You don’t need a polygraph to know those were lies, you just need a brain.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Video 4 is as invalidates itself by use of widely-ridiculed polygraph technology.
The polygraph machine is nothing but theatre.
The polygraph machine is nothing but theatre.
I know what you're saying, and unlike Alexander thinks, it's not that hard to read and understand what he said.kr@cker wrote:
the valiant profit their country more than the finest, noblest speakers- hermocrates
Bush's speaking is absurd. If everyone took him word for word, he would've been in a lot of shit by this time. Thankfully, most people know he's a joke of a president and don't really take him word for word. Or even take a word.
People said the same thing about Reagan, but looking back now, he makes sense. By no way am I siding with Bush. I actually could care less what he does on the international front, but what he's done on the home front is deplorable. I don't know why he's labeled as a conservative, when government spending has spun out of control, more beuracracy has been created, and laws created that violate constitional rights.Spearhead wrote:
I know what you're saying, and unlike Alexander thinks, it's not that hard to read and understand what he said.kr@cker wrote:
the valiant profit their country more than the finest, noblest speakers- hermocrates
Bush's speaking is absurd. If everyone took him word for word, he would've been in a lot of shit by this time. Thankfully, most people know he's a joke of a president and don't really take him word for word. Or even take a word.
O yay another useless video from moveon.org tell me when they actually do something to improve our nation
By doing absolutely nothing, and making sure you can't play poker on the internet and baseball is steroid free. As long as gay people can't get married, screw the Middle east....Choumichel wrote:
My only question: How is the next president of the United States of America... going to deal with this current mess we're in?
Point? Nobody in the government cares about anything, unless it can get them votes.
There is no possible way you can compare Bush and Reagan. Reagan would be turning over in his grave. I will say everyone looks back at Reagan and only sees the good things. Little known fact is after the bombing in Beirut where we lost several Marines we had a strike set for Hezbolla. A camp miles away from everything where we could have taken out 200-300 of them was called off by Weinberger even though Reagan authorized it. He was afraid of the image we would have in the Midde East. Reagan never did a thing to Weinberger.ts-pulsar wrote:
People said the same thing about Reagan, but looking back now, he makes sense. By no way am I siding with Bush. I actually could care less what he does on the international front, but what he's done on the home front is deplorable. I don't know why he's labeled as a conservative, when government spending has spun out of control, more beuracracy has been created, and laws created that violate constitional rights.Spearhead wrote:
I know what you're saying, and unlike Alexander thinks, it's not that hard to read and understand what he said.kr@cker wrote:
the valiant profit their country more than the finest, noblest speakers- hermocrates
Bush's speaking is absurd. If everyone took him word for word, he would've been in a lot of shit by this time. Thankfully, most people know he's a joke of a president and don't really take him word for word. Or even take a word.
\
Bottom line Bush is an idiot and should be tried for lying to the American public for Iraq.
Last edited by GATOR591957 (2006-07-31 08:27:59)
Very, very true.GATOR591957 wrote:
There is no possible way you can compare Bush and Reagan. Reagan would be turning over in his grave. I will say everyone looks back at Reagan and only sees the good things. Little known fact is after the bombing in Beirut where we lost several Marines we had a strike set for Hezbolla. A camp miles away from everything where we could have taken out 200-300 of them was called off by Weinberger even though Reagan authorized it. He was afraid of the image we would have in the Midde East. Reagan never did a thing to Weinberger.ts-pulsar wrote:
People said the same thing about Reagan, but looking back now, he makes sense. By no way am I siding with Bush. I actually could care less what he does on the international front, but what he's done on the home front is deplorable. I don't know why he's labeled as a conservative, when government spending has spun out of control, more beuracracy has been created, and laws created that violate constitional rights.Spearhead wrote:
I know what you're saying, and unlike Alexander thinks, it's not that hard to read and understand what he said.
Bush's speaking is absurd. If everyone took him word for word, he would've been in a lot of shit by this time. Thankfully, most people know he's a joke of a president and don't really take him word for word. Or even take a word.
\
Bottom line Bush is an idiot and should be tried for lying to the American public for Iraq.
