A new report to the United Nations General Assembly by the World Health Organization (WHO) calls cancer the costliest disease. Dr. Otis Brawley of the American Cancer Association calls cancer an economic killer. The Food and Drug Administration advisory panel which regulates approval of drug use has now decided to drop plans to allow Avastin to be used to treat breast cancer.
Avastin was originally developed to combat colon cancer, but the drug has shown to be effective in the fight against breast cancer. In 2008, after clinical tests, the FDA approved the use of Avastin for battling breast cancer. However, two new studies plus the $8,000 per month price tag has caused the FDA to reconsider it’s earlier decision.
Initial tests had shown that Avastin had reduced blood flow to tumors. The FDA approved the drug’s use for breast cancer based on the tests that showed it may extend the time for the cancer to worsen by as much as five months. But the two latest studies show that Avastin may only slow the growth of a tumor for one month.
The FDA’s reversal on Avastin opens the door that other drugs may also lose their previous recommendations. David Vitter (R-LA), a critic of the Obama health care law, said “I shudder at the thought of a government panel assigning a value to a day of a person’s life. It is sickening to think that care would be withheld from a patient simply because their life is not deemed valuable enough.”
The Avastin case is merely one story in the overall fight against cancer. According to the WHO report, the economic price tag of cancer was $895 Billion dollars in 2008. Equal to 1.5% of the world’s total GDP. Cancer costs more than HIV/AIDS, malaria and the flu. Along with heart disease and diabetes, such chronic diseases like cancer cause 60% of all deaths worldwide.
Infectious diseases like AIDS and influenza have seen a marked increase in funding globally the past ten years. But many believe more attention needs to be spent on non-infectious, chronic disease. With the costs of care, and drugs ever rising, and funding becoming scarcer, hard choices must be made.
Lung and related cancers cost $180 Billion alone, with all cancers costing $895 Billion. Heart disease comes in second at $753 Billion globally. While progress has been made in fighting infectious disease, the mortality rates of non-infectious disease steadily climbs.
The WHO report to the United Nations General Assembly indicates the growing concerns that governments face on the cost of health care. With cancer now being recognized as such an expensive disease according to Dr. Otis Brawley, will the FDA’s decision on Avastin be just the first of many drugs and treatments restricted and limited? Is this the beginning of the Obama health care death panels?
Related Articles:
US breast cancer drug decision ‘marks start of death panels’
$50 Billion Last Year Cost of Dying
August 17th, 2010 at 11:31 am
They aren’t death panels – they are The People’s Democratic Alternative Duration Discussion Groups.
August 17th, 2010 at 1:23 pm
As I’ve said before.I’m glad I got and beat rectal cancer when I did. Which by the way, still makes me a prime candidate for colon cancer
As my monthly premiums keep rising and our incomes stagnate I might eventually die of whats become the country biggest pain in the a$$.
August 17th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
Why are you still pushing the idea of Death Panels? Being on the Right doesn’t mean you have to lie.
August 17th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
JBBW
Call em what you want.
If I’m paying into a private plan that insitutes the same policy its not half as dangerous than a “government” whos controlling everyones healthcare.
You obviously dont see the horrific scenarios that could unfold if say… we have to shut down the fed like Clinton did ? Orrrr…end up broke like we are now ?
Pfft.
August 17th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
JBBW – because they ARE death panels. Catch up, m’kay?
August 17th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
JBBW,
Obama, Biden, and the rest of the Liberal Moonbats promised that no government bureaucrats or regulators would get in between treatment options between you and your doctor.
DUM-DEE-DUM-DUM! DUM-DEE-DUM-DUM-DUM!
August 17th, 2010 at 2:38 pm
Just for you, JBBW, I’ve added Biden’s claim that there would be no “death panels”.
Oddly enough, “60 Minutes” just ran the high cost of End-of-Life care two Sundays ago. Coincidence? I think NOT!
http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=6964
August 17th, 2010 at 2:43 pm
There was no death panel here. The FDA has 2 studies that show the drug does not help breast cancer patients. The drug was accelerated into testing because it was thought to be useful and then withdrawn when it was found out it was not and actually increased chemotherapy side effects. AGAIN, NOT A DEATH PANEL, JUST MAKING CORRECT DRUG RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CANCER PATIENTS. This article is flat out lie to make a ridiculous political point and confuse people who will not do their own research. WebMD and The Wall Street Journal articles are below.
August 17th, 2010 at 2:52 pm
PG, JBBW
You go right ahead and let the fed decide your policy for you, kay ?
August 17th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Let’s hope those of you who can’t see the “death panels” lurking in the wings are right. If you’re wrong it’ll just cost you your life. No biggie, right?
August 17th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Micky, this has absolutely nothing to do with your insurance policy. This is a panel who looked at the scientific results of a study and determined that since this particular drug does not help breast cancer patients and increases serious side effects, it should not be prescribed in this situation. I am not sure why you would want a person with cancer to be prescribed an expensive drug that will not help and actually be harmful. This seems like what we want our medical system to be checking on and not making a ridiculous claims about it.
August 17th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
JBBW, you are totally wrong.
Being on the Right DOES mean that you have to lie.
It is one in the same, you know?
August 17th, 2010 at 3:36 pm
“Micky, this has absolutely nothing to do with your insurance policy.”
yeah, it does. As the public gravitates towards so called “free health care” private industry will have to raise premiums to stay afloat. its already starting. Many private insurers are raising premiums now in anticipation of the upcoming abomination.
” This is a panel who looked at the scientific results of a study and determined that since this particular drug does not help breast cancer patients and increases serious side effects, it should not be prescribed in this situation.”
Bla bla bla. The author of this post mentioned the same thing. The crux of the matter is whther or not you want a single entity dictating an entire countrys healthcare.
In the private sector I have the option to pay for policy that will include a drug “I CHOOSE” because I feel its beneficial.
“I am not sure why you would want a person with cancer to be prescribed an expensive drug that will not help and actually be harmful.”
See above statement.
” This seems like what we want our medical system to be checking on and not making a ridiculous claims about it.”
Yes, and not a governemental panel who doesnt know where its next dollar is coming from.
In a free market sales will determine a drugs benefits and viability.
I certainly hope you can see the dangers of two government agencies, the FDA and Obamacare being in control of studies and dispenssing of medical benefits.
It aint rocket surgery
August 17th, 2010 at 4:03 pm
Micky again that is not a very good argument here.
First, I am very happy the FDA is checking the safety of the food I eat and the drugs I take. As we have seen with countries like China where they do not have an FDA, serious problems have occurred and I prefer that we avoid them here in America as much as possible.
Second, you are concerned about the rising cost of health care, which we all are, and yet you feel that doctors should be prescribing expensive drugs that are useless and have serious side effects??? Now, I am not an oncologist and I am assuming you are not either (correct me if I am wrong) and so I do not believe you or I should be making decisions on how cancer is treated. I will rely on the professionals with years of school and experience, and I suggest you do the same for your own safety.
Finally, I am not sure if you are aware of how insurance works, but insurance companies decide what procedures they will pay for if you get sick. These companies can put their profits ahead of your well-being which is why many people feel the system needs reform.
August 17th, 2010 at 6:54 pm
“Micky again that is not a very good argument here. ”
So you say.
“Second, you are concerned about the rising cost of health care, which we all are, and yet you feel that doctors should be prescribing expensive drugs that are useless and have serious side effects??”
Now, DID I SAY THAT ?
(and you talk about “not good arguments”?)
“Finally, I am not sure if you are aware of how insurance works, but insurance companies decide what procedures they will pay for if you get sick. These companies can put their profits ahead of your well-being which is why many people feel the system needs reform.”
Once again.
If a certain company does not offer the use of a drug a doctor may find beneficial to me I have the choice whithin a free competitive market to shop elsewhere.
