Think of all the jobs that would create! That's a good thing, as long as the jobs are created in the US.

Not to worry about that, the Congress and Obama already promised us in Feb 2009 that the last spending bill would create "hundreds of thousands of jobs."

Actually, it's already created more than 600,000 jobs and counting, and it also saved every remaining job at GM and several large banking institutions.

:lol: sure.

We could live in Spain. link

Laugh all you want, but it's a documented fact.

http://www.recovery.gov

. . . documented by Obama and Company

And they have more credibility than any of those who who attempt to discredit them because every bit of it is readily verifiable complete with the name of the company doing the project, the project type and location, and how many jobs were created for the project. It would be an easy matter to contact the company to verify the listing and since the company doing the work submitted the paperwork detailing how many jobs were created, it's unlikely they would be different than what you see on the recovery.gov website.

Every single non-partisan organization who has looked at the numbers dispute the lies from the White House.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/11/rec...s-get-rougher/

There are no lies from the white house; at least not yet with this administration. Those problems are all related to the contractors filling their paperwork incorrectly and not knowing which congressional district they are in or in not reporting the jobs created for the money they got or vice-versa.

Nobody said contractors were the best in the world at paperwork. The website reports the information coming in on the forms. No part of any discrepancies has anything to do with the white house or dishonesty on the part of the white house or even those sending in the reports, though it does seem to point at some contractors who are hopefully better at construction than they are at paperwork.

The factcheck.org article you linked to says the GAO says the numbers are plus or minus 50,000 which means at the worst, the stimulus package has created nearly 600,000 jobs.

The article says:

640,329 - 50,000 = 590,329

Also discrepancy doesn't mean lie. It's nothing more than clerical errors not by the whitehouse, but by those filling out the paperwork for money they got from the stimulus package.

Sorry, that is not what most people see.

AP caught them in the same lie in Oct. And they tracked down how they fudged the numbers.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091029/D9BKMVMG0.html

Any way you are pissing in the wind. Even if the numbers were close to being true Californication alone lost over 600,000 jobs in the last year.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/laus.nr0.htm

More doubts about job creation

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091119/..._stimulus_jobs

Schadenfreude, Götterfunken, Tochter aus Elysium...
 

You take that Democratic pronouncement seriously? You're in worse shape than I thought.

If you were an honest man, you'd've changed your handle to Lampwick months ago. What a wee funny Democratic puppet man. Dance, puppet, dance to the Socialists' tune, dance... dance.

Caught part of his acceptance speech this am. It was well delivered. A bit long. And a bit strange. But over all he did a good job.

Does saying that make you feel dirty? :D

Nope.

I agree, I think it was a very well crafted message on the moral imperative of some wars.

While I agree that there is a moral imperative to defensive wars....wars in which we are fighting those who attacked us first, I do not agree that the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan fit that description. Afghanistan didn't attack us. In fact neither did the Taliban. Neither did Iraq. And none of them posed a danger to America.

They were harboring Al Queda, but the correct response to this would be to make a 100 billion dollar reward open to anyone...for Osama Bin Laden's head, and to issue letters of marquis and reprisal per the U.S. Constitution...against Al Queda. Any private black-op militias like say (Blackwater), could go into Afghanistan or Pakistan or anywhere else and kill, rape, loot, etc. all they want but if they get caught, they are on their own. If they can get back to America, they will be protected by our government and be held blameless for any crimes they've committed in any other country in order to bring back the head of Osama Bin Laden or to kill Al Queda members.

Right after 9/11 there would have been thousands if not millions willing to sign up for that kind of a deal.

We'd have saved trillions of dollars, thousands of American lives lost needlessly in unconstitutional wars, etc.

Says it all.

If we were fighting an "unconstitutional war," Radar might be right.

But for six years straight, most of America and all of Congress, plus two Presidents and Cabinets and sundry Constitutional scholars who don't have personality disorders quite disagree with Radar. The Constitution does not say what you say it says, never did, never will, Radar. Warfighting flexibility for the Commander-In-Chief is in some measure expressed and in greater measure implied. The Constitution says Congress may declare war. It nowhere says nor implies that Congressional declaration is required before the troops can move out. Even the guys carrying the rifles, as Radar has never done, want it that way.

