Upcoming war with Iran.
-
"When Clinton lied no body died." I'm just saying we moved into Iraq to set up a western capitalist nation, not because Saddam had weapons. As an added bonus we can use it a base in case another of those governements (like Iran) gets out of line. But he couldn't just tell the American people the truth, because people can't accept the truth. The people prefer lies, it is much easier that way. *** Edit. Oh yeah, we get a bonus to the economy and cheap oil. And the Iraqi people will have a higher standard of living. Its a win win situation for everyone. "People who never make mistakes, never do anything." My Blog -- modified at 13:36 Thursday 9th March, 2006
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
Its a win win situation for everyone.
Except for, of course, those who are dead or severely injured. -J
Think of a computer program. Somewhere, there is one key instruction, and everything else is just functions calling themselves, or brackets billowing out endlessly through an infinite address space. What happens when the brackets collapse? Where's the final 'end if'? Is any of this making sense? -Ford Prefect
-
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
Its a win win situation for everyone.
Except for, of course, those who are dead or severely injured. -J
Think of a computer program. Somewhere, there is one key instruction, and everything else is just functions calling themselves, or brackets billowing out endlessly through an infinite address space. What happens when the brackets collapse? Where's the final 'end if'? Is any of this making sense? -Ford Prefect
I know, I'm just playing around. But at least our military is volunteer. People who sign up know the risks involved. I wouldn't do it, but hey some people really want to kill people and it is the only way you can do it legally. "People who never make mistakes, never do anything." My Blog
-
I stopped reading that first link after the very first claim. Bush said that there were numerous contacts with Al Queda and that they did not lead to a "material relationship". That's actually what he told the reporters! Of course that's twisted by psychopaths like yourself to mean that he was stating that Iraq and Al Queda directly "dealing" with eachother. Geeze, man. Get a clue!
A half-assed rebuttal to one item from one link, without addressing my actual point. Typical.
-
A half-assed rebuttal to one item from one link, without addressing my actual point. Typical.
I asked you for evidence of a lie, not a link to some guy who is literally making stuff up. Honestly find me the quote. And then find me evidence that it's a lie. I'm not the one making the claim. You are. Back it up.
-
Mature societies embrace adultery.
Whereas your ideal society would go with the scarlet "A" on the forehead and some time in the stocks?
-
Whereas your ideal society would go with the scarlet "A" on the forehead and some time in the stocks?
Let me know what you think about it when your wife sleeps with the gardner.
-
kgaddy wrote:
Wrong, he was impeached for commiting perjury.
Which is just a technicality. The reason he was questioned in the first place is for his antics with his cigar. If it wasn't for the cigar bit, there would have been no questioning, thus no perjury and no impeachment.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
Which is just a technicality. The reason he was questioned in the first place is for his antics with his cigar. If it wasn't for the cigar bit, there would have been no questioning, thus no perjury and no impeachment.
Completely wrong. The reason he was questioned in the first place because he was giving testimony for the Paula Jones case. Where did you come up with this? Did you just make it up and wing it? My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
-
I may be wrong but you and your kin seem to prefer bombing people to a bit of sex in the White House. It seems very immature to me. I'd love to be corrected. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
adapted from toxcct:
while (!enough)
sprintf 0 || 1
do -
I asked you for evidence of a lie, not a link to some guy who is literally making stuff up. Honestly find me the quote. And then find me evidence that it's a lie. I'm not the one making the claim. You are. Back it up.
How much proof do you need? Do I need to assemble witnesses and gather sworn affadavits? Here, since you seem to be incapable of following more than one link... In the State of the Union address, Bush said, "By the year 2042, the entire [social security] system would be exhausted and bankrupt." In what the BBC calls "highly unusual," a State of the Union Speech was interrupted by a chorus of "No's," booing, and heckles from some of the members of Congress in attendance. This happened immediately after the above Bush lie. As Shields mentioned on the PBS wrap-up, and as Brooks concurred, if adjustments are not made, by 2042, as they have been made before, 3/4 of the funds promised would still be available. The entire system would neither be exhausted nor bankrupt. -- Politex, 02.03.05 "President Bush proclaimed that a report by leading economists concluded that the economy would grow by 3.3 percent in 2003 if his tax cut proposals were adopted. No such report exists." Gordan Livingston, 06.03.03 On April 26, President Bush said in his weekly radio address, "My jobs and growth plan would reduce tax rates for everyone who pays income tax." That turned out not to be true. According to the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, an unspecified number of low- and middle-income families received no tax cut at all because they'd been excluded from an expansion of the child-care tax. --Timothy Noah, 06.03.03 "President Bush has continued to say he has not yet decided whether to go to war. [Today Bush said, "If we go to war..."] But the message being conveyed in high-level contacts with other council governments is that a military attack on Iraq is inevitable, these officials and diplomats said. What they must determine, U.S. officials are telling these governments, is if their insistence that U.N. weapons inspections be given more time is worth the destruction of council credibility at a time of serious world upheaval....In meetings yesterday with senior officials in Moscow, Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton told the Russian government that "we're going ahead," whether the council agrees or not, a senior administration official said...."You are not going to decide whether there is war in Iraq or not," the diplomat said U.S. officials told him. 'That decision is ours, and we have already made it. It is already final. The only question now is whether the council will go along with it or not.'" --WP, 02.25.03 I could continue. I suppose now you'll employ your usual tactic of taking one phrase and f
-
Maybe this will help you figure it out: The Other Lies of George Bush[^] Bush Watch[^] Partisan, sure, but still valid behind the rhetoric. If only 10% is true, it is far worse for the American people than "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." And hiding behind the claim of "faulty intelligence" -- especially when the intelligence is so obviously questionable in the first place -- is the equivalent of saying "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is". Ass-covering. Dissembling. Lying.
-
Let me know what you think about it when your wife sleeps with the gardner.
Ahh. Now I understand, and I'm sorry your wife cheated on you (although mildly amazed that you got a woman to sleep with you in the first place). You should probably just let it go and move on with your life instead of wallowing in fantasies of puritanical revenge.
-
And it shows how restrictive western society is that a president felt he had to lie about a mistake like this. I read a bit of Roth that said (paraphrased) "And a sign draped over the White House said 'A human lives here'." He, Roth, was talking about Clinton. I do find the lie to be far worse than the act that made him lie. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
adapted from toxcct:
while (!enough)
sprintf 0 || 1
doPaul Watson wrote:
And it shows how restrictive western society is that a president felt he had to lie about a mistake like this.
No he felt he had to lie so he could get out the trial with Paula Jones. By lying, he denied a woman's right to go to trial. He lied to save his a@@. And if he would lie about that, what else would he lie about. This is not rocket science.
Paul Watson wrote:
I do find the lie to be far worse than the act that made him lie.
Agreed. By lying, he put himself and the office in a bad position. What would happen if someone tried to Blackmail him over this. That is why he was impeached. My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
-
"When Clinton lied no body died." I'm just saying we moved into Iraq to set up a western capitalist nation, not because Saddam had weapons. As an added bonus we can use it a base in case another of those governements (like Iran) gets out of line. But he couldn't just tell the American people the truth, because people can't accept the truth. The people prefer lies, it is much easier that way. *** Edit. Oh yeah, we get a bonus to the economy and cheap oil. And the Iraqi people will have a higher standard of living. Its a win win situation for everyone. "People who never make mistakes, never do anything." My Blog -- modified at 13:36 Thursday 9th March, 2006
-
Corn is a moron. How can you say, that intel gathered by the Clinton Administration, and cited buy the Bush Admin makes Bush a liar? My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
If he has good indication that it's wrong, and he cites it anyway, he's at least misleading, if not outright lying.
-
If he has good indication that it's wrong, and he cites it anyway, he's at least misleading, if not outright lying.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
If he has good indication that it's wrong, and he cites it anyway, he's at least misleading, if not outright lying.
