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
-
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.
-
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.
espeir wrote:
It's breach of contract (a civil matter). Of course, civilized societies shouldn't honor contracts, right?
Nah, civilized society shouldn't allow legal contracts for matters like that. The legal stuff stould be kept to a minimum. If the people want to have an arrangment between themselves though, that's fine.
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 »
-
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
Oh yeah, we get a bonus to the economy and cheap oil.
When did we get cheap oil???? Do you have a source for this? My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
kgaddy wrote:
When did we get cheap oil???? Do you have a source for this?
Yeah, Iraq.. oh, wait... :rolleyes: :doh:
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 »
-
espeir wrote:
It's breach of contract (a civil matter). Of course, civilized societies shouldn't honor contracts, right?
Nah, civilized society shouldn't allow legal contracts for matters like that. The legal stuff stould be kept to a minimum. If the people want to have an arrangment between themselves though, that's fine.
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:
Nah, civilized society shouldn't allow legal contracts for matters like that.
Yeah, but your opinion on that doesn't really matter since most everybody disagrees with you. But the fact of the matter is that it IS a legal contract. How would you like it if your wife slept with the pool boy and got pregnant? This just after you (as she's a stay-at-home wife) bought her that expensive house and car. What legal recourse would you have if there were no binding agreement? You would be obligated to support a child that is not your own, or perhaps take a huge financial loss because of her actions. Contracts exist for a reason...to keep people in line.
-
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.
You're right, he has never lied. He has mislead, misdirected, misstated, misinterpreted -- and, of course, been misunderestimated -- but he hasn't lied. Cheney has lied, Rumsfeld has lied, Rice has lied, but Bush is an untarnished beacon of truth, to any level of evidence that will satisfy your average internet troll.
-
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"
I don't agree with your conclusions -- opinions, and all that -- but I understand and respect the reasoning that got you there.
-
You're right, he has never lied. He has mislead, misdirected, misstated, misinterpreted -- and, of course, been misunderestimated -- but he hasn't lied. Cheney has lied, Rumsfeld has lied, Rice has lied, but Bush is an untarnished beacon of truth, to any level of evidence that will satisfy your average internet troll.
-
I don't agree with your conclusions -- opinions, and all that -- but I understand and respect the reasoning that got you there.
-
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
Of course he lied to us about why we went into Iraq, but that's OK
:| One president has his cigar sucked and he gets impeached. Another starts a war on false pretenses, on a lie, over a 1000 US citizens are killed along with countless Iraqis and that is OK with you? Holy smokes, Batman. []Let us be clear. I am not saying Bush did or did not lie. I am using what the poster above said and asking how what he believes can be OK but that when Clinton lied about sex (not war, not killing people, not corruption, just some sex (what he did was wrong, I agree)) that is impeacheable.[] 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-- modified at 13:21 Thursday 9th March, 2006
Of course, if Clinton had spent more time doing his job than getting his dick sucked by young interns, maybe he could have nipped all of this in the bud before it came to the state we are in now. Thank God for George W. Bush. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
kgaddy wrote:
When did we get cheap oil???? Do you have a source for this?
Yeah, Iraq.. oh, wait... :rolleyes: :doh:
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 »
-
Good enough. Hopefully we are here in 10 years and we can discuss with the luxury of knowing the outcome. My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
Still hanging out in the Soapbox in ten years...there's a sobering thought.
-
Of course, if Clinton had spent more time doing his job than getting his dick sucked by young interns, maybe he could have nipped all of this in the bud before it came to the state we are in now. Thank God for George W. Bush. "You get that which you tolerate"
From what I understand, he was in the office, doing his job (on the phone, specifically), and eating pizza at 3 AM while getting his dick sucked. That is a level of dedication -- not to mention multitasking -- that I doubt we'll ever see from the illiterate, inarticulate, incompetent, corrupt, draft-dodging, election-stealing, war-mongering fake shit-kicker we currently have in office.
-
From what I understand, he was in the office, doing his job (on the phone, specifically), and eating pizza at 3 AM while getting his dick sucked. That is a level of dedication -- not to mention multitasking -- that I doubt we'll ever see from the illiterate, inarticulate, incompetent, corrupt, draft-dodging, election-stealing, war-mongering fake shit-kicker we currently have in office.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
the illiterate, inarticulate, incompetent, corrupt, draft-dodging, election-stealing, war-mongering fake shit-kicker we currently have in office
You know, personally, I don't like the guy... but damn. :omg: -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