With the FDA (which has its merits)and the fed in cahoots on my healthcare you’ll get a resounding “FCK OFF “!
The fed will also have to reign in costs like any prudent viable privately owned company.
The problem is that the fed has no incentive to do so. A profit driven company does in fact have a profit margin to exercise but also has an obligation to attract business.
If you cant see the difference between privatized insurance and unconstitutionaly mandated federal care its you whos lacking understanding of the most basic concepts of service and business.
The system only needs reform in the sense of reigning in frivilous law suits so that doctors and hospitals dont have to charge us 20.00 for an aspirin because their liability insurance is so outrageous ontop of the billions the fed still owes them in reinbursements for medicaide and medicare(broke and hundreds of times over budget) we dish out for illegals and those without insurance.
The majority of the country does not want this crap much for the reasons I state so consequently the logical approach would be to focus on the minority in need instead of cramming the whole bill down the whole countrys throat.
“My Doctor” and “My insurance company” put together a wonderful protocol for dealing with my cancer.
“They” saved my life. Not Obama. Not the FDA.
If you cant see that this admistrations only reason for Obamacare is to squeeze private industry out of the picture so they can control a voting base you truly are lost.
Pelosi, Obama, could care less how you get cared for.
August 17th, 2010 at 10:27 pm
First of all much of the biotechnology advances will cost too much for people to afford them no matter what happens. Secondly we desparately need health reform and we still need to cut costs. Of course Medicare panels are going to reject some of the biotechnology, for various reasons. Can we develop a generic biotechnology industry? Eitherway, we still need health care reform and real cost cutting. we aren’t there yet.
August 17th, 2010 at 11:18 pm
I think you have lost the plot here Micky. The point of the article is that there is some kind of death panel at work because the FDA determined a drug is not a good choice for breast cancer and does more harm than good. You disagree based on the point that the FDA made this decision and the FDA can not be trusted to do so, apparently since Obama is president and therefore no government agency can be trusted now. I am glad you agree that the FDA rules and regulations keep your pork from killing you though.
““Second, you are concerned about the rising cost of health care, which we all are, and yet you feel that doctors should be prescribing expensive drugs that are useless and have serious side effects??”
Now, DID I SAY THAT ?
(and you talk about “not good arguments”?)”
Yes Micky, that is exactly what you said. You don’t think the FDA is a good enough source to judge what is a viable medical drug and it should be up to you is what you said, even if said drug is a complete waste of money and may actually be harmful to you.
And you are completely wrong that the insurance industry allows you to just shop around for a policy that suits your taste. Most people have no choice of what policy they employer offers and the insurance companies have virtual monopolies across the country. Furthermore, if you try to get a private insurance policy, it is extremely expensive and leaves you little recourse if you have a complaint against them. Also, I would love to see you get diagnosed with cancer, find out what options your carrier has and then “shop around” for a better insurance plan. You would NEVER be picked up by an insurance company after such a diagnosis. This is the EXACT point of why there needs to be reform. These companies do not function like a commodity, as you assume, and, therefore, simple supply and demand do not affect them. Yes, malpractice reform should be a part of health care reform but it is not even close to the driving factor in increasing insurance premiums.
Now there are very good questions, concerns, and complaints about the current health care reforms that should be addressed and answered and these should be done in a civil and sane way, but idiotic articles like this one claiming death panels and other such ridiculous things are not helping the debate. They only serve to confuse and politically charge issues that need to be seriously talked about.
August 18th, 2010 at 12:40 am
I suggest that anybody for government run health care spend a day in the waiting area of a busy VA hospital. This is what assembly line medicine is going to look line when it gets off the ground.
It’ll be all downhill from there.
August 18th, 2010 at 4:53 am
I really don’t see why we have to do everything the most stupid way possible. Get some innovative managers in there. Clearly we still need serious health reform that both increase access, which to mean includes increased quality, and then that decreases cost and it can be done. We have a lot of talent bottled up in Schools of Public Health that have delivery and administrative programs. We have a large pool of talent in for profit and not for profit hospitals, and plenty of hmo plans. There is no reason to run the VA like a giant county mental hospital steeped in beauracracy. You can have fast track urgent care, routine regular care, ample specialty care, and computerized 90 day pharmacys that make a mere 4 shipments a year. You can add mental health services and podiatric services quite easily and a streamlined orthopedic and orthodic services. You can offer insurance to private care that would cap costs. Many many ways. What is important is you start the care early with the right diagnosis and from that good starting position it would be so much easier.
August 18th, 2010 at 5:00 am
“There was no death panel here.”
A government agency decided a drug that all 3 studies showed extended life withdrew its approval for the use in advanced breast cancer patients.
That is the definition of a death panel.
Throw in a picture of the Holy One mooning over the FDA seal and we can use in in the dictionary.
August 18th, 2010 at 5:32 am
The key here is that for two years, the FDA apparently believed that the drug was giving some benefits to women who had terminal cases of breast cancer. The drug may be expensive was it was buying them extra time.
Now two new studies say it “only” extends life maybe one month. Maybe there are additional side-effects to those receiving chemotherapy. Chemo by itself is pretty nasty anyway.
The point is, Obama, Biden and others promised that no government regulators would interfere in decisions made between a doctor and the patient. If they decide to take the risk then that’s their call. But, as we can now see, we, the American people, were lied to. This is just the beginning.
As I mentioned earlier, there now seems to be a deliberate move by the government and their pals in the state-controlled media to raise the issue of ‘End of Life’ care and the costliness of chronic diseases. The camel’s nose is coming through the tent!
August 18th, 2010 at 5:45 am
the government already has been making therapy utilization decisions, that is nothing new. Is possible that in the future your “death panels” could just blanketly block good effective therapy. “no penicillin for you mr. smith, that costs the government money and we aim to cut the budget”. That is always a risk. Statistically, look at the sample size as one month survivability may not even be statistically significant. The issue of the government making decisions of what they are going to pay for was going to hit us anyways. Why should taxpayers foot the bill for $15,000 of biotechnology medicines for the next dozen years for somebody. Its a real issue. Again I say we need health reform and we need to revisit the cost issue and drive down costs with a serious intent. We haven’t done that yet. The obmama plan really does a lot less than you think as it was so watered down and they caved into the fear mongering and childish obstructuion of the right. The republicans could have come up with serious cost reform including tort reform, but they just sat on their hands and said no, no, no, while they collected their paychecks, and their staff collected their paychecks, travel vouchers, meal subsidizes, housing subsidies, office and electricity bills, copier bills, internet bills, security bills, and medical care. They ate the roast while sitting and doing nothing. Talk about wasting money. They wasted many millions of our tax dollar and did no work. And now want to blame obama? Grow up people!
August 18th, 2010 at 5:57 am
OK Brian
Go shoot somebody that “only” has a month to live – let us know how statistically significant the police feel it is.
August 18th, 2010 at 8:42 am
“I think you have lost the plot here Micky.”
Not at all. You’re failing to see the big picture and what this all boils down too.
“Yes Micky, that is exactly what you said. You don’t think the FDA is a good enough source to judge what is a viable medical drug and it should be up to you is what you said, even if said drug is a complete waste of money and may actually be harmful to you.”
BS.
I said no such thing. You just want to limit the parameters of the argument to your own specifics, which I’ve gotten past by mentioning that I simply dont think its a good idead when the government thats running your healthcare also has influence on another governmental agency that hasa direct effect on the choices towards governmental mandated health care.
As you failed to notice, I did mention that the FDA does have it merits, but not when theres a possible collaboration between two federal entities that go directly to major decisions.
Unless yo’re actully going to start answering my questions I think the conversation here has already made clear whats evident.
