| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/01/2004 09:40:57 PM · #26 |
| Actually. Aren't those "idiots" at MoveOn rich computer geeks. They did the flying toaster screen saver. Hmmm. I guess they might know a little about the economy. At least they know how to get rich. |
|
|
|
02/01/2004 10:42:54 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by pcody:
Actually. Aren't those "idiots" at MoveOn rich computer geeks. They did the flying toaster screen saver. Hmmm. I guess they might know a little about the economy. At least they know how to get rich. |
Two different things, if you can't see the difference I'm sorry. |
|
|
|
02/02/2004 01:33:55 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by Russell2566:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I'm not a liberal. But I do find it amusing that you "KNOW that "it's all lies" without seeing it. |
ACTUALY I have seen it, I know the ad they were trying to get on CBS!!! I'm probably the only one here who has even opened his mouth who has! Are you gonna actualy tell me you think it's a truthfull ad??? These idiots can't even understand that Bush never once said that Iraq was an imminent threat, yet they quote him as saying so everyday!!! |
The ad CBS refused air doesn't mention Iraq. It is a series of scenes of 8-12 year-old children working in "ordinary" jobs such as dishwasher or garbage collector. There is no dialog, and a single text frame at the end, asking the question "Guess who's going to pay for President Bush's $1 Trillion Dollars in tax cuts?" (perhaps paraphrased a little, I only saw it once). It may be disturbing imagery, but I'm pretty sure most reputable economists would concur that the underlying premise is basically true.
Perhaps you saw one of the other 1500 ads people were able to come up with, explaining why a second term for Mr. Bush would not be in the best interest of anyone not already wealthy, with the RIGHT KIND of money, of course .... |
|
|
|
02/02/2004 01:47:27 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by Russell2566:
These idiots can't even understand that Bush never once said that Iraq was an imminent threat, yet they quote him as saying so everyday!!! |
Dave Ross does, with audio clips. The first place marked "audio" in the transcript below is a recording of Mr. Bush saying (approximately) "Saddam Hussein has developed, and continues to posess, weapons of mass destruction ..."
======== From //daveross.com ============
Jan 29, 2004
WMD MISSING
Please tell me it's a misprint...
Weapons inspector David Kay has now made it official. Everybody was wrong. Iraq's banned weapons aren't there.
He hastens to add that Iraq WAS clearly in violation of the UN resolution, because it didn't turn over the right papers. So the war was legally justified.
OK -- he's way smarter than most of us. But ... THAT'S just not the story we we were getting a year ago.
A year ago there was no ambiguity:
Audio
And a year ago, there was no doubt about the consequences if those weapons were not found:
Audio
So either they were moved before we got there, and we are no safer, or they were never there, and we look like idiots.
Now, David Kay makes the point that this isn't the first time intelligence has been wrong. During the Cuban Missile crisis, the intelligence was wrong too. The intelligence services told President Kennedy there were NO nuclear warheads in Cuba, when in fact there were.
Of course the outcome in that case was a little different. President Kennedy, unwilling to risk a nuclear war even though the CIA assured him it was safe, chose to use peaceful means to get rid of the missiles.
As a result a guy named Castro is STILL in power in Cuba.
And no one cares.
Message edited by author 2004-02-02 01:47:42. |
|
|
|
02/02/2004 06:36:12 PM · #30 |
are you saying we should bomb cuba? cool
|
|
|
|
02/02/2004 07:46:10 PM · #31 |
What Kay Didn't Say
American Daily
Thomas Lindaman,
02/02/04
Excerpt:
The recent Senate testimony from weapons inspector Dr. David Kay proved to be interesting on many levels. Certainly his plea to the Senate and to the nation about what to tell their children about American intelligence failures was one of the most powerful statements heard on Capitol Hill in years.
But if ever there was a memorable moment, it was when Ted "Moby Dick" Kennedy tried to make political hay out of the intelligence failures to accuse President Bush of lying about whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. He prodded, he coaxed, he did everything but offer the Kennedy Compound to Kay, but the Kennedy gambit failed. Kay even got in a few pot shots at Kennedy and the other Senators in the room trying to make political hay out of the hearing.
