Ron 7
Recommended Posts
QuoteNow available for the first time...
The Democratic plan to wealth.
1. Kick back and let someone else pay for your stuff.
Don't worry about the cost...We have programs to pay for all of it. Don't worry about making something of yourself, let others do it for themselves AND you.
Act now, and we will throw in a set of steak knives made in America at 4 times the cost..Unlike other plans where they want to have you pay $999.00 for set like this we will charge you $4,000.00...sure they cost more and are not as good, but we have to get more money so our companies can pay high taxes so we can just give it away.
Both sides have issues.
I'd rather have folks work to make a better life for themselves....Not others.
You know, Ron I just was involved in a situation that really highlights what you are saying here.
We are involved in consulting for some reconstruction and remodeling of an older neighborhood in a local city. I was in a discussion with a homeowner group regarding what the project would invole and approximately what the estimated costs would be. After my presentation, a very nice lady approached me. She informed me that she was ready to go forward but said she would have to wait until she got final approval from the city for the installation of a new central air conditioning and heating system in her home.
Somewhat amazed, I asked how it was the city was going to pay for this for her, she replied, "Oh, they have a program where they will do that for you". She seemed completely oblivious to the fact that the tax payers of that city were the ones who were really footing the bill for this. I also know for a fact that she is on public assistance, even though the only "diability" she has is she needs a hearing aid. She looked to be in her late 30's. This is only one of hundreds of examples of the misuse of taxpayers money to "aid" people who "won't support themselves. This lady apparently has grown up with the attitude that the Govt. will take care of all your needs, not understanding that she is asking the Govt. to confiscate money from those who work hard for it so she can have her new air conditioning system.
Guest
I seem to recall saying before the war started that the Administration had better be telling the truth and had better be right about Iraq and the justifications for war.
It now appears (according to the BBC) that the intelligence apparatus was 'humbugged' by Saddam's ELINT disinformation campaign (e.g., CIA intercepts of radio communications to this his field commanders authorizing the release WMD if needed).
So, it looks like the Administration was half-right.
Obviously, this doesn't play well politically, but don't forget that intel is an art form, not a science. Witness the inability of the vast intel apparatus to put the pieces together concerning 9/11, whereas in hindsight, it was obvious. I think the same thing has happened here.
mh
It now appears (according to the BBC) that the intelligence apparatus was 'humbugged' by Saddam's ELINT disinformation campaign (e.g., CIA intercepts of radio communications to this his field commanders authorizing the release WMD if needed).
So, it looks like the Administration was half-right.
Obviously, this doesn't play well politically, but don't forget that intel is an art form, not a science. Witness the inability of the vast intel apparatus to put the pieces together concerning 9/11, whereas in hindsight, it was obvious. I think the same thing has happened here.
mh
"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."
Ron 7
QuoteI used to prefer the republican version of government meddling in the economy, since it left people alone more often. Nowadays, though, democrats have you pay to run the government, and republicans have your kids pay to run the government. Given the choice I'd rather not put the burden on my kids. That seems a little selfish.
Well since I will still be paying taxes in 2009...I'll still be paying for the goverment..And since I don't have kids...Well I guess I'll still be paying fo it.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
SkyDekker 1,150
Quote
He must be even stupider or more venal than I first thought, to suggest that a REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED CONGRESS could act in a fiscally responsible manner when history indicates otherwise.
And then, since you mention Enron, wasn't that run by Bush's big buddy, one of his biggest campaign contributors and major advisor on energy policy?
What I really don't understand is why not more people have questions about Bush? How come so many people just blindly follow him and have no doubts? There are so many questions and so many things bush is hiding, yet they just agree and follow.
I don't understand that.
Please don't say Clinton and his supporters were worse...because that really makes no sense.
PS. Kallen this was not directed at you, just meant in general.
SkyDekker 1,150
QuoteAny questions?
Yes, why do you follow this man without even questioning anything?
kallend 1,678
QuoteQuoteIt's not ignoring that others did the same. It's totally different when someone avoids the draft and then continues to display pacifist tendencies from when someone (ok he DID serve, great job, you protected us well Georgie) who takes a, ahem, cushy job guaranteed to never see combat duty to fulfill the draft. Then becomes Mr six Guns a blazin' when he's a political official and it's other young men and women's asses on the line.