“And you are completely wrong that the insurance industry allows you to just shop around for a policy that suits your taste. Most people have no choice of what policy they employer offers and the insurance companies have virtual monopolies across the country.”
BS.
My wife works for CVS and they offer varying plans from varying companies. If theres any reform needed its the ability to also shop across state lines. I also own my own business and can pretty much go with whatever carrier I choose based on # of staff.
“They only serve to confuse and politically charge issues that need to be seriously talked about.”
No, they bring to light whats to come.
Please tell me. When has the federal goverment ever worked whithin its fiscal and budgeted means ?
Brian;
“The republicans could have come up with serious cost reform including tort reform,”
They did you moron, including interstate competition, reducing and or capping frivilous law suits.
August 18th, 2010 at 8:52 am
“They ate the roast while sitting and doing nothing. Talk about wasting money. They wasted many millions of our tax dollar and did no work. And now want to blame obama? Grow up people!”
You are of course aware of which partys been running congress for the last 4 years and whos been in the white house for the last two.
Or are you just full of more sht ?
There never is or was any “Healthcare crisis” until dems come to power. Sure, the industry needs some tweaking but statistically the majority of Americans during the Clinton era and now chose to remain with their current insurer/policy.
You might want to start with the illegals who cost us 300 + billion every year in entitlements and collateral damage as some beginning towards attaining revenues for reform in areas needed. Like those in line at the VA. People who actually deserve it
August 18th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
Micky
“Unless yo’re actully going to start answering my questions I think the conversation here has already made clear whats evident.”
You have not asked any questions.
And yes, I understand that you believe the government will not provide adequate health care and that you believe the Obama White House is in cahoots with the FDA and they are out to destroy the American health care system. You also believe that the status quo is just fine besides a little “tweaking.”
I am glad you have never had a bad experience with your health care provider but this is not the case for many. And if you do not think that health care reform is really necessary, you have got to be kidding. The number one cause of bankruptcy is medical bills, millions are without insurance after losing their jobs in a terrible economy, health insurance premiums rising faster than wages, Americans are spending more money on health care than any other country but see very little benefit, and insurance companies have the ability to drop patients that they deem too expensive or deny coverage to people with a sick child. I would say these are all serious problems that need to be addressed.
I am happy to hear CVS provides very good insurance options, but they are the exception, not the rule. How many options do your employees get from you? If they don’t like your options, what can they do about it? Do you know what your insurance company will do in the event you get a serious disease? And if you are unhappy with your treatment after a diagnosis, what do you plan to do? Change providers? Sorry, you have a preexisting condition. Or what if your employee has a child with a terrible disease and the insurance company cuts your line of coverage because they don’t want to pay?
So my point is, the current system has serious flaws and a new system is needed. How this is done should be debated and all options should be looked at, but paranoia about the government trying to kill you is ridiculous. Medicare, for all its faults, is a government run program that has been protecting our seniors since it began. 50% of health care in the US is already provided by the government, and those being covered are the old and disabled which are the most expensive portion of society and we do not see them dying in the streets or denied treatment because they are too sick. We have not seen the FDA trying to get rid of treatments for people on Medicare and they are both government administrations so your fear has no basis in fact. Cost-benefit analysis is necessary and is done by your private insurance as well. In both the public and private sectors, there are limited resources and so difficult decisions must be made, but I would prefer those decisions not include a companies profit margin coming before my treatment.
Finally, opening up insurance over state lines sounds great, unless this just allows providers the ability to go to a low regulated state and provide crappy coverage to people by getting around state laws. This is exactly what the banking industry did when deregulated. In which case, it would be necessary for the Fed Gov to step in and make sure people are not being taken advantage of.
I just have no faith in a large corporation looking out for me, as apparently you do.
August 18th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
@ PG
I think the whole idea behind America is individual liberty where we look out for ourselves. It’s good that you do not place your faith in large corporations. So why do you then place your faith in the largest corporation — the Federal government?
August 18th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
“I just have no faith in a large corporation looking out for me, as apparently you do.”
The government has consistently let me down.
My insurance company has not.
“You have not asked any questions.”
Learn how to read, scroll up.
Micky;
“Please tell me. When has the federal goverment ever worked whithin its fiscal and budgeted means ?”
Micky;
“You go right ahead and let the fed decide your policy for you, kay ?”
“I am glad you have never had a bad experience with your health care provider but this is not the case for many. ”
Try again.
The majority of Americans do not want government mandated and issued coverage and are content with their insurance only wishing it were a little more affordable…period.
“but paranoia about the government trying to kill you is ridiculous. Medicare, for all its faults, is a government run program that has been protecting our seniors since it began. 50% of health care in the US is already provided by the government, ‘
OMG ! Are you even aware of the why seniors are oppsed to Obamcare ?
Dont worry about my employees, were a conglomeration of sub contracted individuals who can afford what we need. If we choose to pool ourselves for a corporate policy it will be voluntary and not shoved up our a$$es.
August 18th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
@ PG
Ever watch that show on Discovery Channel, ‘The Colony’? Talk about idiots of our Nanny-state culture. If those people were in a genuine disaster scenario without help from the show’s producers, they would have all been killed within the first week.
August 18th, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Micky,
“Please tell me. When has the federal goverment ever worked whithin its fiscal and budgeted means ?”
Micky;
“You go right ahead and let the fed decide your policy for you, kay ?”
Clinton administration had a balanced budget and actually a surplus. And Okay. I lived for seven years in Japan under a government health care system and would be willing to do it again. Your questions have been answered.
Too many Americans are given bullshit information like Obama is trying to kill you. That is the exact point here. If you don’t just listen to Fox News and crap ass websites claiming the FDA wants your wife to die from breast cancer, this country could get down to the serious discussion of fixing our health care problems and not wasting time discussing fictitious “death panels.”
Can you answer me this, do you know of one drug or procedure that the FDA did not approve under Bush that you got up in arms about? No one does cause this is a not a serious topic. Its paranoia and disinformation from the Right to scare people.
I will say it again, just because you have not had a problem with YOUR insurance does not mean the system is just fine. Everyone loves their insurance until it fails them and they are caught is a actual life and death struggle.
And if your insurance is just “a little” too expensive, good for you. How about the guy who lost his job? No income means all insurance is more than “a little” too expensive. God help you that nothing bad ever happens to you, or I hope you are so forgiving and understanding of our “tweak” needing system.
Sorry to hear you have so much contempt for the government. You should vacation in Somalia and see what its like not to have one.
And Andy Z, what the hell does that have to do with anything? If there was no country left, insurance reform would be the least of our problems.
August 18th, 2010 at 3:39 pm
And Andy, the year is 2010 and it is not quite as simple as life 200 years ago. Your food isn’t grown from some guy down the street and your doctor doesn’t cure illness with leaches and bleeding. Self reliance is fine, but I don’t know many people who can rely on themselves to pay a 2 million dollar hospital bill when they have cancer. The world is a lot more complicated and simplistic answers like “rely on yourself” are idiotic.
August 18th, 2010 at 3:52 pm
@ PG
It is just as simple. If they don’t have the money or insurance to pay then they will die. So what.
August 18th, 2010 at 3:55 pm
Is that sarcastic Robbie, or are you really that big of a prick?
August 18th, 2010 at 4:08 pm
No PG, Robbies not a prick.
Those are just the facts.
I asked you to answer me as to whether or not the fed has ever been able to work whithin its fiscal and budgeted means.
Obviouly you dont like that answer because it reflects the point behind Robbies statement.
If the fcking money aint there then what ?
August 18th, 2010 at 4:18 pm
“Self reliance is fine, but I don’t know many people who can rely on themselves to pay a 2 million dollar hospital bill when they have cancer.”
Nice try but no one is saying the needy or sick should go unattended.
