Reply With Quote
The who? Which "freeworlds intelligence gathering agency" claimed Saddam Hussein did not have WMD's before March of 2003?
well. my child, it's time to go.
try to remember everything you thought was proven wrong. nite.
The who? Which "freeworlds intelligence gathering agency" claimed Saddam Hussein did not have WMD's before March of 2003?
Seems like you're the one with the bedtime, kiddo. Sleep tight, it's been secured by President George W. Bush and the military might of the United Staets of America.
If Obama is smart, he'll continue those policies that have kept us from being attacked again...and, from all appearances, he intends to.
The ones that said Curveball was a fraud? There were a couple of those.
Landslide Victory!
Funny how suddenly no Republicans are talking about how the fiscally conservative ways of G W Bush will balance the budget and make America more responsible with money... What happened to all of those arguments? Now the claim is that Criminals caught red-handed committing crimes actually get punished! Wow, that's quite a legacy.
When was he called a fiscal conservative? Please refresh my memory. I don't remember such a time. That's been an ongoing complaint about the man from us conservatives.
Please, Germany, France and many other gvt were saying that this WMDs stories were bull s.
Only UK, Italy Japan and Spain followed the US in the invasion of Irak and only because their gvts saw it has a political opportunity fitting with their personal agenda.
bush acknowledges now the intel was flawed. the intel was bad--get over it, yoni.
I think that was Yoni's point.
Not dishonesty/deception on the part of Bush when his intelligence agencies were provided flawed information.
His point is we were right for being wrong. That's great. I guess we can just hit the reset button on this one.
Actually the Bush administration went out of its way to believe bad intel. When the CIA questioned or outright discredited intel some of the hawks in the administration felt crucial to the case for invading Iraq, they merely invented a new office outside the CIA to review and approve that intel. It was quite convenient.
Just pointing out what Yoni's argument seemed to be, and that didn't seem to match up with OGs comment.
Every president is shady, so c'est le vie.
I know what Yoni's point is -- he has tried to excuse every up Bush ever made.
It's a nice counterpoint to the people who refuse to acknowledge the good things Bush has done (or attempted to do but got killed by a stupid Congress).
Both sides are unrealistic, but it's fun to watch the arguments.
And, that would be all well and good if, in fact, I had never criticized President Bush or if I agreed with every position he hold. I have and I don't.
The predominant reason people think I do is because, I happen to agree with and whole-heartedly support the President on the matter that is most discussedin this forum, the war on terrorism, including the war in Iraq.
From his reaching across the aisle to Kennedy on Education reform (stupid idea) to the continuation of the war on drugs and his lax treatment of illegal immigrants, there are a whole range of issues on which I disagree with the President. But, that means I agree with those in here that always oppose Bush and, therefore, there's no argument and I don't post on those matters.
This is a forum for debating opposing points of view, that's what get's noticed.
He increased funding to fight AIDS in Africa, but other than that both terms have been an unmitigated disaster.
Honestly, I just don't pay attention to who says what. What's being discussed is always more interesting when I don't know what people's political bents are.
That's one of the reason's I don't share much in the way of my own views. I don't want people thinking I'm a loon and not paying attention to what I say because of my general views, I want them thinking I'm a loon because I'm currently saying looney things
He's put more funding into alternative energy research than every President before him combined (and that's after Republican congressmen significantly reduced what he requested).
He's pushed for allowing small groups to bind together across state lines to purchase health insurance.
He's at least attempted to address the broken SS system.
He's removed stop-gap measures in place that prevented the various intelligence and law enforcement agencies from sharing potentially vital information.
He lowered the income tax rates on the lowest income earners.
etc, etc.
I mean, he's done some good things. Some of it was attached to crappy things, unfortunately, but to say the only good thing he did was increase funding for fighting AIDS in Africa is asinine.
"He's put more funding into alternative energy research"
you mean the $15B head gave the oilcos for "research" as his public part of he still-secret National Energy Policy (part of which was invade Iraq for oil) ?
You mean the $Bs/year to subsidize soy diesel and corn ethanol?
Subsidies for wind, tidal, solar power generation."He's put more funding into alternative energy research"
you mean the $15B head gave the oilcos for "research" as his public part of he still-secret National Energy Policy (part of which was invade Iraq for oil) ?
You mean the $Bs/year to subsidize soy diesel and corn ethanol?
grants for biomass production (not just soy or ethanol).
loan guarantees for energy production that doesn't produce greenhouse gases.
help geothermal be more compe ive.
etc, etc, etc.
Most of the subsidies for the oil industry were put in during committee after his first proposal was scuttled by the Republican controlled congress.
Bush is a technophile. He favors anything that improves technology as long as it doesn't interfere with his christian based moralism (unfortunately like stem cell research).
Not that I ever expect you to pay attention to anything that might possibly reflect well on anyone even remotely related to Bush.
Internets?
Didn't say he could speak about or use technology well, just that he loves it.
Once again the Toughest Department of Justice in Decades nails a corporate crook.
$50 billion at stake after Wall St broker Bernard Madoff is arrested over ‘world’s biggest swindle’
I'm thinking they're going to have to change the name to Madoff Scheme.Mr Madoff told them that he was “finished”, that he had “absolutely nothing”, and that “it’s all just one big lie”. He said the investment arm of his firm was “basically a giant Ponzi scheme”, and that it had been insolvent for years.
A Ponzi scheme, named after the swindler Charles Ponzi, is a fraudulent investment operation that pays abnormally high returns to investors out of money put into the scheme by subsequent investors, rather than from real profits generated by share trading.
The FBI complaint states that Mr Madoff told his sons that he believed the losses from his scheme could exceed $50 billion. If that is the case, his fraud would be far greater than past Ponzi schemes and easily the greatest swindle blamed on a single individual.
Last edited by Yonivore; 12-12-2008 at 09:16 PM.
I'm so depressed. Do we have a forum nutcracker I can talk to?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
