Guest Bengal_Smoov Posted June 23, 2005 Report Share Posted June 23, 2005 [quote name='BengalsCat' date='Jun 23 2005, 11:06 AM']Well yes lines are draw just like u wont admit this has done some good. and see every reason to accuse him of everything..... so yeah...... its bullshit both ways [right][post="106329"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] I'll admitt that Bush has done some good when he does it, were is the good? What has Bush done during his term as President that could be considered good? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted June 23, 2005 Report Share Posted June 23, 2005 [quote name='Jamie_B' date='Jun 23 2005, 11:08 AM']Nobody has told me why they think it is it was a lie and not misinfomation given to him by the intelligence community that I have show you and we all can admit had major problems. There is a difference, why do you think it was a lie? [right][post="106330"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] You're an old DC hand, so this'll have that familiar powerpointy disjointed feel to it. For those familiar with government operations, this manner of presentation, in a funny way, adds to it's credibility. For those not too intimate with government, check out his bio. In any case, I'd suggest downloading and reading all 56 pages of it. [url="http://www.prwatch.org/documents/truth.pdf"]Gardiner--Truth from these Podia[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalsCat Posted June 23, 2005 Report Share Posted June 23, 2005 [quote name='Bengal_Smoov' date='Jun 23 2005, 12:58 PM']I'll admitt that Bush has done some good when he does it, were is the good? What has Bush done during his term as President that could be considered good? [right][post="106346"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] Well if the democrats would let him he was trying to revamp social security. Which is a huge need in the country considering i am paying into a program that is going to be well beyond bankrupt by the time i come to collect... thats just for starters. but honestly i am so sick of bickering about politics so i am just gonna let it go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted June 23, 2005 Report Share Posted June 23, 2005 [quote name='Bengal_Smoov' date='Jun 23 2005, 11:58 AM']I'll admitt that Bush has done some good when he does it, were is the good? What has Bush done during his term as President that could be considered good? [right][post="106346"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! no offense man, but this is just not true... bush could jump in front of a semi and save a baby, and you would still find something wrong w/ him... at least i can say when i agree w/ people i hate like hillary (i like her health care idea) and can even bash bush on his horindous (sp?) immigration policy... but you can't point out anything good w/ what bush has done, really sheds a light on your blindness... you are too dug into your view of him, to even try to compliment him for anything... but for debate sake, here is what i feel bush has done that is good: - for one, he helped pull us through one of the hardest times in american history... - crushed the taliban in afghanistan, when the left said it would be another vietnam and we would be disposed of like the russians were in the 80's... - "no child left behind" was signed early in his first term, and co-sponsored by ted kennedy... the concept of the idea is very important imo... we need to focus more on scores, and pay teachers more... especially good teachers... this was a good start for education - ousted saddam hussain and is creating a democracy in iraq (reguardless of your initial stance on iraq, the progress is there) the outcome is yet to be seen, but freedom has been planted and we are watering it now... - the first president since fdr, to have the balls to debate social security... if he fixes this, he will be far from a bad or "lame duck" president... - we have completely changed our stance on issues such as saudi arabia and egypt... condi rice has recently started this campaign to make sure that these two countries are moving closer to free elections... [url="http://www.voanews.com/uspolicy/2005-06-23-voa2.cfm"]link to condi's speech in cairo[/url] thes are the reasons i can think of off the top of my head... he has done many good things... bush is far from perfect, and i have no clue where he'll end up on the "greatest presidents" list, but to say he has done nothing right, only shows a bias that will never be broken... come on smoov, i can admit what i like about hillary... why can't you w/ bush? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jza10304 Posted June 23, 2005 Report Share Posted June 23, 2005 [quote name='bengalrick' date='Jun 23 2005, 12:46 PM']HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! no offense man, but this is just not true... bush could jump in front of a semi and save a baby, and you would still find something wrong w/ him... at least i can say when i agree w/ people i hate like hillary (i like her health care idea) and can even bash bush on his horindous (sp?) immigration policy... but you can't point out anything good w/ what bush has done, really sheds a light on your blindness... you are too dug into your view of him, to even try to compliment him for anything... but for debate sake, here is what i feel bush has done that is good: - for one, he helped pull us through one of the hardest times in american history... - crushed the taliban in afghanistan, when the left said it would be another vietnam and we would be disposed of like the russians were in the 80's... - "no child left behind" was signed early in his first term, and co-sponsored by ted kennedy... the concept of the idea is very important imo... we need to focus more on scores, and pay teachers more... especially good teachers... this was a good start for education - ousted saddam hussain and is creating a democracy in iraq (reguardless of your initial stance on iraq, the progress is there) the outcome is yet to be seen, but freedom has been planted and we are watering it now... - the first president since fdr, to have the balls to debate social security... if he fixes this, he will be far from a bad or "lame duck" president... - we have completely changed our stance on issues such as saudi arabia and egypt... condi rice has recently started this campaign to make sure that these two countries are moving closer to free elections... [url="http://www.voanews.com/uspolicy/2005-06-23-voa2.cfm"]link to condi's speech in cairo[/url] thes are the reasons i can think of off the top of my head... he has done many good things... bush is far from perfect, and i have no clue where he'll end up on the "greatest presidents" list, but to say he has done nothing right, only shows a bias that will never be broken... come on smoov, i can admit what i like about hillary... why can't you w/ bush? [right][post="106359"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] Although I know that I have a blind hatred for W (admitting is the first step right), I can name one thing I like that he has done (actually said). I liked his plan for work permits for undocumented workers because it was a step in the right direction towards a solution. It pretty much ended a lot of the "keep them out, route them through the desert so they dehydrate and die, build a huge wall, they're taking our jobs" talk. I haven't seen much action on that though....so who knows. I'm not gonna get into his intentions as to why he's proposed the changes, but if I wanted politicians with good intentions I might as well stop paying attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bengal_Smoov Posted June 23, 2005 Report Share Posted June 23, 2005 [quote name='Jamie_B' date='Jun 23 2005, 11:08 AM']Nobody has told me why they think it is it was a lie and not misinfomation given to him by the intelligence community that I have show you and we all can admit had major problems. There is a difference, why do you think it was a lie? [right][post="106330"][/post][/right][/quote] Here's why I believe that Bush lied about WMD's..I can't remember the guys name, but he wrote a book after he left the administration about how was trying to find a reason to attack Saddam as soon as he got into office. Bush was going to do whatever he needed in order to get approval to invade Iraq and oust Saddam. The information they used was flawed, but that is the adminstration's duty make sure that the information you are presenting to the world as reasons to go to war are correct, imo. That 's the least they could do, it's very irresponsible and just plain wrong not to make sure that the info they recieved was correct. To me it seems like they took whatever info they could find to back what they wanted to do and they ran with it. The end result is thousand of DEAD Iraqi's and Americans who paid the ultimate price for Bush's decision to rush to war. Any person with half a brain should know that war is something that you never rush into, regardless of the situation. 9/11 was a horrible event, but two wrongs doesn't make it right. By invading Iraq and killing thousands of innocent Iraqis we have committed a wrong that is just as bad as 9/11. Finding Bin Laden and Al-Quada should be our one and only goal in the middle east, how we got diverted into Iraq is the problem. Bush sold America and world on the fact that Saddam had WMD's, if in fact this was bad information passed on to him why did he go around the nation spouting it off like it was the truth? [quote]that President Bush strode onto a stage in [b]Cincinnati and told the audience that Saddam Hussein's Iraq "possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons" and "is seeking nuclear weapons[/b]." "The danger is already significant and it only grows worse with time," Bush said in the speech delivered October 7, 2002. "[b]If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons[/b]?"[/quote] That is a lie, imo.. Here's what Sen. Rockefeller had to say..[quote]Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, seized on the report as political ammunition against the Bush administration. "[b]Despite the efforts to focus on Saddam's desires and intentions, the bottom line is Iraq did not have either weapon stockpiles or active production capabilities at the time of the war[/b]," Rockefeller said in a press release. "The report does further document Saddam's attempts to deceive the world and get out from under the sanctions, but the fact remains, the sanctions combined with inspections were working and Saddam was restrained."