|
|
| Author |
Message |
Akronn
Guest
|
 Posted: 11/17/03 - 12:18 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Oh the irony, how many times did you beg for a higher grade in college?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
 |
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 11/17/03 - 12:22 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Akronn wrote: | | Oh the irony, how many times did you beg for a higher grade in college? |
Did he beg for a high grade at someone else's expense?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Akronn
Guest
|
|
Posted: 11/17/03 - 12:25 Post subject:
|
|
|
You'll have to ask him. Frankly, there were things pulled I never would've thought of, I just took whatever I earned and that was that.
Just my opinion, and I'm not looking for a debate from compu, but I don't think he's ever thought out many of the issues. It all goes back to money, more specifically where it was and where it wasn't at a specific point in time.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 11/17/03 - 12:29 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
I've never had money. :(
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Akronn
Guest
|
|
Posted: 11/17/03 - 12:50 Post subject:
|
|
|
Neither have I!
Here's a few questions for ya: who supported NAFTA in the early 90s? Who passed NAFTA? And who champions NAFTA today?
I know these answers, and I know you do too, NWS. But not everybody does.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
compusmack
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 15 Oct 2002
Posts: 6354
|
|
Posted: 11/17/03 - 13:00 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Akronn wrote: | You'll have to ask him. Frankly, there were things pulled I never would've thought of, I just took whatever I earned and that was that.
Just my opinion, and I'm not looking for a debate from compu, but I don't think he's ever thought out many of the issues. It all goes back to money, more specifically where it was and where it wasn't at a specific point in time. |
I'm surprised you've decided to pick a fight with me today. Maybe it's because you aren't happy with things lately? I won't elaborate on your sorry circumstances, it's just unnecessary because you know what im talking about.
Besides putting words in my mouth you've done nothing but attack me. Surprisingly you haven't even argued with WheresNWS at all in this thread.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 11/17/03 - 13:02 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Like I said. I agree with most, but not all GOP issues. e.g., I agree that a balanced budget is necessary for long-term economic health, but it is not unhealthy to overspend in the short run since terrorism is probably a greater threat to the US than WWII Germany and Japan combined. Republicans roll a lot of BS spending packages in for political reasons, but these issues are trivial in comparison to the significant issues at hand.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 11/17/03 - 13:05 Post subject:
|
|
|
| compusmack wrote: | | Akronn wrote: | You'll have to ask him. Frankly, there were things pulled I never would've thought of, I just took whatever I earned and that was that.
Just my opinion, and I'm not looking for a debate from compu, but I don't think he's ever thought out many of the issues. It all goes back to money, more specifically where it was and where it wasn't at a specific point in time. |
I'm surprised you've decided to pick a fight with me today. Maybe it's because you aren't happy with things lately? I won't elaborate on your sorry circumstances, it's just unnecessary because you know what im talking about.
Besides putting words in my mouth you've done nothing but attack me. Surprisingly you haven't even argued with WheresNWS at all
in this thread. |
I love you compusmack, even though you think I'm crazy.
I'M NOT f*****g CRAZY!!!!!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Paco
RealPoor Jedi
Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 12939
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
|
Posted: 11/17/03 - 13:20 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
yes you are
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Herbgotti
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 2110
|
|
Posted: 11/17/03 - 13:25 Post subject:
|
|
|
| WheresNWS wrote: | | compusmack wrote: | | Akronn wrote: | You'll have to ask him. Frankly, there were things pulled I never would've thought of, I just took whatever I earned and that was that.
Just my opinion, and I'm not looking for a debate from compu, but I don't think he's ever thought out many of the issues. It all goes back to money, more specifically where it was and where it wasn't at a specific point in time. |
I'm surprised you've decided to pick a fight with me today. Maybe it's because you aren't happy with things lately? I won't elaborate on your sorry circumstances, it's just unnecessary because you know what im talking about.
Besides putting words in my mouth you've done nothing but attack me. Surprisingly you haven't even argued with WheresNWS at all
in this thread. |
I love you compusmack, even though you think I'm crazy.