#1 He is the Commander in Chief....Thats what they do. They have to send people to die at times.Quote
And sometimes they do it when they don't have to, for fabricated reasons.
You act like he gets his jollies by sending Americans to fight....You can't even for a second think he MIGHT be doing what he thought was best for the country based off of the intel he had at the time.
Fact:
Bush did serve.
Clinton dogged the draft.Quote
Define "Dogged" (sic). Explain how a legal deferment in accordance with government policy and rules is dodging.
Fact:
Bush said the intel pointed to WMD in Iraq...So far that proves to be false. But you and I both don't know he KNEW they were not there.
Clinton LIED under oath.Quote
Bush lied in the State of the Union address.
Both have had black spots from their past...Bush seems to own up to them.
Bush refuses to answer questions about them.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteQuoteAgain, Kallend, give it a rest. Predictions like this are made based on the economic information available at that time. Who was to know Sept 11 would happen? Who would know that because Clinton's Justice Dept was run by a corrupt Janet Reno that companies like Enron, Global Crossing etc would create the economic impact they did and be allowed to get away with it for 8 years? Get real.
I know you aren't now blaming those scandals on the Clinton Justice Department Master... Allowed to get away with it for 8 years? Would you have rather they launched investigations without probable cause? Besides, I thought you were a big laissez faire manAnd lets remember, Bush didn't start his taxe cuts as an economic plan, it was just "hey, you deserve it" Now, some folks, myself included, think running a large surplus can also be bad for the economy, but some of that should have been put away for a rainy day and not just thrown to the wolves...
Refusing to investigate is allowing criminals to get away with a crime. Are you suggesting these companies suddenly became corrupt under GWB? Are you suggesting the SEC had absolutely no clue of what was going on? If so you are admitting such gross negligence that it borders on criminal.
Since you are the economics major, why don't you tell us how much in actual percentages of the tax cut have actually been returned to the tax payers?
billvon 2,470
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>the intelligence apparatus was 'humbugged' by Saddam's ELINT disinformation campaign . . .
I love it! It was Saddam's fault that our intelligence failed! Perhaps you could blame him for the deficit too.
Intelligence is supposed to work even when people try to mess with it. Counterintelligence has been around for as long as intelligence. If dictators can totally destroy our ability to get good intel we're pretty much doomed.
I love it! It was Saddam's fault that our intelligence failed! Perhaps you could blame him for the deficit too.
Intelligence is supposed to work even when people try to mess with it. Counterintelligence has been around for as long as intelligence. If dictators can totally destroy our ability to get good intel we're pretty much doomed.
benny 0
Quote
#1 He is the Commander in Chief....Thats what they do. They have to send people to die at times.
No kidding Ron, thanks for cluing me in, I was completely unaware of that fact.
Quote
I don't see you in the Army...The will take you. Sign up, go to Iraq...theres plenty of killing left to do..Hurry up now.. Its called 11B Infantry. Hurry up now...What you don't want to die for your country?????...NO ONE DOES!!! He didn't, but at least he served...you have the luxury of not even being in the National Guard. He at least DID something...You have not, Clinton did not.
You're right, I haven't served in the military. If I was drafted, well, if it was for the Iraq war (or the Iraq battle of the War on Terrorism if you prefer) I'd have to declare conscientious objector status. Not that I'd never go to war, in a heartbeat I would, if I truly felt that this nation, my loved ones, or even another nation which I hold dear was threatened. I simply don't feel that Iraq fulfilled this test.
Quote
You act like he gets his jollies by sending Americans to fight....You can't even for a second think he MIGHT be doing what he thought was best for the country based off of the intel he had at the time.
I truly believe that this man has no inclination whatsoever to do what is best for this country or if so, is completely misguided as to what is best for this country.
Quote
Fact:
Bush did serve.
Clinton dogged the draft.
