Republican Candidates

[mfp1016]

Originally Posted by Tarball
One does not have to do much reasoning to see Bush & the collected group of the neo-conservatives had full intentions of invading Iraq & establishing a permanent presents in the Middle East. WMDS is without a doubt their excuse.
Would of made them look like heros if they were right, But look what happened. They got exposed.
Again, you're right, you said it yourself. You are extrapolating this information (this is what conspiracy theories do) to fit your needs. This is contrary to facts, those would be the countless posts by many members providing direct quotes from the media about what was going on; that would be information that is not inferred or extrapolated.

 

[darthtang aw]

***Sigh**** I am never going to be shown 1 of 10 links that say mine is a lie.......
Tarball, you are funny.
Oh, and we never denied this administration wanted to remove sadaam and set up a democracy in Iraq....No one has.

 

[1journeyman]

I'll give the Clintons credit for one thing; They taught their fans the mantra of "change the topic and sidestep the questions" well.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
Obama's plan also talks about $97,500 cap that I posted earlier. Your plan possibably could work. The problem I see is for lower income people perhaps not wanting to or having the ability to put an appropriate amount of funds towards the account. I agree with not privatizing s.s because it is too late, and with the markets being so unstable... I don't think that you can consistantly guarantee a sufficient return for all people at all times.
Another benefit for all people paying into the system which I neglected is that this also covers disablity.
The thing is we are not going to have the same standard of living as everyone else. Communism and Socialism have been tried and they don't work.
There are a certain number of peole who are going to be homeless because they choose to be. Unless you want to force them into mental institutions or detox centers that will never change. I have no problem helping those who seek out the help and actually apply them selves to bettering their lives but you have to put limits on that too.
Where I used to live they did a big write up on a couple of single "welfare moms" who were bettering their lot in life with government aid. One was in a 2 year VoTech program for a nursing program of some kind. In that area there was a big demand for nurses, great use of publice resources there. The other was enrolled in university to become a lawyer. That is crap. Your talking 6 years of school at a minimum and then there is no guaranty she could pass the Bar once she finished. Some people take several attempts before they pass. You have to respect the drive and ambition but let her take say a 2 year legal secretary course (which happened to be available and in demand) and get a job then pay her own way to continue her education if she wants to be a lawyer.
As far as the market over a long term you can guarantee a good return on a good investment. The government currently has a 401K system where retirement accounts invest in mutual funds or bond funds. It's pretty hard to lose on those. It isn't like playing individual stocks. My wife has some of her 401K in a mutual fund custom tailored to her retirement. It is a 2030 fund which just happens to be the year she qualifies for full SSI. What they do is start off aggressive but the closer you get to the retirement date the more conservative the investemt becomes. They take the profits made from investing in growth stocks and place them in municiple bonds where the return is lower but the principle is safe. It would be really easy for the government to come up with a set of standards that would be required for a fund like that to be eligable for a program like I suggested. It makes it fool proof, or at least as fool proof as your going to get. If municiple bonds are forfited the only thing is going toi matter is guns and dirt. You will need enough dirt to grow your food and enough guns to keep what is yours.

 

[tarball]

Originally Posted by mfp1016
You're right Tarball, we have given them permanent presents, freedom from a sadistic dictator, food, money, the list goes on. Glad to see you're coming around.

I meant presence...

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Tarball
Here is another respected documentary done by Frontline, a PBS production.
It details the rush to war, the willingness to accept unsubstantiated information, No matter how flimsy or untrue it is, too support a war against Iraq. This documentary is
Supported by, DOD members, CIA officers, Political leaders, weapons Inspector,
Dept Director of the CIA, NSC Counter Intelligence Director, Dept Commander
Of Centcom, Former Director of CIA, Legal council, Authors & Sr reporters
from major news papers.
The Dark side
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view
Anyone with an ounce of respect for the truth will easily see after watching this video,
coupled with the last video called, “Behind closed doors” That Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, wolfowitz, & many of the collected groups by Bush, had full intentions of invading Iraq. One does not have to do much reasoning to see Bush & the collected group of the neo-conservatives had full intentions of invading Iraq & establishing a permanent presents in the Middle East. WMDS is without a doubt their excuse.
Would of made them look like heros if they were right, But look what happened. They got exposed.
Dang those evil republicans, planning to invade.
I also love that you can't name any of these people, "leading politicians." Does that mean al gore and jack murtha?

