2004 Elections

U

Unintentional

Active Member
Messages
577
2004 Elections

"Sadam has gone to great lenghts to build and keep weopons of mass distructions." - GW Bush.

That is not saying he has WMDs. That is saying Sadam has gone to great lengths to build and keep WMDs.

I have gone great lenghts to build and keep a millions dollars, but it hasn't happened yet. If someone says I have gone great lenghts to build and keep a million dollars does that I have a million dollars?
 
TimeWizardCosmo

TimeWizardCosmo

Senior Member
Zenith
Messages
2,936
2004 Elections

You ignore the fact that in that short video, he said "He's got 'em" numerous times.

I'd say that he means.... He's got 'em.
 
C

CaryP

Senior Member
Messages
1,432
2004 Elections

This shows that although the deficit is increasing and stopped increasing slightly during the end of Clinton's term, as a percentage of GDP it is not increasing. I know that is a lame comeback, but it's analogy is let's say you have every month you spend 5% more than what you earn (not a good idea in practice). The first month you earn 10,000 dollars and go in debt 500 dollars. The next month you earn 20,000 and go into debt 1000 dollars. Is that exploding deficit? As a percentage it has stayed the same. Still all in all deficit spending is a bad idea but not really exploding. Stupid? Yes. Exploding? No. Would Kerry do better? If he raised taxes, yes, if not, no.

We are already starting to outgrow the current deficit. First they said the deficit for this year would be 600 billion. It is really only 420 billion. Federal collections went up 180 billion more than expected. If taxes were cut, how is that possible? The answer is the tax cut did release needed capital to promote new growth and thus a larger number of income to tax. The new lower rate times the new gdp is higher than the old rate times the old gdp. Of corse the old rate times the new gdp would be even higher, but would the gdp have increased as much without the tax cut? Of course these figures all given by the government and as it was posted on another thread, they could all be made up by the government.

Geeze, I am going to put my head in a bag. I sound like a Bush adminstration apologist.
Click to expand...

Smuda,

You have your head in a very dark place. The govt. has been lying to us for decades. I'd post a serious reply here, but it would go over your head. Total debt to GDP has never been higher, NEVER. Believe what you wanna believe. When this thing collapses, don't say you weren't warned. Look for an Argentine conclusion to our current circumstance. Good luck in the new Greater Depresion. You'll need it.

Cary
 
D

DadOf5

Member
Messages
292
2004 Elections

Originally posted by sosuemetoo@Sep 9 2004, 11:35 AM

I agree. It's hard to have a political debate that is all one sided. We need more dems and third party supporting members to make this a true debate.

​
Click to expand...

I'm actually a recovering democrat, leaning toward third party status. :lol:

I'd love to post more on this topic, but I'm running into time constraints all over the place. :( I just wanted to let you all know that I'm here reading and wishing that I had the time to take part.
 
P

Phoenix

Active Member
Messages
631
2004 Elections

CaryP please watch your language.

Hell and crap is intended to fall under the general 'ect.' idea of
B. Don't use words or phrases that talk about lower bodily functions; p'iss, s'hit, c'unt, c'ock, f'uck, ect. Such words trigger more primitive territorial reactions
Click to expand...


Also you are riding unintentional really hard.

Please review these rules.
A. Be careful when writing about intelligence, mental health, and moral integrity. Often the person talked about will become offended. Such remarks make them less willing to listen to what you have to say. Also it also shows that you are unwilling to consider what they have to say.

B. Don't use words or phrases that talk about lower bodily functions; p'iss, s'hit, c'unt, c'ock, f'uck, ect. Such words trigger more primitive territorial reactions, like apes throwing s'hit at each other to show dominance and territory. Using such words in debate will often reduce the quality of the debate into mud slinging of name calling and possible flamming. If your aggression level ever reaches the point where you feel such words are needed please contact a Mod or Admin to resolve the conflict.

Doing A or B in an aggressive context is worthy of a warning.
Click to expand...
 
F

Fringan

Junior Member
Messages
48
2004 Elections

Originally posted by Unintentional@Sep 10 2004, 12:57 AM
\"Sadam has gone to great lenghts to build and keep weopons of mass distructions.\" - GW Bush.

That is not saying he has WMDs.? That is saying Sadam has gone to great lengths to build and keep WMDs.
Click to expand...

Ok, I give up. You clearly don't WANT to accept what Bush is saying between the lines: "SADDAM HAS NUCLEAR AND CHEMICAL WEAPONS, HE WANTS TO USE THEM ON EACH AND EVERYONE OF US. YOU MUST SUPPORT ME IN ATTACKING IRAQ BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE".

Adolf Hitler did the same thing in his time, scaring the german people into believing his every word. Bush has done a good job scaring many americans into believing he is their only hope of not beeing blown to pieces.



Just pretend for a second that there were another motive for attacking Iraq. Lets say he wanted to attack Iraq for another reason, namely oil - We have reached peak oil and in the near future it will be extremely important to control areas where there is still oil. By ruling Iraq or having a shadow/puppet gouvernment there another source of oil is secured. This is a possible explanation to why Bush would illegaly start a war.


Atleast consider the possiblilty you have been had by the Bush administration and what the reasons might be. Surely, you can't think their every word is true? That would be kind of like beliving every word in the bible to be true :)


Speaking of the bible and religion; Religion has been a great source of power for thousands of years. It was really easy for kings and war lords to say they had been chosen by god to rule their people as they thought fit and he who argued with that was ofcourse sentenced to death as a heretic.
As religion more and more lost it's former power a new great way to control the people was thoughtr out: fear. It works especially good in our consumtion society. Keep the people scared and they will obey and consume. The more scared, the more sheepish and easily controlled people :)

I think it's easy to see what Bush is doing at what he REALLY says. I guess you have to be able to read between the lines and see it in a bigger perspecitve.
 
U

Unintentional

Active Member
Messages
577
2004 Elections

Of course the chief underlying reason to invade Iraq was oil. You don't see us rushing into the Sudan do you? I'm just saying we had other reasons to justify it (i.e. failing to comply with cease fire and UN authorization). Have you read resolution 1441? Here is the paragraph of interests:

13.? ?? Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;
Click to expand...

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

The moral of the story is if you have a lot of oil, don't invade your neighboring countries that will ask the USA for help and then agree to a cease fire and then don't abide by it. If Sadam never did that, we would not be in Iraq.

A secondary moral might be if you have a lot of oil, don't host terrorist organizations that will kill thousands of innocent people and have no qualms about shooting little kids in the back running away from you.

Speaking of Hitler, by your arguments, we should never had invaded France to get rid of Hitler. We were not attacked by France nor were we in danger of being attacked. However, if we let Hitler do whatever he wanted, he would have taken over the entire area and then have become a really really big threat. Now compare that to Sadam. If we let Sadam do whatever he wanted, he would have taken over the entire area and then have become a really really big threat. We actually had more justification to invading Iraq than we did France. Ironically the same two countries that opposed invading Iraq also opposed invading France, namely Germany and France. Does that mean the coalition that invaded Normady, France wasn't a real coalition because Germany and France weren't in it? Was it the coalition of the coerced? After all, France hadn't attacked us, Japan had. Germany had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor. Man, here are still attacking countries that had nothing to with attacks on us.
 

Top