Gore served too
Kerry served too
Clark served too
What do you have against these men Ron? They pass your test of military service, all three were on the ground in Nam, 2 saw combat and were awarded medals for the heroism in combat.
Quote
Fact:
Bush said the intel pointed to WMD in Iraq...So far that proves to be false. But you and I both don't know he KNEW they were not there.
No we don't know that he knew but we know that he and his cronies said that they had these weapons ready to go and they knew where they were. If they're not there now, seems to me that they'd be a hell of a lot more concerned with where they are if they ever were.
QuoteClinton LIED under oath.
Both have had black spots from their past...Bush seems to own up to them. Clinton just lied about them and denyed them.
And you don't have any PROOF that Bush knew there were no WMD's in Iraq.
Well, considering the administration uses any and all means to avoid being questioned "under oath" about what they did or did not know about WMD, 9/11, etc, not just whether or not they got BJs, we may never have any proof. But, just like they say about those WMD, just because we don't have proof, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
We have PROOF Clinton lied.
Any questions?
Never go to a DZ strip show.
billvon 2,470
>Refusing to investigate is allowing criminals to get away with a crime.
Agreed. Plamegate comes to mind.
Agreed. Plamegate comes to mind.
kallend 1,678
Quote
If Clinton went to school just to go to school, and not dodge the draft....I would be fine..But a large part of his "studies" was "Not go to War 101".
....
Really? I didn't know the Rhodes Scholarship committee approved of courses like that. When I've been interviewing Rhodes Scholarship candidates (which I do from time to time) I've never seen anyone get by even the initial screening with courses like that.
My experience is that anyone taking the easy route will not win the world's most prestigious scholarship.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Ron 7
QuoteI would not bash Bush for going that route at all. Though i do have some questions as to why he was never on a waiting list.
Lots of famous folks get cushy assignmets. Happens ALL the time.
I don't blame him for taking it, and I don't blame his Dad for pulling strings if he did...If I had a kid and I could get him a cush job...I would.
QuoteMy concerns would be with the fact that he may have gone AWOL
MAY have...not DID...We don't really know..However we do know that thousands of others just didn't serve at all...Since I have no PROOF...I don't say he did.
QuoteMy concerns are that it is odd that a guy who is so pro killing people, himself went through his military career making sure he would never ever be even close to a combat situation.
Who said he was "pro Killing"..you have a quote from him about loving the idea of being in a war? you have video of him jacking off to the war reports?
As the CIC...sometimes you have to send folks to fight for the country...if the intel he had was wrong..Then the folks that gave him that intel should be held accountable....If he lied and KNEW that there were no WMD's...Then HE should be held accountable. But you have no PROOF of either..So for now I will support his choice to defend the country as he sees fit..Since he gets much better intel breifings than you or I.
As for him not wanting to go to war...Hell NO ONE wants to go to war.
QuoteThat is the same reason I still do not understand why so many people with a military background like this guy? Is it really only because he is spending money on the military?
Please don't say it is only because Clinton was worse....
Bush has some honor...Clinton never did. Bush has screwed up and admited it..Clinton lied about it.
Bush belives in a strong America...Clinton didn't.
Bush is in a bad place...He is a President that had to send troops to war....That has to suck, and I don't think he enjoys it...But I think it was needed, and Im glad he didn't buckle like Clinton would have...And if Bush screwed up...He will admit it, not ask for definitions of "IS", and then just flat out lie.
Given the choice I will give him the benefit of the doubt...If he was criminal in his actions...I will be after his head with you.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
Ron 7
QuoteYes, why do you follow this man without even questioning anything?
Who says I don't question him?
I just give him the benefit of the doubt untill PROVEN wrong...I don't go on witch hunts....I didn't with Clinton either.
I don't....you seem to.. I give folks the benefit of the doubt.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
SkyDekker 1,150
QuoteWho said he was "pro Killing"..you have a quote from him about loving the idea of being in a war? you have video of him jacking off to the war reports?
No I don't, I do have a perception to go on. His record as governor and the death penalty for one. Secondly, he sent his country into war based on questionable intelligence. (I'll leave it at that, I think he went to war to make money, but that is beside the point) He is not afraid to get people to kill for him or in his name.
