no weapons = no bush ? :: Ultimate MMORPG Gaming Community & Trading Zone

Brash
RealPoor Guru

Joined: 20 Oct 2002
Posts: 3958

Posted: 06/07/03 - 13:33 Post subject: no weapons = no bush ?

if we never find any weapons ya think bush will get reelected ?

Back to top

Janoth
RealPoor Guru

Joined: 17 Nov 2002
Posts: 3135

Posted: 06/07/03 - 13:38 Post subject:

Yes

Back to top

Domination
Can't Stop Posting

Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 565
Location: Atlanta, GA

Posted: 06/07/03 - 13:46 Post subject:

Yes. They prolly will find them before the next election, it will take a little while but not near as long as it would have taken the UN inspectors and atleast the threat of them being used has been mostly eliminated.

Back to top

Akronn
Guest

Posted: 06/07/03 - 14:12 Post subject:

Maybe he'll get killed first. We can only hope. They may or may not find weapons, but in my mind the shitastic economy is more important. If our parties weren't bound by the convention of giving the incumbant an automatic bid, I'd say his chances for reelection were slim at best. However, who's around to beat him? I haven't heard any serious names yet, I know Lieberman doesn't stand a chance.

Back to top

Janoth
RealPoor Guru

Joined: 17 Nov 2002
Posts: 3135

Posted: 06/07/03 - 14:29 Post subject:

Lol Akronn is a typical anti bush person. He wants to see the president of the United States killed because he doesn't like his policies. You are a true patriot.

Back to top

sinrakin
RealPoor Master of Posts

Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 7044

Posted: 06/07/03 - 14:40 Post subject:

One perspective, although need to consider who the author is Smile

Quote:

Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense?

By John W. Dean
FindLaw Columnist
Special to CNN.com
Friday, June 6, 2003 Posted: 5:17 PM EDT (2117 GMT)
Story Tools

FINDLAW

FOR THE PUBLIC

Legal commentary from FindLaw's Writ
LAW DICTIONARY

(FindLaw) -- President George W. Bush has got a very serious problem. Before asking Congress for a joint resolution authorizing the use of U.S. military forces in Iraq, he made a number of unequivocal statements about the reason the United States needed to pursue the most radical actions any nation can undertake -- acts of war against another nation.

Now it is clear that many of his statements appear to be false. In the past, Bush's White House has been very good at sweeping ugly issues like this under the carpet, and out of sight. But it is not clear that they will be able to make the question of what happened to Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) go away -- unless, perhaps, they start another war.

That seems unlikely. Until the questions surrounding the Iraqi war are answered, Congress and the public may strongly resist more of President Bush's warmaking.

Presidential statements, particularly on matters of national security, are held to an expectation of the highest standard of truthfulness. A president cannot stretch, twist or distort facts and get away with it. President Lyndon Johnson's distortions of the truth about Vietnam forced him to stand down from reelection. President Richard Nixon's false statements about Watergate forced his resignation.

Frankly, I hope the WMDs are found, for it will end the matter. Clearly, the story of the missing WMDs is far from over. And it is too early, of course, to draw conclusions. But it is not too early to explore the relevant issues.
President Bush's statements on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction

Readers may not recall exactly what President Bush said about weapons of mass destruction; I certainly didn't. Thus, I have compiled these statements below. In reviewing them, I saw that he had, indeed, been as explicit and declarative as I had recalled.

Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

United Nations address, September 12, 2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

Radio address, October 5, 2002

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Cincinnati, Ohio speech, October 7, 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Address to the nation, March 17, 2003
Should the president get the benefit of the doubt?

When these statements were made, Bush's let-me-mince-no-words posture was convincing to many Americans. Yet much of the rest of the world, and many other Americans, doubted them.

As Bush's veracity was being debated at the United Nations, it was also being debated on campuses -- including those where I happened to be lecturing at the time.

On several occasions, students asked me the following question: Should they believe the president of the United States? My answer was that they should give the President the benefit of the doubt, for several reasons deriving from the usual procedures that have operated in every modern White House and that, I assumed, had to be operating in the Bush White House, too.

First, I assured the students that these statements had all been carefully considered and crafted. Presidential statements are the result of a process, not a moment's though. White House speechwriters process raw information, and their statements are passed on to senior aides who have both substantive knowledge and political insights. And this all occurs before the statement ever reaches the President for his own review and possible revision.

Second, I explained that -- at least in every White House and administration with which I was familiar, from Truman to Clinton -- statements with national security implications were the most carefully considered of all. The White House is aware that, in making these statements, the president is speaking not only to the nation, but also to the world.

Third, I pointed out to the students, these statements are typically corrected rapidly if they are later found to be false. And in this case, far from backpedaling from the President's more extreme claims, Bush's press secretary, Ari Fleischer had actually, at times, been even more emphatic than the President had. For example, on January 9, 2003, Fleischer stated, during his press briefing, "We know for a fact that there are weapons there."

In addition, others in the Bush administration were similarly quick to back the President up, in some cases with even more unequivocal statements. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly claimed that Saddam had WMDs -- and even went so far as to claim he knew "where they are; they're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad."

Finally, I explained to the students that the political risk was so great that, to me, it was inconceivable that Bush would make these statements if he didn't have damn solid intelligence to back him up. Presidents do not stick their necks out only to have them chopped off by political opponents on an issue as important as this, and if there was any doubt, I suggested, Bush's political advisers would be telling him to hedge. Rather than stating a matter as fact, he would be say: "I have been advised," or "Our intelligence reports strongly suggest," or some such similar hedge. But Bush had not done so.

So what are we now to conclude if Bush's statements are found, indeed, to be as grossly inaccurate as they currently appear to have been?

After all, no weapons of mass destruction have been found, and given Bush's statements, they should not have been very hard to find -- for they existed in large quantities, "thousands of tons" of chemical weapons alone. Moreover, according to the statements, telltale facilities, groups of scientists who could testify, and production equipment also existed.

So where is all that? And how can we reconcile the White House's unequivocal statements with the fact that they may not exist?

There are two main possibilities. One, that something is seriously wrong within the Bush White House's national security operations. That seems difficult to believe. The other is that the president has deliberately misled the nation, and the world.
A desperate search for WMDs has so far yielded little, if any, fruit

Even before formally declaring war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the president had dispatched American military special forces into Iraq to search for weapons of mass destruction, which he knew would provide the primary justification for Operation Freedom. None were found.

Throughout Operation Freedom's penetration of Iraq and drive toward Baghdad, the search for WMDs continued. None were found.

As the coalition forces gained control of Iraqi cities and countryside, special search teams were dispatched to look for WMDs. None were found.

During the past two and a half months, according to reliable news reports, military patrols have visited over 300 suspected WMD sites throughout Iraq. None of the prohibited weapons were found there.
British and American press reaction to the missing WMDs

British Prime Minister Tony Blair is also under serious attack in England, which he dragged into the war unwillingly, based on the missing WMDs. In Britain, the missing WMDs are being treated as scandalous; so far, the reaction in the U.S. has been milder.

New York Times columnist, Paul Krugman, has taken Bush sharply to task, asserting that it is "long past time for this administration to be held accountable." "The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent threat," Krugman argued. "If that claim was fraudulent," he continued, "the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history -- worse than Watergate, worse than Iran-contra." But most media outlets have reserved judgment as the search for WMDs in Iraq continues.

Still, signs do not look good. Last week, the Pentagon announced it was shifting its search from looking for WMD sites, to looking for people who can provide leads as to where the missing WMDs might be.

Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton, while offering no new evidence, assured Congress that WMDs would indeed be found. And he advised that a new unit called the Iraq Survey Group, composed of some 1400 experts and technicians from around the world, is being deployed to assist in the searching.

But, as Time magazine reported, the leads are running out. According to Time, the Marine general in charge explained that "[w]e've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad," and remarked flatly, "They're simply not there."

Perhaps most troubling, the president has failed to provide any explanation of how he could have made his very specific statements, yet now be unable to back them up with supporting evidence. Was there an Iraqi informant thought to be reliable, who turned out not to be? Were satellite photos innocently, if negligently misinterpreted? Or was his evidence not as solid as he led the world to believe?

The absence of any explanation for the gap between the statements and reality only increases the sense that the President's misstatements may actually have been intentional lies.
Investigating The Iraqi War intelligence reports

Even now, while the jury is still out as to whether intentional misconduct occurred, the President has a serious credibility problem. Newsweek magazine posed the key questions: "If America has entered a new age of pre-emption —when it must strike first because it cannot afford to find out later if terrorists possess nuclear or biological weapons—exact intelligence is critical. How will the United States take out a mad despot or a nuclear bomb hidden in a cave if the CIA can't say for sure where they are? And how will Bush be able to maintain support at home and abroad?"

In an apparent attempt to bolster the President's credibility, and his own, Secretary Rumsfeld himself has now called for a Defense Department investigation into what went wrong with the pre-war intelligence. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd finds this effort about on par with O.J.'s looking for his wife's killer. But there may be a difference: Unless the members of Administration can find someone else to blame -- informants, surveillance technology, lower-level personnel, you name it -- they may not escape fault themselves.

Congressional committees are also looking into the pre-war intelligence collection and evaluation. Senator John Warner, R-Virginia, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said his committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee would jointly investigate the situation. And the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence plans an investigation.

These investigations are certainly appropriate, for there is potent evidence of either a colossal intelligence failure or misconduct -- and either would be a serious problem. When the best case scenario seems to be mere incompetence, investigations certainly need to be made.

Sen. Bob Graham -- a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee -- told CNN's Aaron Brown, that while he still hopes they finds WMDs or at least evidence thereof, he has also contemplated three other possible alternative scenarios:

One is that [the WMDs] were spirited out of Iraq, which maybe is the worst of all possibilities, because now the very thing that we were trying to avoid, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, could be in the hands of dozens of groups. Second, that we had bad intelligence. Or third, that the intelligence was satisfactory but that it was manipulated, so as just to present to the American people and to the world those things that made the case for the necessity of war against Iraq.

Sen. Graham seems to believe there is a serious chance that it is the final scenario that reflects reality. Indeed, Graham told CNN "there's been a pattern of manipulation by this administration."

Graham has good reason to complain. According to the New York Times, he was one of the few members of the Senate who saw the national intelligence estimate that was the basis for Bush's decisions. After reviewing it, Graham requested that the Bush administration declassify the information before the Senate voted on the administration's resolution requesting use of the military in Iraq.

But rather than do so, CIA Director Tenet merely sent Graham a letter discussing the findings. Graham then complained that Tenet's letter only addressed "findings that supported the administration's position on Iraq," and ignored information that raised questions about intelligence. In short, Graham suggested that the Administration, by cherrypicking only evidence to its own liking, had manipulated the information to support its conclusion.

Recent statements by one of the high-level officials privy to the decision making process that lead to the Iraqi war also strongly suggest manipulation, if not misuse of the intelligence agencies. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, during an interview with Sam Tannenhaus of Vanity Fair magazine, said: "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason." More recently, Wolfowitz added what most have believed all along, that the reason we went after Iraq is that "[t]he country swims on a sea of oil."
Worse than Watergate? A potential huge scandal if WMDs are still missing

Krugman is right to suggest a possible comparison to Watergate. In the three decades since Watergate, this is the first potential scandal I have seen that could make Watergate pale by comparison. If the Bush Administration intentionally manipulated or misrepresented intelligence to get Congress to authorize, and the public to support, military action to take control of Iraq, then that would be a monstrous misdeed.

This administration may be due for a scandal. While Bush narrowly escaped being dragged into Enron, which was not, in any event, his doing. But the war in Iraq is all Bush's doing, and it is appropriate that he be held accountable.

To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."

It's important to recall that when Richard Nixon resigned, he was about to be impeached by the House of Representatives for misusing the CIA and FBI. After Watergate, all presidents are on notice that manipulating or misusing any agency of the executive branch improperly is a serious abuse of presidential power.

Nixon claimed that his misuses of the federal agencies for his political purposes were in the interest of national security. The same kind of thinking might lead a President to manipulate and misuse national security agencies or their intelligence to create a phony reason to lead the nation into a politically desirable war. Let us hope that is not the case.

Back to top

WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts

Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448

Posted: 06/07/03 - 14:43 Post subject:

Akronn wrote:

Maybe he'll get killed first. We can only hope.

They may or may not find weapons, but in my mind the shitastic economy is more important. If our parties weren't bound by the convention of giving the incumbant an automatic bid, I'd say his chances for reelection were slim at best. However, who's around to beat him? I haven't heard any serious names yet, I know Lieberman doesn't stand a chance.

I never hoped Clinton would be killed. Although, I'm sure in most states that would only be a misdemeanor.

Anyway, the economy has never been "shitastic". There's been positive, albeit slow, growth for a while now. Unemployment is high compared to the late 90's, but much of that is due to increased efficiencies that have lead cost-conscious businessmen to hold off on hirings. This is the first time that employment has not been directly positively correlated with economic growth. The fact that the stock market (a 6-month leading indicator of economic conditions) has been bullish for months shows that the economy is in full recovery and will be pretty good around November. That's a full year ahead of Bush's reelection. The democrats really won't have much on their side.

Back to top

Janoth
RealPoor Guru

Joined: 17 Nov 2002
Posts: 3135

Posted: 06/07/03 - 14:45 Post subject:

The job market hasn't been this bad in 20 years.

Back to top

WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts

Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448

Posted: 06/07/03 - 14:54 Post subject:

Quote:

Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense?

When in doubt look at the constitution:

Article 4, Section 4 wrote:

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

First question: Did Bush lie about his precepts for war?
Answer: No. Nobody denied the existence of wmd until recently. Not even France. Complainers need to chill. The US is busy trying to restore phone lines, collect garbage, restore the oil flow and a million other things in an unstable area while searching for witnesses (most of whom are in hiding) who can point out hidden stockpiles.

Second: Can a president be impeached for lying?
Answer. No. Bill Clinton established the precident that even if you lie under oath, you will not be impeached.

Also, it's been a few weeks. Keep in mind that it's always easy to do something until you actually have to do it.

Back to top

WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts

Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448

Posted: 06/07/03 - 14:55 Post subject:

Janothhhh wrote:

The job market hasn't been this bad in 20 years.

9 years. And again, for the first time ever, the job market does not correlate to the economy. That means little to working people, but like I said, the economy as a whole will be much better by the end of the year.

Back to top

Janoth
RealPoor Guru

Joined: 17 Nov 2002
Posts: 3135

Posted: 06/07/03 - 15:02 Post subject:

I hope so because I really need a job

Back to top

Banzai
Guest

Posted: 06/07/03 - 15:03 Post subject:

Bush won't get kicked out of office because of the war he will get kicked out of office because the lazy people who didn't get out to vote last time will this time. On the bright side history can now say that the Bush name served two terms as president. Symbolic both terms had a war with Iraq. It's like a sequel that wasn't really a sequel because it was exactly like the first one. Senator John McKane would have much better odds of getting elected over Bush imho.

Back to top

Janoth
RealPoor Guru

Joined: 17 Nov 2002
Posts: 3135

Posted: 06/07/03 - 15:05 Post subject:

Why do all polls indicate Bush will win in a landslide then Banzai? Are those lazy people who didn't get out to vote also locked up in their basement so they are unable to answer all media polls?

Back to top

Banzai
Guest

Posted: 06/07/03 - 15:28 Post subject:

Polls don't mean shit.

Back to top

sinrakin
RealPoor Master of Posts

Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 7044

Posted: 06/07/03 - 15:33 Post subject:

People are fickle. If they get bored with rah rah America stuff, angry that terrorism hasn't disappeared, p****d off enough about not having jobs, and maybe the housing market starts to crash a little, I could envision an impeachment attempt.

Back to top

Brash
RealPoor Guru

Joined: 20 Oct 2002
Posts: 3958

Posted: 06/07/03 - 15:35 Post subject:

things can change. Big part will be if they ever do find any weapons and even more so, how big a deal will the media make out of it. So far, he hasnt really done much that has helped the economy at all. He put us at war with another country, with motives that are starting to look questionable at best. He has put us at odds with alot of countrys we were on good terms with before he got in office. Whoever does run against him sure will have alot of ammo.

Back to top

Janoth
RealPoor Guru

Joined: 17 Nov 2002
Posts: 3135

Posted: 06/07/03 - 15:35 Post subject:

I disagree Banzai. Obviously they aren't 100% accurate but if you have a guy consistantly winning every poll taken by a large margin chances are he's going to win the election.

Back to top

Akronn
Guest

Posted: 06/07/03 - 15:52 Post subject:

Janothhhh wrote:

Why do all polls indicate Bush will win in a landslide then Banzai? Are those lazy people who didn't get out to vote also locked up in their basement so they are unable to answer all media polls?

Actually, alot of polls put his reelection support around 45-50%.

The thing is... look at the Democrats they throw into these polls. Lieberman? Kerry? Hart? Gephardt? Haven't we seen all of these guys before, and haven't they all lost?

The only reason I'd vote for any of them was just because I didn't want to vote for Bush... and I don't think that's in the spirit of the system. I really like John McCain, though. Maybe he'll go indie and rock the election a bit.

Back to top

Alerik
Sir Postalot

Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 1375

Posted: 06/07/03 - 17:01 Post subject:

I wanted McCain in the republican primary, sadly an imbecile was elected, and I voted for the lesser imbecile, Gore. It would be great if McCain ran as a Indy, he would be what many morons thought Bush would be, a great compromiser. He is pretty moderate, which suits my fancy as well.

Back to top

Rennol
RealPoor Guru

Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 3741
Location: Charleston, IL

Posted: 06/07/03 - 17:13 Post subject:

Howard Dean is the best hope for us. www.deanforamerica.com He rules.

Back to top

Kbarr
Guest

Posted: 06/07/03 - 17:14 Post subject:

Akronn wrote:

Maybe he'll get killed first. We can only hope.

Idiot.

Back to top

Domination
Can't Stop Posting

Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 565
Location: Atlanta, GA

Posted: 06/07/03 - 17:34 Post subject:

The Economy is still really bad? The Economy and the job market are 2 seperate things. The economy(dow jones, nasdaq, etc..) is doing pretty good atm, has been solid over 8500 for a week and a half now, upwards of 8900 atm. The job market is bad because of greed, the true great american pasttime; Economy rebounds, corporations see the profits coming in and since they all have done so many lay offs, their overhead is way less, so they make more money. They take the stance of "we want to make sure its not a fluke right now" but i think its somewhat obvious this is not exactly true and the more factual stance is "Hrmm we can accomplish our business with less manpower, that is more efficent, thats better profits, better survivability". Bush has steered the economy in the right direction and done it the right way, not with b****t antics that provide a temporary boost. Is Bush doing things the safe, cautious way? Nope, he's taking pretty big risks. is Bush very smart? Nope, most importantly, he never claimed to be, he only claimed to try his best and do what he thought was in the best interest of the American People. Will Bush get reelected? I would think so, but i think that Bush himself would tell you, If its in the best interest of the American People(ie, they vote for him), then yes he will be. The war in Iraq is a triumphant victory for America. We stood up to the world and said, We will stand up for the security of our country, We will eliminate threats that we percieve, You will either be on our side, or against us - a threat to our national security. Whats so wrong with this? What is it that people don't understand about this? if countries truly aren't against us, then they have nothing to worry about - if they are, they now know whats up. Is it to much for a country to stand up and say "We are not against you, we will support you in your times of need, like you have supported us in our times of need". Playing the fence is b****t. Its evident, that France, Russia and Germany opposed the war because of financial reasons, its not acceptable to this country to put money ahead of security, it never will be, and we sent that message to the world, in a very clear manner. Do i think Bush is the perfect president? Nope. do i believe he has done a pretty good job under the circumstances? Yep, i think he has done a pretty good job considering who he is. Democratic flames... Read this before flaming; Income redistrubition is wrong. Its a communistic ideal, stop trying to take people's money that they earned and redistrubiting it to people who didn't earn it. Life isn't fair, welcome to captilism.

Back to top

Rennol
RealPoor Guru

Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 3741
Location: Charleston, IL

Posted: 06/07/03 - 17:55 Post subject:

I love how people talk about such theoretical topics as 'income redistribution' when the point is that there are people who work there asses off and make $35,000 and under, in fact, most people in America earn under $50,000. The 'tax cuts' that Bush has put into effect do not help these people. Thank you for your analysis of the word 'greed', and then talking about 'communism' in the same breath. I like how you think each is bad. Got news for you, the reason communism was conceptualized was to eliminate greed. However, greed was it's downfall. Ironic. Anyways. Bush may be doing what he thinks is right, but he is following bad precedents. Reganomics? Please give me a break. Bill Clinton had the foresight and determination to balance the budget, and Bush broke that. Insert obligatory character flame here. Obviously people cannot look past people to the real issues. Some figures for ya: last year wages grew at 1.4%, while inflation held at around 2.9%. When unemployment was around 4% (It is higher now for you math inclined people), wages increased more steadily. The high unemployment has caused wages to stagnate while inflation plods along. Not a good recipe for economic recovery. I guess it works out well if you are a well compensated executive though. Those people don't feel the burden of low wage increases. They also got a nice tax package to take care of them through these troublesome times. With a little hard work, and some hope, these people will still be able to afford their Hummer H2's. God Bless America.

Back to top

Tolanin
RealPoor Guru

Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 3551

Posted: 06/07/03 - 18:12 Post subject:

bushes tax cuts help pretty much everyone who makes more than 27k a year... thx try again. Saying Clinton had foresight is retarded.. he didnt have the foresight to stop the economic decline and tech crashes that happened.. even though they were during bush only clinton would have had time to prevent it... its time to open your eyes and realize Clinton was a s****y president who did absolutely nothing but reap the rewards of a natural economic up time... Look at the Clinton presidency and tell me that you saw positive change that really effect and make americans future better.. cause I sure dont even see any attempts... he sat on his ass letting terrorist and mid east extremism build up unchecked. Bush however has tried to improve the economy, he has dealt with 2 wars and a attack on our country.. if a democrat had been in power i bet you Iraq would still be there and a threat and maybe afganistan too BTW any accountant knows is not all that hard to balance a budget when you have surplus out the ass because the economy is good.. its not like bush and clinton had the same cash funds to use.

Back to top

Rennol
RealPoor Guru

Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 3741
Location: Charleston, IL

Posted: 06/07/03 - 18:26 Post subject:

You're a f***g idiot Tolanin, I won't cut corners with you. Since it is quite obvious that you never read what exactly was entailed, most of the cuts went to businesses and individuals that made considerably more then 27k/year. People who make that much didn't get a whole lot. Economic decline? Under Clinton? I don't think so. Spending was cut dramatically. The budget was balanced. There was infact a budget surplus. Now there is a deficit that is unmatched by any other in our history. That's some great common sense thinking there. Natural economic upturn eh? Yeah, guess that's why Bush the First had it all fd up when Clinton arrived. Guess it just magically ironed itself out. Right. f*g uneducated, ill informed moron. Maybe that is what your parents spew to you at the dinner table, but that is a factually wrong interpretation of the past 10 years. Terrorism and Mid East extremism? Clinton? My, how we like to blame people for things. How many blame Roosevelt for Pearl Harbor? You have to realize a couple of things here when it comes to September 11, 2001. The first thing, is that the assailants <i><b>did not break the law until they attacked the flight crews on those planes</i></b>. PERIOD. They didn't smuggle items on board. They took box cutters on board. Plane hijackings have not EVER been a situation where the plane was then turned into a kamikaze death machine for those on board. People assumed that they would be landed, the hijackers would get what they wanted, who knows. Instead they got flown into the WTC. We're talking about crazy fn people. George Bush couldn't have stopped that. Bill Clinton couldn't have stopped that. Nobody could have. Fortunately, the people on the 3rd plane found out what had happened to the other planes that were hijacked. That is why that one ended up as a smoking crater in Pennsylvania and not in the Pentagon or who knows where else. One thing that MIGHT have prevented the 9/11 attacks was a simple device. Armored doors had been recommended to be installed on planes PRIOR to 9/11. Airlines did not want to put them in because of the 'cost'. Now most of them are going bankrupt. GG guys. Oh, and you are f*g wrong when you say that Bush and Clinton don't have the same funds to use. What the fk are you talking about, you must think Clinton was president of some other country. Tidbit of news for you: Bush was elected, er, sorry, <i>appointed</i> right after Clinton left office. The reason for the change in the budget is because of the policies applied to it, reckless spending, with irresponsible tax cuts. You are a f***g idiot, Tolanin. Keep your posts to topics like rap music and other subjects where you might actually be qualified to open your f***g pie hole.

Back to top

Tolanin
RealPoor Guru

Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 3551

Posted: 06/07/03 - 18:45 Post subject:

and you think I dont know what I am talking about lol? If you knew jack shit about economics post wwii and even pre wwii you would see that the economy goes through natural swings.. usually in 10 year periods.. for example.. 20s good, 30s bad, 40s good, 80s bad, 90s good, 00s bad... Also Pearl Harbor was in part Roosevelts fault.. and rather similar to 9/11 in fact.. the information was there but people failed to act on it for political reasons.. Roosevelt wanted to remain isolationist and Clinton didnt want any semi racist arrests at the end of his presidency(that might be going to far but for the sake of example there was more to do to prevent it than he did)... btw intent to do harm is a crime are you saying 9/11 attacks were spontanious cause unless they were their intent to do it was grounds for arrest... Clinton was sitting on a powder keg of problems and was just lucky enough to get away before it went off.. I have to kudos to Clinton for his budget cuts though.. things like CIA budget and military spending obviously werent needed for our countries security.. Republicans want smaller fed govt you know.. dems are in favor of the bigger fed govt... Oh and unless you havent noticed the office of president is not one elected by the democratic process.. it never has been.. please learn the difference between republic and democracy.

Back to top

Akronn
Guest

Posted: 06/07/03 - 19:31 Post subject:

Oh the economic cycle rears it's ugly head again. Yeah Clinton was in the right place at the right time, but don't forget Reagan was too. Yet... whenever you mention this to a Republican, they get all feral and the veins in their forehead pop out. Oh well.

Back to top

Kbarr
Guest

Posted: 06/07/03 - 19:47 Post subject:

Rennol wrote:

The first thing, is that the assailants <i><b>did not break the law until they attacked the flight crews on those planes</i></b>. PERIOD. They didn't smuggle items on board. They took box cutters on board.

If they took the box cutters on board with the INTENT to use them as weapons, then yes they did break the law. They broke the law the second they put a foot inside the airport. A normal pencil becomes a deadly weapon the second you decide to stick it into a persons eyeball. Not only is it a weapon as its going into the person, but its a weapon BEFORE its used, as long as the person holding has INTENT.

So yes they were breaking the law by having in their possesion weapons they intended to use.

You were wrong.

Rennol wrote:

f*****g uneducated, ill informed moron.

Knowing you were wrong about the weapon makes me think you aren't as smart as you like to think. In fact I bet you are wrong about alot of things. Shit, you appear to be a democrat, part of being a democrat is being stupid and on the wrong side of issues.

Rennol wrote:

You are a f*****g idiot, Tolanin. Keep your posts to topics like rap music and other subjects where you might actually be qualified to open your f*****g pie hole.

You might want to take your own advice, d*****t.

Last edited by Kbarr on 06/07/03 - 19:50; edited 1 time in total

Back to top

WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts

Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448

Posted: 06/07/03 - 19:49 Post subject:

The president does not control the economy. Congress does not control the economy. Nobody controls the economy. It is an incredibly complex system that is controlled by billions of individuals. The government can pass legislation which may effect certain aspects, but cannot control it. For example, dividend yielding stocks are up, because of Bush's dividend tax cut. That worked, because it sparked corporate investment. However, that money needs to be invested wisely by companies to be economically useful. The president is often inappropriately given credit or blame. However, the fact that the economy will very likely be very good a year before Bush's reelection will play into his favor, because voters will credit him. It's too soon for any poll to indicate whether Bush will come out on top or not, because those figures can change very quickly. I'm sure they will go down when the Democratic party starts spewing it's typical slander. However, the Democrats really have very little going for them besides their corrupt special interest support, so unless Bush screws up royally, he will probably be reelected.

Back to top

Zwadrich
RealPoor Master of Posts

Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 5015
Location: The Netherlands

Posted: 06/07/03 - 20:36 Post subject:

I wish all teh americans good luck when there are new elections.. must be a bugger

Back to top

no weapons = no bush ?

LIFEFORM SOCIAL COMMUNITY NETWORK