[/quote] No arguements that Saddam was a scumbag, but Bin Laden and Al-Quada were responsible for 9/11 not Saddam and Iraq. If we are going to go after every scumbag dicator then that's one thing, but were not in that business. For to say, oh well and pass the buck as far as getting bad information goes shows that he is a weak leader and not fit to be president. Here is an editioral from a guy who describes himself as a moderate independent. [quote]JULY 2003 - The debate is supposed to be whether or not President Bush would or did exaggerate the intelligence he was given for political or practical purposes. I don't really understand the question, because things are pretty clear and simple. A couple of weeks ago the President stood in Poland before you, me, and the world, and said, "We have found the Weapons of Mass Destruction." The press tried to figure out if he misspoke, what he was referring to, covered for him. But he himself never said he misspoke, and said essentially the same thing the next day, using unclear evidence about two trailers that may or may not be related to a weapons program - [b]he used this little bit of unclear intelligence, exaggerated it massively, and flat out, openly, and boldly lied that this shows we have found what we were looking for[/b], “..the Weapons of Mass Destruction.†[b]There is not a single piece of even doubtful intelligence that even remotely suggests we have found any WMD's.[/b] But the President stood before us and the world and said twice, "We have found the WMD's." So what is the question? President Bush is not educated, but he is shrewd in his own way. His genius is knowing how to lie and get away with it - how to fail and fail and fail - in life and in office - and never be held accountable - not for his possibly checkered past, not for his business failures, not for the economy he presides over, not for the things he says. In reality, he is the typical addict type, like addicts we all know, who can keep stealing, using, etc. and keep people co-dependently supporting him. He gets people to cover for him- in this case, he stands before us - in the middle of a debate about whether or he lied about and exaggerated intelligence - and tells a lie and exaggeration so big, so brazen, that people think he couldn't possibly have meant to say what he said, rather than seeing yet another, clear example of what they are debating whether or not he did. President Bush never apologized for what he said – in fact, he repeated the same assertion the next day - yet still there supposedly is a debate, did he exaggerate and misrepresent the intelligence he was given for political ends? What is the question? What is the debate about? Did he lie and exaggerate intelligence reports for political purposes some months back? He still, clearly, obviously, and without possible other explanation, is doing it now.[/quote] That pretty much answers your question Jamie from my p.o.v.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BadassBengal Posted June 23, 2005 Report Share Posted June 23, 2005 New Bush Administration PSA to the American public... [img]http://venus.walagata.com/w/mysticmike01/291515.jpg[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted June 23, 2005 Report Share Posted June 23, 2005 [quote name='jza10304' date='Jun 23 2005, 02:32 PM']Although I know that I have a blind hatred for W (admitting is the first step right), I can name one thing I like that he has done (actually said). I liked his plan for work permits for undocumented workers because it was a step in the right direction towards a solution. It pretty much ended a lot of the "keep them out, route them through the desert so they dehydrate and die, build a huge wall, they're taking our jobs" talk. I haven't seen much action on that though....so who knows. I'm not gonna get into his intentions as to why he's proposed the changes, but if I wanted politicians with good intentions I might as well stop paying attention. [right][post="106401"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] i am back and forth on this particular part of the immigration policy... for one thing, your right that we need to be able to let workers come in through work permits... this way, we can document who comes in/out of our country... this is a good idea, except that we need to do many things added w/ that... we can't open up the mexican border to whoever can work, if they don't worry about whos coming into their country... no point in securing our borders, but leaving out mexico, if mexico is letting anyone in there that can get there... thats like patching up a bucket, when theres still a huge hole on the other side... i am far from the "round them up, and kick them out... they are stealing our jobs" b/c i don't believe that... i know that we have a weakness in our borders, but that same weakness is also a strength... i just want to organize what information our gov't has b/c that is our greatest asset right now... the work permits does that, b/c then we have documents of who is here, and a chance to reject them... but that brings me to my next point... we have to have a larger scale "minuteman project" imo b/c we need to stop as many threats as possible... i didn't agree that brute force could detour illegals, but after seeing the extreme success of that project, i changed my view... they are far from vigilantees... more like activists imo... the border is something that breaks all political barriers (usually)... most open minded people realize that it is our greatest weakness, but also one of our greatest strengths... the key is to find the median point to allow both... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jza10304 Posted June 23, 2005 Report Share Posted June 23, 2005 [quote name='Bengal_Smoov' date='Jun 23 2005, 02:34 PM']Here's why I believe that Bush lied about WMD's..I can't remember the guys name, but he wrote a book after he left the administration about how was trying to find a reason to attack Saddam as soon as he got into office. Bush was going to do whatever he needed in order to get approval to invade Iraq and oust Saddam. The information they used was flawed, but that is the adminstration's duty make sure that the information you are presenting to the world as reasons to go to war are correct, imo. [right][post="106402"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] Dick Clark [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b7/Tv_abc_dick_clark_newyears.jpg[/img][img]http://www.nndb.com/people/315/000023246/clarkdick.jpg[/img] sorry....Richard "Dick" Clark the former U.S. counter-terrorism czar (I still get confused) [img]http://vialls.com/subliminalsuggestion/images/04_fallujah.gif[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BadassBengal Posted June 23, 2005 Report Share Posted June 23, 2005 [img]http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mennucc1/Funny/Bush01.jpg[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bengal_Smoov Posted June 23, 2005 Report Share Posted June 23, 2005 [quote name='bengalrick' date='Jun 23 2005, 12:46 PM']HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! no offense man, but this is just not true... bush could jump in front of a semi and save a baby, and you would still find something wrong w/ him... at least i can say when i agree w/ people i hate like hillary (i like her health care idea) and can even bash bush on his horindous (sp?) immigration policy... but you can't point out anything good w/ what bush has done, really sheds a light on your blindness... you are too dug into your view of him, to even try to compliment him for anything... but for debate sake, here is what i feel bush has done that is good: - for one, he helped pull us through one of the hardest times in american history... - crushed the taliban in afghanistan, when the left said it would be another vietnam and we would be disposed of like the russians were in the 80's... - "no child left behind" was signed early in his first term, and co-sponsored by ted kennedy... the concept of the idea is very important imo... we need to focus more on scores, and pay teachers more... especially good teachers... this was a good start for education - ousted saddam hussain and is creating a democracy in iraq (reguardless of your initial stance on iraq, the progress is there) the outcome is yet to be seen, but freedom has been planted and we are watering it now... - the first president since fdr, to have the balls to debate social security... if he fixes this, he will be far from a bad or "lame duck" president... - we have completely changed our stance on issues such as saudi arabia and egypt... condi rice has recently started this campaign to make sure that these two countries are moving closer to free elections... [url="http://www.voanews.com/uspolicy/2005-06-23-voa2.cfm"]link to condi's speech in cairo[/url] thes are the reasons i can think of off the top of my head... he has done many good things... bush is far from perfect, and i have no clue where he'll end up on the "greatest presidents" list, but to say he has done nothing right, only shows a bias that will never be broken... come on smoov, i can admit what i like about hillary... why can't you w/ bush? [right][post="106359"][/post][/right][/quote] I don't know where to begin..But I'll give it a shot [quote]- for one, he helped pull us through one of the hardest times in american history...[/quote] How..When 9/11 was happening he didn't leave the PR event he was at. He has done little to nothing to stop outsourcing of jobs, gas is at an all-time high...etc... Bush gets no credit from he for pulling us through anything. If his administration would have taken the Al-Quada threat seriously then all of this could have been avioded, maybe.. [quote]- crushed the taliban in afghanistan, when the left said it would be another vietnam and we would be disposed of like the russians were in the 80's...