Here's what we know from Dr. Kay.
1) We haven't found WMDs in Iraq yet, but they may have been moved elsewhere.
2) The reason we don't know for sure is because there have been multiple intelligence blunders spanning years, not months.
3) He likes long walks on the beach and listening to Frank Sinatra CDs.
Okay, so I made that third one up, but the first two points are worth review because they show a fundamental flaw in the "Bush lied about WMDs" argument. It's no secret that Saddam was a tyrant and, as we found out recently, bribed countries to come out publicly against the War with Iraq. (If Jacques Chirac was any more in Saddam's back pocket, he'd be a wallet.) Yet if you listen to the Ted Kennedys of the world, these actions don't lead to a pattern of behavior. Let's see...tortured his own people, bribed countries to defend him, had children murdered, had women raped...but he's more trustworthy than President Bush?
Full Story
|
|
|
|
02/02/2004 08:20:12 PM · #32 |
As for ads during the superbowl, I'm glad CBS chose not to air either left or right slanted ads. Ads from both sides are nothing but stretched truthes to make their position look better. Personally I'd rather watch dysfunctional erection and beer ads during a sporting event. Air the extemest crap somewhere else and let me enjoy my football!
As for weapons in Iraq, its easier to hide objects then it is to hide people. How long did it take to find Saddam? When will we find Bin Laden? I'm waiting until it's proven one way or the other before I start ranting about it being right or wrong. For every "expert" that says there are weapons there, there is one that says there isn't. Picking one expert and saying they must be correct is a pretty stupid way to make up your mind. I do know the world is a better place with Saddam in a cage. Was it worth the price? I don't know. |
|
|
|
02/02/2004 10:28:56 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by achiral:
are you saying we should bomb cuba? cool |
Not exactly ... there's a shortage of over-rated and overpaid left-handed pitchers as it is without taking out the world's richest resource .... |
|
|
|
02/02/2004 11:14:10 PM · #34 |
all i can say is wow...
as far as WMD go id like to say one thing. do you think saddam would hide his WMD better than he hid himself? because we found him..
i would like to post alot of links backing up much of the info General has listed but i doubt any of you would even read it because you allready have your minds made up.
i will end saying this:
"If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence."
enjoy your beer and erectile dysfunction commercials. |
|
|
|
02/02/2004 11:27:48 PM · #35 |
WMD won't have to eat, breath, or use the bathroom. Much easier to hide an object then it is to hide a person. Chances are they wouldn't be in Iraq anymore anyway. Why hide it where you know they will look Saddam wasn't stupid. Thanks to the UN he had plenty of time to hide it. We know he had WMD. He used it on his own people. They haven't found evidence of him disposing of it. Where did it go?
As for political commercials, if you are relying on commercials to get your political information, you need to get away from the TV. When I'm in front of the TV I'm not there to deceide who should be president. I'm there to enjoy myself and laugh. Bring on the beer commercials!
|
|
|
|
02/02/2004 11:59:21 PM · #36 |
| if they would have run that ad, i would have found it to be just as ridiculous and funny as all the erectile dysfunction, ball biting dogs, and farting horse ads. |
|
|
|
02/03/2004 12:05:09 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
"If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence."
|
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 12:10:24 AM · #38 |
another problem with this whole thing is cbs is a completely liberal media organization. and even they wouldn't put lies like that on their network, so you know it was nothing more than demaguogery
Message edited by author 2004-02-03 00:11:33.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 12:24:25 AM · #39 |
the political climate at this point in time is in complete shambles. all people want to do is run ads bashing the opposition. i don't think this is going to work in the long run because they don't offer any solutions. if they would run ads offering something, people might care.
you don't see pepsi running ads bashing coke. you've got to give people a reason to buy what your selling.
bashing your competition doesn't make your product better.
Message edited by author 2004-02-03 00:25:06. |
|
|
|
02/03/2004 01:01:08 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
"If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence."
|
|
In suggesting that this quote explains why people refuse to believe your view point, you suggest that your view point must be fact, not merely a view point. A laughably weak position from which to argue.
