The State of the Union: Lies about a Dishonest War

well.. care to think about the major communist nation that was supplied with
large quantities of US produced arms during WWII? USSR, maybe? Enemy of
democracy and all that - but, certainly receptive of the help. My mother
stenciled Cyrillic onto aircraft in Buffalo in 1943.

"Fly Guy" wrote in message ...
DALing wrote:

True, US supplying of Iraq was more the issue of "my enemy's
enemy is my friend" than anything else.

The new rule of thumb:

The enemy of my enemy is just another enemy.

In article . net,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Werner J. Severin" wrote in message

...


Their fair share for ALL programs is the same as everyone else.
If they are "unconstitutional, unworkable,immoral programs" then convince
the majority and have them repealed. It's called democracy.


The Constitution of the United States of America

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,
establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common
defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty
to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution
for the United States of America.

Note: "promote the general welfare"


The phrase "promote the general welfare" does not mean what you think it
does.


President Franklin Pierce was confronted with this situation, this is
what he said years and years ago... he is still correct today:

"I readily and, I trust, feelingly acknowledge the duty incumbent on us
all as men and citizens, and as among the highest and holiest of our
duties, to provide for those who, in the mysterious order of
Providence, are subject to want and to disease of mind; but I cannot
find any authority in the Constitution for making the Federal
Government the great almoner [one who gives something to the poor] of
public charity throughout the United States. To do so would, in my
judgment, be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and
subversive of the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is
founded...'the powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the
States respectively or to the people."

jay
Mon Jan 19, 2004

"Kal Alexander" wrote in message
...
devil wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:32:43 -0500, Gwen Saylor wrote:

=Sara wrote:


Yeah, just as there's no financial situation where the Democrat
doesn't scream for higher spending

Like $87 billion for Iraq and a few billoion more for NASA?
Suuurre. This is one fiscally conservative admin we've got here.

You conveniently forget to recall how many billions and billions
were already spent on Iraq for the 12 years before Bush took office
due to the presence and moves by Hussein. And the $ number was
getting higher and higher with no end in sight due to the failure of
the "containment." . Did you think all of those daily no-fly zone
sorties were free? When Clinton bombed Baghdad in 1998 with more
missiles than the entire 1991 Gulf War, did you think that was free?
Or the 1994 bombings? Or the 1996 bombings? Did you think the
constant built up troops in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were free? Did
you think the aircraft carriers that needed to be in the Gulf
constantly were free? Today all of that is changing. And it will
only get better going forward as things wind down in Iraq.

Drop in a bucket. Insignificant. Meanwhile this administration has
been borrowing on future generations like there is no tomorrow.

Just how big a drop in the bucket? What is the dollar amount on
all of the above?

Just curious.

Isn't it odd that, when the Democrats run up the deficit, "pay as you go" is the
Republican mantra, but when the Republicans do it, "tax and spend" (a euphemism
for "pay as you go") becomes a terrible policy?

Or is it merely another example of hypocrisy in government?

George Z.

"Stark Raven" wrote in message
...
In article , Paul
Middlestat wrote:

Ted is a primary example of the need for congressional term limits.
Someone
who has been in elected office too long, and is detached from those in the
trenches. And you are aware that he has never received a pay check which
was
not from the government - right? At no time has he worked in the public
sector. Has he ever looked at this check book at the end of the month and
wondered how he could find the money to send his 8th grader on the spring
trip? I'm guessing probably not.

A Kennedy needing to work? I don't think so. I'm sure he's dedicated
his life to public service and probably gives his congressional salary
to charity.

Also it wouldn't surprise me if some of GWB's many successful business
endeavors hadn't cornered some of your hard-earned money. That is
where publically-earned money comes from, you know.

I for one find it strange that the current administration had rather
give $500,000 to Charles Schwab to maintain a rice farm for duck
hunting purposes than $300 to a welfare mom. Of course they had rather
be invited to a duck hunt than collards and greens.

Nothing strange about it. How much does the welfare mom contribute to the
reelection coffers compared to Charlie? I believe it's spelled G R E E D or
perhaps C O R R U P T I O N.....take your pick.

George Z.

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 00:56:43 GMT, (Werner J.
Severin) wrote:

Interesting how this thread moved quickly from the contents of the message
to a discussion of the credibility of the communicator.

We don't have time to do a thorough rebuttal of every crackpot idea
that comes along, any idiot can lie faster than they can be refuted.

Social psychologists have for years known that when people are confronted
with a message that challenges their beliefs they suffer dissonance which
causes psychological discomfort.

They laughed at Galileo, they laughed at Einstein; they also laughed
at Bozo the Clown. Just because we are laughing at the messenger
doesn't mean the message is causing us any dissonance, the person
carrying the message may not have the credibility to deliver a message
we can take seriously.

Here is an example; there is a guy over in talk.origins who has been
claiming for years to have found various human bones fossilized in
coal seams, were this true it would mean that humans are tens of
millions of years older than previously believed and would upset much
of known paleontology. This same individual has various pictures of
rocks he claims are human bones, claimed to have had them examined by
an expert (who is conviently deceased) and had them tested in a lab
(which did a kidney stone analysis on them); all these claims and more
have been completely refuted or proved to be without scientific merit
over the years. Despite this he shows up every few weeks, insults
anyone who doesn't agree with him, and repeats his original claims as
if it were his first time.

In short he's your typical net loon without a shred of credibility
about any of his claims. Last year he showed up and claimed to find
dried blood on one of his specimens, in defiance of all known data
about blood existing as blood for tens of millions of years.

Why should we have treated this new claim with anything other than
the disdain that it deserved? Was it because we were worried that he
might be right, or because he is a nutcase who can't be relied upon to
tell the truth when this subject comes up?

Everyone will do this to a greater or lesser extent, if a naked guy
covered in green paint arrived at your door and claimed he was with
the Fire Department and had to immediately search your house to make
sure no fumes from a toxic spill two streets over were building up in
your house or you could be dead within the next 60 seconds; would you
take this request seriously or just call the police to take him into
custody?

--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 01:58:15 GMT, devil wrote:

In a related subject, today's Wall Street Journal has an interesting
summary of the deficit spending which would result if any of the
Democrat candidates tax and spending plans were enacted. Not
surpisingly it would increase under all of them.

I seem to recall that the last democrat ran a surplus.

You need to look at it again, the Federal Debt increased by 1.4
trillion dollars under Clinton. Not once during his 8 years did the
Federal Debt go down.

I'm not saying that Bush is doing any better, but the claim that
Clinton ran a surplus is a myth. Just as much a myth as if I got an
$800 cash advance on my credit card, payed $600 in bills and then
declared a $200 surplus just because I still had $200 when I was done.

--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:35:30 GMT, (Werner J.
Severin) wrote:

Note: "promote the general welfare" And we do live in a country where
majority rules.

So you would be ok with 51% of the people voting to take all the
money from everyone in the country and just distributing it equally to
promote the general welfare?

--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 00:15:57 GMT, devil wrote:

I would go beyond. Close the whole thing down and start from scratch.
This is the worse paper-pushing operation after the INS.

I'd have to say after the INS and IRS.


--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 00:13:57 GMT, devil wrote:

Drop in a bucket. Insignificant. Meanwhile this administration has been
borrowing on future generations like there is no tomorrow.

Clinton didn't do any better in that regard, increasing the size of
the Federal Debt by 31% (1.4 trillion dollars).

--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft

with plstic of course
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"devil" wrote in message
news

Wonderful reason to go to war, if you ask me.


Yes, and I didn't.



If you really believe this was the reason (i.e. not a cheap excuse), I
got
a bridge to seel you.


How do you seel a bridge?