We just dont want something forced on us that we dont want.
If you want the fed to corner the market on healthcare I cant tell you how stupid you would be. Because thats what will eventually happen, or any private policy worth a damn will only be attainable by the filthy rich.
Maybe if we werent spending a trillion dollars every 3 years on those who break our immigration laws the government could actually help that person with a 2 million dollar tab. But no. God forbid we actually eliminate one useless costly program to help Americans.
Istead, the disengenuous claim of “catastrophy” is being used to corral Americans to a certain voting block.
Are you really that ignorant that you believe these a$$holes on the hill arent using this to sway you ? They didnt even read the damn thing dude !
August 18th, 2010 at 4:24 pm
And i answered you Micky. The Clinton admin balanced the budget with a surplus. But your answer sums up your point and the point of the Right on health care. “I got mine, Jack, and the rest of you should f off.” You should pray every night nothing bad happens to you and yours. Take your grandma off medicare and leave her fate in gods hands. god bless but i have a feeling he wont with compassion like that.
August 18th, 2010 at 4:36 pm
This isnt about illegals! Its about good hard working americans getting screwed by insurance companies! Its about people falling on hard times and having no safety net for them so they can get better and back on their feet. discussing how to pay for it and how it should be run is what we should be discussing and not death panels. I believe americans should look out for each other and not allow some corporation to dictate our lives. A little socialism is not a bad thing when it lets us live free of corporate greed.
August 18th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
PG.
Now you’re makin sht up.
I’ll show how I got there. And then dismiss you.
“And i answered you Micky. The Clinton admin balanced the budget with a surplus. ”
No, thats not applicable since medicade/medicare are and always have been hundreds of times over budget from day one til this day.
“But your answer sums up your point and the point of the Right on health care. “I got mine, Jack, and the rest of you should f off.”
Nope.
I clearly spelled out with cuts to other programs how we could afford to help the needy.
” You should pray every night nothing bad happens to you and yours. Take your grandma off medicare and leave her fate in gods hands. god bless but i have a feeling he wont with compassion like that.”
I’m an interventionist, I work with addicts and alcoholics, for free with whatever spare time I have. I work at two food banks twice a week (its common knowledge here, I’m a regular)
Many have no insurance and I place them whithin means of assitance for their detox and treatment if they have no private coverage.
I can tell you that my least enjoyable chore in that process is dealing with DSSH as they are quite possibly the most clusterfcked confused disorganized entity I’ve ever seen.
You want that on a nationwide scale ?
Huh? That, if anything, lacks compassion bro. Its almost sinister to wish that upon the country, but its all I’ve got to help them with in their medical needs
I dont need your a$$ preaching compassion to me.
Thank you.
Bye
August 18th, 2010 at 4:50 pm
‘This isnt about illegals! Its about good hard working americans getting screwed by insurance companies! ‘
Its about prioritized spending.
the private sector does it very well.
Our government does not
August 18th, 2010 at 4:50 pm
The point is that under the new plan where things are “fixed” they will still die.
The rest of us just pay more, get less, and wait longer in the meantime.
August 18th, 2010 at 4:55 pm
” I believe americans should look out for each other and not allow some corporation to dictate our lives. A little socialism is not a bad thing when it lets us live free of corporate greed.”
Until we run out of other peoples money bro.
Thats why socialism fails.
We just had to pick up the tab for Denmarks entitlements as they’re slashing benefits left and right.
You know nothing.
Finally…bye
August 18th, 2010 at 6:06 pm
@ PG
Clinton didn’t do JACK about curbing deficits and creating a surplus. His budgets were running on par as deficits until the GOP took control of the House. But during his first two years of wild abandoned, Clinton and Bob Ruben did plenty to set the stage for both the Recession of 2000 and the Crash of 2008.
August 18th, 2010 at 6:09 pm
Add in the new and improved CRA and Clinton was one financial wizard eh Andy?
August 18th, 2010 at 6:19 pm
Yes, Robbie,
Clinton’s financial genius should have stuck to watermelons.
August 18th, 2010 at 7:19 pm
I’ll bet he did stick a watermelon at one time, and spit out some seeds.
August 18th, 2010 at 8:44 pm
Come on PG, you know the rules -
If it’s a democratic president and something good happens, then it’s either the majority house (if they’re republican) or it’s the previous republican president if the house majority is democratic. If something bad happens it’s the presidents fault if he’s a Democrat, otherwise if he’s republican then it’s previous democrats fault.
So, if the Republicans get a majority here soon and we are still failing then it will be Obamas fault. If we start picking up then it’s to the credit of the republicans. If a republican is in office next term and he fails (even if he/she is failing during the final year of their term) then it will be Obamas fault unless we have a democratic house we can blame.
Also, democrats are communists, Obama is a terrorist from Kenya, and all people should have the same rights unless your a homosexual.
Just keep repeating this and you too will become a perfect Republican.
August 18th, 2010 at 8:45 pm
*you’re
August 19th, 2010 at 3:27 am
@ PG
What does what have nothing to do with what?
I think, PG, you’ve gone into Moonbat-babble mode. Your arguments have failed, much like your president’s policies and agenda.
August 19th, 2010 at 5:26 am
“Its about good hard working americans getting screwed by insurance companies!”
Insurance companies operate at a 3% margin.
We are getting screwed by the notion that everyone deserves “free” health care. Everyone should be treated and EVERYONE should pay.
Every time I go to the doctor I pay for myself and 10 welfare a$$h*les that have never paid for anything and will never pay for anything.
Naturally, given their platinum status they demand better treatment, faster service, free opiates (ever been to an ER – its a sea of indigent parrots crowing “polly wanna percoset”.)
O-Dill-Dough’s solution – give more “free” stuff to more worthless bums. Thanks – that should lower my costs a bunch.
August 19th, 2010 at 7:40 am
(dub in Twilight music)
PG:
” A little socialism is not a bad thing when it lets us live free of corporate greed.”
(fade out)
August 19th, 2010 at 7:45 am
Snow;
“If a republican is in office next term and he fails (even if he/she is failing during the final year of their term) then it will be Obamas fault unless we have a democratic house we can blame.’
Mmm, not really. I know you’re trying to be creative here but its kinda vacant since I really dont remember Bush running around blaming Billy for anything like Obama has repeatedly constantly chronically blamed Bush and the “previous administration”.
Not even close Holmes
August 19th, 2010 at 7:58 am
@ Snow
“If a republican is in office next term and he fails”
This is sort of like licks in a tootsie pop…
It will be a Republican and She won’t fail so we will never know.
August 19th, 2010 at 8:21 am
Mmm, not really. I know you’re trying to be creative here but its kinda vacant since I really dont remember Bush running around blaming Billy for anything like Obama has repeatedly constantly chronically blamed Bush and the “previous administration”.
Well, let’s see what the situation was after Clinton left office -
- almost 6 million jobs created in the first 2 years
- $600 Billion in deficit reduction
- Deficit SURPLUS
- Cut federal spending by over 250 Billion
- New Tax cuts for over 90% of small businesses
- Unemployment for 7% to 5.6%
I guess you could blame him for getting a BJ though.
Let’s look at some other numbers here because I find it interesting that whenever a Republican is in office things always suck more, lets take the increased debt/GDP points for example, starting from Carter.
[President/Increased Debt%]
Carter/-3.3
Reagan/+11.3
Reagan/+9.3
Daddy Bush/+15
Clinton/-0.7
Clinton/-9.0
Baby Bush/+7.1
Baby Bush/+20.0
I’ll even do you a favor. Here are numbers going from 1978-2005. Notice I’m not even taking us through the whole Bush disaster because that would REALLY make you look bad. So, not even taking his last 2 years into consideration -
1978-2005 Federal Spending Increase
Democrat – 9.9%
Republican – 12.1%
1978-2005 Federal Debt Increase
Democrat – 4.2%
Republican – 36.4%
1978-2005 GDP Increase
Democrat – 12.6%
Republican – 10.7%
Spin away though. I’m sure you’ll follow my outline from post #46.