You state that you would "back up" the proferred political propaganda, but others have already made up their minds (and therefore, fail to see the obvious, unwavering truth in the manner you see it). But tell me, have you already made up your mind so as to be foreclosed from the opinions of others? You certainly dismiss contrary viewpoints at least as quickly as you accuse others of doing so. Why is it different when you do it? |
|
|
|
02/03/2004 01:08:17 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
To say that it is of a greater benefit to the American public that more men know how get hard-ons by taking DRUGS than to understand how we're going to pay for a TRILLION DOLLARS of stuff we've already bought is either idiotic or deliberate disinformation.
|
I'm sure there are millions of men in America with erectile dysfunction who are much more concerned about getting a hard-on than the deficit. Your definition of "greater benefit" obviously suits your cause, but is it really the definition of America as a whole? Perhaps you assume too much.
The ad credits the trillion dollar deficit to President Bush (a quick Google search tells me the deficit is at $477 bn). In all honestly I don't know the answer, but is that the money he spent single handedly or was there a defecit when he took office? Because if there was anything already there, the ad clearly becomes propaganda by blaming it all on him, no?
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 01:52:30 AM · #42 |
I think the whole point of the ad was not to blame but to put to the American public the question of how we are going to pay for such a big deficit and it's consequences over time. It's time people need to start not only thinking about this issue, but making decisions about it and whether or not this is what we really want as a nation.
When power changed hands to Bush, Clinton had left us with a big federal surplus so what's happened now is clearly the money that the Bush administration has spent. That money belongs to the American public and just as you would not want someone dictating to you how you should spend your money the point of the ad is for debate, but not to let this kind of economics go without scrutiny.
As for those that believe this is partisan politics, I believe you are very wrong because I have yet to see a politician that is not swayed by big money. Clinton was as was Bush Sr. and Reagan and so on...Democrats and Republicans are all the same...there is very little difference between them and they will continue to do what they, and their paying constituents, want with your money unless you start to have a voice in the political process. All this ad was saying was start thinking about it. |
|
|
|
02/03/2004 02:17:29 AM · #43 |
Yeah,but.....
We control the Heroin (Afganistan),Cocaine (Colombia) and the Oil (Iraq,Kuwait) and in the long run you are talking lot of $$$$$$ cash ...
So Kiss me baby !!
 |
|
|
|
02/03/2004 04:22:39 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by bamaster:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
To say that it is of a greater benefit to the American public that more men know how get hard-ons by taking DRUGS than to understand how we're going to pay for a TRILLION DOLLARS of stuff we've already bought is either idiotic or deliberate disinformation.
|
I'm sure there are millions of men in America with erectile dysfunction who are much more concerned about getting a hard-on than the deficit. Your definition of "greater benefit" obviously suits your cause, but is it really the definition of America as a whole? Perhaps you assume too much.
The ad credits the trillion dollar deficit to President Bush (a quick Google search tells me the deficit is at $477 bn). In all honestly I don't know the answer, but is that the money he spent single handedly or was there a defecit when he took office? Because if there was anything already there, the ad clearly becomes propaganda by blaming it all on him, no? |
That $477 billion is the deficit THIS YEAR -- those tax cuts are in effect for 10 years. By the way, the last I heard it was up to about $530 Billion after taking into account the 30% understating of the cost of the recently-passed pharmaceutical company windfa... excuse me, MediCare reform bill.
When Mr. Clinton left office, we had an annual budget SURPLUS of quite a few billion, so I'd say that it is, in fact, Mr. Bush's policies which are bankrupting the country at the expense of the corporate hierarchy. |
|
|
|
02/03/2004 10:10:04 AM · #45 |
IMO, to focus purely on money is shortsighted. Sure, Clinton's accounting left us with the illusion of money in the bank, but what about our security, etc, etc, etc, etc. There are costs associated with every course of action - some very complex, some easily discerned. Looking at a bank statement does not demonstrate much if anything related to the greater good of this country. It is one financial factor, nothing more.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting its insignificant (I think that it is a significant factor) or that it is not ripe for debate. I'm just giving my opinion on the context of the proofs.
As for who will pay for the alleged deficit? The answer is clear. The top 10% or so of taxpayers in this country who pay over 90% of all taxes (that ratio may be off, but it's close). You know, the people who pay for everyone else.
