If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message ... On the contrary, I am very well informed; Actually, you are disinformed. You've bought the propaganda and ignored the facts. If it makes you happier to be the pot rather than the kettle, fine. I am disinformed. The President tells you everything that his people feed you with a spoon, and you believe every word. Have we got it right? I know nothing.....you know everything! Hilarious! Total denial of reality! Too funny for words!! |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message ... Steven P. McNicoll wrote: "George Z. Bush" wrote in message ... No, would you mind translating the vacant spaces for me? I said "the following message", not "what appears below." So, where's "the following message"? There wasn't any....so why were you referring to it when it obviously didn't exist? You knew it wasn't there. He was referring to the clarification of his obvious typo. He explained that to you. Your attempts at wiggling out of admitting an error are really pathetic for someone who's presumably an adult. No, what is growing increasingly pathetic is your fascination with his typo. Rather than address what he really said (in clarified form), you instead cling to this typo as if were a lifering thrown out while you are treading water in the middle of the ocean. They don't serve you well, and you ought to be man enough to admit it when it's as obvious as the nose on your face that you misspoke or, as you probably would have said if I had done that, that you lied. For cripes sake, he did no such thing. You may be trying to twist his words into a "lie", but you have done a rather miserable job of it so far. I had come to the conclusion that you and I just tend to disagree on a lot of issues, but that you are generally an honorable man--it appears now, however, that I was wrong in that last bit. You alternatively snarl and whine about all things allegedly Bush-related, refuse to address the statistics that question your rants, drop the Nazi card on your opponent for absolutely no reason, and now you have hung yourself around his admitted typo and just can't let loose. You just graduated to the exalted level of Kramer, Tarver, and Vkince--what a team! Hope you are proud of it. Brooks |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message ... You were on a roll until you said that rising tax revenues leads to deficits. Rising tax revenue does not lead to deficits. That can only happen if you spend more money than you've taken in, and the difference between the two is the deficit. Rising tax revenue never leads to deficits. |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
"Jarg" wrote in message om... "None" wrote in message hlink.net... "Jarg" wrote in message om... "Werner J. Severin" wrote in message ... In article , Mike1 wrote: Is anyone in disagreement with the basic *fact* that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons to murder thousands of Kurds and Iranians in the course of slaughtering nearly a million people overall? Is anyone in disagreement with the basic "fact" that the United States provided the chemicals, weapons, intelligence, and tacit agreement that allowed Saddam Hussein to murder thousands of Kurds and Iranians? Even if this were true, what is your point? Are you suggesting that past support for Iraq means the US should not have removed the Saddam regime? Jarg Of course not, but neither should anyone have to put up with the bull**** lies about who built up Iraq's chemical weapons in the first place, whether we did it directly or through the cloak of another country. We paid to build him up, and again, we paid to tear it down, now we get to pay to rebuild what we tore down. It's a pathetic and vicious circle we keep jerking in. But perhaps this will end it. It depends. If, once the new government is "installed" they decide to sell their oil to someone other than Uncle Sam, we'll just swoop in and blow the place up again. |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
"None" wrote in message ink.net... But perhaps this will end it. It depends. If, once the new government is "installed" they decide to sell their oil to someone other than Uncle Sam, we'll just swoop in and blow the place up again. I don't believe oil was a factor in Iraq. For one thing that isn't the way markets work. Whether or not the oil is available to the US, it's sale on the world market affects the entire supply which lowers prices - basic economics. Now if Iraq refused to sell any oil to anyone, then you might be able to make the case. But that wasn't what happened. The better question would be what would happen if another despot took power and began sponsoring terrorist, shooting at US aircraft, building weapons that threatened the region, invaded his neighbors, mass murdered his own citizens, etc. Then it is likely the US would respond the same way again. Jarg Jarg |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
My tax dollars support the public schools, because somewhere in those
public schools is a future dentist, doctor, policeman or policewoman, or a future biomedical engineer. I may not need any of them today, but I sure might need them tomorrow. My tax money is an investment in *my* future health, happiness, and well-being as well as being an investment in the children of my country. Not stolen loot - it's a nest egg. Your tax dollars are being misused to maintain an educational monopoly. Interesting that the political left screams loud and long about monopolies, while selectively ignoring public education. Which should now be more accurately referred to a public indoctrination. Seeing as fewer students are leaving public education with the skills necessary for further study in the jobs you mentioned, I would encourage you to look elsewhere for these services. And the long-standing response of throwing more money after a problem has shown not to work. Student in asia and europe continue to out perform US students, while learning in educational settings which spend much less per student than the US. And US students with the highest SAT and ACT test scores are often the product of home schooling. Or private schooling. The NEA has a tight grip on the 'nads of the democratic pary. And along with the trail lawyers association they could play 'make a wish and pull'. Do not look seriously for either educational or court reform from your political preference. Although it would not hurt for you to raise your personal liability insurance and expect much less from public education. |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:33:48 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote: Nobody has met the challenge. Now you've done it twice. |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