Dude pbs is the of the most liberal networks on tv today, its governance has links to various liberal campains from the past 40 years.

 

[tarball]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
Dang those evil republicans, planning to invade.
I also love that you can't name any of these people, "leading politicians." Does that mean al gore and jack murtha?

Dude pbs is the of the most liberal networks on tv today, its governance has links to various liberal campains from the past 40 years.

Obviously you didn't watch the video, Their names & positions in their organization are listed as they speak.
You can attack frontline all you wish, but the truth still stands. The people in the documentary are legitimate leaders that were part of the government process at the time.
Nothing you say can change that. Its flat out the truth whether you accept it or not.
Documentaries are generally the truth, its Hollywood movies that exaggerate & mislead. Just like "YOU"

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
Dang those evil republicans, planning to invade.
I also love that you can't name any of these people, "leading politicians." Does that mean al gore and jack murtha?

Dude pbs is the of the most liberal networks on tv today, its governance has links to various liberal campains from the past 40 years.

First video I clicked on was Joe Wilson talking about the yellowcake issue. That fool has already been discredited by a bipartisan investigation in the US Senate.

Not only did he lie about the fact his wife recomended him to go to Africa they also found he provided false information (lied) in his editorial. His findings from the trip to Niger were seen as bolstering the the idea that Iraq attempted to buy Yellowcake from them.
That tells you about all you need to know about the accuracy of that "documentary".

 

[tarball]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Tarball, say it as often as you like, it still doesn't change history.
*Saddam violated 17 UN resolutions
*Saddam refused to give unrestricted access to the inspectors
*Saddam was warned we were going to attack if he didn't compy
*Saddam repeatedly attacked Allied pilots in the No Fly Zone
*Saddam supported terrorists groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah and paid for attacks against Israel
All he had to do was allow the inspectors to do their job...

The inspectors were in Iraq as required by the United Nation,
If given time, they would of discovered No chemical manufacturing Facilities, No biological facilities, No nuclear weapons facilities.
Like I said, WMDs have nothing to do with why our military invaded Iraq. It was a lie just for you & like minded people.
Let the ignorant be happy & the wise suffer the truths.
If bush decided to invade Iraq because of sanction, then that's what should of been said. Then let American Vote for its war.
Its obvious you have know problem with political leaders lying to the people. If you accept the Republic of America Lying to its American Democracy,& the American people. Then maybe you should move to China Or Russia, were a true Republic Government exists. A government where they could care less about the truth or what its people think.

 

[tarball]

Originally Posted by reefraff
First video I clicked on was Joe Wilson talking about the yellowcake issue. That fool has already been discredited by a bipartisan investigation in the US Senate.

Not only did he lie about the fact his wife recomended him to go to Africa they also found he provided false information (lied) in his editorial. His findings from the trip to Niger were seen as bolstering the the idea that Iraq attempted to buy Yellowcake from them.
That tells you about all you need to know about the accuracy of that "documentary".
Really. then where was the Yellow cake found, where is the proof?
What video are you talking about? certainly not the one I I posted.

 

[scubadoo]

Originally Posted by Tarball
Documentaries are generally the truth, its Hollywood movies that exaggerate & mislead. Just like "YOU"
Frontline and many other PBS programs have a liberal bias. Reporters that give you the facts WITHOUT andy agenda or bias is usually the truth.
You have to look at the historical persepectives of the programs...and also look for funding sources on "studies" when they are brough forward to support positions.
Frontline has been known for a liberal bias...so you have to consider this when viewing it.
Facts are the truth...a documentary is someones interpretation of the facts...often skewed in a certain direction for a desired result. Just because it is a documentary...does not mean it represents all fact, etc. SOme facts could be and often are left off the radar screen.