I'M NOT f*****g CRAZY!!!!! |
Woa, that was crazy =/
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Akronn
Guest
|
|
Posted: 11/17/03 - 13:26 Post subject:
|
|
|
| WheresNWS wrote: | | Like I said. I agree with most, but not all GOP issues. e.g., I agree that a balanced budget is necessary for long-term economic health, but it is not unhealthy to overspend in the short run since terrorism is probably a greater threat to the US than WWII Germany and Japan combined. Republicans roll a lot of BS spending packages in for political reasons, but these issues are trivial in comparison to the significant issues at hand. |
You don't have to get defensive about programs such as NAFTA, I wasn't passing judgement. However, Compu happens to have a huge beef with NAFTA and strongly associates it with Clinton and the Democrats. Oddly, in the final tally in the House, 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voted for NAFTA, while 156 Democrats, 43 Republicans, and one independent voted against it. In the Senate, 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats voted for the agreement, while 10 Republicans and 28 Democrats voted against it.
As far as picking a fight with ya, Compu, I'm not. However, seeing people draw conclusions 5 years later w/o looking at any of the facts... well that drives me nuts. If you wanna be Republican because you share in the Reagan-worship, that's great. But remember: their shit stinks mightily too.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
compusmack
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 15 Oct 2002
Posts: 6354
|
|
Posted: 11/17/03 - 13:33 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Akronn wrote: | | WheresNWS wrote: | | Like I said. I agree with most, but not all GOP issues. e.g., I agree that a balanced budget is necessary for long-term economic health, but it is not unhealthy to overspend in the short run since terrorism is probably a greater threat to the US than WWII Germany and Japan combined. Republicans roll a lot of BS spending packages in for political reasons, but these issues are trivial in comparison to the significant issues at hand. |
You don't have to get defensive about programs such as NAFTA, I wasn't passing judgement. However, Compu happens to have a huge beef with NAFTA and strongly associates it with Clinton and the Democrats. Oddly, in the final tally in the House, 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voted for NAFTA, while 156 Democrats, 43 Republicans, and one independent voted against it. In the Senate, 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats voted for the agreement, while 10 Republicans and 28 Democrats voted against it.
As far as picking a fight with ya, Compu, I'm not. However, seeing people draw conclusions 5 years later w/o looking at any of the facts... well that drives me nuts. If you wanna be Republican because you share in the Reagan-worship, that's great. But remember: their shit stinks mightily too. |
Sort of how you blame Bush for the economy failing? The shit was on its way to the fan before he even got elected.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Spitulski
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 4344
Location: Washington
|
|
Posted: 11/17/03 - 14:33 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
So what you're saying is that since it was already headed downhill, it was an intelligent presidential decision to focus on spending more money on out-of-country operations instead of working diligently to stop the downward spiral from continuing?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Akronn
Guest
|
|
Posted: 11/17/03 - 14:36 Post subject:
|
|
|
Yeah, and don't forget about robbing Peter (2007) to pay Paul (2003).
Actually, the economy is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to my issues with Bush.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 11/17/03 - 14:38 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Akronn wrote: | Yeah, and don't forget about robbing Peter (2007) to pay Paul (2003).
Actually, the economy is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to my issues with Bush. |
Because you're a liberal p***y.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
compusmack
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 15 Oct 2002
Posts: 6354
|
|
Posted: 11/17/03 - 14:45 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Spitulski wrote: | | So what you're saying is that since it was already headed downhill, it was an intelligent presidential decision to focus on spending more money on out-of-country operations instead of working diligently to stop the downward spiral from continuing? |
Or we could just sit by in idle and let Osama and friends f**k our ass.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 11/17/03 - 14:46 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
liberals are stupid. They think cyclical downward trends are always permanent. Stupid liberals.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Spitulski
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 4344
Location: Washington
|
|
Posted: 11/17/03 - 14:50 Post subject:
|
|
|
Osama? Decent cause, I supported that act.
Downward spiral? If you don't do something about it, it will continue. Hoping for some magic occurence to suddenly pull a belly-up economy out of the hole is exactly the thinking of a republican p***y.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 11/17/03 - 14:54 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Spitulski wrote: | Osama? Decent cause, I supported that act.
Downward spiral? If you don't do something about it, it will continue. Hoping for some magic occurence to suddenly pull a belly-up economy out of the hole is exactly the thinking of a republican p***y. |
No it won't because the economy is cyclical. Democrat p*****s use cyclical downturns for government power grabs.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Spitulski
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 4344
Location: Washington
|
|
Posted: 11/17/03 - 14:58 Post subject:
|
|
|
Because the f*****g republican p*****s are standing on the side watching the economy head for the shitpot and not doing a damn thing about it because of some b******t "cyclical" excuse.
Shit doesn't fix itself, but it sure as hell puts some fiery labels on those that try to do something about it.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Akronn
Guest
|
|
Posted: 11/17/03 - 15:04 Post subject:
|
|
|
| compusmack wrote: | | Or we could just sit by in idle and let Osama and friends f**k our ass. |
Osama was a good cause, of course we sure the hell rallied a whole bunch of aid to his side by invading Iraq!
Nice 'crusade,' too bad there aren't any WoMD.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 11/17/03 - 15:06 Post subject:
|
|
|
Stolen from my favorite web site, snopes.com:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destrution and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Akronn
Guest
|
|
Posted: 11/17/03 - 15:08 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Proof is in the pudding though, nobody ever found anything.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Spitulski
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 4344
Location: Washington
|
|
Posted: 11/17/03 - 15:11 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
The only "unmistakable evidence" that I see is a lot of quotes from people going off of the same/similar documentation that so far has proven false.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
compusmack
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 15 Oct 2002
Posts: 6354
|
|
Posted: 11/17/03 - 15:15 Post subject:
|
|
|
| WheresNWS wrote: | | liberals are stupid. They think cyclical downward trends are always permanent. Stupid liberals. |
I know it.
There will always be recessions and there will always be economic booms. The system behaves like a sine wave, simply because it's extremely tied to the country's feelings.
You get a boom because people get carried away with a recovering, good economy. After the first Iraq war, things were climbing back to normal. When things get normal after a recession, people start to feel confident and spend money again, companies make more lucrative investments, and everyone tends to start making money. The problem is it spirals out of control and we end up obtaining a bunch of extra money from investments, spending, etc., yet we don't realize it's gonna cost us later.
The problem with our economy is there is no dampening solution to nullify these upswings and downswings. You cannot control people's moods and feelings, and encouraging them to continue the upswing (ala Clinton) for extended periods of time only makes it that much longer of a recession. Bush simply arrived on the scene when the bill collector presented the check for our late nineties party.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 11/17/03 - 15:20 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Akronn wrote: | | Proof is in the pudding though, nobody ever found anything. |
You're faulting Bush for not finding any wmd. Take a look. EVERYONE (including the UN, not included in those quotes) were certain that he had wmd. ass.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Akronn
Guest
|
|
Posted: 11/17/03 - 15:22 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
That theory is great and has alot of merit, compu, but what I find humorous is how Republicans get on Reagan's c**k over his economy even after admitting it's cyclical. You're as guilty of this as anyone. The truth is, trickle-down economics was proven to be a failure.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 11/17/03 - 15:25 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Akronn wrote: | | That theory is great and has alot of merit, compu, but what I find humorous is how Republicans get on Reagan's c**k over his economy even after admitting it's cyclical. You're as guilty of this as anyone. The truth is, trickle-down economics was proven to be a failure. |
I praise Reagan for winning the Cold War. Almost all credit goes to him for this, and it was one of the significant events of the last century.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Akronn
Guest
|
|
Posted: 11/17/03 - 15:26 Post subject:
|
|
|
| WheresNWS wrote: | | You're faulting Bush for not finding any wmd. Take a look. EVERYONE (including the UN, not included in those quotes) were certain that he had wmd. ass. |
But they weren't 'certain' enough to invade the whole country. I remember when Clinton would periodically lob missiles Iraq's way, don't you? Of course, they were passed off as diversions from Monica... but Iraq was being watched.
I'll tell ya... only our current administration could be so gung-ho and naive to invade another country on the strength of forged paperwork!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 11/17/03 - 15:32 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Akronn wrote: | | WheresNWS wrote: | | You're faulting Bush for not finding any wmd. Take a look. EVERYONE (including the UN, not included in those quotes) were certain that he had wmd. ass. |
But they weren't 'certain' enough to invade the whole country. I remember when Clinton would periodically lob missiles Iraq's way, don't you? Of course, they were passed off as diversions from Monica... but Iraq was being watched.
I'll tell ya... only our current administration could be so gung-ho and naive to invade another country on the strength of forged paperwork! |
This isn't "certain"?
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
They didn't invade Iraq because there really wasn't appropriate reason to do so at the time. The situation has since changed. Bush is now securing the region, which is of utmost importance to the survival of this country.
I'm not criticising their inaction (I still criticize Clinton getting the weapons inspectors kicked out while trying to distract people from Monica). I criticize their criticism of Bush for taking appropriate action, according to their own words, simply for the advancement of the Democratic party. Just like the Communist party, Democracts place party above country.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