So, Paul, take your "unconstitutional" and insert it, with a half twist, you anti-intelligent personality and tiny-minded wiper of antidemocratic bottoms. Your notion suffers the daily fate of most of your asswipe notions: to be covered in shit and flushed. Your thinking is as contemptible to the people of freedom as it is disturbed to the people of psychology.

Letters of marque and reprisal. Guess that's something I knew and you didn't. Bright boy.

You might be right if you weren't an retarded sociopath who picks the wrong side of every issue.

I've proven many times that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are unconstitutional in several ways.

1) The President has no power to make war with even a single soldier for a single day and the unconstitutional 1971 "War Powers Act" doesn't change that as it directly contradicts the U.S. Constitution which is the HIGHEST law in the land and according to the Supreme Court in Marbury vs. Madison, all laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.

2) Congress alone has the power to make war, and then only when it is America's "common DEFENSE". Defense means we only attack when we are attacked, and then only against those who attacked us.

3) Congress may only exercise their power to make war through a Cosntitutionall required formal declaration of war.

4) Congress may not grant its constitutional powers to any other branch of government such as granting the president the "authority to use force". The only way powers may change from one branch to another is through a formal declaration of war.


5) The President is not the commander-in-chief of the military until called upon to be such through a formal declaration of war.


It doesn't matter what "the guys carrying rifles" want. It only matters what the Constitution says and it says the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are unconstitutional and that anyone who claims they aren't are filthy liars, complete idiots, or both, especially if they are non-libertarian, lying, and insane cowards like UG.



Lastly, there is nothing that you know and I don't other than what it's like to be humiliated, punished and defeated on a daily basis by my intellectual, social, and physical superior as you suffer from me on a daily basis or what it's like to be a dishonest, gutless, piece of shit with the intellect of a flea which you experience every time you look at the guy you're shaving in the mirror.

Ooops, sorry. Thought I'd walk into this thread and there'd be peace running all over the place. :lol:

Oh YEAH...this is why there will never be peace in our world.

We just redefined peace so it's all ok now. There will be peace one day maybe: at the cost of the definition. :p

Lets hold hands anyway though.

I can't make an edit, so here's a correction to my post...

4) Congress may not grant its constitutional powers to any other branch of government such as granting the president the "authority to use force". The only way powers may change from one branch to another is through a Constitutional amendment.


I think faster than I type, but neither is very slow.

You didn't think it would be that easy, did you?

And sing!

I'm down with that!

Oh heck no...which is why I pointed it out! These guys are coming to virtual blows over who won the PEACE prize. What does that tell you about our chances for peace in our world? As Obama said, people have been warring in one form or another since the beginning of mankind.

And smoke dope and hold hands! Groovy, man. 'Cept you don't really want to hear me sing.

Yes I do.:p

Which brings us back around to trust. Dems trust Obama and Reps trusted Bush. I trust no one with that much power to make moral decisions. People somewhere will go in the meat-grinder for reasons skewed by political convenience and an over-blown sense of certitude. We give power addicts power and expect them to be responsible with it.

As Douglas Adams observed, (paraphrasing) the sort of person who wants to be in charge is exactly the sort of person who should not be allowed to be in charge.

But if it isn't them, it'd just be someone else.

No provision in the Constitution supports any of your contentions, Radar. I read the Constitution, which says you are wrong. Were you right, you wouldn't rely on trying to make me feel bad for knowing better than you, would you now? You'd be showing me up with relevant quotations, now wouldn't you? Those have never happened, have they? Can't link to even one, IIRC.

Your intellectual bias is all about keeping America from winning fights with totalitarians, I make note. You weren't able to do anything about World Wars One or Two, so you're doing your damnedest to prop up the forces of unfreedom now. I don't have that bias, being a man of freedom in a way you never can be, owing to your personality.

Your posts exhibit your inferior scholarship and your delusive thought. Your adherence to them shows your childish inability to admit fault. Ranting does not persuade, and you haven't a hope of making me the issue, yet on and on you try, failing always. You embarrass yourself before your intellectual match, indeed before your intellectual better. I don't rant, because I am the better man. Observe, if you will or can, the excellence of my manners compared to yours, for just one place where you are bettered. I know many others are observing.

disagrees with me == traitor

Man, you've got some serious tinfoilishness going on there, UG.