[/quote] He did go into Afhganistan with 2 guns up, but he has YET TO FIND OSAMA BIN LADEN..That give W an F- in my book. Btw, Iraq looks like the next Vietnam, imo.. [quote]- "no child left behind" was signed early in his first term, and co-sponsored by ted kennedy... the concept of the idea is very important imo... we need to focus more on scores, and pay teachers more... especially good teachers... this was a good start for education[/quote] Great idea, I think teachers should be paid like doctors, they are probably the most under-apprieciated civil servants in America, imo..But what has he done to further this? What has the "no child left behind" act accomplished, nothing... [quote]- ousted saddam hussain and is creating a democracy in iraq (reguardless of your initial stance on iraq, the progress is there) the outcome is yet to be seen, but freedom has been planted and we are watering it now...[/quote] Ousted Saddam- great!!! created democracy in Iraq.. I remember the huge outcry in Iraq for democracy before we invaded and started blowing up shit..Btw, the whole thing about freedom being planted is kinda scary, your starting to sound like W. Bush has nothing domestically to improve our nation, the economy is shaky, the job market is poor, the cost of living is rising at an alarming rate...Out of everything you posted the only thing he has done domestically is try to ruin SS. I could care less about Iraq, call me crazy but I'd rather have the president of the US do more for the US than Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalsCat Posted June 23, 2005 Report Share Posted June 23, 2005 [quote name='Bengal_Smoov' date='Jun 23 2005, 05:41 PM']I don't know where to begin..But I'll give it a shot How..When 9/11 was happening he didn't leave the PR event he was at. He has done little to nothing to stop outsourcing of jobs, gas is at an all-time high...etc... Bush gets no credit from he for pulling us through anything. If his administration would have taken the Al-Quada threat seriously then all of this could have been avioded, maybe.. He did go into Afhganistan with 2 guns up, but he has YET TO FIND OSAMA BIN LADEN..That give W an F- in my book. Btw, Iraq looks like the next Vietnam, imo.. Great idea, I think teachers should be paid like doctors, they are probably the most under-apprieciated civil servants in America, imo..But what has he done to further this? What has the "no child left behind" act accomplished, nothing... Ousted Saddam- great!!! created democracy in Iraq.. I remember the huge outcry in Iraq for democracy before we invaded and started blowing up shit..Btw, the whole thing about freedom being planted is kinda scary, your starting to sound like W. Bush has nothing domestically to improve our nation, the economy is shaky, the job market is poor, the cost of living is rising at an alarming rate...Out of everything you posted the only thing he has done domestically is try to ruin SS. I could care less about Iraq, call me crazy but I'd rather have the president of the US do more for the US than Iraq. [right][post="106473"][/post][/right][/quote] WTF?? u don't think getting us through 9/11 was an important trial for a president?? would have taken the Al-Quada threat seriously then all of this could have been avioded, maybe.. He took them as seriousely as every other president. What does that say about the guy before him??? [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//30.gif[/img] Next we did go into avganistan... and we improved there quality of life after ousting the Taliban..... As far a osma... I dont here him taking credit for shit these days or putting out anymore tapes... Wheres he at??? its not like him to stay quite for so long without releasing some tape about how he got the better of the american infidel Great idea, I think teachers should be paid like doctors, they are probably the most under-apprieciated civil servants in America, imo..But what has he done to further this? What has the "no child left behind" act accomplished, nothing <<<<< thats why when this idea came out everyone in the house suported it on both sides??? we do need to do more but it was a start.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted June 23, 2005 Report Share Posted June 23, 2005 at least you prove my point... it doesn't matter what W does, you will hate him... i think its important for others that will read this, to keep that in mind... anyway, i'm not going to pick your post apart b/c i'd be wasting my time... the markets are doing OK, the job market is creating record job numbers, and the iraq war is still up in the air, but all you see is a quagmire... whatever man... you keep rooting against us and i'll keep rooting for us... thats how it always seems anyway... sorry the "freedom" thing scares you, but how else are we supposed to start the dominoes of democracy in the middle east?? are you someone that thinks that it is impossible to create a democracy in the middle east? if so, that would explain alot... you struck a nerve w/ the SS thing... don't you care about the 6.2% you give for every dollar you make, and are going to get NOTHING from it... i always wondered where you stood w/ SS, b/c you avoid those threads, but at least now i know... at your age though, i'm extremely surprised... have you ever even read any of my or cats SS threads? give me