It is interesting that he has that attitude, eventhough he made as sure as possible that he himself would never have to kill anyone.
kallend 1,678
Quote
Given the choice I will give him the benefit of the doubt...If he was criminal in his actions...I will be after his head with you.
How will you ever find out, since he won't appoint an independent inquiry, but is hand-picking its members? It walks and quacks. The whole thing stinks of cover-up.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
SkyDekker 1,150
Quotedon't....you seem to.. I give folks the benefit of the doubt.
Certainly not on a witch hunt, just asking for some proof. Like, what was discussed in those energy policy meetings Ohhh, that's right Bush refuses to release them.
It is not a witch hunt. A guy who has the power to lead his country into war resulting in a (just american) death tol over 600, should be helt to a higher standard of proof.
I get from you that you think he should be allowed to do whatever he wants until someone proves he was wrong.
benny 0
Blah, maybe they should have known more than they did over at the SEC but umm, we definitely know now and Ken Lay still hasn't been indicted. Whose call is that?
As for the taxation, you'll have to give me time to find that out, and pay a small fee for my services.
Never go to a DZ strip show.
As for the taxation, you'll have to give me time to find that out, and pay a small fee for my services.
Never go to a DZ strip show.
kallend 1,678
QuoteQuoteYes, why do you follow this man without even questioning anything?
Who says I don't question him?
I just give him the benefit of the doubt untill PROVEN wrong...I don't go on witch hunts....I didn't with Clinton either.
I don't....you seem to.. I give folks the benefit of the doubt.
Here's an interesting post from last year: www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=424191#424191
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
benny 0
Quote
I don't....you seem to.. I give folks the benefit of the doubt.
Ron, did you give Clinton the benefit of the doubt with regards to, well, anything?
Never go to a DZ strip show.
Ron 7
Quote#1 He is the Commander in Chief....Thats what they do. They have to send people to die at times.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And sometimes they do it when they don't have to, for fabricated reasons.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Damn it John...PROVE they were fabricated....You can't..But if it is shown that he KNEW the reports were false I will want his head as well...Just like I wanted Clinton's for lying under oath.
I was in the military Intel is sometimes bad....Not everything is Black and white.
QuoteFact:
Bush said the intel pointed to WMD in Iraq...So far that proves to be false. But you and I both don't know he KNEW they were not there.
Clinton LIED under oath.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush lied in the State of the Union address
Bush AGAIN had bad intel...Unless you can PROVE he knew it was false it was not a lie.
From Critical Thinking: Facts can be wrong. He may have been told that there were Nuclear weapons...They may have thought that there were...They could be wrong. They could have fed him bad intel....He may have taken those FACTS, and repeated them. That is not lying...that is being wrong. If he didn't know otherwise he didn't LIE....He was wrong. If he was wrong its because the folks that fed him intel were wrong, or lied...And thats why there is an investigation...
So John, unless you KNOW he knew...He didn't lie. And if you do know, Id like to know how you knew.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
#1 He is the Commander in Chief....Thats what they do. They have to send people to die at times.
I don't see you in the Army...The will take you. Sign up, go to Iraq...theres plenty of killing left to do..Hurry up now.. Its called 11B Infantry. Hurry up now...What you don't want to die for your country?????...NO ONE DOES!!! He didn't, but at least he served...you have the luxury of not even being in the National Guard. He at least DID something...You have not, Clinton did not.
You act like he gets his jollies by sending Americans to fight....You can't even for a second think he MIGHT be doing what he thought was best for the country based off of the intel he had at the time.
Fact:
Bush did serve.
Clinton dogged the draft.
Fact:
Bush said the intel pointed to WMD in Iraq...So far that proves to be false. But you and I both don't know he KNEW they were not there.
Clinton LIED under oath.
Both have had black spots from their past...Bush seems to own up to them. Clinton just lied about them and denyed them.
And you don't have any PROOF that Bush knew there were no WMD's in Iraq.
We have PROOF Clinton lied.
Any questions?
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites