ALL TROOPS OUT OF IRAQ...
- Thread starter bleedingpurple
- Start date
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
Nice try. I don't do taxes.
As for insurance salesmen, is there really any doubt? Give me a break.
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
When I need insurance, I don't need a snake oil salesman who can't form complete sentences to advise me. For those of you who do, doggie is your man. :mj07:
I posted this in general forum for Da Tramp less than week ago when he was whining about insurance--but apparently he needs to see it again-
-His constant whining bout ole whitey being responsible for his failure--groveling for that gov tit-among others fits profile to the tee
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
To Da Tramp
I can relate to your thoughts on insurance industry--and why you have no use for it.
When I incorporated my agency in 1987 I took some marketing seminars for insurance/financial industry--and trust me
--we feel same way about you as you do us-
-Your profile would rate about a 0 for any marketing revenue to be allocated on you.
However you would rate very high on the-
-rent to own--credit repair-payday advance sectors on the marketing charts.
If you ever happen to meet anyone who has any dealing with financial planners you will find that their priorities for most are always-
1st -Cover risks to currents assets--insurance
2nd- Get rid of all high interest debt
3rd -then work investing
Would hope some day you might have a few assets and understand need for insurance--
You need to shuck that -if you ain't got nothing--you got nothing to lose- lifestyle.:0008
---------------------------------------------
His reply was --I got my momma and the gov taking care of me-who needs insurance :lol:
Last edited:
Dumb, dumb doggie.
Guess what, dumb doggie, there are 50 million of us who get our medical insurance without one penny of our premiums being paid to a tit-sucking insurance agent.
You're as useful as tits on a boar hawg.
Guess what, dumb doggie, there are 50 million of us who get our medical insurance without one penny of our premiums being paid to a tit-sucking insurance agent.
You're as useful as tits on a boar hawg.
..............................................................................
DTBlackgumby
Even you have to admit.
Insurance agents suck hind tittys.
long and hard
Dogs, you really need some new material. It's getting embarrassing.
Since you obviously have no answer for what we "won" in Iraq, I'll rephrase the question...
What did we GAIN by spending $3 Trillion and sending 4500 Americans and countless Iraqis to an early grave?
opcorn2
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
Still can't answer the question huh? Going back to your old lines? Well they aren't old when you use them all the time.
I'll say it again. When I need to buy insurance I don't need a scumbag like you to help me out. You produce nothing. You are sucking off of the rest of society. Look in the mirror. You are the leech sucking off the rest of us.
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
Hey come back here doggie dogshit....
kurby kurby kurby kurby kurby
:mj07: :mj07: :mj07: :mj07: :mj07:
kurby kurby kurby kurby kurby
:mj07: :mj07: :mj07: :mj07: :mj07:
Dogs...
What did we GAIN by spending $3 Trillion and sending 4500 Americans and countless Iraqis to an early grave?
Dogs, was my question not specific enough? :shrug:
Would it help if we focused on the period of Jan./2004 through Aug./2008?
Using the Pentagon's own numbers (released a year ago through the Freedom of Information Act), during that timespan, 3952 American (and coalition) forces were killed in Iraq and 76,939 Iraqi civilians and security forces were killed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/15/world/middleeast/15iraq.html
So then, setting aside for the moment the $3 Trillion cost of the war in Iraq, what strategic advantage did the U.S. gain in Iraq that, in your mind, justifies the deaths of no less than 80,887 human beings?
You see, I'm just trying to tap into your vast knowledge of international conflicts and geopolitics "as a vet".
You have the floor... :0corn
Last edited:
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
You did miss something Wayne. Twice. To save time, let me repost my question without all the trappings, and see what you say:
Why were Obama and the democrats ROASTED by you and republicans for suggesting a verifiable end date to our occupation of Iraq, when Bush and his administration had supposedly already done that? Why is this only being brought up by you now, in hopes of giving Bush credit for the VERY THING YOU RAILED OBAMA AND DEMS FOR DOING FOR YEARS?
My question is in response to the document you wanted me to respond to.
Your thoughts?
I didn't roast him for verifiable end date-
-I roasted him for his con job of trying to take credit for end date.
considering--
A: victory was attained and date established in Bush admin
B:O tried to extend it but couldn't because of Iraq not giving troops amnesty.
So some bit on the grift twice :shrug:
He's keeping 15,000 "employees" there anyway--and I'm all for it--if he would have called them troops --I'd been all for that too.
"My prob"-- --AGAIN
is----His double grift (A&B) on trying to take credit for end date--and those that bit on the obvious con.
He did everything in his power as sentor to lose this war--called for retreat daily--said we lost--surge won't work
-- and now-- tries to take credit for victory and end date of which both --the prior admin had previously achieved.
--I expect it out him--but was surprised at some here that bit on the obvious grift and did the ole--
Gumby -kept his promise :00hour routine to boot! :SIB
Mission Accomplished", a military phrase associated with completing a mission, is in recent years particularly associated with a sign displayed on the USS Abraham Lincoln during a televised address by United States President George W. Bush on May 1, 2003. Bush stated at the time that this was the end to major combat operations in Iraq. While this statement did coincide with an end to the conventional phase of the war, Bush's assertion ? and the sign ? became controversial after guerilla warfare in Iraq increased during the Iraqi insurgency. The vast majority of casualties, among both coalition (~96% as of November 2007) and Iraqi combatants, and among Iraqi civilians, have occurred after the speech.
Bush?s walk is like that of a western gunslinger, who swings his arms in a fashion so as to clear the six-shooters strapped to both sides of his hips.
His smile is more like a sneer as he addresses his ?subjects? in public.
"We're kicking ass." --George W. Bush, on the security situation in Iraq, to Australian Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile, Sydney, Australia, Sept. 5, 2007
...................................................................
:SIB "
Bush?s walk is like that of a western gunslinger, who swings his arms in a fashion so as to clear the six-shooters strapped to both sides of his hips.
His smile is more like a sneer as he addresses his ?subjects? in public.
"We're kicking ass." --George W. Bush, on the security situation in Iraq, to Australian Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile, Sydney, Australia, Sept. 5, 2007
...................................................................
:SIB "
I don't know specifically that Obama is trying to take credit for an end date so much as saying what he thought we should do, and then following through and doing just that. You say he didn't establish the end date - I'm not arguing that point. My point was where was that position and point when Bush was making it and you WERE saying any talk of us leaving Iraq at that time should be considered retreating. You said it in countless posts over the year, talking about Obama the senator and all Dems (and some republicans) and cutting and running. It's convenient because the only way it would work for you is if Bush said we had won the war (which he did, prematurely, of course), with some nebulous description of winning. But my question still is, why is it considered retreating for one side and not worth mentioning when President Bush SETS the original timetable for withdrawal as the occupation is being announced (privately)?
I would have not been happy had he not gotten them out, I can say that. And of course we have to leave some there thanks to Dubbya's massive American palace and airfield he built, and to make sure the country isn't run over immediately after we leave - which we won't be able to ensure unless we go back. Which was kind of the point all along, IMO.
One final point. I'm not sure I see how Obama is taking credit for the victory in Iraq. I'm sure you have links to that. Maybe he has personally taken credit for it, as you suggest. I just don't remember seeing/hearing it.
I believe I made reference on GW back then exactly as I did on O.
I'd like to see some troops remain there.
I might add in my view --setting any "concrete time" of total withdrawal back then would be worse than now--as current situation would have been harder to project back then.
It is worthwhile noting this was Iraq request/timetable that GW admin signed off on.
=====================
part deuce
This was your comment at start of thread that I 1st commented on and started our "disagreement"-
"Now, when Obama follows through with what he said he was going to do - and you and others ridiculed him for it - you and others are calling it a victory."
Here is from horses mouth-- as he says " brought them home as he promised"
whitehouse | YouTube Friday, October 21
President Obama on Ending War in Iraq
President Obama fulfills a promise to the American people by announcing all troops will be withdrawn from Iraq by the end of the 2011 effectively ending the war in Iraq. Read Full Article
:0008
Last edited:
So, I guess you finally answered my question with a non-answer, but I'll try to make the point - again. You hold Obama and other dems responsible by labeling their comments to be cutting and running, then post this again:
I might add in my view --setting any "concrete time" of total withdrawal back then would be worse than now--as current situation would have been harder to project back then.
All the while, wanting Bush to get full credit for setting the concrete time of total withdrawal back then (even before we went in to Iraq, technically).
Do I have that about right? :shrug:
And for the second part, Obama made campaign and Presidential promises to get the troops out of Iraq by the end of 2011. His own personal promise - not attached to anyone or anything else. He's announced that was happening and is following through with that. And has been withdrawing troops for quite some time previous to this announcement. How is this a problem for anyone not trying to find fault with him as an eternal mission? He could have said anything - We'll see how things go, we'll withdraw in 2010, etc. He said what he said, and he's following through with it.
Is what's really bothering you the fact that he's not actually saying that "Bush had the document in place that I am following through with, and and I'm not saying that because if I did it would be labeled cutting and running code pinkoism?" Funny how this document is so important to you to have out there now, when it would have been devastating to your argument in years past...
I might add in my view --setting any "concrete time" of total withdrawal back then would be worse than now--as current situation would have been harder to project back then.
All the while, wanting Bush to get full credit for setting the concrete time of total withdrawal back then (even before we went in to Iraq, technically).
Do I have that about right? :shrug:
And for the second part, Obama made campaign and Presidential promises to get the troops out of Iraq by the end of 2011. His own personal promise - not attached to anyone or anything else. He's announced that was happening and is following through with that. And has been withdrawing troops for quite some time previous to this announcement. How is this a problem for anyone not trying to find fault with him as an eternal mission? He could have said anything - We'll see how things go, we'll withdraw in 2010, etc. He said what he said, and he's following through with it.
Is what's really bothering you the fact that he's not actually saying that "Bush had the document in place that I am following through with, and and I'm not saying that because if I did it would be labeled cutting and running code pinkoism?" Funny how this document is so important to you to have out there now, when it would have been devastating to your argument in years past...