reasons why he is screwing up SS (since rep's are the only ones willing to admit there is a future problem, and are the only ones giving solutions) should we just raise taxes to 18% and raise the retirement age to 75 FUCK THAT SHIT!!!!!!!!!!! what should we do to fix SS then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bengal_Smoov Posted June 23, 2005 Report Share Posted June 23, 2005 [quote name='bengalrick' date='Jun 23 2005, 04:49 PM']at least you prove my point... it doesn't matter what W does, you will hate him... i think its important for others that will read this, to keep that in mind... anyway, i'm not going to pick your post apart b/c i'd be wasting my time... the markets are doing OK, the job market is creating record job numbers, and the iraq war is still up in the air, but all you see is a quagmire... whatever man... you keep rooting against us and i'll keep rooting for us... thats how it always seems anyway... sorry the "freedom" thing scares you, but how else are we supposed to start the dominoes of democracy in the middle east?? are you someone that thinks that it is impossible to create a democracy in the middle east? if so, that would explain alot... you struck a nerve w/ the SS thing... don't you care about the 6.2% you give for every dollar you make, and are going to get NOTHING from it... i always wondered where you stood w/ SS, b/c you avoid those threads, but at least now i know... at your age though, i'm extremely surprised... have you ever even read any of my or cats SS threads? give me reasons why he is screwing up SS (since rep's are the only ones willing to admit there is a future problem, and are the only ones giving solutions) should we just raise taxes to 18% and raise the retirement age to 75 FUCK THAT SHIT!!!!!!!!!!! what should we do to fix SS then? [right][post="106478"][/post][/right][/quote] If W admitted that he's a liar and he knew that Iraq never had WMD's he just wanted to get Saddam back for trying to kill his Dad and make his friends some money all the while then I could respect him for telling the truth. Just because I think Bush doing a great job of ruining America doesn't mean I'm against "us", if you didn't notice in 2000 Bush lost the popular and in 2004 it was one of the closet elections ever, half of the nation didn't want this guy to be Pres. That pisses me off when Bush supporters say I'm not for America because I think Bush is full of shit. As for SS, giving Bush's track record I don't want his grubby little hands anywhere near my SS, I'll take my chances with the current system then let that little troll touch my SS. As for me hating Bush, he has said some positive things about African Aid and how to help the continitent, so I will give him some props on that issue.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted June 23, 2005 Report Share Posted June 23, 2005 smoov... SS would be our own money... right now, is where bush and other bureoucrats are putting their grubby hands on our future money... wouldn't you want to be able to invest that 6% or at least 4% of that in your own money, and see exactly what you are going to get in 40 years... you do realize that even if you make like 25,000 dollars and get a small raise every year, you will be a millionaire, right? our system is doomed right now, b/c of the baby boomers and all the money that was promised... but personal accounts are only a long term solution and we need to move back retirement a little, and get a little creative... but we are going to be able to be in a surplus until about 2012 (i think, somewhere around there)... we will be able to get the accts kicking by then, and free up the future money tremendously... there are so many advantages to private accounts, but if it goes through, it will be a check mark next to W's name, so at least admit thats why you don't want it smoov... i misspoke in saying you were against us... my bad... i'm not diving into these other issues again... i already have a headache and you know where i stand... bush isn't apoligizing though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bengal_Smoov Posted June 24, 2005 Report Share Posted June 24, 2005 [quote name='bengalrick' date='Jun 23 2005, 07:39 PM']smoov... SS would be our own money... right now, is where bush and other bureoucrats are putting their grubby hands on our future money... wouldn't you want to be able to invest that 6% or at least 4% of that in your own money, and see exactly what you are going to get in 40 years... you do realize that even if you make like 25,000 dollars and get a small raise every year, you will be a millionaire, right? our system is doomed right now, b/c of the baby boomers and all the money that was promised... but personal accounts are only a long term solution and we need to move back retirement a little, and get a little creative... but we are going to be able to be in a surplus until about 2012 (i think, somewhere around there)... we will be able to get the accts kicking by then, and free up the future money tremendously... there are so many advantages to private accounts, but if it goes through, it will be a check mark next to W's name, so at least admit thats