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 |
#241
|
|||
|
|||
|
#242
|
|||
|
|||
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message ... When will you give up and stop swallowing every bit of pap they put in your mouth? I'm by nature quite skeptical, especially when it comes to government. The fact remains nobody has demonstrated any Bush statement to be a lie. That is exactly the opposite of what you are. You accept every statement issued by the government as the truth and I don't remember you ever questioning any of it. I don't see how you can watch the government present the public with one reason for going to war after another without wondering why any of that should be necessary. I don't understand why it doesn't occur to you that they are going through that exercise in the vain hope that they'll find something, however far fetched, that the public will buy. Every time somebody drills holes through one reason, they say they didn't really mean that, or it wasn't important anyway, and here's another reason we hope you'll buy. Don't you recognize a scam when it's held so close to your nose? You may think blind acceptance is a facet of skepticism, but I certainly don't. |
#243
|
|||
|
|||
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message ... That is exactly the opposite of what you are. You accept every statement issued by the government as the truth and I don't remember you ever questioning any of it. You're a poor judge of character. Don't you recognize a scam when it's held so close to your nose? Always. You may think blind acceptance is a facet of skepticism, but I certainly don't. Nobody accused you of thinking. |
#244
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:47:37 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"stephen" wrote in message ... How do you feel about fairies dancing on your front lawn? Depends. Please describe the fairies. What I don't understand is why the US has not planted WMD in Iraq so that they could find them. They have been lying all alone. What is one more? You've hit it without realizing it. Had the Bush administration been lying about the WMD, they surely would have planted evidence that proved their case. That little evidence of WMD has been found to date suggests that while they may have been wrong about WMD in Iraq they were clearly not lying. That they ended up believeing in their own lies does not necessarily mean they were not lies. Just that they were foolish. (But I guess I agree. If I were in their shoes, I suppose I would have found a way to find WMDs. But eh, I am not trying to compete for the prize for the most stupid guy of the week.) |
#245
|
|||
|
|||
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message ... That is exactly the opposite of what you are. You accept every statement issued by the government as the truth and I don't remember you ever questioning any of it. You're a poor judge of character. So are you. Don't you recognize a scam when it's held so close to your nose? Always. Then why don't you recognize the constantly changing reasons given by our government for going to war as the scam it is? They'll keep on doing it until everybody says, "ah, that was it", all the while forgetting that each and every one of the replaced reasons was phony and was floated only to see if it would be accepted. Gen. Wesley Clark stated during the debate in S. C. that he attended a Pentagon briefing some two weeks after 9-11, during which they were told that our primary target since day one was Iraq, whether or not they had anything to do with 9-11. That's the same story that former Treas. Secy. Paul O'Neil said in his biography that he heard during the first cabinet meeting he attended. Since it appears to be true, coming from two disparate sources, why was Sadaam's alleged relationship with OBL and Al Qaeda given as one of those abandoned reasons for going to war? Your government lies to you and you persist in denying it. If I am such a poor judge of character in that I'd suggest that anyone who believes that government-floated fairy tale might be naive or gullible, I don't mind resting my case and letting anybody else reading this exchange decide how bad a judge of character I might be. And before you say it, your denial is noted. Anybody else out there? You may think blind acceptance is a facet of skepticism, but I certainly don't. Nobody accused you of thinking. |
#246
|
|||
|
|||
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message ... Don't you recognize a scam when it's held so close to your nose? Always. Except when your eyes are closed, which is whenever the government feeds you its poop. You may think blind acceptance is a facet of skepticism, but I certainly don't. Nobody accused you of thinking. Your repartee is dazzling! I am smitten. I haven't heard such good stuff since I graduated the fifth grade. |
#247
|
|||
|
|||
Mitchell Holman wrote:
devil wrote in newsan.2004.01.31.06.22.28.721037 @attglobal.net: Like conservatives care a whit about deficits....... Why should they? They'll leave their money to their kids, carefully protected by the tax loopholes they put into the tax code, while the average guy's kids pay off the bank loans. Pretty good deal, wouldn't you say? George Z. |
#248
|
|||
|
|||
Greg Hennessy wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 06:16:20 GMT, devil wrote: Not in the USA. Tax revenues increased at a much slower rate after the Reagan tax cut then before the cut, and increased much faster after taxes were raised again by Bush41/Clinton. Source for those figures ? Funny. When you talk about your own ideological BS, I don't see sources being mentioned. Care to add them? Yes, you can start here http://www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/ Why bother? This discussion is about the US not the UK. Would UK data be relevant? George Z. |
#249
|
|||
|
|||
John Gaquin wrote:
....The soviets had been invited into Afghanistan by the Afghan government to help control the warring factions, I spent a lot of time working in Afghanistan in 76, 77. That's not quite the way it happened. All that is missing is "claimed they" between "soviets" and "had". But weren't they actually invited ? (after the soviets installed a soviet friendly government ?) What I don't quite understand is that it was often said that the soviets wanted a corridor to be able to ship their oil to a port and sell it to world markets. But afghanistan doesn't give them access to the ocean because of the strip of land that belongs to pakistan that covers the shores shouth of afghanistan. Does this mean that the soviets would have eventually taken that strip of land ? |
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 |