Ah, but this is the hingepin on the whole lying issue isn't it? He would have to know beforehand that the intel was bad, then use it anyway. Yes that would make him a liar. But, there is no indication that he knew the intel was was bad. There may have been doubts, but there is is always doubts. The only way to prove if intel is 100% correct is to go in. Thats what he did. The risk of the intel being right far outweighed not going in. If the intel was wrong the worst that would happen is he would be hurt in the polls, which he was. But at least the world would be rid of a madman. My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
-
Mature societies embrace adultery.
espeir wrote:
Mature societies embrace adultery.
A mature society should leave marriage and adultery to the people to figure out on their own and stick to making laws only about serious issues like murder, theft and things that harm people, not just hurt their feelings because that's so arbitrary that we're not going to reach any agreement about which "mean things people do" should be against the law. (hurray for run-on sentences!)
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
If he has good indication that it's wrong, and he cites it anyway, he's at least misleading, if not outright lying.
Ah, but this is the hingepin on the whole lying issue isn't it? He would have to know beforehand that the intel was bad, then use it anyway. Yes that would make him a liar. But, there is no indication that he knew the intel was was bad. There may have been doubts, but there is is always doubts. The only way to prove if intel is 100% correct is to go in. Thats what he did. The risk of the intel being right far outweighed not going in. If the intel was wrong the worst that would happen is he would be hurt in the polls, which he was. But at least the world would be rid of a madman. My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
It always comes down to him being either a liar, or a bumbling incompetent.
kgaddy wrote:
He would have to know beforehand that the intel was bad, then use it anyway. Yes that would make him a liar. But, there is no indication that he knew the intel was was bad. There may have been doubts, but there is is always doubts. The only way to prove if intel is 100% correct is to go in.
I think better intel would have been maybe a good interim step, what with there being no immediate threat (according to the intel).
kgaddy wrote:
But at least the world would be rid of a madman.
Sure. Not the worst madman (Kim Jong Il, for instance), or the most serious threat (Iran), or the most blatant harbor for terrorists (Pakistan) or terrorist breeding ground (Saudi Arabia). But we did rid the world of a madman, rid our budget of that inconvenient balance, rid our military of 2000+ lives (and their country of many, many more), and rid our country of any chance of peace in the pursuit of a perpetual war on terror. Mission accomplished.
-
How much proof do you need? Do I need to assemble witnesses and gather sworn affadavits? Here, since you seem to be incapable of following more than one link... In the State of the Union address, Bush said, "By the year 2042, the entire [social security] system would be exhausted and bankrupt." In what the BBC calls "highly unusual," a State of the Union Speech was interrupted by a chorus of "No's," booing, and heckles from some of the members of Congress in attendance. This happened immediately after the above Bush lie. As Shields mentioned on the PBS wrap-up, and as Brooks concurred, if adjustments are not made, by 2042, as they have been made before, 3/4 of the funds promised would still be available. The entire system would neither be exhausted nor bankrupt. -- Politex, 02.03.05 "President Bush proclaimed that a report by leading economists concluded that the economy would grow by 3.3 percent in 2003 if his tax cut proposals were adopted. No such report exists." Gordan Livingston, 06.03.03 On April 26, President Bush said in his weekly radio address, "My jobs and growth plan would reduce tax rates for everyone who pays income tax." That turned out not to be true. According to the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, an unspecified number of low- and middle-income families received no tax cut at all because they'd been excluded from an expansion of the child-care tax. --Timothy Noah, 06.03.03 "President Bush has continued to say he has not yet decided whether to go to war. [Today Bush said, "If we go to war..."] But the message being conveyed in high-level contacts with other council governments is that a military attack on Iraq is inevitable, these officials and diplomats said. What they must determine, U.S. officials are telling these governments, is if their insistence that U.N. weapons inspections be given more time is worth the destruction of council credibility at a time of serious world upheaval....In meetings yesterday with senior officials in Moscow, Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton told the Russian government that "we're going ahead," whether the council agrees or not, a senior administration official said...."You are not going to decide whether there is war in Iraq or not," the diplomat said U.S. officials told him. 'That decision is ours, and we have already made it. It is already final. The only question now is whether the council will go along with it or not.'" --WP, 02.25.03 I could continue. I suppose now you'll employ your usual tactic of taking one phrase and f