why you don't want it smoov... i misspoke in saying you were against us... my bad... i'm not diving into these other issues again... [b]i already have a headache and you know where i stand[/b]... bush isn't apoligizing though... [right][post="106501"][/post][/right][/quote] Defending Bush is hard work Seriously though, SS is a complex issue, I don't think Bush has the mental capacity to handle a problem like that. Honestly I wouldn't care if Bush came up a good plan for SS, like u said he needs some good check marks. But for me it's hard for me to trust Bush given his past history, I don't being lied to, especially by people that I consider to be stupid. [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//33.gif[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bunghole| Posted June 24, 2005 Report Share Posted June 24, 2005 BengalRick and Smoov need to get together for drinks... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whodey319 Posted June 24, 2005 Report Share Posted June 24, 2005 [quote name='Bengal_Smoov' date='Jun 23 2005, 10:58 PM']Defending Bush is hard work Seriously though, SS is a complex issue, I don't think Bush has the mental capacity to handle a problem like that. Honestly I wouldn't care if Bush came up a good plan for SS, like u said he needs some good check marks. But for me it's hard for me to trust Bush given his past history, I don't being lied to, especially by people that I consider to be stupid. [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//33.gif[/img] [right][post="106529"][/post][/right][/quote] this is the problem you guys have, your hatred blinds you and no reasoning can even get close to entering your thick skulls. not sure you even know why you hate bush, its just stuff youve heard from loud left wingers on TV. Anything that goes wrong automatically is blame on W. The fact is, Bush cannot declare war on anyone, there are 535 senators/reps that are the only ones in the US that can do it. Even if the pres got up in front of all of them and tried to convince them to go to war, they have all the same briefings and info that he does and still no one says anything about them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bunghole| Posted June 24, 2005 Report Share Posted June 24, 2005 [quote name='whodey319' date='Jun 23 2005, 10:00 PM']this is the problem you guys have, your hatred blinds you and no reasoning can even get close to entering your thick skulls. not sure you even know why you hate bush, its just stuff youve heard from loud left wingers on TV. Anything that goes wrong automatically is blame on W. The fact is, Bush cannot declare war on anyone, there are 535 senators/reps that are the only ones in the US that can do it. Even if the pres got up in front of all of them and tried to convince them to go to war, they have all the same briefings and info that he does and still no one says anything about them. [right][post="106546"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] While I agree with your sentiments, the War Powers Act basically gives the President the "right" to commit troops to any conflict, anywhere, for any reason for 90 days without Congressional approval...which doesn't apply to the current Iraqi War, since it was Congressionally approved, but...yes he can.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalsCat Posted June 24, 2005 Report Share Posted June 24, 2005 [quote name='Bengal_Smoov' date='Jun 23 2005, 06:45 PM']If W admitted that he's a liar and he knew that Iraq never had WMD's he just wanted to get Saddam back for trying to kill his Dad and make his friends some money all the while then I could respect him for telling the truth. Just because I think Bush doing a great job of ruining America doesn't mean I'm against "us", if you didn't notice in 2000 Bush lost the popular and in 2004 it was one of the closet elections ever, half of the nation didn't want this guy to be Pres. That pisses me off when Bush supporters say I'm not for America because I think Bush is full of shit. As for SS, giving Bush's track record I don't want his grubby little hands anywhere near my SS, I'll take my chances with the current system then let that little troll touch my SS. As for me hating Bush, he has said some positive things about African Aid and how to help the continitent, so I will give him some props on that issue.. [right][post="106492"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] HAHAHA your bullshit makes me laugh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalsCat Posted June 24, 2005 Report Share Posted June 24, 2005 [quote name='whodey319' date='Jun 24 2005, 12:00 AM']this is the problem you guys have, your hatred blinds you and no reasoning can even get close to entering your thick skulls. not sure you even know why you hate bush, its just stuff youve heard from loud left wingers on TV. Anything that goes wrong automatically is blame on W. The fact is, Bush cannot declare war on anyone, there are 535 senators/reps that are the only ones in the US that can do it. Even if the pres got up in front of all of them and tried to convince them to go to war, they have all the same briefings and info that he does and still no one says anything about them. [right][post="106546"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/41.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/41.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/41.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/41.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/41.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/41.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/41.gif[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BengalBacker Posted June 24, 2005 Report Share Posted June 24, 2005 The President addresses the nation. Some excerpts: to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world. Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again. I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning. In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors.Here are some of the particulars. Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past. Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program. It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions. Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment. Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection. So Iraq has abused its final chance. In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham. if Saddam can cripple the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region. The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War. The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. [url="http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html"]click here[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whodey319 Posted June 24, 2005 Report Share Posted June 24, 2005 [quote name='BengalBacker' date='Jun 24 2005, 03:36 PM']The President addresses the nation. Some excerpts: to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world. Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again. I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning. In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors.Here are some of the particulars. Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past. Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program. It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions. Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment. Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection. So Iraq has abused its final chance. In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham. if Saddam can cripple the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region. The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War. The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. [url="http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html"]click here[/url] [right][post="106827"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] how dare you post an actual transcript that implies we went into iraq for more reasons than to find WMD. And they you have the audacity to post a CNN story about how a democratic president said he was sure Iraq had WMD and was willing to use them. You are just a dumb right wing religious phanatic that acts as a minion of that moron George bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalsCat Posted June 24, 2005 Report Share Posted June 24, 2005 [quote name='whodey319' date='Jun 24 2005, 03:42 PM']how dare you post an actual transcript that implies we went into iraq for more reasons than to find WMD. And they you have the audacity to post a CNN story about how a democratic president said he was sure Iraq had WMD and was willing to use them. You are just a dumb right wing religious phanatic that acts as a minion of that moron George bush. [right][post="106829"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest oldschooler Posted June 24, 2005 Report Share Posted June 24, 2005 [quote name='BengalBacker' date='Jun 24 2005, 01:36 PM']The President addresses the nation. Some excerpts: to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world. Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again. I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning. In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors.Here are some of the particulars. Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past. Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program. It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions. Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment. Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection. So Iraq has abused its final chance. In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham. if Saddam can cripple the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region. The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War. The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. [url="http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html"]click here[/url] [right][post="106827"][/post][/right][/quote] Great post ! But some people like to distort the truth. (you know who you are.) They will never see the Iraq war as anything but a gain for Bush`s "oil buddies" and Haliburton... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.