I get tired of hearing this! Rant!

dogstar

Active Member
Originally Posted by ScubaDoo
Keep drinking instead of thinking.
" I think " thats funny.
You post a statement and I agree with it and then you insinuate that Im not thinking.
Maybe because I included " you " in the list of servers.
Thats fine, Ill leave it at that and let you continue to " think " your right.
This thread starting to go the way they do.
Im sure there will be another new drink on the menu soon enough.
 

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by Dogstar
" I think " thats funny.
You post a statement and I agree with it and then you insinuate that Im not thinking.
Maybe because I included " you " in the list of servers.
Thats fine, Ill leave it at that and let you continue to " think " your right.
This thread starting to go the way they do.
Im sure there will be another new drink on the menu soon enough.
I'm still wating for something. regarding the MANY reports that the WMD were moved to Syria. If you do not beleive this...that is your choice. THnik about the entire picture....and ask yourself...what happened to the weapons? We were not the only country claiming they were there....and the past adminstration along with both Rep and Dem stated this over MANY years prior to the war. That is why I requested to think and come up with answers that can prove me wrong....or what exactly happened to them. We have yet to discover them in Syria but only have reports supported with some satellite footage, etc, etc. To blindly dismiss it would mean we are calling ALL of the reports false and that we have other fibbers out there...and we are simply drinking the Kool Aid without questioning or considering the possibility they were moved prior to the invasion.
Too many reports from various sources to simply dismisss it. Of cousre, that would mean some consideration that perhaps they did exsist and no one lied. We'll see as time goes on if they were moved or not....or perhaps we will never know for sure...time will tell.
Based on my analysis of the situation....and not just the recent one ....I do beleive they were moved and most likely to Syria. You have to look at the entire picture and put the pieces together.
I could be wrong......I beleive I am not but certainly a possibility.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Aquarium1
...
I suppose his koolaid choice was a bit stronger than everyone elses during college.

For the record, it's your boy clinton that did illegal substances during college...
You don't like the way this thread is going, but you're the one who posted "Bush is an idiot...".
Instead of denouncing "cut and paste" information, how about posting some? How about answering some questions... you don't like the way things are going... what do you suggest could be better?
I've already said, home ownership is up, the stock market is up, unemployment is at a record low... What do you not like?
And, finally, if clinton was such a great statesman, why did terrorists attack the USA over half a dozen times during his reign?
 

aquarium1

Member
Originally Posted by ScubaDoo
Oh well...I can't debate hot air. Kool Aid stands are open....drink up.

We could VERY WELL say the same for your posts.
Thanks Dogstar and Beth for the elequent rebuttals. Spin can be found on both sides, and your history determines how you interpret the results.
Scuba and crew: Try being more understanding of the "other side" and figuring out where they are coming from instead of forcing your view of things. :thinking: Discuss is a part of the word discussions.
Note, cuss is also a part.
Hehehe. We all have been brought up differently. How you see the world is a direct reflection of your experiences. Not everyone has had the same experience, therefore they perceive the same situations differently. Trying to force a view is a sure way to turn off the listener.
When you have the stage, you go on and on. When someone else tries to reason, you make short direct comments and put down their view. That's not a discussion. You'd never make it as a statesman. Sorry.
 

aquarium1

Member
Terrorists attack because they can. They want attention for their cause, simple as that.
I don't mind which way the thread goes, like I said, I'm not changing any minds, just having fun watching you waste a day to support your views.