 

[tarball]

Originally Posted by mfp1016
Again, you're right, you said it yourself. You are extrapolating this information (this is what conspiracy theories do) to fit your needs. This is contrary to facts, those would be the countless posts by many members providing direct quotes from the media about what was going on; that would be information that is not inferred or extrapolated.
So you're saying Frontline paid, Cia officers, weapons inspectors,
NSC counterintelligence directors, Political leaders, members of DOD, Directors of the CIA, The department commander of cent- com & others to quote articles from the media.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Tarball
Really. then where was the Yellow cake found, where is the proof?
What video are you talking about? certainly not the one I I posted.
Nobody ever said Iraq had bought yellowcake from Niger, only that they attempted to.
The video runs in the 3rd pain down on the left of the link you provided, its labeled false intellegence goes public.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jul9.html
"Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.
The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address."

 

[reefraff]

Here's my favorite part of the post story
"The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."
"Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger."
Yet they include this fools accusations in a documentary.

 

[scubadoo]

Originally Posted by reefraff
Here's my favorite part of the post story
"The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."
"Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger."
Yet they include this fools accusations in a documentary.
They are included because this helps shape the skewing of the documentary. Selective inclusion helps paint the picture.

 

[tarball]

Originally Posted by ScubaDoo
Frontline and many other PBS programs have a liberal bias. Reporters that give you the facts WITHOUT andy agenda or bias is usually the truth.
You have to look at the historical persepectives of the programs...and also look for funding sources on "studies" when they are brough forward to support positions.
Frontline has been known for a liberal bias...so you have to consider this when viewing it.
Facts are the truth...a documentary is someones interpretation of the facts...often skewed in a certain direction for a desired result. Just because it is a documentary...does not mean it represents all fact, etc. SOme could be and often are left off the radar screen.
Whats wrong with you people, Its not about frontline. Its about the people in the documentary. Their authority & positions they were in at the run up too war.
The people in the documentaries are for real. Its obviose the documentaries have struck you people. Otherwise you wouldn't be criticizing frontline... Shouldn't you be attacking DODs witness, CIA officers, Weapons Inspectors, Intelligence Directors, Legal councilors,& Political leaders of the videos.
I guess you can't do that can you?, because of their positions in our politics at the time...

 

[tarball]

Originally Posted by reefraff
Nobody ever said Iraq had bought yellowcake from Niger, only that they attempted to.
The video runs in the 3rd pain down on the left of the link you provided, its labeled false intellegence goes public.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jul9.html
"Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.
The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address."
Bush had Powell report to the United Nations, that Saddam had Nuclear Facilities. & they were trying to purchase yellow cake from Niger.... "That was a lie".

 

[scubadoo]

Originally Posted by Tarball
Whats wrong with you people, Its not about frontline. Its about the people in the documentary. Their authority & positions they were in at the run up too war.
The people in the documentaries are for real. Its obviose the documentaries have struck you people. Otherwise you wouldn't be criticizing frontline... Shouldn't you be attacking DODs witness, CIA officers, Weapons Inspectors, Intelligence Directors, Legal councilors,& Political leaders of the videos.
I guess you can't do that can you?, because of their positions in our politics at the time...

Frontline has a history of being libelrally biased as does PBS in general.
No attacks since 9/11 here on US soil...so we obviously are doing something right.
You stick to your conspiracy theories...I'll continue to support results.
No thanks needed for your continued safety here at home.
THanks for taking Saddam out and making the world a safer place.
Frontline has the final call as to what they put in their garbage can.

 

[scubadoo]

Originally Posted by Tarball
Documentaries are generally the truth, "
Drink the Kool Aid......

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Tarball
Bush had Powell report to the United Nations, that Saddam had Nuclear Facilities. & they were trying to purchase yellow cake from Niger.... "That was a lie".

Did you read the post story that included this
"And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address."
http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html
Bush said then, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” Some of his critics called that a lie, but the new evidence shows Bush had reason to say what he did.
A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.”
A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger.
Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.
I don't know how many different sources you need to see this from before you accept it. I mean damn, do you only read agenda driven blogs or something? This stuff has been in the news. I realize is isn't played up like negative information but it has been out there.