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
In the State of the Union address, Bush said, "By the year 2042, the entire [social security] system would be exhausted and bankrupt." In what the BBC calls "highly unusual," a State of the Union Speech was interrupted by a chorus of "No's," booing, and heckles from some of the members of Congress in attendance. This happened immediately after the above Bush lie. As Shields mentioned on the PBS wrap-up, and as Brooks concurred, if adjustments are not made, by 2042, as they have been made before, 3/4 of the funds promised would still be available. The entire system would neither be exhausted nor bankrupt. -- Politex, 02.03.05
How is that a lie? That's the conclusion of the White House. http://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/three-quest-soc-sec.pdf#search='2042%20social%20security%20bankrupt'[^] I think it's quite reasonable (if not overly optimistic). We've got lots of geezers now.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
"President Bush proclaimed that a report by leading economists concluded that the economy would grow by 3.3 percent in 2003 if his tax cut proposals were adopted. No such report exists." Gordan Livingston, 06.03.03
No such report exists? That's a pretty confident assertion, given that the leading economists work for the government. But you're right. They did underestimate the effect on growth: http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/30/news/economy/gdp/[^]
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
On April 26, President Bush said in his weekly radio address, "My jobs and growth plan would reduce tax rates for everyone who pays income tax." That turned out not to be true. According to the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, an unspecified number of low- and middle-income families received no tax cut at all because they'd been excluded from an expansion of the child-care tax. --Timothy Noah, 06.03.03
Cite the link, please.
-
It always comes down to him being either a liar, or a bumbling incompetent.
kgaddy wrote:
He would have to know beforehand that the intel was bad, then use it anyway. Yes that would make him a liar. But, there is no indication that he knew the intel was was bad. There may have been doubts, but there is is always doubts. The only way to prove if intel is 100% correct is to go in.
I think better intel would have been maybe a good interim step, what with there being no immediate threat (according to the intel).
kgaddy wrote:
But at least the world would be rid of a madman.
Sure. Not the worst madman (Kim Jong Il, for instance), or the most serious threat (Iran), or the most blatant harbor for terrorists (Pakistan) or terrorist breeding ground (Saudi Arabia). But we did rid the world of a madman, rid our budget of that inconvenient balance, rid our military of 2000+ lives (and their country of many, many more), and rid our country of any chance of peace in the pursuit of a perpetual war on terror. Mission accomplished.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I think better intel would have been maybe a good interim step, what with there being no immediate threat (according to the intel).
The trick is to get him BEFORE he becomes a threat. Why would you want to wait until someone becomes a threat? Every report Ive seen states that he was working on weapons.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Sure. Not the worst madman (Kim Jong Il, for instance), or the most serious threat (Iran)
Well those are just opinions at this point. For example, Some still think Iran will back down and we can avoid war (but if not, we are in a better position to handle the situation). Kim Jong Il is balanced by China. But Saddam was a wildcard. We already know he had no problem attacking other countries (Iran, Kuwait, Israel). So you weigh your options, take action and hope for the best. But history has shown us that NOT taking action is far worse. And as far as Bush being incompetent. Do you know how mistakes the allies made during WWII? Hindsight is 20/20. I think it's a streach to think we should get everthing right every time. But compared to WWII, we did far better this time around. My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
-
espeir wrote:
Mature societies embrace adultery.
A mature society should leave marriage and adultery to the people to figure out on their own and stick to making laws only about serious issues like murder, theft and things that harm people, not just hurt their feelings because that's so arbitrary that we're not going to reach any agreement about which "mean things people do" should be against the law. (hurray for run-on sentences!)
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
Adultery isn't against the law. It's breach of contract (a civil matter). Of course, civilized societies shouldn't honor contracts, right? Because peoples' feelings just get hurt.