August 19th, 2010 at 8:59 am
Snow…
WTF does any of that have to do with whos done the most blaming ?
I could go after Clinton for far more than a blow job and some numbers.
Like ahh, letting Bin Laden go a few times, ahh, not doing a fcking thing when we were attacked at the Cole, Trade Towers, our embassies, shrinking our military, shutting down the fed, using revenues from Reagans term to bolster his so called “surplus” , ahhh…putting the CRA on steroids…
Dont even get me started.
Point is, Bush was no cry baby running around pointing at Billy all the time.
Comprende` ?
August 19th, 2010 at 9:16 am
It’s not about who has done the most blaming, it’s about how the Republicans will spin, even when the numbers prove that Democrats are better at running this country economically.
And right, the surplus was because of Reagan and all the bad stuff was because of Clinton, as predicted.
Look at ANY numbers from when Clinton left office and when Bush left office and see who was the biggest disaster economically. Bush was handed a gold-mine, Obama was handed a big pile of sh*t.
August 19th, 2010 at 9:24 am
Oh and 9/11 was because of Clinton, that’s right. So that follows the “sh*t hit the fan on Republican watch, blame the previous democrat” pattern. Well, Bush didn’t catch Bin Laden either, even after destroying the towers. All he did was start a war with Iraq because of those pesky invisible WMDs.
August 19th, 2010 at 9:28 am
“It’s not about who has done the most blaming, ”
Read your own fcking post # 46 a$$hole
August 19th, 2010 at 9:30 am
@ Snow
Percentage of Americans Employed:
Bush II Ave: 63.7%
Obama: 58.9% (Current 58.4%)
DUM-DEE-DUM-DUM….DUM-DEE-DUM-DUM-DUM!
August 19th, 2010 at 9:30 am
“Oh and 9/11 was because of Clinton,”
I never said that. But he certainly wasnt a big fcking help in preventing it.
” Bush didn’t catch Bin Laden either,”
At least he tried.
“All he did was start a war with Iraq because of those pesky invisible WMDs.’
You mean the same ones Billy said he had and then went and blew up
August 19th, 2010 at 9:31 am
…an aspirin factory
August 19th, 2010 at 9:33 am
Boy oh boy is the desperation ever floating to the top like a turd full of polyunsaturates
August 19th, 2010 at 9:34 am
Read your own fcking post # 46 a$$hole, right like I said it’s about Republican spinning.
Oh, lets talk about the first WTC attack since you brought it up.
9/11 happened 8 months after he became president so it’s easy to blame the previous president, Clinton. However, the first WTC bombing occurred on Feb 26th 1993 and Clinton started his presidency in Jan 20th, only a month prior. However, that attack is blamed on Clinton as well, so that follows my logic in #46.
August 19th, 2010 at 9:35 am
“even after destroying the towers. All he did was start a war with Iraq because of those pesky invisible WMDs.”
Now you’re just fcking outright lying.
Ever heard of Afghanistan ?
August 19th, 2010 at 9:39 am
@ Snow
Percentage of Americans Employed:
Bush II Ave: 63.7%
Obama: 58.9% (Current 58.4%)
DUM-DEE-DUM-DUM….DUM-DEE-DUM-DUM-DUM!
For now lets stick with presidents who’s terms haven’t expired as his numbers could go up or down. And I agree, Obama has been an a$$hat.
August 19th, 2010 at 9:39 am
However your a$$.
Clinton had 8 years after numerous attacks and didnt do a fcking thing. He could of launched a viable response to the Towers being bombed and didnt even after the repeated attacks.
He went to Bosnia instead
Period
August 19th, 2010 at 9:42 am
‘For now lets stick with presidents who’s terms haven’t expired as his numbers could go up or down. And I agree, Obama has been an a$$hat.’
he’ll have to remain at 100% for the next two years just to avoid Carters title
August 19th, 2010 at 9:43 am
Ever heard of Afghanistan ? Right, I believe that’s the country that actually attacked us and that Obama sent troops to, right?
August 19th, 2010 at 9:54 am
@ Snow
Yes, Crash, Obama did send LESS THAN HALF the troops requested and only after ‘thinking’ about it for 3 months.
August 19th, 2010 at 10:09 am
Yes, Crash, Obama did send LESS THAN HALF the troops requested and only after ‘thinking’ about it for 3 months.
Yes, so they are ultimately responsible for the most deadly attack on American soil.
How many did Bush send? After all, that attack did happen on his watch and he had plenty of time to think about it as well.
August 19th, 2010 at 10:14 am
Snow.
get a fcking grip. You conveniently left Afghanistan out of the pic in that comment and just sounded like a complete fcking liar.
You said;
“even after destroying the towers. All he did was start a war with Iraq because of those pesky invisible WMDs.”
thats just a flat out fcking lie and you know it. Any fcking idiot knows that Bush went after Al Queda in Afghanistan a couple months after 911 and two fcking years before Iraq.
If you’re gonna resort to such fcking ridiculous bullsht were done a$$hole.
Facts are.
On Clintons term we were attacked numerous times and he failed to even appraoch the problem with anything substantial, otherwise he wouldnt of been the mark the radicals saw him as.
After just one attack on Bushs watch we kicked the living sht out of them and had no attacks on our soil or bases til dickhead came along
August 19th, 2010 at 10:17 am
Andy;
“Yes, Crash, Obama did send LESS THAN HALF the troops requested and only after ‘thinking’ about it for 3 months.’
And then Dumb and Dumber took credit for the success in Iraq.
August 19th, 2010 at 10:58 am
thats just a flat out fcking lie and you know it. Any fcking idiot knows that Bush went after Al Queda in Afghanistan a couple months after 911 and two fcking years before Iraq.
You’re a moron. The war was obviously concentrated in Iraq and not so much the country that actually attacked us.
If Afghanistan the number of troops didn’t exceed 20,000 until 2006 and the numbers were around 9,500 in 2002. Yet, in Iraq there were over 5X the troops as there were in Afghanistan in 2002
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/aug/03/paul-krugman/number-deployed-iraq-and-afghanistan-show-one-war-/
just one attack on Bushs watch
Right, the largest attack on our soil. Oh yeah and the whole Anthrax scare, DC sniper and shoe-bomber thing.
were done a$$hole.
Agreed, you’ve been served.
August 19th, 2010 at 11:10 am
“Agreed, you’ve been served.’
yeah, been served nothing but a steaming pile of sht.
You said;
“even after destroying the towers. All he did was start a war with Iraq because of those pesky invisible WMDs.”
no, starting a war with Iraq is not “all” he did.
Pure flat out fcking lie that even the lamest idiot on the planet knows is not true.
bye liar
August 19th, 2010 at 11:27 am
@ Snow
Bush didn’t have to send many because Rumsfeld knew how to handle the tribes, bribing them with Viagra.
August 19th, 2010 at 11:37 am
yeah, been served nothing but a steaming pile of sht.
I’ve got numbers, you’ve got talking-points.
You said;
“even after destroying the towers. All he did was start a war with Iraq because of those pesky invisible WMDs.”
no, starting a war with Iraq is not “all” he did.
Pure flat out fcking lie that even the lamest idiot on the planet knows is not true.
Okay, you’re right. He started a war with Iraq and he sent a handful of troops to Afghanistan, not nearly enough, leaving it to Obama to take care of business there. Happy?