As for Clinton's "surplus" did you know that he diverted hundreds of millions of dollars from the U.S. Patent Office? The U.S. Patent Office is probably the only government agency that supports itself entirely on fees that it collects - it requires NO tax money to operate...but that wasn't enough for ole' Clinty...he raised fees, slashed the Patent Office budget and diverted funds to other things. A nice deterrent to technological advancement, among other many other "costs." |
|
|
|
02/03/2004 10:16:22 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Mr. Bush's policies which are bankrupting the country at the expense of the corporate hierarchy. |
If you can so easily say that, then I can along the same lines blame Clinton for 9/11, the Corporate scandles and of course Mad Cow, which for some dumb a$$ reason the libs tried to blame on Bush. All of those events happened UNDER CLINTON... All the training, the terrorists comming in, all the cooking of the books, the obviouse tech bubble which burst under CLINTON due to many things including book cooking.
All these stupid numbers you hear are made up... They come up with them by saying if we continue spending like this for 10 years continious (which is just plain stupid).
Oh ya, I bet Bush could get a suprplus too if bush didn't do anything and cut military and intelligence spending like Clinton did...
EDIT: Oh ya, did you forget that we were trying to win a couple wars? Maybe you didn't hear about them!! Rumor has it, they cost a lot of money to fight correctly. Not only that, it costs a lof of extra money to make sure you don't kill civilians.... I don't understand why so many people think they get to look under all three cups? You only get once choice, maybe two if your lucky!
Message edited by author 2004-02-03 10:20:54.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 10:40:23 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by Russell2566:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Mr. Bush's policies which are bankrupting the country at the expense of the corporate hierarchy. |
If you can so easily say that, then I can along the same lines blame Clinton for 9/11, the Corporate scandles and of course Mad Cow, which for some dumb a$$ reason the libs tried to blame on Bush. All of those events happened UNDER CLINTON... All the training, the terrorists comming in, all the cooking of the books, the obviouse tech bubble which burst under CLINTON due to many things including book cooking. |
There's a lot about 9-11 we don't know yet, but one thing which is indisputable fact is that Clinton's anti-terrorism "people" tried to brief the Bush "people" during the transition in administrations, and were basically told to take a hike.
Presidents often get credit or blame for policies initiated on someone else's watch, but 9-11 and the current deficit are the results of Bush's policies and actions (or inactions), not Clinton's. |
|
|
|
02/03/2004 11:34:12 AM · #48 |
or you could also look at the fact that the sudan wanted to hand him over to clinton while he was in office and billy bob took a pass and focused on getting re-elected instead. you can keep taking a fascist viewpoint but no one will buy into that sad worldview because it's so far removed from reality it's sickening. just as bush shouldn't be let off the hook totally for the war in iraq, don't go spreading lies to try to support your point by giving clinton a complete pass.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 11:37:21 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by Patents4u:
As for Clinton's "surplus" did you know that he diverted hundreds of millions of dollars from the U.S. Patent Office? The U.S. Patent Office is probably the only government agency that supports itself entirely on fees that it collects - it requires NO tax money to operate...but that wasn't enough for ole' Clinty...he raised fees, slashed the Patent Office budget and diverted funds to other things. A nice deterrent to technological advancement, among other many other "costs." |
Is that why it is such a farce now ? I thought it had been like that for a long time...
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 11:56:36 AM · #50 |
I think it was Bush Sr. who surprised all his top military people, including Colin Powell when during the first Gulf war decided to pull out before landing Saadam. Not that I'm defending Clinton...they are all the same to me...but why so much looking back at the Clinton years? There are many presidents who have screwed things up.
Originally posted by achiral:
or you could also look at the fact that the sudan wanted to hand him over to clinton while he was in office and billy bob took a pass and focused on getting re-elected instead. you can keep taking a fascist viewpoint but no one will buy into that sad worldview because it's so far removed from reality it's sickening. just as bush shouldn't be let off the hook totally for the war in iraq, don't go spreading lies to try to support your point by giving clinton a complete pass. |
Message edited by author 2004-02-03 11:59:08. |
|