What else do you expect dar? He's a lying, idiotic, weasel who is immune to logic, reason, facts, accurate historical record, or even black and white excerpts from the Constitution. Facts don't matter to people as mentally unstable and delusional as UG. You can't reason with the unreasonable like UG.

I've long quoted the parts of the Constitution that prove everything I've said. The Constitution grants ONLY Congress the power to DECLARE war when it is used to carry out the goal of "common DEFENSE". It cannot make war other than through a formal declaration of war. This is the only means given to Congress to make war.

To anyone that comprehends the English language, this means the role and scope of the U.S. military is defined and limited to being for the DEFENSE of America, not offensive action against other nations that pose no harm to our own and which have not attacked ours. It also means that Congress can only make war through a declaration of war. The Constitution also describes the only way to change the Constitution...through an amendment. Which means acts of congress that contradict the Constitution such as Congress authorizing the president to make war, are blatantly unconstitutional. The power of Congress to make war is limited to being only for our defense and defense, by definition, means we only declare war on nations that attack our own. The Constitution also clearly states that the President is the commander-in-chief WHEN CALLED UPON by Congress, which means through a formal declaration of war because this is the only way the Constitution allows Congress to make war.

One might think that UG's inability to comprehend the English language might be limited to his utter disdain for the U.S. Constitution, but his disdain and selective illiteracy also applies to libertarian philosophy...which is funny since he dishonestly claims to be a libertarian.

The core belief of the libertarian philosophy is NON-AGGRESSION, which means you DO NOT initiate force against anyone who has not initiated force against you. UG likes to make self-righteous platitudes about wanting to kill others in the name of freedom and justice, and other nonsense ad nauseum, and if those people ask him for help, he should be free to volunteer to go to those places and help them on his own. But he isn't satisfied with that. He thinks he is entitled to use the U.S. Military which is defined and limited by the Constitution as being for the common DEFENSE of America, to attack nations which have not attacked ours, and which pose no danger to our own country. This is not only unlibertarian, it's unAmerican, and idiotic. It violates the principles of our founders who warned us to avoid tangling alliances and it violates common sense.

As John Quincy Adams said...

"America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."


As a true libertarian, I wish freedom, independence, prosperity, and happiness to all people of all nations, but would not allow the U.S. military to win it for any people of any nation but our own because it violates the Constitution and because freedom won by others does not last. When someone gives something to you, you don't value it as much as if you have earned it for yourself. In fact with opponents of freedom like UG in our midst, freedom and liberty don't last very long even when you do win it for yourself.

UG would claim that we went into Iraq to "liberate the Iraqi people" which is utter bullshit. The reasons for that blatantly unconstitutional and immoral war changed from week to week and none of them was to liberate the Iraqi people. First they said that Saddam had weapons, which he did not. But even if he did, this does not make him a threat to America. Merely owning a weapon does not make someone a threat. Using UG's pathetic and poor excuse for logic, it would be ok for me to gun someone down because I saw a bump in their pocket that MIGHT be a gun, and they MIGHT use it against me. Using his logic, I can go around killing anyone who MIGHT have the power to harm me...if at some point they decided to in the future.

UG's lack of logic, education, reason, honesty, courage, integrity, character, sanity, and moral fiber are snowballing and making him a truly sad, pathetic, and impotent little man. He's a sociopath and a moron with an inflated ego. And that's a bad combination.

Don't help anyone, ever - thats the libertarian way? :headshake

No. Don't use the military to help other people. That isn't the role of the military. If private citizens want to help, nobody should stop them. If they want to give money, food, supplies, guns, or even themselves to help people, that's fine. Just don't use the U.S. military to do it, and only do it if asked to do it. That is the libertarian way.

Guns? I don't think that is legal under current law.

It should be legal. If I want to donate my guns to people in Israel to defend themselves, I should be able to do it. If you want to donate your guns to people on the other side of that conflict, you should be able to. It's your property.

You're not going to get them out from under a autocratic/military oppressor if you don't use the military to help. You need enough force, and no political philosopher I am aware of takes the view that this somehow "isn't the role of the US military." It makes no odds morally or legally whether such oppression removal is performed by men in uniform or men in civvies -- and the men in the uniforms do have the skills kept current and the equipment to prevail. When things get violent between nation-states, those who would prevail need the organizations to do the job.

