Kerry hits another mine

[lazs2]

I pretty much say.... use it all up and then go to something else...

lazs

[TheDudeDVant]

Originally posted by Ghosth
Granted, we lose some jobs by not keeping drillers busy.

Actually, the drillers have not really ever slowed down. There are thousands of drillings in the gulf and thousands of oil wells in the gulf. They drill them, find the oil and cap the well.. Thousands upon thousands..

Now they want more in the protected lands? The average person might recognize this as greed and not necessity..

[narsus]

Flat Tax I am all for

say 25% across the board and a 1 or 2% national sales tax.

corporations can pay say 5-10%.

The tax code should pretty much be 1 page no loopholes, no grey areas etc (and easily readable)...would have no need for the IRS really anymore.

As far as what bush has spent money on (just deficit money here)

we have 500 billion of debt.

180 billion on war and security.

The rest was put into education, farm subsides, medicare and social security. All these programs have had a substantial increases under the Bush administration. Most going into medicare and SS, the problem with these 2 programs is that people live longer nowadays and still go on SS and medicare at the same age they did 30-40 years ago. If you made retirement 2 years later you would save billions.


And it is indeed time to start drilling in Alaska it's long overdue, at least stop buying oil from OPEC (the Saudi's and Venezuela in particular). The rest comes from Canada anyway (Non-OPEC).

[capt. apathy]

Originally posted by Ghosth
Laz is right on about the oil.

Maintain LARGE reserves which we do.

Keep our wells shut down, while buring as much as they care to sell us.

Eventually we'll have oil & the middle east will be back to camel dung.

Granted, we lose some jobs by not keeping drillers busy.

actually that was my point.  laz is for using all of ours up as fast as the cars can drink it.

Bush is for getting as much of ours out of the ground as soon as possible as well.

it's the double talk that amazes me (and the people who swallow it without a second thought).  Bush says we need to reduce our dependency on foreign oil (this I agree with completely),  then he finishes up the thought with the way to achieve this goal is to allow access to oil on our land that nobody is pumping (an excellent savings account, don't you think?  hard for someone to be tempted to spend it too quickly if it hasn't been pumped yet.).

the problem is that he states a very admirable goal that is easy to get people to support, but when he tells you how he plans to reach that goal his plan is either in-effective or counter productive.  I see this as very telling, it indicates one of two possibilities-  either he's deceitful or a moron, my guess would go for a 2-fer.

it's like the need for a response to the 9/11 attacks, so (after the legitimate trip to Afghanistan) we attack Iraq.
we've had a few reasons given for the Iraq war.  
1.  In response to 9/11.
2.  WMD, that are a clear and present threat to the US and immediately deployable.
3.  they tried to by plutonium.
4.  ties to al-qada.
5.  Saddam was a bad guy.
 how many of you have kids?  if you asked your kid why they did something and they give you a lame excuse, then you call them on it so they give you another lame excuse, so you call them on it..... wash rinse repeat.  how many new stories do you have to hear before you catch on the kid is lying?  
somehow when Bush tries this people buy it.
  "it's 'cause of 9/11.  no? would you believe WMD? no?  would you believe plutonium?...."

  come on people, I've had intelligent discussions with many of you on other subject, you aren't this stupid.  what going on?

I seriously believe the man has never had a complete thought that wouldn't fit on a bumper-sticker.  I can see falling for it once.  Clinton, while overall doing a good job, was disappointing on many levels (Lewinsky, hiring Janet reno,  Waco just to name a few.)  but after you have had 4 years to see what a clown this guy is people are still considering voting for him again.

[demaw1]

Capt apathy...

 Ok capt time to start thinking with your brain, no talking points nothing but common sense.

   9/11 has come and gone, and you are president. Every one you know from both parties including, but not limited to , kerry, clinton,edwards, grahm,daschle says saddam has wmds. They say we can not allow this to stand.

 Every country, including but not limited to , france,germany,norway,britian russia,italy,canada, australia, in fact every person and country that now calls him a liar said they had wmds.

   You are deciding how much of a threat iraq is when russia calls you and said there are secret meetings between al quida and irag to determine how to hit america again.

 Well mr.president what are you going to do to protect my family and me. What are you going to do to protect america?

[capt. apathy]

the problem is that many of the points that turned out to be bad intel, where still being given as reasons to sell the Iraq war, after Bush was told they were wrong.

it's one thing if it were a good-faith error in intel, but when you keep saying you have the evidence even after you know it to be wrong, then that is just exploiting the situation.

the others who were voting to go ahead were doing so on info from this administration.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by demaw1
9/11 has come and gone, and you are president. Every one you know from both parties including, but not limited to , kerry, clinton,edwards, grahm,daschle says saddam has wmds. They say we can not allow this to stand.

Nice out of context situation.  You are forget the whole [/i]probably[/i] aspect.  Like what the US intelligence services here actually saying.  SH probably had WMD.  It was the Bush Administration that turned that around and said he did have WMD.  And administation that before 9/11 had members that were part of a think tank that said Iraq needed to be attacked for other reasons.  An administration that shortly after 9/11 were looking for a way to use it to justify an attack on Iraq.  An administration that after 9/11 had an almost unprecidented approval rating, but was falling.  If it was going to attack Iraq it had to do it relatively quick because of it's falling approval rating, and because the UN inspectors (whose system of reporting was proposed by by the Bush administion in resolution 1441), with full prompt access to all sites wasn't finding crap, had to go to war "now", because of "imminent threat".

Every country, including but not limited to , france,germany,norway,britian russia,italy, canada, australia, in fact every person and country that now calls him a liar said they had wmds.

This is nothing less than a pack of lies.  Can you please post press releases from the above mentioned governments were they said that Iraq, has WMD.  I would be most interested in a link to when the Canadian government said this.


Your post is very reminicent to the style of misleading that the Bush Administration is currently particpating in.  Namely, stating an unknown as a known.  Or more specifically, naming something that can only be known when the proposed action is carried out, as something that is already known.

IE:  Iraq has WMD.

How will we know?

Invade and find out.

Opps.


"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

Dick Cheney August 26, 2002

Is that so Mr. Cheney?


"If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world."

Ari Fleischer December 2, 2002

Is that so Mr. Fleischer?


"We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad."

Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003

Is that so Mr. Rumsfeld ?


"We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so."

George Bush May 3, 2003


Is that so Mr. Bush.



All examples of stating possibilities as definiates.

[Torque]

Sheep are easy to herd, all you need is a few dogs and a cane.

[Steve]

Bush in an electoral landslide Thrawn, get used to it.

[lazs2]

well.. the way I look at it is... the sadman was a mad tyrant who had worked on nuclear and boilogical weapons in the past.... he pretty much proved he was still doing so by defying the UN and it's inspectors...   Every source around the world and kerrie himself figured he had the weapons.   I figure that even if he didn't.... he would have em as soon as the UN guys got out of the way.

As it turned out... he either didn't have any more weapons or he got rid of em before the war started.   A war he knew he would lose.

The people there are better off... we didn't lose many more people than if we had simply had a lot of intensive training exercises to up our readiness.... the training was also worth something.

The example of our resolve was a good thing.   Funding of terrorists is now a lot more risky behavior.   We also learned a lot about things we weren't too well versed on yet.  

Bush said he would turn over the government of the iraqis in june and he did.

not a lot to get upset with...

I like the outcome in iraq a lot better than the outcome in somalia.

lazs

[Toad]

Originally posted by Torque
Sheep are easy to herd, all you need is a few dogs and a cane.

That certainly explains the protesters in NYC right now. Thanks!

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Steve
Bush in an electoral landslide Thrawn, get used to it.

Taking a possibility and stating it as a definite Steve?  LOL.

[demaw1]

Thrawn...pack of lies.


 Pack of lies, There is not 1 lie in what I said, If you want prove all you have to do is look back over all the threads and you will find what you are looking for. Our cia said he might have them [roll eyes]

  Fine you dont like bush, I cant imagine what it is to lie about someone, any one, much less someone that was/is under the type of pressure he is.

 You really have not seen the reports on what I said ?
 It was a simple question...just answer it
 
 Bush was not told he didnt have them, dont forget putin called him with that info just before we attacked,.
 What would you do with it.

 Oh btw didnt we accidently find a bunch of migs under ground he was not suppose to have? I wonder what the kurds would say about him having no wmds...You would gamble with American lives wouldnt you.

[Steve]

Taking a possibility and stating it as a definite Steve? LOL.

You've repeatedly said in other threads that Bush will lose.

I'm telling you to get prepared for four more years of effective leadership, via GWB.  Kerry would stick our collective heads up the arses of the appeasers like FRance and Germany, at least until he changed his mind..... no thank you.