Reagan was a fairly good president - Bush (W, but his dad wasn't very good either) is a rubbish president, he is a global joke. He should be taken away and put in a small room with some colourful toys to play with.
Bush has not only had the largest negative impact on global opinion towards America (which, although many hardliners may disagree, is very important) but has also destroyed the American economy, which Clinton (yet another good president) left in a very nice state for him. Bush turned Clinton's massive surplus into a massive deficit very quickly however, like the retarded muppet he is.
Reagan would be turning over in his grave- If it weren't for????GATOR591957 wrote:
There is no possible way you can compare Bush and Reagan. Reagan would be turning over in his grave. I will say everyone looks back at Reagan and only sees the good things. Little known fact is after the bombing in Beirut where we lost several Marines we had a strike set for Hezbolla. A camp miles away from everything where we could have taken out 200-300 of them was called off by Weinberger even though Reagan authorized it. He was afraid of the image we would have in the Midde East. Reagan never did a thing to Weinberger.ts-pulsar wrote:
People said the same thing about Reagan, but looking back now, he makes sense. By no way am I siding with Bush. I actually could care less what he does on the international front, but what he's done on the home front is deplorable. I don't know why he's labeled as a conservative, when government spending has spun out of control, more beuracracy has been created, and laws created that violate constitional rights.Spearhead wrote:
I know what you're saying, and unlike Alexander thinks, it's not that hard to read and understand what he said.
Bush's speaking is absurd. If everyone took him word for word, he would've been in a lot of shit by this time. Thankfully, most people know he's a joke of a president and don't really take him word for word. Or even take a word.
\
Bottom line Bush is an idiot and should be tried for lying to the American public for Iraq.
lying to the American public for Iraq-ABOUT WHAT.??? WMD's? they found some of them and know where the rest are.
Read...
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/martin/060629
Just No. We've been over this in other threads. They weren't active, usable weapons. And as for all the people saying the rest was 'smuggled out', so fucking what, they'd all be just as degraded and useless by now anyway. So try again.|AIA| DAS wrote:
Reagan would be turning over in his grave- If it weren't for????GATOR591957 wrote:
There is no possible way you can compare Bush and Reagan. Reagan would be turning over in his grave. I will say everyone looks back at Reagan and only sees the good things. Little known fact is after the bombing in Beirut where we lost several Marines we had a strike set for Hezbolla. A camp miles away from everything where we could have taken out 200-300 of them was called off by Weinberger even though Reagan authorized it. He was afraid of the image we would have in the Midde East. Reagan never did a thing to Weinberger.ts-pulsar wrote:
People said the same thing about Reagan, but looking back now, he makes sense. By no way am I siding with Bush. I actually could care less what he does on the international front, but what he's done on the home front is deplorable. I don't know why he's labeled as a conservative, when government spending has spun out of control, more beuracracy has been created, and laws created that violate constitional rights.
\
Bottom line Bush is an idiot and should be tried for lying to the American public for Iraq.
lying to the American public for Iraq-ABOUT WHAT.??? WMD's? they found some of them and know where the rest are.
Read...
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/martin/060629
the use of the images of our fallen brothers and sisters makes me god damn sick, regardless on what side of propaganda its being used for. These people arent fuel for anyones information campiagn. These are the faces and memories of our loved ones, the same individuals we went to high school with or went out partying. To use their memories to fuel whatever "cause" is deplorable and i would consider it my form of blashpemy. If I die, dont put in me in an "anti-bush/anti-liberal" advertisement. I would hope somebody sues.
You should use [/sarcasm] at the end of the sentence (it's also quite comical....if you find BBcode a great basis for jokes like I do [/sarcasm]).....unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Sorry for the irritation, then. I guess that much of what I read and write automatically replaying in my mind as speech is the cause for my believing that other people will easily pick it up.Skruples wrote:
Well, I'm guessing you weren't being sarcastic about the other three. I apologize for not picking up on it.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Do I have to put [sarcasm] tags around everything I say?
