Comments on: GOP Voters Still Back Iraq Invasion

CBS News Poll Shows Republican Voters Still Support Going To War, Even If They Think It's Going Poorly

[incog-nito]

Here's the deal:

The Dems are comfortable with either Clinton, Obama, or Edwards in the White House. They are more than happy to support any one of them. Oh the other hand, the Repubs are not truly happy Giuliani, Rommey, or McCain as their choice, and Thompson is still a question mark and has not yet been scrutinized. The verdict: Dem 2008.

[incog-nito]

hoofhearted0: BTW, katg21 is exactly the type of people I portrayed in my original post, no clue.

[incog-nito]

hoofhearted0: I'm not a Repub. Note that my post was in quotations. OK, I admit that wasn't very obvious.

[katg21]

"Tax and spend" democrapps!!! LOL!!! What was the deficit when Clinton left and what is it now?

Posted by hoofhearted0 at 08:16 PM : Aug 03, 2007

We weren't at war when Clinton was prez. War and all, Bush has still managed to cut the deficit in HALF. A pretty amazing fact that never seems to make it on the front page.

[katg21]

Busted!!
Posted by dirtydog55 at 08:11 PM : Aug 03, 2007

Busted for what, stating facts that can be found in any history book? Deny it all you want but it's the truth.

[katg21]

Prove it by posting your sources.
Posted by hoofhearted0 at 08:01 PM : Aug 03, 2007

It's called American History, type in social security program/ Roosevelt and then follow the changes through history. That's all I did and it was pretty easy to find.

[dirtydog55]

Done. Reread it, it's historical fact.
Posted by katg21 at 07:45 PM : Aug 03, 2007

You say it's "historical fact." I think you are making it up. Prove it by posting your sources.

Posted by hoofhearted0 at 08:01 PM : Aug 03, 2007


katg21 can't prove it because he/she got it, almost word-for-word, from an "email" to the Free Republic. The Free Republic is a right-wing internet forum and chat site.

No wonder katg21 didn't want to post the source; the post was plagiarism.

Here's the site:
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/1132656/posts


Busted!!

[katg21]

Social Security itakes in payroll tax income, which it lends to the federal government in exchange for Treasury securities backed by the full faith and credit of the federal government.
Posted by hoofhearted0 at 07:49 PM : Aug 03, 2007

Uh huh, i know what it is. Did you know that it was never intended to be that way though? Roosevelt, a democrat, introduced the program. Roosevelt's FICA plan or social Security, was suppose to be completely voluntary, the participants were only to have paid 1% of the first $1400 of their annual income into the program. The money that the participants ELECTED to put into the program would be deductable from their income for tax purposes each year. Annuity payments to retirees would never be taxed as income. Lastly, that the money the participants put in would only be used to fund the SS program and no other government fund. Seemed like a great plan, huh? Isn't it surprising to find that we are being taxed on %85 of the money we gave the government to "put away" for us for our retirement? It's absolutely not what Roosevelt intended it to be and for that you can blame the tax and spend democraps.

[katg21]

People "without a clue" who voted are the primary reason we are in this mess.
Posted by hoofhearted0 at 07:45 PM : Aug 03, 2007

You call it a mess; I call it not being attacked on our soil since 9/11, unemployment at an all time low, stock market records, low interest rates, etc.. And all of this as we fight a war...amazing. Our economy is doing pretty well considering wouldn't you say?

[katg21]

I challenge you to post 'credible' references for your statements.


Posted by hoofhearted0 at 07:27 PM : Aug 03, 2007

Done. Reread it, it's historical fact.

[katg21]

As a lifelong Republican, and with the benefit of hindsight, knowing that there were no WMDs found in Iraq, that Saddam had no link to Al Qaeda and in fact was their enemy, that the war and occupation was poorly...
Posted by incog-nito at 07:02 PM : Aug 03, 2007

You mean the WMD's used on the Kurds; the reason Saddam was tried and convicted and then hanged? Yeah there were no WMD's that was all in our immagination, we should ignore it. There's absolutely no way Saddam had time to fly those WMD's out of Iraq on civilian aircraft to Syria. It's easier to believe that none of it happened and call our president a liar.
We should also choose not to believe the may 7, 2003 US Federal Court trial; Smith vs. Saddam which made findings that Saddam and AlQaeda were jointly responsible for attacks on the US. The court concluded pursuent to the legal standard of "evidence satisfactory to the court" that Iraq provided material support to Bin Laden and AlQaeda. Nah, never happened either. The fact that the transcripts are available for you to view means nothing, it's all a lie. Let's just believe the talking points we're being fed on the 5:00 news.

[incog-nito]

hoofhearted0: Sarcasm, my friend, sarcasm.

[joenc-2009]

The surge is "begining to work." Did some one here actualy say that.

Every 6 months we get ...

"It's hard work",
"We're making progress",
"The enemy is on the run"

Blah, Blah, Blah ...

Who knows, maybe one day the GW's GOP supporters will be right ... but so far, your record of predicting ANYTHING stinks.

[katg21]

katg21 Read my last comment again. It says it all. Yawn.
Posted by leftyintexas at 06:28 PM : Aug 03, 2007

Really don't need to, I already know you have nothing to say.

[incog-nito]

"As a lifelong Republican, and with the benefit of hindsight, knowing that there were no WMDs found in Iraq, that Saddam had no link to Al Qaeda and in fact was their enemy, that the war and occupation was poorly planned at best and negligent at worst, that the war detracted from the hunt for OBL who are still at large and reconstituting, I STILL support the decision to go to war. I have no clue why I do, I just do."

[katg21]

katg21, you haven't said anything truthful since I began reading your drivel. I'm sure bush would be mighty proud of you, son.
Posted by leftyintexas at 06:07 PM : Aug 03, 2007

Denial. Which political party took social security from the original independent "trust fund" and put it into the general fund so that congress could spend it? Lyndon Johnson and the democratic controlled House and Senate. TRUTH
The Dems also eliminated the income tax deduction for SS (FICA) withholding. The dems are the party that decided to start taxing SS annuities. (Thanks Al Gore) The dems (thanks Jimmy Carter, dem congress and senate) are the party that decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants at the age of 65, even though they never paid a dime into the system. TRUTH, TRUTH, TRUTH. Look it up. After doing all of this lying and thieving the dems turn around and tell you the republicans want to take your SS. Is that enough truth for ya, friend.

[katg21]

"With regard to 2008, I see no Repub candidate that I would vote for. The Dems will win in 2008, no way around it. Better get used to it :)"
Posted by jimfinster

I don't doubt that the dems will do anything to win this next election; dead people will vote, illegal aliens and many people will vote two or three times. The Alberto Gonzales nonsense is nothing but an attempt to weaken our defense department; tie things up so that voter reform will be stalled. The dems can't wait to take advantage of voter fraud. They get you all worked up about how you are going to lose your freedoms but their agenda is clear. The dems are liars and thieves and if you don't believe me take a look at what they've done with all of your social security.

[katg21]

katg21 - when we take most of these people to task, they can't support their idiotic statements. It's a sign of frustration on their part.
I really do wonder what they would do if the surge does work.
Posted by speakinup at 11:41 AM : Aug 03, 2007

Yeah, they resort to the usual name calling , i.e. "nazi, neocon, idiot, liar", when they can't form an educated opinion.

Well, from what I'm hearing the surge is beginning to work and the dems are beside themselves. You know they'll try to spin it in their favor.

[cmg42-2009]

It is simply not logical to assume that bad results imply a bad decision. In fact, when determining the merit of a past decision, one should consider only the process for making that decision and not the results. It is entirely possible to make a good decision and end up with bad results or a bad decision with good results (what people call being unlucky or lucky). If invading Iraq was a bad decision, then it was because the method for arriving at that decision was wrong because we didn't have correct data about WMDs or a good understanding of the sectarian tensions there. Using this argument, even if things were going well in Iraq, one could still show that we made a bad decision and just got lucky. This is what members of the Senate mean when they say "I made the correct decision based upon the information I had, but if I know what I know now, I would not have voted to invade". Hopefully, however, this has taught our Senators and Representatives to thoroughly investigate and check the information they use to make their decisions!

[fordpickup41-2009]

Is it amazing, the United States of America spends $273,000,000.00 a day in Iraq and the Iraq people cannot get a single clean glass of water or a full day of electricty in their homes.
What a waste of money.