I just had to post to the thread because I have three other repupblican friends on another board that are just as fanatical as you. It was like old home day. ***)

I'm still going to vote the way I vote. And it won't be for a Bush brother, uncle, daughter or inlaw.
 

beth

Administrator
Staff member
No one comments on the graph I linked? Isn't that the topic of this thread? LOL
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Aquarium1
...
I just had to post to the thread because I have three other repupblican friends on another board that are just as fanatical as you. It was like old home day. ***)

Revisionist history.... if you go back and read the beginning of the the thread you'll see it was actually you that started with the fanaticism. you stated "bush is an idiot..."...
Not exactly "Statesman" quality rhetoric.
 

dogstar

Active Member
I can cut and paste toooooo.
The U.S. intelligence community has found evidence Syria received Iraqi missiles and WMD in late 2002 and early 2003, U.S. officials said, according to Geostrategy-Direct, the global intelligence news service.
The evidence includes satellite photographs of Iraqi convoys believed to be bringing missiles and WMD into Syria as well as assertions from Iraqi officials that ousted leader Saddam Hussein ordered such a transfer.
Still, the agencies fail to agree that sufficient evidence has been obtained to press the issue with the Syrian regime of President Bashar Assad.
Importantly, CIA Director George Tenet shares this view, officials said.......
......So far, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of State Colin Powell have rejected the prospect that Iraqi biological and chemical weapons or missiles were sent to Syria. They echoed U.S. assessments that Saddam would not have trusted Assad with Iraq's missile and WMD assets.
"I have seen no hard evidence to suggest that is the case, that suddenly there were no weapons found in Iraq because they were all in Syria," Powell said. "I don't know why the Syrians would do that, frankly, why it would be in their interest. They didn't have that kind of relationship with Iraq."
Thats like sending them to Iran, Saddom was real freinds with them too.
"" I could be wrong......I beleive I am not but certainly a possibility. "" Im not saying your wrong, I just cant say your right.
 

dogstar

Active Member
Again, more, and everywhere its just sounds like the people who are running the show are just as confused as they want us to be....
David Kay, who as head of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), led the CIA's hunt for WMD in Iraq until December 2003, made headlines in January 2004 when he asserted that pre-war intelligence on Iraq's WMD had been "almost all wrong." Kay added that he himself had previously believed there were WMD in Iraq, and that intelligence from various countries like Germany and France indicated the same thing.
In October 2004 Kay told National Public Radio (NPR) that "There is no evidence of any transfer of weapons material to Syria, and certainly not of weapons, in the lead-up to the Gulf War, although that's an area that will always have some ambiguity because the Syrians, to say the least, have not been cooperative in running down any leads in Syria.
"The bulk of the evidence really points to -- that things did go to Syria, but they weren't weapons of mass destruction or weapons material," Kay added. He said there is "no evidence" that Iraq ever produced any large amounts of chemical nerve agents after 1991. "In fact, all the evidence is just the opposite," he told NPR.
Kay was succeeded by Charles Duelfer, whose 1,500-page October 2004 report on WMD bore many similarities.
"There were no WMD stockpiles; my conclusion, Charles Duelfer's conclusion," Kay said. He and Duelfer asserted that Saddam's regime maintained a vague intention to resume WMD production at some point and for that reason had attempted to hold on to "intellectual capital" related to the programs.
Those conclusions were made in spite of the congressional testimony in 2002 from Iraqi nuclear scientist Khidhir Hamza, who suggested Iraq might have a nuclear weapon by 2005. Hamza defected to the U.S. from Iraq in 1994.
Richard Butler, former head of the United Nations weapons inspection team in Iraq, gave similar testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "What there is now is evidence that Saddam has reinvigorated his nuclear weapons program," Butler said. He also reported that Iraq had an extensive chemical weapons program and had tested various ways to deliver biological weapons.
After hearing the testimony from Hamza and Butler, Sen. Joseph Biden, (D-Del.), head of the Foreign Relations panel, commented that "one thing is clear: These weapons must be dislodged from Saddam, or Saddam must be dislodged from power."
Approximately a month later, Hamza was accused by former employer David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security, of deliberately distorting his credentials and making inaccurate statements on nuclear programs. The accusation was echoed by five other Iraqi nuclear scientists, both pro-war and anti-war.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
WMD's are a mystery... that's why Clinton (both of them), Kerry, Kennedy, France, Britain, Russia, Israelis, etc. thought they had them...
"Mass cannot be created or destroyed...". Were the intelligence agencies of all of these countries' wrong?
 