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=sarcasm
THEY WEREN't ACTIVE Oh, so, uh silly me, huh. Who cares? If I had a box of Plutonium and no ignitor that would be OK? Nice try M8, but your arguements worth Fuckall.UnOriginalNuttahButtah wrote:
Just No. We've been over this in other threads. They weren't active, usable weapons. And as for all the people saying the rest was 'smuggled out', so fucking what, they'd all be just as degraded and useless by now anyway. So try again.|AIA| DAS wrote:
Reagan would be turning over in his grave- If it weren't for????GATOR591957 wrote:
There is no possible way you can compare Bush and Reagan. Reagan would be turning over in his grave. I will say everyone looks back at Reagan and only sees the good things. Little known fact is after the bombing in Beirut where we lost several Marines we had a strike set for Hezbolla. A camp miles away from everything where we could have taken out 200-300 of them was called off by Weinberger even though Reagan authorized it. He was afraid of the image we would have in the Midde East. Reagan never did a thing to Weinberger.
\
Bottom line Bush is an idiot and should be tried for lying to the American public for Iraq.
lying to the American public for Iraq-ABOUT WHAT.??? WMD's? they found some of them and know where the rest are.
Read...
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/martin/060629
While it's true bush has eliminated the surplus, which I should point out is something a government should never have, as it means they took more of your money than they needed. The economy isn't doing all that bad, and the problems it did have were very short lived and can't really be pinned on him. The market took a big crash after 9/11 for obvious reasons. And Enron messed things up pretty bad too. The truth is, the economy is pretty much running on the same level as it was under Clinton.Bertster7 wrote:
Bush has not only had the largest negative impact on global opinion towards America (which, although many hardliners may disagree, is very important) but has also destroyed the American economy, which Clinton (yet another good president) left in a very nice state for him. Bush turned Clinton's massive surplus into a massive deficit very quickly however, like the retarded muppet he is.
I hear the argument that bush has destroyed the economy, and that Clinton did a better job all the time. But it's just not true. I don't like Bush, and I didn't like Clinton, mainly because both of them took away my rights. Bush for the patriot act and it's attack on the 4th ammendment. And Clinton for the Brady Bill and it's attack on the 2nd ammendment. I'm a staunch believer in the constitution, and any time I see it under attack from a politician, that politician immidietly looses any support from me.
I agree on the rights issue. However, even though the economy looks good now, how are we going to pay off a deficit that keeps growing by the minute.ts-pulsar wrote:
While it's true bush has eliminated the surplus, which I should point out is something a government should never have, as it means they took more of your money than they needed. The economy isn't doing all that bad, and the problems it did have were very short lived and can't really be pinned on him. The market took a big crash after 9/11 for obvious reasons. And Enron messed things up pretty bad too. The truth is, the economy is pretty much running on the same level as it was under Clinton.Bertster7 wrote:
Bush has not only had the largest negative impact on global opinion towards America (which, although many hardliners may disagree, is very important) but has also destroyed the American economy, which Clinton (yet another good president) left in a very nice state for him. Bush turned Clinton's massive surplus into a massive deficit very quickly however, like the retarded muppet he is.
I hear the argument that bush has destroyed the economy, and that Clinton did a better job all the time. But it's just not true. I don't like Bush, and I didn't like Clinton, mainly because both of them took away my rights. Bush for the patriot act and it's attack on the 4th ammendment. And Clinton for the Brady Bill and it's attack on the 2nd ammendment. I'm a staunch believer in the constitution, and any time I see it under attack from a politician, that politician immidietly looses any support from me.
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
Last edited by GATOR591957 (2006-07-31 14:04:25)
As odd as it may seem, the deficit doesn't really matter that much. It's never really affected the economy. The US has never defaulted on a debt, the lenders know this and know they will get there money back. We've got a nasty debt now. I was an econ major for a couple years before switching majors, and the one thing I remember all my econ teachers saying, is that the national debt doesn't really matter. And the trade deficit really doesn't matter. They look bad to those uneducated in the subject, which is most of the population, and it's a heavily used subject in politics, but it really doesn't matter.
I just know this is gonna make me start digging out my old econ notebooks.
I just know this is gonna make me start digging out my old econ notebooks.
The fact that he is now free to talk like that 'without fear' some what negates his entire argument in my eyes.
Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-08-01 08:00:09)
Yes, you are right. Because the Frederal Reserve just keeps printing money. Basically with a notion of, "trust us, it's really worth something." Eventually, that will cease to work anymore.ts-pulsar wrote:
As odd as it may seem, the deficit doesn't really matter that much. It's never really affected the economy. The US has never defaulted on a debt, the lenders know this and know they will get there money back. We've got a nasty debt now. I was an econ major for a couple years before switching majors, and the one thing I remember all my econ teachers saying, is that the national debt doesn't really matter. And the trade deficit really doesn't matter. They look bad to those uneducated in the subject, which is most of the population, and it's a heavily used subject in politics, but it really doesn't matter.
I just know this is gonna make me start digging out my old econ notebooks.
This article states the real national deficit in the trillions. I believe you learned what they taught you, but is it correct. I don't see how continuing to grow a deficit doesn't affect your ability as a country.ts-pulsar wrote:
As odd as it may seem, the deficit doesn't really matter that much. It's never really affected the economy. The US has never defaulted on a debt, the lenders know this and know they will get there money back. We've got a nasty debt now. I was an econ major for a couple years before switching majors, and the one thing I remember all my econ teachers saying, is that the national debt doesn't really matter. And the trade deficit really doesn't matter. They look bad to those uneducated in the subject, which is most of the population, and it's a heavily used subject in politics, but it really doesn't matter.
I just know this is gonna make me start digging out my old econ notebooks.
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/ne … rt_dom.htm
Last edited by GATOR591957 (2006-08-03 11:24:29)
who knowsChoumichel wrote:
My only question: How is the next president of the United States of America... going to deal with this current mess we're in?
not well though
just got please dont let it be arnold or something haha
Good point, bud.|AIA| DAS wrote:
THEY WEREN't ACTIVE Oh, so, uh silly me, huh. Who cares? If I had a box of Plutonium and no ignitor that would be OK? Nice try M8, but your arguements worth Fuckall.UnOriginalNuttahButtah wrote:
Just No. We've been over this in other threads. They weren't active, usable weapons. And as for all the people saying the rest was 'smuggled out', so fucking what, they'd all be just as degraded and useless by now anyway. So try again.|AIA| DAS wrote:
Reagan would be turning over in his grave- If it weren't for????
lying to the American public for Iraq-ABOUT WHAT.??? WMD's? they found some of them and know where the rest are.
Read...
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/martin/060629
Nuttah.... if someone pulls a gun and points it at your family would you :
a) Shoot and kill him
or
b) ask him nicely if it was really loaded
I'm betting on the former.
Doesn't matter if they were degrading at all, I do believe thet there were enough chemical and bio weapons to kill a lot of people (hell just ask the poor Kurds in the North). I firmly believe that most if not all were hidden in Syria etc, he knew his conventional Army would get owned. So what better than stick em in another country who actively encourage terror.
Just watch, those bio-shells will start poping up over Israel b4 long.
Watching Bush speak is effective anti-bush propaganda.
A fact worth remembering is that anyone can make mustard gas, I'm sure I could. The stuff has been around for ages, the methods of manufacture are well known. And sorry to break your paranoid fantasies, but shipping it to Syria would probably be more costly than them making it themselves, if they wanted to. The fact is that control of airspace is the most effective way to kill large amounts of people, be it through WMDs or conventional bombs. These terrorist attacks you talk about would almost certainly be less effective than conventional explosives.JudgeDredd1824 wrote:
Good point, bud.|AIA| DAS wrote:
THEY WEREN't ACTIVE Oh, so, uh silly me, huh. Who cares? If I had a box of Plutonium and no ignitor that would be OK? Nice try M8, but your arguements worth Fuckall.UnOriginalNuttahButtah wrote:
Just No. We've been over this in other threads. They weren't active, usable weapons. And as for all the people saying the rest was 'smuggled out', so fucking what, they'd all be just as degraded and useless by now anyway. So try again.
Nuttah.... if someone pulls a gun and points it at your family would you :
a) Shoot and kill him
or
b) ask him nicely if it was really loaded
I'm betting on the former.
Doesn't matter if they were degrading at all, I do believe thet there were enough chemical and bio weapons to kill a lot of people (hell just ask the poor Kurds in the North). I firmly believe that most if not all were hidden in Syria etc, he knew his conventional Army would get owned. So what better than stick em in another country who actively encourage terror.
Just watch, those bio-shells will start poping up over Israel b4 long.
Another point is that since the US has now validated Saddam's tactic of 'everyone in a town must be or support terrorists/insurgents' in the form of the 'Fallujah method' and Israel has further confirmed the tactic as 'acceptable' military procedure in southern Lebanon, how can you possibly complain about Saddam using the same technique to squash an uprising against him? Because innocent civilians were killed? They were killed by all three parties, depending on your definition of innocent, and your acceptable insurgent-civilian kill ratio.
Oh, and you'd be wrong about me shooting someone pointing a gun at me because we are not insane enough to carry guns on us at all times in the UK. I'd the weapon in my head to talk them down. It seems you'd go for the gun in your belt and get shot down, and damn right too. Because it was probably a cop coming to arrest you for making such a weak argument.
And what kind of argument is that, if you said 'if i had an ignitor and no plutonium' then you might have a comparison since the shells are the delivery mechanism not the lethal payload. And ignitors do nothing on their own. You fail, again.
Last edited by UnOriginalNuttah (2006-08-04 04:33:59)
Article.|AIA| DAS wrote:
lying to the American public for Iraq-ABOUT WHAT.??? WMD's? they found some of them and know where the rest are.
Read...
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/martin/060629
I knew I saw this press conference of Rumsfeld saying they didn't find any WMDs in Iraq where they dragged out the guy grilling him for lying, so I had to go find it.
The author is obviously anti-administration and looking for the conspiracy in every aspect of the PC, but the quotes and most of the descriptions are right. The video is linked, anyway.
LOL,UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
A fact worth remembering is that anyone can make mustard gas, I'm sure I could. The stuff has been around for ages, the methods of manufacture are well known. And sorry to break your paranoid fantasies, but shipping it to Syria would probably be more costly than them making it themselves, if they wanted to. The fact is that control of airspace is the most effective way to kill large amounts of people, be it through WMDs or conventional bombs. These terrorist attacks you talk about would almost certainly be less effective than conventional explosives.JudgeDredd1824 wrote:
Good point, bud.|AIA| DAS wrote:
THEY WEREN't ACTIVE Oh, so, uh silly me, huh. Who cares? If I had a box of Plutonium and no ignitor that would be OK? Nice try M8, but your arguements worth Fuckall.
Nuttah.... if someone pulls a gun and points it at your family would you :
a) Shoot and kill him
or
b) ask him nicely if it was really loaded
I'm betting on the former.
Doesn't matter if they were degrading at all, I do believe thet there were enough chemical and bio weapons to kill a lot of people (hell just ask the poor Kurds in the North). I firmly believe that most if not all were hidden in Syria etc, he knew his conventional Army would get owned. So what better than stick em in another country who actively encourage terror.
Just watch, those bio-shells will start poping up over Israel b4 long.
Another point is that since the US has now validated Saddam's tactic of 'everyone in a town must be or support terrorists/insurgents' in the form of the 'Fallujah method' and Israel has further confirmed the tactic as 'acceptable' military procedure in southern Lebanon, how can you possibly complain about Saddam using the same technique to squash an uprising against him? Because innocent civilians were killed? They were killed by all three parties, depending on your definition of innocent, and your acceptable insurgent-civilian kill ratio.
Oh, and you'd be wrong about me shooting someone pointing a gun at me because we are not insane enough to carry guns on us at all times in the UK. I'd the weapon in my head to talk them down. It seems you'd go for the gun in your belt and get shot down, and damn right too. Because it was probably a cop coming to arrest you for making such a weak argument.
And what kind of argument is that, if you said 'if i had an ignitor and no plutonium' then you might have a comparison since the shells are the delivery mechanism not the lethal payload. And ignitors do nothing on their own. You fail, again.
Just coz I'm paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get me
And I'm a Brit you prat, so I don't carry a gun either. FAIL... now who is making assumptions?
I take it from your cop comment that you advocate a police state where one can be arrested for having the opposite view to you.
Reading your arguments, I'd say that your weapon in your head is a bit on the small-caliber side of where you need to be. You should unlock that M95 matey boy.
I like avocadoes, even the word sounds yummy