None wrote:
Is anyone in disagreement with the basic "fact" that the United States provided the chemicals, weapons, intelligence, and tacit agreement that allowed Saddam Hussein to murder thousands of Kurds and Iranians? It never ceases to amaze me that the republican infidels continue to conveniently overlook that very important fact! While it puts things in perspective to accept the fact that the USA's foreign policy mishaps resulted in far mroe problems than they were supposed to solve, what is at stake here is not whether Iraq had WMDs or not. There us accepted and coumented evidence that Iraq had WMDs. There is also documented evidence that Iraq used WMDs on both Iran and its own citizens. That in itself should have resulted in Saddam being send an invitation to the War Crime Trinunal or the ICC. However, what is really at stake here is the USA fabricating evidence/stories and knowingly lying to its citizens, knowingly insulting its allies to discredit them even though US administration knew full well that its allies were right. What is really at stake here is a regime which disregarded UN resolutions and interpreted them to mean what the regime wanted them to mean and proceeded with an illegitimate invasion of another country which posed absolutely no threath to the USA. What is at stake here is the total disregard for due legal process. Both on the international scene with the UN, as well as on the domestic scene with police power abuses, concentration camp at Gantanamo Bay, illegal deportations to a 3rd country when the internationally agreed procedure is to send the passenger back to country where flight originated and the list goes on and on and on. The USA would not grant the UN a couple more weeks for its inspectors to do their job. In its state of the police-state address, the Bush regime still pretends that it will find WMDs, although this year's claims were nowehere near as ludicrous as last year's claims (tons of saren gas for instance). Remember the claims that Iraq was supposed to be very near to having nuclear bombs with Condy Rice making statements that they don't want to find out about nuclear programmes by witnessing a mushroom cloud ? So, when will the USA admit that there are no WMDs ? If the Bush regime is re-elected, it would still have to continue the lies otherwise admitting that they knowingly lied might bring in impeachement proceedings. (can one impeach a whole cabinet and force an election ?) In the end, it will be shown that Saddam had deceptively complied with UN resolutions and that the USA had become the belligerant regime. France, Germany and Russia tried their best to prevent the USA from degenerating into the belligerant regime it has become. But in the end, the world community is also guilty of not taking strong enough actions to prevent all the excesses that the USA has been allowed to get away with. (for instance Gantanamo). If the UK weren't such a loyal lapdog, it would then become possible to isolate the USA in the security council and pass resolution after resolution condemning the USA's actions, forcing the USA to use its veto over and over again. The difference being that by being all alone, the USA couldn't claim some "coalition", and wouldn't be able to focus all its anger on France and Germany since it would be the whole world against the USA. The Bush regime would have a much harder time trying to justify its international policies to ist media/citizens if the UK hadn't bowed to the Bush regime demands for support. |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 04:55:54 GMT, "Jarg"
wrote: "In The Darkness" wrote in message ... Jarg wrote: "john" wrote in message Bush, on numerous occasions, said that these weapons threatened our national security. Jarg And how was that a lie exactly? It hasn't been disproven, and even if it were it wouldn't make it a lie. You see, a lie is an INTENTIONAL untruth, not a mistaken statement. "The onus to war was forced upon the Intelligence group from the Top Down, to a given conclusion..." - According to O'Neil. And you think he _didn't_ know ? A little reading in a dictionary might help clear this concept up for you. Jarg s, Note the remainding members of President Bush's administration have dismissed these allegations, as well they should. They are the ramblings of a disguntled ex-e mployee trying to sell some books. Jarg Of course, they would. They would be fired if they didn't. It wasn't O'Neil's book. I also believe he has made his own evaluation of Bush. You can't fault O"Neil's credentials: CEO--ALCOA in Ford's administration In Nixon's administration |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 05:41:38 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote: "john" wrote in message news Bush claimed that Iraq had nuclear,biological,and chemical weapons hidden away. NO SUCH WEAPONS WERE FOUND! Don't you read the freaken newspapers? Little has been found to date, but even if none had been found, how would that prove Bush's claim to be a lie? If none have been found so far, there isn't any WMD. So, in that case, how would you characterize Bush (and Powell) statements about WMD? Would they be: fibs? little white lies? a grave misunderstanding? exaggerations? Because of Bush's beliefs he has plunged this nation into a war where about 1000 US troops have been killed so far and many.many. more maimed and wounded. Bush has created a $400 billion deficit because of the war. The chances of Iraq becoming a democracy are slim to none. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
State Of Michigan Sales/Use Tax | Rich S. | Home Built | 0 | August 9th 04 04:41 PM |
Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements | me | Military Aviation | 146 | January 15th 04 10:13 PM |
Soviet State Committee on Science and Technology | Mike Yared | Military Aviation | 0 | November 8th 03 10:45 PM |
Homebuilts by State | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 14 | October 15th 03 08:30 PM |
Police State | Grantland | Military Aviation | 0 | September 15th 03 12:53 PM |