aquarium1

Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Revisionist history.... if you go back and read the beginning of the the thread you'll see it was actually you that started with the fanaticism. you stated "bush is an idiot..."...
Not exactly "Statesman" quality rhetoric.
That is not fanaticism, but a FACT. And my opinion, which I am entitled to as of the constitution, but it may be taken away at any moment if Bush has his way. He's chipping away...
I've never said I wanted to be a statesman. I never cut and pasted trash talk to back my opinion. I DID state, that ANYONE could do that to back their side of the story and make it seem logical. That doesn't make it true.
I just wanted to see if you would go off on a rant again, and true to form.....
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Aquarium1
...
I just wanted to see if you would go off on a rant again, and true to form.....
*So saying "Bush is an idiot" is a fact...
*You can say whatever you want as your Constitutional right...
*You tell other people they will never be statesmen...
*When someone quotes you it's a "rant"....
That makes sense.
 

darth tang

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darth Tang
What did Clinton do to "get the job done" when it comes to the economy?
If the economy is bad, explain the 4.7% unemployment rate?
Please tell me how you KNOW the terrorists are recruiting more people than they had before.
What did Bush Lie and Cheat about?
And I am still waiting for you to list those countries that are now our enemy that weren't before Bush became President?
Do you even know the answers to these questions or do you just repeat what you have been told or heard on Air America?
Still waiting for the answers to my questions instead of the deflection response about cut and paste. I asked questions to get a greater understanding of why you view things the way you do. Yet you refuse to enlighten me when I am standing here asking why?
 

aquarium1

Member
okeydokey then. I only got into this to watch you splutter.
Clinton got the economy rolling again, put people to work and lowered the deficit. His budget included less of an increase and covered more people. you actually felt like he cared what the world thought about America. Bush's covers the richest few, while spouting off about no child left behind, he's left more children behind than any other president. Must be all those "underpriveledged" Mrs Bush Senior was talking about.
Clinton left the economy in fairly good shape. Bush came into the presidency with the largest surplus ever. He spent it all in record time and turned it into the largest deficit in history, while giving the fewest Americans an actual tax break.
The unemployment rate is a false document. It doesn't tell the whole story. It may show SOME, but not all of the unemployed. After you have been on the list for a while, you are no longer allowed to collect unemployment checks. I know. I have been on it once in my life, and then only after the business I worked for laid off a ton of employees and no one could find work. Instead of tracking them to see what and when they get a job, they DROP that information from the rolls. It's like you are dead. You get no money any more. You either get a job, go to school, or drop off the face of the earth. But you will not be counted as unemployed!
I know that terrorists are recruiting new recruits because the media that investigates these things tells me so.
Weapons of mass destruction, drinking, voting fraud, election fraud, cover ups around the world, I could go on and on...
I don't believe I said a COUNTRY was now our enemy. I said we have more enemies around the world because of Bush and his tactics. Don't put words in my mouth.
I have no idea what "air america" is, so I guess your answer would be No, I don't repeat what I hear. Do you have any idea what Democrats actually believe? Do you care? The answer of course would be NO, because you are one sided and don't care to open your mind to the possibility that other people THINK differently from you.
 

darth tang

Active Member
Originally Posted by Aquarium1
Clinton got the economy rolling again, put people to work and lowered the deficit. His budget included less of an increase and covered more people. you actually felt like he cared what the world thought about America. Bush's covers the richest few, while spouting off about no child left behind, he's left more children behind than any other president. Must be all those "underpriveledged" Mrs Bush Senior was talking about.
Clinton left the economy in fairly good shape. Bush came into the presidency with the largest surplus ever. He spent it all in record time and turned it into the largest deficit in history, while giving the fewest Americans an actual tax break.
.
Ok, let's start here. What policies or bills did he propose to do what you say he did? Just saying he did it doesn't prove he did. Show me how he did it.
 

aquarium1

Member
Oh, feel free Journeyman. Some of us have day jobs and can't spend 16 hours cutting and pasting past accomplishments, etc. I'm sure If I looked, I could dig up scads. I just don't happen to have time right now. Sorry. I'm pretty sure if he really wanted the information it could be found. It might require going into enemy territory, therefore, he requires others to post.
We all lived the Clinton Presidency. The economy was better. We weren't actively involved in war. People did have jobs. We were in more control. The budget was very much smaller and better balanced, debt was less. That's off the top of my head, but no figures to back up. I am late for a trip to the city. Gotta run.
 

darth tang

Active Member
Originally Posted by Aquarium1
Oh, feel free Journeyman. Some of us have day jobs and can't spend 16 hours cutting and pasting past accomplishments, etc. I'm sure If I looked, I could dig up scads. I just don't happen to have time right now. Sorry. I'm pretty sure if he really wanted the information it could be found. It might require going into enemy territory, therefore, he requires others to post.
We all lived the Clinton Presidency. The economy was better. We weren't actively involved in war. People did have jobs. We were in more control. The budget was very much smaller and better balanced, debt was less. That's off the top of my head, but no figures to back up. I am late for a trip to the city. Gotta run.

I have studied many of the possible reasons and policies used during that time. I know the claims about each. I am curious as to the one's YOU think helped the economy so as to get a greater understanding of why you think Clinton was so great. I am on the fence still about his presidency...there was some I liked and some things I didn't. I just fail to see how his policies helped the economy in any way as he really didn't do much throughout his presidency.
He balanced the bidget, I will grant him that...however he didn't do that till his last 4 years. He was in office for 8. I believe a balanced budget affects the economy very little. as during his first four years the economy increased dramatically and the unemployment rate lowered considerably. So, what did he do to stimulate this?
For instance, I beleive reagan helped the economy through trickle down economics which I can explain in a nutshell without cut and paste. Yet you can't tell me what policy Clinton used? Strange.....especially since you think he was so great.
Since you can not answer this question let's try the next one. Maybe you will do better.
You claim the unemployment rate is a false figure. Using your arguement then this false figure was just as false under Clinton. Correct? So how is Clinton's economy and theunemployment rate better than Bush's, especially since under Bush the home ownership percentage has increased higher than it was under Clinton. Logic would dictate that MORE people (a greter percentage, not just total number) have more money to buy houses. If the economy is bad you would think home ownership would be down. Explain how the economy is so much worse...please. I am trying to understand where you get your viewpoints from.
Next point and question. You know the terrorists are recruiting to gain followers because the news media that investigates these things tells you that. My question is this.....di you really need the news media to tell you that? Even I know they are still recruiting. They have been recruioted since the dawn of terrorism. This is not news. But does that statement mean there are more than before? I don't think so. I am looking for proof....not just a blanket statement like that, that anyone with common sense already knows. If there was only 1 terrorist in the world, he or she would still be trying to recruit more.
Again, please list the NEW enemies please. If there are more than before, this shouldn't be hard.
Until you can actually give me answer on to why you view things the way you do we won't bother with the lying and cheating comment....of course I am baffled as to what drinking has to do with either...but we will touch on this later.
You need not cut and paste....just give me direct answers. Not the party line quote. Back up your statements. That is all I am asking for.
 

wbilton

Member
Originally Posted by ScubaDoo
If you are referring to eh WMD's ...they were moved to Syria. I have provided evidence of this in other threads. Even the head UN Weapns Inspector himself beleived the WMD's would be found after the invasion. On many instances, insepctors were not allowed entrance to NUMEROUS sites...they watched truckloads move out and were held out of area by gunpoint.
Sadam was a swell guy.
Quick dirnking the Kool Aid and do some reasrch on the topic.
There is the WMD, also he all said his wire taps had warrants until he got caught then he started back tracking.
 

aquarium1

Member
Hey I know, since you already know all the answers, how about you quit pretending that you want me to post them? You will not listen to anything said through a post anyway, your mind is already made up. I don't have time to play.
Anything you want to know can be found at the State Department.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/8521.htm
Have fun.
Buhbye! :hilarious
 
Top