section not the responsibility of the Federal Government? It would seem to me that all miles on a Federal highway ought to be inspected by the Feds so shit like this doesn't happen.

It's interesting and sad that there is finger pointing because if the bridge situation was that bad nobody should have been driving on it.

The best place to cut spending is the Pentagon Budget for the airforce, the army and the navy. We have little need for new fighters in a War on Terror where the weapon of choice is infantry and suicide bombers and even less need for submarines against a foe that doesn't have ships. As for the Army, if we stopped occupying Iraq and let them take care of their own affairs as a sovereign nation should we would find plenty of soldiers to do any jobs we need done.

The question is, what do we need to do, to rid the world of these ass clowns that want to kill us. I think we need to find out a lot more about them, like

-how many of them there are,
-where they are,
-why they want to kill us,
-how we can turn them against themselves,
-how we can most efficiently kill them.

I don't see the airforce and navy fitting into that as much as in past wars. Certainly one has a hard time arguing for a dozen nuclear carriers, three dozen nuclear subs, hundreds of stealth fighters.

What's really interesting is that some reports have said that the bridge had been inspected, it was scheduled to be inspected every year, then changed to every 2 years then had some patch jobs then was in line to have repairs done in about 13 years. Apparently they did not feel the bridge was in any imminent danger of falling. And as you said there are hundred if not thousand of bridges, roads, buildings, etc that are in the same situations. But let's be realistic, we can't fix everything at the same time. As I tried to point out to the clueless one, imagine trying to fix the 100 year old steam pipelines in New York, imagine bringing the city to a halt while digging 100 feet down thru power lines, phone lines, water lines, fiber optics, sewer lines and every other antique system underground. Can you imagine the impact it will have in traffic, businesses, public transportation, the New York economy? I mean it's not like they will start on a small street and only occupy a small section of it, it would take them years before they get done. By then other parts can burst, then what, keep blaming Bush?



You have to keep in mind that these weapons and forces are not just for fighting terrorist but also for facing other nations who may want to go to war and can match our fire power. I would not feel to comfortable having other countries have better weapons, vehicles and ships than we do just to save a few bucks. It's more of a deterrent than something just we can't use. But hey, let's just leave Iraq, lets just walk away and let them slaughter each other, what do we care right? I mean it's not like it would be our fault. It seems to be a common trend for us Americans to simply walk away from a job we think we can not finish, just give up, right? Who cares about responsibility, who cares about finishing what you started, who cares about those Iraqis that will most likely die because of our ignorance, arrogance and our lack of will to finish what we started and fix what we broke. Who cares anyways?





How many are there? Hmmm, a lot? Or are you looking for an unrealistic number that does not exist since God only knows how many there are?

Where they are? Everywhere? Anywhere?

Why they want to kill us? Because we let our women vote and don't have to cover their faces? Because we eat pigs? Are you serious?

How we can turn them against themselves? What planet do you live on? Hello!!! Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds? How much more do you want to turn them?

How can we most efficiently kill them? A nuke? Ignoring the innocent lives that will be lost in the process when we drop bombs or missiles?

Are you being realistic about these questions? You want to take money away from armed forces and then want to have all these ideas accomplished?



It's not really that hard, when was the last time anyone really wanted to screw with us in a direct confrontation? Terrorist use terrorist tactics cause the know we will hold back because we somewhat value life. We wont destroy entire cities to kill a handful of them. If anything we are being beat by our own rules. But it's the price you pay for fighting fair, for being the good guys.

"You have to keep in mind that these weapons and forces are not just for fighting terrorist but also for facing other nations who may want to go to war and can match our fire power."

We have had a larger defense budget that the combined rest of the world for at least a decade and the only military force on the world that is comparable would be the Chinese. They are interested in selling to us not sticking it to us with a big war, of which everybody knows we'd end up nuking them into history.

At a $700 billion dollar budget, I think we could have found a few million to fix this bridge up and still fight the endless war on intergalactic terror.

"I would not feel to comfortable having other countries have better weapons, vehicles and ships than we do just to save a few bucks."

The question isn't one of cutting all the funding, the reality is stacked against us, nobody has even comes close to military power, we have a dozen carriers, the closest anybody has is the UK with 2 and they are our closest ally. China, looking to build 1, Russia 1, France 1, India 1.

How about subs? We have nearly 50 subs in the ocean closest potential enemy, China which is building them faster than we are. A rate of about 2 per year. Air force, In the air force, and air superiority is key to winning any conflict, we have more planes with longer range attack capabilities, better maneuverability, more forwardly deployed, and better stealth than anybody else and what do they do year after year for the most part. Train and sit idle. We haven't had a war since the first gulf war in which we have needed a large military force in order to complete a mission, and considering some President's will go to war without the force necessary to complete such a mission, (GWB) I don't see why keeping all the extra equipment on hand is necessary. It certainly is the military-industrial complex which Eisenhower warned us about. For each ship we launch that's a school not buildt, for each carrier, that's a few powerplants, a few dozen bridges, a few hundred miles of roads.

I'm not saying we weaken our militarizes ability to fight or win wars, I'm saying we scale back in this area as well as others. We stop fighting out people's battles for them.

"It's more of a deterrent than something just we can't use. But hey, let's just leave Iraq, lets just walk away and let them slaughter each other, what do we care right? I mean it's not like it would be our fault. It seems to be a common trend for us Americans to simply walk away from a job we think we can not finish, just give up, right? Who cares about responsibility, who cares about finishing what you started, who cares about those Iraqis that will most likely die because of our ignorance, arrogance and our lack of will to finish what we started and fix what we broke. Who cares anyways?"

All of this incredible technological and militarily superiority didn't deter the beginners of this war on terror and they won't in the future. Get that? We could and now it seems very clear we should have left Iraq as soon as we setup their chance to take control of their own lives, form their own government. You seem to believe the Bush propaganda that the rest of the world cannot fight for itself without us. Who fought for us during our Independence?

I don't think that you can argue that if freedom love and craving people can't do it on their own because it's been proven in this country through our struggles against tyranny. Remember we defeated the strongest navy backed by the strongest army on our own soil, and we did it twice. That's fighting for freedom, and we died for it too.

You can stay in Iraq for 25 more years and it wont guarantee that the people will want freedom or want it so bad they will fight any that oppose that, and die for it, for their children's future.

When I start asking questions like how many are there you start coming up with answers to hide the fact there is no known answer. Yet in every conflict we have ever fought before we have known, both the capabilities of our enemies and the numbers of them. Maybe not to a precise magnitude but certainly to a point where we were saying things like "Hmmm, a lot?"

How about where are they? "Everywhere? Anywhere?" Really, then why are we focused solely on Iraq when the rest of the world is being infested by this danger? If it is such a crucial battle in Iraq, why doesn't the rest of the world seem interested in assisting at this point? Certainly the Europeans are no where to be found in Iraq.

Why they want to kill us, I'll agree that your reason is one of many I've heard. But usually it's because we are infidels in their holy land, or some political cause. I'm not saying he disengage from the world only that we stop occupying countries that are sovereign nations. I.e. IRAQ.

"How we can turn them against themselves? What planet do you live on? Hello!!! Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds? How much more do you want to turn them?"

Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, but no Al Qaeda, Aren't we at war with Al Qaeda and global terrorist organizations? I see Iraqi's wanting to form 3 states one for Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds. I don't see anybody over there wanting to make room for Al Qaeda to setup shop. I think if we left they would have to turn to each other to work together or fight over their scarce resources. Either way it's not our problem or business. It really isn't, the only reason we are making it our business is this idea that AQ is going to give a ratsass if we win or lose there. Suppose we win. And the Iraqis all fall in love in brotherly love with each other, and kick out any AQ presence, and work hand in hand with us, even spill a few billion barrels of free oil our way. Does that deter AQ. NO!!!

"You want to take money away from armed forces and then want to have all these ideas accomplished?"

I want to stop adding money to a defense budget which is spending money on things we don't need to fight a war on terror i.e. dozens of brand new stealth fighters, half a dozen carriers we don't need, 25 nuclear subs. One more huge financial drain is the half a trillion dollar damage control fund in Iraq which isn't going to ever pay us back ever. Nor is investing in Iraq's security or ability to fight its war, going to make us safer. It will not deter radical extremists from attacking civilized nations because that's what makes them radical and extreme duh!

"When was the last time anyone really wanted to screw with us in a direct confrontation?"

8:46 AM on September 11, 2001

"We wont destroy entire cities to kill a handful of them. If anything we are being beat by our own rules. But it's the price you pay for fighting fair, for being the good guys."

We have done it before in WW2, both with area bombing, i.e. carpet bombing of cities in Europe during Operation Overlord and against the NAZI's, and we did it twice to Japan, Nagasaki, Hiroshima. Don't you dare think for even a second, that if a nuke went off in one of our cities, that we wouldn't be spreading the love radiologically, around the world in a move in the name of "deterrence".

The goal of making sure there were no WMD capabilities in Iraq was a noble one, getting rid of Saddam was equally noble. But that was an 18 month mission. Setting up a post war government was extra and of course necessary, but that is where our commitment should have ended. To continue to occupy Iraq is mortgaging our future elsewhere in the world and at home.