The libertarian way is Liberty, Radar. Complaining about how it's done is simply nuts. Leaving our fellow creatures under tyranny's yoke is even nuttier, for it's also an amoral thing to do.

I see you are once again monomaniacally repeating your contentions that actually doing anything in American interest with the military is somehow unconstitutional. This idea is not supported anywhere in the Constitution, which you manifestly don't want to understand, owing to narcissism. I do understand the Constitution's words. You're wrong, you can't back your idea and you never can prove it; fuck off hard, fast and far, and do it now, you anticonstitutionalist, strict-obstructionist son of a none too choosy bitch hyena with purple spots. You despise freedom because what you want, deep down, is slaves. I, for one, decline this dubious honor.

No no no, Dar. While I would now put no perfidy past this kooky pseudoexpert Radar, disagrees with me usually equals dumbshit. That ain't tinfoil -- look at the crap he has for ideas. Banging on me does not make you right or righteous, and Radar is mighty short on either. The poor fool thought Obama was the most libertarian candidate. Since Obama is doing one comprehensive job of being the anti-libertarian, you wonder what else Radar's got wrong. This guy helped to fuck my Republic over, and I resent it.

Though too, those who are unmistakably patriotic do agree with me a lot.

You're not helping yourself here.

The Libertarian way does not include using a DEFENSIVE military to start unwarranted, unprovoked, and unconstitutional attacks against other nations simply because they do not accept what YOU think libertarianism is. You have no clue what libertarianism actually is because it is based on the non-aggression principle and self-ownership/self-determination which you are clearly against.

You obviously don't think the people of other nations should be able to determine for themselves what form of government to have and you think you know better than they do what they should have.

The libertarian way is not using force other than in your own defense....PERIOD.

The military is by no means confined to a "DEFENSIVE" rôle, Radar. Never has been. The "non-aggression principle" -- one I cannot imagine you ever practicing were you ever to gain a position of responsible (or irresponsible) power -- is one designed to sabotage libertarianism's advance in the world, and keep the party a mere debating society. Such parlour exercises are not politics. Not effectual politics anyway. In the lion's share of cases, it would be moot anyway, as those places that need libertarianism most are guaranteed to order government goons in -- to commit aggression, to be sure. Okay, so they start it. So? How many casualties do you take so you can be comfortable? Where's the brains in ceding the initiative to the opposition? How about if you're one of the casualties? I don't see you volunteering for martyrdom any time soon. Your picture on Technorati says you're a little too well upholstered to be the sort to make this sacrificial sternness likely.

You, amigo, obviously think less-than-democracy is acceptable. I say, "Never!" Then I say you are no libertarian, but a fascist and fascist sympathizer, in accordance with the nature of your soul.

And in any case, there's also what Technorati's site says about you. Pretty much matches my understanding of your intellectual attainments.

Clearly you're not getting it yet, Dar.

Some intelligent people have disagreed with me intelligently. The dumbshits disagree with me more often, more vehemently, and in a case or two more madly as well. I also see a lot of intellectual dishonesty in the opposition (which I will not claim as exclusively "my" opposition).

Some people's thinking is really twisted by their ideology. For example, Redux recently chided me for calling policies I dislike "socialist." He really thought that was how I viewed the matter. He completely misses the idea that a policy's socialist features would be the very reason I disapprove! :headshake There isn't much you can do with a bright man who is being kept so silly, so not-with-it. So stupid. There, I said it. And there, I probably will keep on saying it.

UG....two (multiple part) questions for you.

Do you accept the principles of a "just war"? Was Iraq a "just war" when it posed no direct threat to the US and when the US invasion resulted in an estimated 100,000 civilian deaths and 2-4 million displaced persons/refugees?

And why Iraq and not North Korea, China, Myanmar or even Cuba? Is it the US role to invade those countries to promote democracy? If not, where do you make the distinction?


Or perhaps you are too blinded by your own ideology to recognize and accept or acknowledge the distinctions between socialism (at its very core, controlling or owning the means of production for the long term benefit of the people) and economic liberalism (regulating or in the worst case, managing the means of production as a short term economic policy).

good distinction.