So there were less than 10,000 troops sent after the attack, it never went above much more than 20,000, Bush had 7 years to take care of that, but Obama waits 3 months to send another 30,000 (which as Andy says is less than half as much as we need, which ironically is 3X as much as Bush sent, and 20,000 more than what Bush sent by 2006) and yet Obama is sitting on his a$$. Funny how the numbers work, right?
bye liar
Bye
August 19th, 2010 at 11:38 am
I meant 10,000 more than Bush sent by 2006.
August 19th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
“I’ve got numbers, you’ve got talking-points.’
NO.
I’ve got numbers.
You’ve got nothing but a big fat fcking lie.
The War in Afghanistan began on October 7, 2001
You left out the time between that and the initial 2003 invasion of Iraq
(March 20 – May 1, 2003)
Those are the correct numbers and context.
Completely different from;
“even after destroying the towers. All he did was start a war with Iraq because of those pesky invisible WMDs.”
You’re a fcking liar.
Obama taking care of business is a fcking oxymoron unless you’re one of the ones the fed/we own now
Yeah, Obama took care of business in Afghanistan. These last few months have had the highest casualties ever because of a lack of manpower.
McCrystal will tell you.
August 19th, 2010 at 1:59 pm
Those are the correct numbers and context.
I corrected myself. I said you’re right, after the towers he sent a handful of troops to Afghanistan and he went on a full-scale war in Iraq. Now give me some numbers, prove to me that the war effort wasn’t concentrated in Iraq and Afghanistan became an afterthought.
These last few months have had the highest casualties ever because of a lack of manpower.
Alright Senior-Speculator-Non-Sequitur-Extraodinaire, let’s see what others have to say. General Barry McCaffrey predicted the higher number of casualties back in January and he never said it was because of a lack of troops. He did say this though -
The addition of 30,000 troops in Afghanistan, he said, will enable McChrystal to put soldiers on the ground in areas that have been impossible to cover because of the size of the country
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/01/army_casualties_010410w/
With insurgent attacks way up and the fact that way more troops are over there then when Bush was in office, unfortunately we can expect more casualties. For example, lets take a look at how many troops were in Afghanistan from 2002 to present and include fatalities. Let’s also include percentage (percent of US troops that have unfortunately died)
[year troops casualties percentage]
2002 5,200 49 .94
2003 10,400 48 .46
2004 15,200 52 .34
2005 19,100 99 .52
2006 20,400 98 .48
2007 23,700 117 .49
2008 30,100 155 .51
2009 50,700 317 .62
2010 ~94,000 283 .30
So, we are already in August, almost September and you can see that we are at .30 for percentage of troops who have died. We would have to triple that to match 2002, which was by far the deadliest year by percentage.
2009 was a rough year, but we would still have to have double the casualties in the next 4 months to match that, so yes unfortunately we are seeing more casualties but that comes with having more troops there.
August 19th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
BTW, those are US casualties.
August 19th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
“I corrected myself. I said you’re right, after the towers he sent a handful of troops to Afghanistan ‘
Yeah, but til you kicked and screamed like a pu$$y on the few threads after that.
I’m not gonna go on a number search with you. I’ve done that a million fcking times already since both wars began.
Bottom line is that Bush was and still is the man thats done more than any other to combat terrorism.
I dont give a fck who sent how many troops when. Its really irrelevant as were looking at the end product which BarryBiden now after pi$$ing on it for 3 years want to take credit for.
The successes in Iraq were hardly due to Obamas fcking measely 2 cents worth since his election.
In addition. With or without WMDs the case for invasion was as strong as it ever needed to be.
The only credit Barry gets in all this is for retaining the patriot act and kicking it up a notch even after pi$$ing all over that during his campaign and bolstering the predator drone policy Bush left in place for him, after pi$$ing all over that during his campaign.
Dipsht got his first privy security briefing after his inauguration and came out of that meeting with a big wet spot on his trousers looking like a fcking deer in the headlights thinking to himself “holy sht, these really are bad people”.
You can cut and paste all the numbers you want, good for you. If you pull numbers the same way you pull your lies you really cant be taken seriously.
AsI’ve said. I’ve had this debate too many times to give a fck anymore. The left was wrong 10 yearsago, and they’re wrong now.
Notice the dates and time stamps.
http://micky2.wordpress.com/2007/12/04/those-pesky-little-things-called-facts/
August 19th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
‘Now give me some numbers, prove to me that the war effort wasn’t concentrated in Iraq and Afghanistan became an afterthought. ‘
WHY ?
I never made that argument.
My argument was how you lied by ommiting two whole fcking years of history…a$$hole
August 19th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
You can cut and paste all the numbers you want, good for you. If you pull numbers the same way you pull your lies you really cant be taken seriously.
AsI’ve said. I’ve had this debate too many times to give a fck anymore. The left was wrong 10 yearsago, and they’re wrong now.
Notice the dates and time stamps.
http://micky2.wordpress.com/2007/12/04/those-pesky-little-things-called-facts/
I pulled from reliable sources, double check my numbers if you dare. But you wont.
And YEEES!!! I got the good ol’ fashion Micky blog link! The pages upon pages upon pages of crap and you expect me to sift through it all because you can’t give any real proof.
I’ve got the blog-link 3X now. When you link me to that, it’s equivalent to you saying “I’ve been served.”.
August 19th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
My argument was how you lied by ommiting two whole fcking years of history…a$$hole
Also, when you harp on the same point ad-nauseum, even though it has been corrected and apologized for that also means. “I can’t come up with any real data so I’m just gonna nit-pick crap that you said 40 posts ago. I’ve been served.”
August 19th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
“he said, will enable McChrystal to put soldiers on the ground in areas that have been impossible to cover because of the size of the country’
Uhmm… McCrystal didnt think so, otherwise he’d of asked for 30 instead of 40.
But since when has common sense ever been a moonbat factor ?
August 19th, 2010 at 2:25 pm
‘Also, when you harp on the same point ad-nauseum,”
bla bla fcking bla.
This all started out as a debate over whos been casting the most blame and then you started lying, I b*tch slapped you for that and now you want to go down a road that hopefully will shine some light on you. Recovery mode AKA switching topics.
August 19th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
“I pulled from reliable sources, double check my numbers if you dare. But you wont.’
I wasnt busted lying.
You were.
were done.
Obama is a gutless whiney a$$ blamer in chief who has no substantial accomplishments, some of them being he takes credit for sht he didnt do.
For someone who says hes no big fan of Obama you sure have your dick pretty far up his a$$
August 19th, 2010 at 2:44 pm
Here’s your lame tactic. I say something like -
“Afghanistan attacks us and we go to war with Iraq”
A dozen or more posts later, once you realize you have nothing left.
“YOU LIED WE SEND TROOPS TO AFGHANISTAN, LIAR LIAR LIAR”
“Okay, we sent less than 10,000 troops to Afghanistan and over 50,000 to Iraq, so it was obvious Iraq was the concentrated effort, not Afghanistan who attacked us. Oh, and here’s some proof.”
“LIAR LIAR LIAR! YOU OMITTED HISTORY AND CASUALTIES HAVE GONE UP BECAUSE OBAMA DIDN’T SEND ENOUGH TROOPS!”
“Actually percentage-wise 2002 was the most deadly year for troops, and when we have more troops we have more casualties, that’s just how it is. Here’s some more proof.”
“LIAR LIAR LIAR!!! YOU OMITTED HISTORY!”
“It has been corrected, now supply proof of your own”
“LIAR LIAR LIAR! I’M GOING TO CONTINUE TO HARP ON WHAT LITTLE I CAN JUST TO TRY AND SEEM LIKE I HAVE AN EDGE”
“IM GOING TO CALL YOU A LIAR ONE MORE TIME BECAUSE THATS A STRONG WORD”
“MY POST FREQUENCY IS GOING UP BECAUSE THERE’S NO HOPE OF ME ACTUALLY PROVIDING ANY REAL PROOF, SO BY POSTING MORE IT MAY SEEM LIKE I’M RIGHT”
“I’M GOING TO CALL YOU A LIAR AND RESORT TO NAME-CALLING ONLY, BECAUSE THAT MAKES ME SEEM TOUGH AND RIGHT”
“I WILL TWIST THIS DEBATE ANY WAY I CAN IN ORDER TO SEEM RIGHT, SINCE I’VE OBVIOUSLY LOST.”
“FOR PROOF I WILL LINK YOU TO MY BLOG.”
For someone who says hes no big fan of Obama you sure have your dick pretty far up his a$$
How-so? Because I gave you proof and you gave me BS?
August 19th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
were done
You keep saying that… now leave.
August 19th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
Bottom line is that Bush was and still is the man thats done more than any other to combat terrorism.
Yeah, he sent less than 10,000 troops to Afghanistan (the country who attacked us, remember). During his final year we had 30,000. Now we have 94,000 troops over there, or 3X what Bush had in his final year and now YOU guys are whining that we didn’t send enough!
If I’m wrong, prove it. Oh wait, you can’t. Sorry.
I told you Obama has been an a$$hat, but I also said I call it like I see it. There’s been a lot of crap I don’t agree with that he’s done, but unlike you in your rigid little world, if he does something right, or if something clearly isn’t his fault then I’ll call it too. Your whole little world can be summed up in 4 words – “Democrat wrong, Republican right.” If it doesn’t fit that framework then you reject it, no matter what.
August 19th, 2010 at 3:15 pm
Pardon me for interrupting the thread, but because I like all of you I just wanted to let everyone know I just updated my Egg Recall article. There are additional states and products codes to be on the lookout for. I also included a new toll-free hotline number, too, for the latest info.
http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=7062
August 19th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
Thanks for the update Andy. My state is on the list (Colorado), scary stuff.
August 19th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
“Yeah, he sent less than 10,000 troops to ..bla bla bla…
Bush actually “went to war” to deal with our threats. Barry just piggy backed, kissed their a$$es, let em shoot down 13 of our troops here on our soil, defends them building Mosques but cant/wont comment on the wisdom, has an idiot running DHS…wont even call them terrorists (man made disasters?WTF?) Took forecever to give McCrystal an answer, omly now are the last of the 30,000 arriving. Its too fcking late, they hopped into Pakistan and Yemen knowing 3 months ahead of time what was coming, went to Iraq the day before the last combat striker troops pulled out and blew up 61 Iraqi recruits.
3 years ago you morons said the surge would never work. Today you’re praising it along with the 30,000 sent to Afghanistan.
You guys, are, a , fcking joke
Most soldiers cant even tell you what their objective is anymore
Put all the numbers together you want, in his 8 years Bush sent off more troops than Obama ever will to either Iraq or Afghanistan and has done more to combat our enemies than Barry ever will, especially in the face of his miserable foreign relations policies and deadlines hes had to eat.
“but I also said I call it like I see it.”
Yeah, except you were blind between 2001 and 2003 ?
Obviously you’re only seeing what you want, or were mentally incapacitated for 2 whole fcking years.
When people lie on a scale like that, such as you and Brian, I discontinue taking them seriously anymore and pretty much dont give a fck what they’ve got to say anymore.
As you would say…
“get over it”
You’ve had to change your moniker just to get in cuz yer shts so fckin ridiculous.
see ya…loser
August 19th, 2010 at 3:54 pm
Bush actually “went to war”
… with Iraq and threw a handful of troops at Afghanistan.
Yeah, except you were blind between 2001 and 2003 ?
Obviously you’re only seeing what you want, or were mentally incapacitated for 2 whole fcking years.
Still harping on that eh? Is that really all you got now? Like I said, you’re right, we did send 5200 troops to Afghanistan, who attacked us, and 50,000 troops to Iraq. My point is that Afghanistan was an afterthought despite them being the ones that attacked us. Iraq was what Baby Bush really wanted so he could finish Daddy’s business. Period.
When people lie on a scale like that, such as you and Brian, I discontinue taking them seriously anymore and pretty much dont give a fck what they’ve got to say anymore.
So I said Afghanistan attacked and we went to war with Iraq, when you brought up the fact that we did send a few troops to Afghanistan I agreed, moved on. You continue to harp on it to divert the issue because you don’t have a shred of proof on your side, so you use your tired tactics.
You’ve had to change your moniker just to get in cuz yer shts so fckin ridiculous.
And here we have diversion #2. Anything to keep from facing the facts Micky!
Your tactics are tired Micky. As you realize you’ve been ‘pwnd’ you search for any possible diversion. It’s been done time and time again.
Now that you found a way to accuse me of being a liar and that’s all you will harp on ad-nauseum in order to avoid the actual topic (even though I have corrected myself time and time again and still offered proof supporting my side). And now you’re pulling out any diversion you possibly can, I bid you a good day.
Here’s your a$$.
August 19th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Liar
Barrys footprint on fighting terror has four toes.
Bush is and always will be the man.
Hes commited more manpower,resources, depts, agencies, and legislation to combat terror than all your pi$$y little numbers put together.
The reason you dont see alot of troops on the ground at the beginning of either war is simple. They were bombing campaigns moron.
The handful he sent to Afghanistan was enough to chase the little roaches into Pakistan where upon we struck up campaigns in concert with “coalition forces”. They had no idea we’d invade Iraq til a month before we actually did.
Which, was fcking genius on Bushs part. Two birds with one stone.
Yeah, you forgot to mention all those guys in the coalition that were willing to cooperate with Bush, but told Barry to get fcked. But.. you’ve already proven to be a liar by omission of very crucial sht so… I’m not surprised
“And here we have diversion #2. Anything to keep from facing the facts Micky!’
The fact is that you made Barrys actions an issue. For some fcking reason that had nothing to do with Barry being a whiney a$$ b*tch.
August 19th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
“Here’s your a$$.”
The least you could of done was wipe the lipstick off
August 19th, 2010 at 4:55 pm
The reason you dont see alot of troops on the ground at the beginning of either war is simple. They were bombing campaigns moron
oooooooooookay… so why send WAAAAAY more troops to Iraq? And fast-forward to 2008 where the number of troops was only 1/3rd as the total today (yet today you’re whining that there isnt’ enough), were we doing bombing campaigns still? Why weren’t you whining about enough troops then?
Which, was fcking genius on Bushs part. Two birds with one stone
GENIUS! SHEER GENIUS! A war without an exit strategy. A war against an ideal. We’ve come so far since then right? No more turrists! Dipsh*t.
you’ve already proven to be a liar by omission of very crucial sht so… I’m not surprised
You are boring.
The least you could of done was wipe the lipstick off
You’re the one with your head up there, it’s your lipstick, not mine.
YOU SAID YOU WERE DONE TALKING MULTIPLE TIMES NOW YET YOU KEEP TALKING TO ME. LIAR! LIAR! LIAR!
You said 9/11 was the only attack on Bush’s watch but you constantly fail to mention the anthrax scares, the DC sniper and the shoe-bomber. LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! HOW CAN I TRUST ANYTHING YOU SAY IF YOU’RE GONNA LIE ABOUT ATTACKS ON OUR SOIL?
Now quit lying about being done talking to me and STFU already.
August 19th, 2010 at 5:18 pm
“Now quit lying about being done talking to me and STFU already.”
The fck around here is you
August 19th, 2010 at 5:26 pm
“A war without an exit strategy’
right.
Want me to tel you what the strategy was before or after we built the biggest fcking embassy ever smack dab in the middle of baghdad ?
Man, you leave out and make up so much sht its not even funny.
The day Bush announced we were going in he gave the agenda with no exit strategy til that agenda was complete.
You guys are so fcking wrong on this. Its easy to tell. None of your idiot leaders even bring it up anymore cuz they were wrong the whole 7 1/2 years and they now know it.
Iraq was an urban setting you moron = more troops.
fcking idiot
August 19th, 2010 at 5:28 pm
“You’re the one with your head up there, it’s your lipstick, not mine.”
I know you are but what am I ?
Pfft
August 19th, 2010 at 5:30 pm
Micky;
“Bush didnt go blaming everyone for everything like Barry does”
Snow:
“Yeah, but Barry sent all these troops..”
HUH ?
August 19th, 2010 at 5:33 pm
You said 9/11 was the only attack on Bush’s watch but you constantly fail to mention the anthrax scares, the DC sniper and the shoe-bomber. LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! HOW CAN I TRUST ANYTHING YOU SAY IF YOU’RE GONNA LIE ABOUT ATTACKS ON OUR SOIL?
August 19th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
Iraq was an urban setting you moron = more troops.
Riiiiiiiiight. So when Bush was in office we had the right amount of troops until Barry showed up, now we don’t have enough, despite the fact that we now have more troops in Afghanistan then we do Iraq.
Thank you, try again.
August 19th, 2010 at 5:41 pm
Want me to tel you what the strategy was before or after we built the biggest fcking embassy ever smack dab in the middle of baghdad ?
COOL! So we’ve beat the war on turrists then! Oh wait, that’s an ideal and we can’t beat that by blowing sh*t up.
August 19th, 2010 at 5:45 pm
Okay, lets disect that.
Muhammed acted alone. Not recruited by Al Queda, had no ties to any other radicals
I’ll give you Reid. (he hurt no one)
Official suspect in the Anthrax scares… Dr. Bruce Edwards Ivins
Not a radical Islamist, killed himself with Tylenol.
All that in 8 years.
Barrys a$$ hits the Oval Office and weve got 13 shot up dead at Ft. Hood, Xmas day, Times square, all in less than 2 years.
All radical Muslims.
Try again
August 19th, 2010 at 5:48 pm
“COOL! So we’ve beat the war on turrists then! Oh wait, that’s an ideal and we can’t beat that by blowing sh*t up.”
If you actually read the facts I linked you to you wouldnt be saying such stoopid sht.
Were never leaving Iraq you idiot !
I’m not gonna hold your fcking hand anymore
August 19th, 2010 at 5:50 pm
Barrys a Marxist pu$$y
August 19th, 2010 at 5:52 pm
Muhammed acted alone. Not recruited by Al Queda.
So it wasn’t an act of terror then?
Micky
“We didn’t have as many troops in Afghanistan because it’s not an urban setting”
Micky
“We have 90,000+ troops now, but it’s not enough!”
HUH?
Barrys a Marxist pu$$y
Micky’s got kool-aid stains all over his lips.
August 19th, 2010 at 6:10 pm
“So it wasn’t an act of terror then?’
You’re an act of terror, so what ?
Were talking about radical Islam not domestics with no ties.
Try again
“We have 90,000+ troops now, but it’s not enough!”
Hmm.. we were talking about the first two years you lied about. Remember ?
Imitially we did not go into either country with a lot of troops because bombing campaigns clear the way first.
Iraq has settled down for the most part so we really dont need 90,000 fcking troops there, do we you fcking idiot ?
I almost agree.
We should just fcking nuke Afghanistan (and the big enabler Iran) and dust off our boots
August 19th, 2010 at 6:12 pm
“So it wasn’t an act of terror then?”
I have two counts of “terroristic threatening’ on my rap sheet for telling my neighbors I’d slap their fckng heads. Maybe you should put me on your lame list as well ?
August 19th, 2010 at 6:25 pm
@snow crash – do you just make stuff up as you go along? Afghanistan didn’t attack us on 9/11 – We were attacked by global jihadists or islamic terrorists or whatever you want to call them. The Global War on Terrorism isn’t a war against any particular country. Its a war between islamic and Western cultures.
I know these concepts of warring ideologies are hard to wrap your mind around. But give it a try at least.
August 19th, 2010 at 6:25 pm
@ Snow
You need to review your history a bit.
A) We didn’t invade Iraq until 2003 so there were plenty of troops available for Afghanistan HAD WE NEEDED THEM. Which, we didn’t. The Taliban were smashed and needed a few years to regroup.
B) Much of al Qaeda’s attention was focused on Iraq until 2008. Iraq was a better ‘ground’ for fighting the insurgents. And we slaughtered them by the thousands.
August 19th, 2010 at 6:26 pm
Iraq has settled down for the most part
Yeah, it really has in the last two years…
August 19th, 2010 at 6:30 pm
The terrorists would go where ever we were. When we were in Iraq – they came there to fight us from all over the world. It was a much better battleground (rule of warfare – choose your battleground). Now that BO pulled us out of Iraq and sent us to Afghanistan – they are going there where they literally have the high ground. Afghanistan is NOT a good battle ground for us because of the topography there as well as the fact they have a tribal government that isn’t conducive to ‘nation building’. In Iraq, the people had a culture and desire to build their country back – outside of islamists.
They have just been getting stronger over the last couple of years. Our casualties have been growing alarmingly. We don’t focus on that because the main stream media has decided not to do the body counts they did through-out Bush’s years.
The islamic fundamentalists have said they intend to destroy us and they haven’t shown any signs of letting up. The difference now is that we are no effectively fighting them.
August 19th, 2010 at 6:32 pm
Oh – and Obama has not filed a war plan yet. By law, a new president is required to filed a national defense plan within 90 days of his inauguration. 18 months later, Obama has yet to devise a national security plan. Why does NO ONE hold him accountable? Why are our soldiers over there doing ‘community organizing’ without any leadership, guidance or plan? Why doesn’t Obama send a bunch of his community organizing buddies over there and let the soldiers come home?
August 19th, 2010 at 6:33 pm
Iraq has settled down because they’ve followed us to Afghanistan. Afghanistan is OUT OF CONTROL. If Obama brings the Soldiers back to the States and stations them in Oklahoma, the jihadists will be there.
August 19th, 2010 at 6:35 pm
‘Yeah, it really has in the last two years…’
After the surge which y’all said wouldnt work (Funny, didnt I already say that above ?
yeah, sure did) and didnt want to fund after y’all voted for the damn war to which Barrybiden is taking credit for now.
Besides. Bush had the same withdrawal plan discussed with Malawki before dickhead ever mentioned it.
August 19th, 2010 at 6:37 pm
And Beth, after 100 comments Beth comes through with a thorough b*tch-slapping!
*tucks tail*
August 19th, 2010 at 6:50 pm
Actually, Beth has seen me have this debate before and probably has a feeling I’m just damn tired of it and I dont really take it seriously anymore.
The proof is in the opening statement on the post I linked.
“In recent months I’ve had a fair amount of debates with disengenuous democrats and liberals on everything from the war on terror to Iraq, health care and gerbil warming. I have grown incresingly tired of repeatedly putting together this concert of info time and time again.”
You rarely hear it being debated anywhere anymore because it would just expose the liberals for wanting to have it both ways again.
All of a sudden now Afghanistan is the “good war” and Iraq we can credit to Biden
August 19th, 2010 at 6:51 pm
And that was in 2007 !
August 19th, 2010 at 7:05 pm
And Beth, after 100 comments Beth comes through with a thorough b*tch-slapping!
*tucks tail*
This is a bit, um, embarrassing. Sister is over (staunch Republican as with most my family) and she went ahead and posted this in my name, as well as repeat all the same crap you guys are saying.
Anyways, I’m done! You guys all have strong points.
August 19th, 2010 at 7:30 pm
Seems like ghost posting runs in the family