molson_golden2002 Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 1) Really? 2)What are the long term ramifications of the decision? 3) What were the symptoms that led up to the bailout? 4) Further proof that you have almost no clue what you're talking about. 1) I take it you are against any efforts to try and deal with the crisis, is that right? 2) My guess is inflation, what's yours? What are the ramifications of doing nothing Mr. Constitutionalist? 3) Mortgage defaults and margin calls and basically a run on the bank 4) Says the guy who is trying to peg the Iraq fiasco on liberals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Hedd Posted March 20, 2008 Author Share Posted March 20, 2008 Too bad that wasnt its objective, but....whatever. What was the objective? This ought to be good. Actually, while we're at it, what was the objective of the whole goddam idiotic useless war to begin with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 But don't you understand? Sunburn missiles are fast... And our navy is super duper great and no one can ever, ever hurt it at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 But for some reason, even though the war on poverty was lost a long time ago, you continue to support 'surge' after 'surge' of wasted efforts rather than admitting it was a mistake and you've been defeated. Interesting. I know you are incapable of discussing a topic rationally, but please try and explain what "surge" in war on poverty I am supporting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 It has nothing to do with who started it or why, Sparky. Try looking at the world through something other than your "liberal love" glasses. It's still just another "program" that you end up with when you so readily cede power to a faceless bureaucracy. One of the byproducts, if you will. I don't expect you to get it because liberals just don't understand the term "consequences". Only idealism. Loser. Who? Halliburton? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 But for some reason, even though the war on poverty was lost a long time ago, you continue to support 'surge' after 'surge' of wasted efforts rather than admitting it was a mistake and you've been defeated. Interesting. If we had bombed and killed more of the poor we could have won. Kinda like what Nixon began doing with B-52's at the end of 'Nam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 If we had bombed and killed more of the poor we could have won. Kinda like what Nixon began doing with B-52's at the end of 'Nam. Ya, because we won in Nam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 Ya, because we won in Nam Sometimes I can't even fathom on what level I should respond to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 Ya, because we won in Nam !@#$ing stunning... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts