Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Chairboy on January 20, 2004, 09:18:12 PM
-
Here's a thread to post your favorite part of the president's State of the Union.
My favorite part was when he said that parts of the Patriot act were about to expire. I can only imagine that he ran out of breath or something, because he paused long enough for some wags in the audience to start applauding.
Beautiful.
I imagine that future speeches will have attention given to what's at the ends of sentences and paragraphs. His speech was good, but there were definately some awkward pauses.
-
Bush is going to spend the rest of his term (and possibly his next one) trying to justify war against Iraq.
There's a legacy for ya... :aok
-
Anyone see on ABC the announcer saying this,
"Well, President Bush is a much better public speaker than three years ago, including that he did not make up any new words."
thought that was rather amusing. :lol
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Bush is going to spend the rest of his term (and possibly his next one) trying to justify war against Iraq.
There's a legacy for ya... :aok
Better justifying the sucessful removal of a hated murderous dictator than the attempted and failed removal of a stain....
-
my favorite line (paraphrase)
"we will not seek a permision slip from the rest of the world to defend our borders"
that and hilary's snyde smirk every time the camera was on her
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
my favorite line (paraphrase)
"we will not seek a permision slip from the rest of the world to defend our borders"
When are we invading Canada and Mexico? :aok
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Better justifying the sucessful removal of a hated murderous dictator than the attempted and failed removal of a stain....
using same arguments you can remove EVERY goverment in EVERY country on the world. ( of course if you have enough firepower ;-)
-
Originally posted by ramzey
using same arguments you can remove EVERY goverment in EVERY country on the world. ( of course if you have enough firepower ;-)
EVERY goverment has "a hated murderous dictator"?????????:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
my favorite line (paraphrase)
"we will not seek a permision slip from the rest of the world to defend our borders"
The world doesn't requiry any country have a permission slip to defend it's boarders. I wasn't aware that Iraq was attacking American boarders though. :rolleyes:
-
Aren't we forgetting something ?
AFAIK, the reason for war were WMDs. You know, the ones which could be launched in 45 minutes, from Powell's speech.
Nobody mentioned anything about murderous dictators.
-
My favorite:
Nine months of intense negotiations involving the United States and Great Britain succeeded with Libya, while 12 years of diplomacy with Iraq did not. And one reason is clear: For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible and no one can now doubt the word of America.
Also:
There is a difference, however, between leading a coalition of many nations, and submitting to the objections of a few. America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people.
Chairboys reference:
Key provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire next year. The terrorist threat will not expire on that schedule.
Looked more like a troll, than an akward moment for him. The second sentence directed at that side of the chamber made them look stupid.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
The world doesn't requiry any country have a permission slip to defend it's boarders. I wasn't aware that Iraq was attacking American boarders though. :rolleyes:
The correct quote is in my last post.
-
Originally posted by Hristo
Aren't we forgetting something ?
AFAIK, the reason for war were WMDs. You know, the ones which could be launched in 45 minutes, from Powell's speech.
Nobody mentioned anything about murderous dictators.
Appearently you werent pay attention, or forgot something, because the murderous dictator was mentioned, as was 12 years of ignoring the ceace fire agreement, as was 13 years of UN sanctions, as was refusing to come clean on all his WMD data, as was being a known sponsoring of terrorist organizations. In fact after that state of the union, opposing editorial writers were complaining that Bush was giving too many reasons, and not standing on just one.
-
Originally posted by Hristo
Nobody mentioned anything about murderous dictators.
Really now? Please not the date and venue of this speech by President Bush...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html
-
Shame Bush didn't live thirty years ago. There would be no Pinochet to murder his own people, right ?
Bush lied about WMDs to get his war.
Saddam is removed. People are dying every day now in Iraq ? Could it be that US presence has anything to do with it ?
-
Dont change the subject now that you got shown you were wrong...
-
I have to admit that several of the liberal intellectuals that grace this BBS have motivated me to question the motives of the CiC and his administration. I am seriosuly thankfull to them as I consider it a healthy motivation and ultimately a neccessary one.
I realize that these extremely high profile addresses to the union are packed with spin and intended to solidify support more than reverse opposing views but I have to admit it was the best written, most compelling address that Bush has given yet, bar none.
On the flip side:
I could have done without the steroid use. That really didnt belong in a state of the union address.
I am torn on the issue of same sex marriage. I dont want to deny people the joy of marriage yet I dont want to water down, dilute the natural time honored union of a procreating couple in the spirit of faith. I felt uncomfortable with that issue in the address. I felt it belonged in a different speech, on a different platform imo, but I am not genuinely disturbed by its inclusion.
Just a little bit put off by that subject is all.....
-
Saddam is removed. People are dying every day now in Iraq ? Could it be that US presence has anything to do with it ?
====
hristo, no offense intended but thats an incredibly narrow minded view. Is it a view that you play against other views to generate a more full bodied perspective or is it an ingrained narrow view that you feel compelled to hold for other reasons?
-
Isnt his hatred for america apparent?
-
Dont change the subject now that you got shown you were wrong...
Your word no ?
hate != critic
-
Originally posted by Hristo
Bush lied about WMDs to get his war. [/B]
Yes, damn lying President:
President's address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff:If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.
State of the Union Address:
For nearly a decade, Iraq has defied its obligations to destroy its weapons of terror and the missiles to deliver them. America will continue to contain Saddam, and we will work for the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.
Oh, wait, that was Clinton in 1997 and 1998. Coincidently, wepons inspectors were kept out of iraq since 1998.
Saddam is removed. People are dying every day now in Iraq ? Could it be that US presence has anything to do with it ?
People are dying every day now in the US by violence. Come back when you grow a point.
-
Failure to locate WMDs does not invalidate the intent of liberating Iraq. The greatest threat to Iraqi liberation is american and european grown social liberalism. Not islamic militant fundamentalism.
I am sorry for you people that feel this way. It is defeatism and a terrible mark against civilization. You might as well be the enemy.
-
My favorite part was when he said that parts of the Patriot act were about to expire. I can only imagine that he ran out of breath or something, because he paused long enough for some wags in the audience to start applauding.
====
I suspect that the "average" voting american picked up on this as well. I cannot imagine a more futile and depressing moment in the politics of a minority party as this.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Better justifying the sucessful removal of a hated murderous dictator than the attempted and failed removal of a stain....
A kill has been recorded.
culero (LMAO)
-
Originally posted by straffo
hate != critic
True but none of that excludes the possibilty that his criticism arises out of hatred, which I feel it does. A lot of people in Croatia seem to hate the USA in some nebulous manner, I have seen this happend over and over when we had visitors. Usually they find out over time that their prejudice is baseless (ignorance of reality in usa) and they start to like the place.
-
I agree GRUN , it's not uncommon and can be true on both side of the atlantic :)
-
Originally posted by straffo
I agree GRUN , it's not uncommon and can be true on both side of the atlantic :)
I love europe, thats why I am so critical of it. I heard from some people on this BBS that the only true patriots are those who spare no oppotunity to bash the land they love and those that love and support it are really fake patriots, dangerous, evil nationalits even. :)
-
rotlf :rofl
Never trust a pilot wanabe nerd poster :)
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Isnt his hatred for america apparent?
I'm just about to negotiate the supply of consumer health products with a company in NJ, value to them - about 1.8 million dollars per annum. If I hated USA why would I bother?
I disagree with the current administration and I feel that the liberties which America has stood for in the past have been seriously eroded.
I think some of the posters on this BBS are in terms politics in the country that I live in - little more than neo fascists.
I'm not that bothered by the fact, it's heartening to see how many American's are not right wing, religious fanatic bigots who glorify killing and death - as long as it's someone else's of course.
There's a difference between disagreeing with a political class and a country's current administration and hating that country - and yes if it's not clear I do think you're a narrow minded moron.
-
and yes if it's not clear I do think you're a narrow minded moron.
Personal Attack! Personal Attack! Citizen's Arrest! Citizen's Arrest!
http://www.onion.com/4003/opinion1.html (http://)
-
Originally posted by Hristo
Aren't we forgetting something ?
AFAIK, the reason for war were WMDs. You know, the ones which could be launched in 45 minutes, from Powell's speech.
Nobody mentioned anything about murderous dictators.
Actually, yes, you are forgetting quite a bit. About 12 years, in fact. But that's an old argument, and we've both long since made up our minds about our viewpoints.
Carry on with only part of the story. ;)
-
Ok, I love USA. And because of my love for it I also criticize it. ;)
That's why I hate seeing it performing an aggression under suspicious motives.
-
If anyone is a terrorist, it's the USA.
-
Gee Nath,
I read your profile and it doesn't say you're an idiot. ;)
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Bush is going to spend the rest of his term (and possibly his next one) trying to justify war against Iraq.
There's a legacy for ya... :aok
"Liberals are now pretending that their position all along was that Saddam had secretly disarmed in the last few years without telling anyone. This would finally explain the devilish question of why Saddam thwarted inspectors every inch of the way for 12 years, issued phony reports to the U.N., and wouldn't allow flyovers or unannounced inspections: It was because he had nothing to hide!" Ann Coulter.
Hillarious! And true.
-
If Bush gets re-elected... I'm investing in Oil stocks and the weapons industry.
Screw the economy... wait a minute he is giving it a good shagging!
-
Originally posted by Nakhui
If Bush gets re-elected... I'm investing in Oil stocks and the weapons industry.
Screw the economy... wait a minute he is giving it a good shagging!
Oil stock is usually globally owned, not by one single american company, but by global partnerships.
Weapons industry is a good bet *if* you find those that have good R&D contracts, for the long term. Naturally you'd want to go with a company that is diversified, and doesn't zero in on a single product (such as weapons-only manufacturer) Boeing stock was trading at $28 a share a couple months after 9/11. It was $44 on Friday. How do you think I can afford my new boat that I pick up a week from Saturday? ;)
-
I too felt the steroid reference was rather stupid. It isn't a state issue, it is something to be handled within the sports bodies themselves. That sounded very unconservative to me. OTOH, his statement on the sanctity of marriage resonated with me, as well as the issue of removing the marriage penalty in taxes. For too long it was actually beneficial tax-wise to remain unmarried. Now single people may not like it, but the least I can say is the pendulum has swung the other way for a time.
I also found the Democratic rebuttal a little funny... "We need to bring jobs BACK to America, we need to buy AMERICAN products..." and then in the next paragraph "We need to give access to affordable health care to Americans, and allow Americans to buy cheap medicine from Canada..."
Huh? We don't have medicinal production in America? ;)
"We think the president has gotten out of control on spending..."
"We believe healthcare is a fundamental right of Americans..." (forgive me, Daschle stopped short of calling it a right, but he all but said it. Mea culpa on putting words in his mouth.
Adds up to more spending and higher taxes, does it not?
Neither side was completely straight, but one side was straighter.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Better justifying the sucessful removal of a hated murderous dictator than the attempted and failed removal of a stain....
Justification in the end will come from what it cost america to remove the 'hated'.. An unremoved stain hardly equals over 500 dead of our american fighting peps.. Not to mention the 1000s more wounded and maned...
Grunherz.. if you were half the rightous person you make yourself out to be, you'd join the forces and take up arms against the world's terrorist.. Fight and die along side your cause instead of sitting back being an armchair warrior and post ignorant remarks such as this because of your predisposed hate of the seeming 'leftist'...
-
my favorite was..
......with my economic plan, in 5 years we are on the road to cutting the national deficit in half...
Not national debt mind you.. national deficit... what a freakin joke this guy is for government..
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Personal Attack! Personal Attack! Citizen's Arrest! Citizen's Arrest!
http://www.onion.com/4003/opinion1.html (http://)
Heheheh, one of my favorite all-time Andy Griffith episodes.:D
-
Originally posted by kappa
my favorite was..
......with my economic plan, in 5 years we are on the road to cutting the national deficit in half...
Not national debt mind you.. national deficit... what a freakin joke this guy is for government..
No doubt. I wouldn't want this guy balancing my checkbook. But as I have noted, Daschle didn't do any better.
-
Their inability to understand is also a result of their different belief system, and the influence of Satan's subtle powers on them.
-
Marriage in america is already water downed, diluted, and full of quicky divorces already yeager. Might as well let others have the tax breaks, health care benefits, and experiance the 'fun' of getting married.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
wasn't aware that Iraq was attacking American boarders though. :rolleyes:
So if they were you'd require us to get permision from the UN to defend ourselves?
and yes the correct quote was in fact:
There is a difference, however, between leading a coalition of many nations, and submitting to the objections of a few. America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people.
still my favorite and very applicable
-
defend ourselves from what? The vast piles of sand in iraq that might get blown over the east coast if the winds picked up enough?
You cannot justify the invasion and occupation of iraq by saying it was self defence. Hell thats the same excuse germany used with poland.
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
I'm just about to negotiate the supply of consumer health products with a company in NJ, value to them - about 1.8 million dollars per annum. If I hated USA why would I bother?
I disagree with the current administration and I feel that the liberties which America has stood for in the past have been seriously eroded.
I think some of the posters on this BBS are in terms politics in the country that I live in - little more than neo fascists.
I'm not that bothered by the fact, it's heartening to see how many American's are not right wing, religious fanatic bigots who glorify killing and death - as long as it's someone else's of course.
There's a difference between disagreeing with a political class and a country's current administration and hating that country - and yes if it's not clear I do think you're a narrow minded moron.
So you write a pretty extensive post expressing your ignorant prejudiced hatred and intolerance for several broad groups of americans and you finish the post by calling other people nrrow minded morons?
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
You cannot justify the invasion and occupation of iraq by saying it was self defence. Hell thats the same excuse germany used with poland.
You guiys always get back to the bush = hitler argument, hasn't Dean's mental breakdown taught you anything yet?
Yeaaaarrrrhhhh!
-
He said "nuc-you-ler" again.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
You guiys always get back to the bush = hitler argument, hasn't Dean's mental breakdown taught you anything yet?
Yeaaaarrrrhhhh!
If you look at history almost every invading country used the self defence excuse. That was the easyist to point out.
dean is an idot, go kerry or clark.
-
"Favorite part of the State of the Union"
When it ended.
I honestly cannot stand sitting through his horrible sound-byte speaches all done to the beat of a Texas "two-step." It's right up there alongside the old fingernails on a chalk board with the involuntary chill up the spine effect and all.
No matter what the cost woud have been they should have at least considered hiring PM Blairs speach writing team - or Blair himself to be quite blunt - to write and give the SoTU address.
-
Westy,
Why Blair? Granted it would have been a better speech. But why him?
-
This is so weird.
The cons liked the speech and the libs didn't. I would never have guessed this would occur.
-
I didn't say I liked it, I didn't say I didn't. Parts were good, parts were bad, but mostly it was just bland. What was sad was how both parties only managed to prove yet again there weren't many significant differences between them domestically.
-
Why Blair? Because IMO Blair comes across as highly intellegent He delivers an actual speech. Blair expresses his passion and beliefs much better than Bush (like night and day) and I find that while I may not agree with what it is Blairs is saying I'm able to respect him.
And unlike Bush, Blair doesn't stop for a quick self admiring smirk or condesceding partisan applause at the end of every other sound byte.
-
Originally posted by Westy
Why Blair? Because IMO Blair comes across as highly intellegent He delivers an actual speech. Blair expresses his passion and beliefs much better than Bush (like night and day) and I find that while I may not agree with what it is Blairs is saying I'm able to respect him.
And unlike Bush, Blair doesn't stop for a quick self admiring smirk or condesceding partisan applause at the end of every other sound byte.
Same thoughts here... Was just wondering dude.. thanks 8)
-
Better justifying the sucessful removal of a hated murderous dictator than the attempted and failed removal of a stain....
lmfao..
i didnt even read the guys naem who posted this..i stopped reading this crap after that..
lmfao...you wackolibs...always make the rest laff
BOosch is Satan
:rofl
Love
BiGB
xoxo
-
Originally posted by BGBMAW
Better justifying the sucessful removal of a hated murderous dictator than the attempted and failed removal of a stain....
lmfao..
i didnt even read the guys naem who posted this..i stopped reading this crap after that..
lmfao...you wackolibs...always make the rest laff
BOosch is Satan
:rofl
Love
BiGB
xoxo
Either you still have not looked who posted it or you are trying to be kind to it's poster... Either way, the poster will probably take offense to being called a wackolib...
-
Originally posted by BGBMAW
Better justifying the sucessful removal of a hated murderous dictator than the attempted and failed removal of a stain....
lmfao..
i didnt even read the guys naem who posted this..i stopped reading this crap after that..
lmfao...you wackolibs...always make the rest laff
BOosch is Satan
:rofl
Love
BiGB
xoxo
Reading new to ya Big?
-
Originally posted by Murdr
EVERY goverment has "a hated murderous dictator"?????????:rolleyes:
dictator? allways you can show somone as dictator, mass murder
quote from movie about NKWD "show me the men, and i will find law to punish him"
Look, G.W.Bush is responcibly for killing 15.000 iraqui cywilians who died from bombs of RAF, USAF, USN, USMC.
Is that make him mass murder? at scale of Saddam who kill Kurds?
If somone like, can say. This are criminalistic parmilitary organisations who killing innocent civilians. ;-)
is int?
-
My favorite part was when he sat down and shut up!
:rofl
Only Amereeekans would elect a Crook, a Peanut Farmer, an Actor, A Texas Trans-Plant, an Arkansas Bumpkin, and finally a GOLFBALL for President!
What a golfball the US president is - and he has the dimples to match.
USA of Deficit.. yeehaw...
By the way the 1,000 jobs that were created were in India!
Dell hired them to answer their phones.... it would have been 200,000, but Ameereeekans complained they couldn't understand what Hadji was saying!
Yes, Saheeb, Dis iz good.
Berry berry good for Business
Don't du dink...
Oh the missas, shes going to be berry berry proud of me when I bring home da bigs bucks.
-
dont forget delta farms out jobs to india as well. Try explaining what your lost bags look like to a guy who speaks hindi.
-
and whatever you do don't tell them it's made of cowhide ;)
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Failure to locate WMDs does not invalidate the intent of liberating Iraq. The greatest threat to Iraqi liberation is american and european grown social liberalism. Not islamic militant fundamentalism.
If the reason for our invasion was liberating Iraq from a dictator, then the war was fought for a liberal purpose.
Remember W statements about 'nation building'?
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
defend ourselves from what? The vast piles of sand in iraq that might get blown over the east coast if the winds picked up enough?
You cannot justify the invasion and occupation of iraq by saying it was self defence. Hell thats the same excuse germany used with poland.
I just cant understan why people cant see that we made a cease fire agreement with Iraq. Iraq continually failed to comply with the cease fire agreement for 12 years. Part of it was that Saddam did in fact use chemical wepons before, and we were to be allowed to see that he never had them again. That wasnt allowed by Saddam. So yes there is a self defence thread in there. However failer to comply with a cease fire agreement is justification for resumption of war.
Going back to your anology with Germany. If the world would have actually enforced Germany's WW1 surrender terms at that time, the way the US did currently with Iraq, that would have saved over 26 million lives. Some people do not learn anything from history.
-
Originally posted by Murdr
I just cant understan why people cant see that we made a cease fire agreement with Iraq. Iraq continually failed to comply with the cease fire agreement for 12 years. Part of it was that Saddam did in fact use chemical wepons before, and we were to be allowed to see that he never had them again. That wasnt allowed by Saddam. So yes there is a self defence thread in there. However failer to comply with a cease fire agreement is justification for resumption of war.
Going back to your anology with Germany. If the world would have actually enforced Germany's WW1 surrender terms at that time, the way the US did currently with Iraq, that would have saved over 26 million lives. Some people do not learn anything from history.
Yes that is a good reason. It would have been fine by me if we went in for that reason, but we didnt. We justified ignoring our allies planned timetable(remember france didnt jump on board because they didnt like the time of year we went in, and because the UN inspectors were not finished) for dealing with iraq stateing that we needed to go in asap because they had wmds ready to go. So instead of going in with the UN and having the support of the world we get a handfull of nations we basically tricked or bought off into jumping on our side. And now it is going to cost the leaders of those countrys their jobs, and our troops their lives.
-
Rgr, frog. I am glad to see we are not so far apart in viewpoints as I had thought. Just to touch on a few points. France has taken upon itself the role of supposedly couterbalancing the USA since before the decline of the USSR. I personally have trouble giving credibility to the idea the France would come onboard if we waited around long enough. This is the same country that made us fly around europe to bomb Lybia for its support and training of terrorists in the 80's. I could be wrong, but I personally believe that France, and Russia would do nothing but obstruct no matter what the time table, and Germany would only come onboard when and if its political leadership changed.
The UN is generally spineless when it comes to enforcing their own edicts. Even though they as an organization decided not to help the US and supporting countries. They were the target of one of the most major terrorism attacks in Iraq. And what was their reaction? They moved to Turkey.
The UN is not effective in the field unless the US is there backing them up with our troops. So little is different in that regard. However, the US is responsible in part for the lack of financial support from other countries. It has more to do with the gouging of allies that the US did in the Gulf War, than more current events in my opinion.
-
Originally posted by Murdr
I just cant understan why people cant see that we made a cease fire agreement with Iraq. Iraq continually failed to comply with the cease fire agreement for 12 years. Part of it was that Saddam did in fact use chemical wepons before, and we were to be allowed to see that he never had them again. That wasnt allowed by Saddam. So yes there is a self defence thread in there. However failer to comply with a cease fire agreement is justification for resumption of war.
Going back to your anology with Germany. If the world would have actually enforced Germany's WW1 surrender terms at that time, the way the US did currently with Iraq, that would have saved over 26 million lives. Some people do not learn anything from history.
well, germans come to Czech, Austria to liberate them from yourself ;) and 30 milions people die anyway
do you see analogy?
btw russians "liberate" litvia, lotvia, estonia, ukraine, bielorussia same way
Bringing them peace , prosper and socialism
and year later milions peoples spend winter on syberia ;-)
-
Tom Brady's favorite part was when Laura goosed him. He said " hey, i'm the QB, not the center"
-
Originally posted by ramzey
well, germans come to Czech, Austria to liberate them from yourself ;) and 30 milions people die anyway
do you see analogy?
btw russians "liberate" litvia, lotvia, estonia, ukraine, bielorussia same way
Bringing them peace , prosper and socialism
and year later milions peoples spend winter on syberia ;-)
What are you talking about? I said nothing about liberation. What I did say was just look at nazi Germany. They pushed the limits, violoated the armnasist agreement. The world saw, complained a little, but did nothing. This went on and on until it was too late to stop what was put into motion. This is what happens when the world community doesnt want to "rock the boat" and decide issues are worth enforcing.
-
Originally posted by Murdr
I just cant understan why people cant see that we made a cease fire agreement with Iraq.
Originally posted by GScholz
No you didn't. The US have never been at war with Iraq prior to 2003. The ceasefire agreement was between the UN and Iraq.
What part of the word "we" do you not understand? Is your assertion that "we" is exclusive to the US? Is it your assertion that the US is not part of the UN, or a permenent member with veto power? The US has not had a constitutional declaration of war since WWII, is it your assertion that the US has not been to war since 1945?
-
And besides your statment is not consistant with US Law:
Many people believe the Gulf War began on January 16 or 17 (depending on your time zone), 1991 and ended with a cease-fire agreement on February 28. However, U.S. Public Law 102-25, the "Persian Gulf Conflict Supplemental Authorization" dates the beginning of the Gulf War as August 2, 1990 and states the war will continue unless there is a Presidential proclamation or act of Congress. The act was enacted on April 16, 1991. Relevant portions of the law are included at the bottom of this message.
Excerpt from Public Law 102-25
"Persian Gulf Supplemental Authorization" P.L. 102-25. BILL TITLE: PERSIAN GULF CONFLICT SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORIZATION AND PERSONNEL BENEFITS ACT OF 1991 Public Law: 102-25 Signed by President Bush on April 6, 1991.
SECTION 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized, subject to subsection (b), to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS: For the purposes of this Act: (3) The term `Persian Gulf conflict' means the period beginning on August 2, 1990, and ending thereafter on the date prescribed by Presidential proclamation or by law.
Further excerpts
here (http://www.ngwrc.org/News/facts.htm)
You may note that this was signed into law on the exact day the Persian Gulf War cease-fire agreement was accepted by Iraq. The US is a member of the UN, individually invoked sections of the War Powers Resolution, and US Congress provided for US enforcment of UN resolutions 12 years ago.
-
Unless the US can prove that Iraq was a genuine threat and that an attack was imminent the US will to the rest of the world be international criminals, liars, breakers of treaties, warmongerers and untrustworthy. You signed the UN Charter, as did most other nations in good faith.
You are a hypocrit. And BTW, aren't there other names on that list of countries you revile? Or is your anger directed at the US alone.
Up for another 500 posts? Or do you want to admit you are a war criminal now?
-
Did you not state your country was involved in the NATO airstrikes that occurred without UN approval?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
-
US will to the rest of the world be international criminals, liars, breakers of treaties, warmongerers and untrustworthy.
====
There ya go, siding with North Korea again :aok
-
Yes, Gscholz is an unbelievable ass, and he'll be whining about me making personal attacks any minute now, after that ad hominem attack on all Americans. And towd will be in here right after egging him on.
But Gscholz doesn't hate Americans. Noooooo....
-
Many did not give Bush high marks for the speech.
http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/8565.html
-
How does the fact my country's leaders broke any international law make me a, and I quote:
"international criminals, liars, breakers of treaties, warmongerers and untrustworthy."
?
-
Gee, somehow when you say things like:
The US cannot be trusted. It's that simple. I would never do bussiness with a US company if substancial money was involved.
and
Unless the US can prove that Iraq was a genuine threat and that an attack was imminent the US will to the rest of the world be international criminals, liars, breakers of treaties, warmongerers and untrustworthy.
I take that to be more than speaking about my country's leadership.
You use hyperbole, I use hyperbole. Besides, saying you felt personal angst over your country's involvement in Yugoslavia doesn't absolve your country's part in the affair. Either it was legal or it wasn't. At least, that's what you keep telling us about the US, anyway.
-
So is it fair to say Norway is "international criminals, liars, breakers of treaties, warmongerers and untrustworthy."?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Btw. your quoting me in your sig with an altered text shows me how sincere you really are.
Stop whining. You are quoting me completely out of context in your sig. Tit for tat. Once again, you seem unable to see the same faults in yourself you see in others...
EDIT: BTW, my "sincerity" isn't the issue, your hypocrisy is.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
In 1991 the US was not at war with Iraq, nor was Norway or any of the other forces there. We were all part of a UN coalition. The UN made the ceasefire agreement with Iraq, the UN and Iraq alone can decide to invalidate it and/or take actions as a consequence.
I would direct you toward resolution 678 which “authorizes Member States” to “use all necessary means to uphold and implement” the resolution demanding Iraq’s withdrawal from Kuwait and “all subsequent relevant resolutions” and to “restore international peace and security in the area.”
Resolution 1441 lists 678 as a relevant resolution, and no other relevent resolutions revoke the authorization made in 678. A coalition of Member States did in fact use authorized force to implement relevant SC resolutions.
No war is legal without a UN mandate unless it is conducted in self-defence, which is why WMD is such an important issue. Unless the US can prove that Iraq was a genuine threat and that an attack was imminent the US will to the rest of the world be international criminals, liars, breakers of treaties, warmongerers and untrustworthy. You signed the UN Charter, as did most other nations in good faith.
Furthermore, according to Professor Michael Glennon, of Tufts University, there have been about 100 cases of the use of force in international affairs since the UN charter was established which did not recieve authorization by the Security Counsel.
Is it now your assertion that those cases were illegal? If it is, Article 39 puts the responsibility of determining of, and acting upon, on the Security Counsel.
How do you explain the NATO (including French) attack on Yugoslavia without Security Council approval?
How is it that since 1945 the Security Council has authorised force in so few cases, or exorcized their discretion outlined in Articles 39 through 41?
You can accuse the Security Council of inaction, but it is by Charter the burden of the Security Council to make those determinations and take nessecery action. The SC did not close out its authorization that applied to subsequent resolutions. Then again the SC did not give specific authorization. Then again the SC did not specifically act to obstruct the coilition. You are in effect arguing that a person in your interpretation is breaking the law and therefore a criminal, and ignoring the judges ruling that a crime was not committed.
In this case the Security Counsel acted with Resolution 1483 recognizing the allied forces in Iraq as legal "occupying forces under unified command"
-
Probably the saddest thing I've ever seen....is a mosquito sucking on a mummy. Forget it, little friend...
-
Originally posted by GScholz
In case you're not up to current events my government is in bed with yours. Despite being reluctant early on we now have troops in Iraq. To use an analogy I know you will not like; we're Austria or Switzerland... you're The Reich.
I'm sorry GS, but this analogy is totally inapropriate...
Did the USA threaten to invade Norway if they did not go along? Did we annex Norway and then conscript your young men to go go fight?
This is the kind of unrealisistic and reaching comparsion that generates all those motive and intent doubts I have about people who oppose the USA now.... It comes across as if you really do want to belive that USA is nazi germnay and bush is hitler. Want to to belive it desperately instead of being resonable about what is really going on. Like the comparisons of Guantanomo and the nazi death camps some make, really bad, really inapppropriate.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The NATO war on Yugoslavia was illegal, and I have said so repeatedly.
What'd I miss?
Last time you and I talked about it, the best description you could come up with was "fishy".
Now you're agreeing it was illegal?
I may have to read this whole thread. ;)
-
Bash Norway then! :)
BOOO Norway! Bad! BOOO! <---- Like that!
-
This man is worse than Hitler!!!
(http://odin.dep.no/archive/smkbilder/01/05/kmb72018.jpg)
:D ;)
-
My work here is done. :)
-
my new fav...
.....our government is working and has uncovered dozens of weapons of mass destruction related activities.........
hehe related.. what the **** is that??
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Bush is going to spend the rest of his term (and possibly his next one) trying to justify war against Iraq.
There's a legacy for ya... :aok
He's not interested in a leaving a legacy like some we know...he's interested in doing what's best for our country....the Dems have and will continue to do all they can to slow him down.
Typical
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Really now? Please not the date and venue of this speech by President Bush...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html
Hristo is not interested in the truth but rather displaying his dislike for Bush....don't waste your time.
-
he's interested in doing what's best for our country.... Rude
Sorry dude... This year’s deficit, in itself, disproves that statement well beyond reasonable doubt…Not to mention last years and the year before...
-
Originally posted by Hristo
Shame Bush didn't live thirty years ago. There would be no Pinochet to murder his own people, right ?
Bush lied about WMDs to get his war.
Saddam is removed. People are dying every day now in Iraq ? Could it be that US presence has anything to do with it ?
You are such a little misguided Socialist and always have been....best to get over it, as nothing you say will change US foreign policy in the least.
Bet that sucks don't it?
You're bold statements as to Bush lying is laughable....you know this as fact how? Just because we have not found them does not mean the intel was wrong.
People dying? You cannot be that ignorant. Is it the US troop presence trying to help the Iraqi's that is the problem, or the terrorist efforts to kill US and Iraqi citizens for their own personal Jihad the problem?
Of course, you admire the terrorist and others like Saddam...it's the Americans you enjoy seeing killed.
Miserable life you must lead.
-
Originally posted by kappa
he's interested in doing what's best for our country.... Rude
Sorry dude... This year’s deficit, in itself, disproves that statement well beyond reasonable doubt…Not to mention last years and the year before...
Did you notice the mention of controlling spending and the 4 year initiative which would reduce the deficit by half?
Remember....Bush does not spend all the money....the Congress is responsible to us all for poor fiscal management....course it plays good for some to blame Bush for everything:)
The war? Money well spent.....it's about the future and not the status quo....the status quo has not worked. How many more years do you want what we've had in the Middle East?
Leadership has nothing to do with being popular and feeling all good inside.
-
lol bush said alot of things in his state of the union address last year. and almost none have even been acted on. What makes you think this years will be any different. Remember that tax cut that was supposed to create 1.7 million jobs within 2 years. Well its created around 200k.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
lol bush said alot of things in his state of the union address last year. and almost none have even been acted on. What makes you think this years will be any different. Remember that tax cut that was supposed to create 1.7 million jobs within 2 years. Well its created around 200k.
Can I point out it has obviously not been two years yet? ;)
-
yes Rude I heard and remember that.. That was my other favorite part of his speech... He said he would reduce the deficit by half over hte next 5 years..
Rude, do you understand the difference in the deficit compared to the debt? national deficit compared to national debt?
Anyone care to answer what our national deficit was before Bush's term? What it was for the previous 7 years? What the projections for paying down the national debt was?
Rude, another thing to consider... Who benefits by our country taking out hugh and unhealthy amounts of debt?? Certainly not the average joe on the street... But some do...
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Toad, perhaps you'd better re-read the other thread too. Which one of us had the Alzheimer's problem again? I keep forgetting. ;)
OK, just remember that YOU asked me to dance; I figured we were done with this.
Originally posted by GScholz
....I already have expressed that I was less than enthusiastic about the Kosovo conflict. In that conflict NATO became more than just a defensive alliance, and the UN wilfully interfered in a sovereign state's internal matters with the endorsement of the use of force....In the end the operation was successful, but the whole deal was very fishy IMHO.
Now, is this NorseSpeak for "illegal"?
-
Kappa,
No question the deficit comment was incredibly stupid. Ain't gonna happen under anyone's watch in the near future, and certainly not within five years.
-
Picture a Congress with no money to spend.
See? No matter who wins the White House THAT won't happen.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Kappa,
No question the deficit comment was incredibly stupid. Ain't gonna happen under anyone's watch in the near future, and certainly not within five years.
Not only incredibly stupid, it was also incredibly misleading.. Not unlike 95% of any other commet that comes from our president's mouth.. Apparently, not many americans can rationalize the difference in deficit and debt... Its a slap in the face for our president to slide that by as if it were an improvement.. Its a travisty(sp)...
People, this year's deficit alone is record !!! None have ever been larger.. How can this man be seen as to serve the average american? He is borrowing moneys on your children.. On you children's children...
National debt is not so unlike your check book.. You can only overwrite for so long.. Eventually you have to pay.. Its coming people.. If nothing else, our president has brought us MUCH closer and excellerated our trip 10 fold.. What happens when we cant pay anymore? What happens when our government starts defaulting on it's debt.. Will our government simply print more money as it is doing now? Will we go to war to attempt to finace??
Sure Clinton was a pos for what he did and how he lied.. But responsible government begins with fiscal responsibility.. Any thing less is the 'first' slap in the face to average americans...
-
Problem is, Tom Daschle followed up with the Democratic plan to spend us into oblivion. There simply isn't much to choose from.
-
Originally posted by kappa
Not only incredibly stupid, it was also incredibly misleading.. Not unlike 95% of any other commet that comes from our president's mouth.. Apparently, not many americans can rationalize the difference in deficit and debt... Its a slap in the face for our president to slide that by as if it were an improvement.. Its a travisty(sp)...
People, this year's deficit alone is record !!! None have ever been larger.. How can this man be seen as to serve the average american? He is borrowing moneys on your children.. On you children's children...
National debt is not so unlike your check book.. You can only overwrite for so long.. Eventually you have to pay.. Its coming people.. If nothing else, our president has brought us MUCH closer and excellerated our trip 10 fold.. What happens when we cant pay anymore? What happens when our government starts defaulting on it's debt.. Will our government simply print more money as it is doing now? Will we go to war to attempt to finace??
Sure Clinton was a pos for what he did and how he lied.. But responsible government begins with fiscal responsibility.. Any thing less is the 'first' slap in the face to average americans...
Life will not end as we know it nor will our economy tank due to these deficits....I don't like them, however, they have been a part of our nations economy for tens of years.
The 90's boom allowed us to correct the deficits on paper, however, not one person in Washington ever thought we would not return to the same.
Consider this....could the Dems be pissed, not because of a deficit, but rather that Bush got his way with tax cuts and removed the monies they intended on spending all along?
Time will prove me right...not that I'm a smart person, I just wallow in the business world with smart people....the only folks concerned about the deficit are those not currently in power...they are glad to speak to this issue during an election year.:)
-
Our current deficit's cause can be partialy cited to our president's tax cuts.. Three years later they have failed to produce the jobs our president promised... Who will pay for these? These tax cuts for the wealthy are made up in the form of higher taxes posed to the average american by their states..
We can blame deficits on the congress and that would be partially correct.. But as I stated before, fiscal responsibility begins with the president and his budget...
Our president knowingly attempts to mislead the american public with smoke and mirrors at every turn.. May it be domestic or international issues, our president is lying..
Not unlike our president's 'No child left behind'... He campained on this program... He spoke of it in SotU speeches.. He developed the program(smoke) and then failed to fund his own program that possibly was one of his election keys... Instead, our president funded a war (mirrors)............
Did our president fail to fund anything military?? How much did our president spend on the treaty breaking national missle defense that had previously been proven debunked...??
This man and his policies are not friends of america... They represent friends of american corporate wealth..
-
He is borrowing moneys on your children.. On you children's children...
====
I have been hearing this since the early 70s.
-
Life will not end as we know it nor will our economy tank due to these deficits....I don't like them, however, they have been a part of our nations economy for tens of years.
Life will not end, correct.. America being the richest nation on the planet will end...
Rude, deficits were not with us during the Clinton administration.. Certainly not to the extent they have existed under this president's term..
Not understanding something does not equal it not being a threat.
Consider this....could the Dems be pissed, not because of a deficit, but rather that Bush got his way with tax cuts and removed the monies they intended on spending all along?
Rude, I cannot speak for the democrates.. But I will remind you that our entire government is republican controlled.. It has been for sometime now... Our congress is a republican majority.. Both houses if you may..
Time will prove me right...not that I'm a smart person, I just wallow in the business world with smart people....the only folks concerned about the deficit are those not currently in power...they are glad to speak to this issue during an election year.
Time will prove that on our current track you will have to work twice as hard to make the same amount of money that will be worth one quarter the amount..
Clinton controlled his budget therefor he was concerned about, well about you Rude.. Hence, the reason you have heard little about it in many years.. Clinton was actually paying down national debt, not adding to it at a record pace..
-
Originally posted by kappa
Rude, deficits were not with us during the Clinton administration.. Certainly not to the extent they have existed under this president's term..
Clinton was actually paying down national debt, not adding to it at a record pace..
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt!
Historical Debt Outstanding (http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm)
Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual
1950 - 2000
* Rounded to Millions
Includes legal tender notes, gold and silver certificates, etc.
Looking for more historical information?
Visit The Public Debt Historical Information archives.
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42
12/31/1985 1,945,941,616,459.88
12/31/1984 1,662,966,000,000.00 *
12/31/1983 1,410,702,000,000.00 *
12/31/1982 1,197,073,000,000.00 *
12/31/1981 1,028,729,000,000.00 *
12/31/1980 930,210,000,000.00 *
So..... looks like Debt during the Clinton years to me and it wasn't decreasing.
Politicians of any stripe are all about spending money. Spending YOUR money. It's what they do.
-
I didnt say it was decreasing.. I said he was paying on it.. It still incures interest Toad...
But an excellent post to show how 'out of control' our national debt is.. Thanks..
-
add more than a trillion to that final number for what our current president has done in less than one term...
I see the site now..
National debit is well over 7trillion to date..Debt Clock (http://www.toptips.com/debtclock.html)
-
LOL Kappa!
Didn't click the link did you? No, you didn't.
Here, look at the addy:
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm
It's the Treasury that put that up and it only goes to 2000.
Now, did I say anything about either the debt under Clinton or under Bush?
No, I did not.
You, OTOH, made an obviously incorrect statement about debt under Clinton and got called on it.
Just smile and admit the error. You can easily make the argument that debt has risen, but you might as well start off with actual facts rather than incorrect assumptions.
-
Originally posted by kappa
add more than a trillion to that final number for what our current president has done in less than one term...
I see the site now..
It went from less than a trillion to over five trillion during Clinton's 2 terms according to Toad's post. That's 2 trillion per term. If it has increased by only one trillion in 3 years of Bush's term then by my math it has increased less. Won't you agree Kappa?
-
I did click it after and have already corrected my post to you..
My statment about clinton was not incorrect.. Im sorry I didnt make it clear enough for you.. But clinton did infact pay on our national debt... Interest was accumulating on it at a more rapid pace however..
You can attempt to argue this very small point if you must and ignore what I have posted.. It, of course, is your choice..
-
Originally posted by AKIron
It went from less than a trillion to over five trillion during Clinton's 2 terms according to Toad's post. That's 2 trillion per term. If it has increased by only one trillion in 3 years of Bush's term then by my math it has increased less. Won't you agree Kappa?
No, one of us is seeing it wrong.. clinton was pres from 92-2000?
-
Originally posted by kappa
Our current deficit's cause can be partialy cited to our president's tax cuts.. Three years later they have failed to produce the jobs our president promised... Who will pay for these? These tax cuts for the wealthy are made up in the form of higher taxes posed to the average american by their states..
We can blame deficits on the congress and that would be partially correct.. But as I stated before, fiscal responsibility begins with the president and his budget...
Our president knowingly attempts to mislead the american public with smoke and mirrors at every turn.. May it be domestic or international issues, our president is lying..
Not unlike our president's 'No child left behind'... He campained on this program... He spoke of it in SotU speeches.. He developed the program(smoke) and then failed to fund his own program that possibly was one of his election keys... Instead, our president funded a war (mirrors)............
Did our president fail to fund anything military?? How much did our president spend on the treaty breaking national missle defense that had previously been proven debunked...??
This man and his policies are not friends of america... They represent friends of american corporate wealth..
Only your opinion and based on what? The truth? I seriously doubt that. What you do not understand, is that how change is brought about in Washington in no way compares with what or how we conduct business of any nature in the private sector.
Tax cuts for the rich? You are simply mistaken, unless you feel that families making 40-100k a year are rich.
Would you care to share your income with us?
I would bet it is at a level which does not afford you the benefits of the tax cuts....do you have children?....it is no wonder you are bitter Kap...of course, I could be mistaken about you:)
-
I have no children and I work because I choose to.. My finaces do not dictate that I work.. Tax refunds or tax breaks mean little to me.. 8)
-
Originally posted by kappa
I have no children and I work because I choose to.. My finaces do not dictate that I work.. Tax refunds or tax breaks mean little to me.. 8)
Fair enough....just wondered if you were one of the lower income folks pissed because folks with more money than you actually get to keep some of it.:)
-
Those on the left want the Government impowered and that cost money....they tend to hate anyone who has and prefer that those who do not be kept.
I on the other hand, I want my money in my pocket to do with as I choose....not the Federal Government and it's power hungry members.
When I see someone hurting, I help them....it should be the individuals choice, not a mandate by a socialist leaning Democrat Party.
Just my opinion of course:)
BTW...I do not blame the left for being pissed....all of those years in power and all of that money feeding wacko special interests, shoot....I'de be miffed also.:)
-
What you do not understand, is that how change is brought about in Washington in no way compares with what or how we conduct business of any nature in the private sector.
I would believe i've done my share of work in the private sector and understand a few basics at best. It's paid for more than a few things for me and mine..
What does my understanding have to do with our countrie's debt?
Tax cuts for the rich? You are simply mistaken, unless you feel that families making 40-100k a year are rich.
The amounts the average 40-100k (a few tiers in there) recieve in federal tax breaks will be more than paid for in state taxes due to underfunding of the states by the Fed.. Hidden cost if you may.. Rises in property taxs, fuel prices, imports, insurance, more sales tax (except montana) will all add up to equal more than being saved in Fed. taxes.. Its really not that hard to figure...
-
Originally posted by kappa
I would believe i've done my share of work in the private sector and understand a few basics at best. It's paid for more than a few things for me and mine..
What does my understanding have to do with our countrie's debt?
The amounts the average 40-100k (a few tiers in there) recieve in federal tax breaks will be more than paid for in state taxes due to underfunding of the states by the Fed.. Hidden cost if you may.. Rises in property taxs, fuel prices, imports, insurance, more sales tax (except montana) will all add up to equal more than being saved in Fed. taxes.. Its really not that hard to figure...
and of course, those state taxes would have remained constant had Bush just left the Tax code alone...c'mon.
The states suffer because of fiscal irresponsibility during the past economic boom....it really is that simple.
-
BTW...I do not blame the left for being pissed....all of those years in power and all of that money feeding wacko special interests, shoot....I'de be miffed also.
Rude, do you think the government grew more while Clinton was in office or while Bush is in office?? Who would you think spent more? These money feeding wackos your refering to kept a balanced budget..
Bush, not unlike other presidents, is breaking the law by not having a balanced budget.. It is law the governement's budget be balanced..
Bush has just created the largest government buracracy our great nation has ever known in the name of Homeland security.. Why?? Whats the FBI for??
The idea that repubs want a smaller government and demos want larger no longer holds true as a sterotype.. Get with the times..
Record Deficit of all time while a repub president and a repub house..... Cant blame those pesky demos completely now can you??
-
The states suffer because of fiscal irresponsibility during the past economic boom....it really is that simple.
Do the reasons forbid the reality?? Either way it is argured, the tax cuts by the Fed are more than made up by tax increases by the states... yes?
-
Originally posted by kappa
Do the reasons forbid the reality?? Either way it is argured, the tax cuts by the Fed are more than made up by tax increases by the states... yes?
Not yet...their trying hard here in Kansas, but have chosen to legalize Casino's instead....what a country!
-
hehe yes it is.. casinos are great.. I hope its an indian tribe that is responsible.. It has happened in many places around Louisana and Mississippi.. I think its great that native americans can finally make their 'millions'...
This is my last post on the subject.. Rude I dont mean to be contridictory or judging or antagonistic.. Just sayin is all...
But casinos like state lotterys can be considered a poor tax.. Of course a tax one wouldnt have to pay.. But a tax on lower income peps because they would be the ones that predominately play and use their money on such things.. To say that the majority of people spending money on lottery tickets or at casinos are not wealthy, would be true...
And this has pretty much nothing to do with my original post.. LoL guess I just like to see myself type.. ha!
-
Kappa, have you ever heard the line "The President proposes, the Congress disposes"?
In other words, the President proposes a budget but it is the Congress that actually approves any spending (or reduction in spending) and disbures the money. Correct?
You say Clinton "paid down the debt", right?
During the Clinton years, which Party controlled Congress?
During the Clinton years, it wasn't until '98 that there was a surplus and that was the result of the '97 agreement between Clinton and Congress a on federal budget plan to eliminate the deficit in five years.
Yet looking at the stats, you can see the deficit continued to increase, albeit slowly, despite the plan.
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
Politicians spend money. They spend YOUR money, not theirs. It's what they do, it's their raison d'etre, it's why they seek the job.
I'm certainly not going to defend the current overboard spending spree, but I'm pretty sure folks realized the federal budget plan to eliminate the deficit in five years went down the tubes on 9/11.
The Iraq war sure isn't helping either. I haven't decided on whether it was justified as yet. I'm giving them ~5 months to find the WMD.. the actual WMD... that they said were there.
But the reality of the situation is that we're "at war". I'm not sure you can find a balanced budget or even limited/reduced federal spending during any major war in the Republic's history.
Note I'm not discussing the cause for war or justification, etc.
Just the fact that wars historically cost lots of money.
-
Toad.. in order to discuss this.. please learn and understand the difference in debt and deficit.. If I'm reading your post correctly, you are considering them as the same thing.. They are different..
Your first line was correct as far as my knowledge goes.. But take into more consideration the fact that the president drafts the budget...
Also, I do not mean to make clinton as our saviour, although I do have my ideas on the extent of this idea..
I do not mean to debate (here) how ethical our war is.. I only mean to refer to spending gone wild.. whatever the reasons, as has been previously said, the bell cant be unrung..
-
Kappa,
Here's the total DEBT: 7,007,932,873,054.97
Here's the recent DEFICIT: The federal budget deficit hit a record $374.2 billion in 2003. That's from CBS News.
Does that show enough understanding for you?
Clinton and Congress in '97 fnially agreed to end deficit spending if 5 years. The DEBT still went up. On 9/11, all that went out the window.
Now, do we ultimately have to pay off the annual DEFICIT or the TOTAL DEBT?
The DEBT, I think. Am I wrong?
Yeah, spending is wild. 9/11 started it, the Iraq war continued it. The bell can't be unrung.
As someone pointed out, Dasche's rebuttal suggested spending MORE than Bush had just talked about spending.
So your point about Bush is?
My point, I think, remains valid. Politicians live to spend. They live to spend YOUR money. Party affiliation makes no difference.
-
yes, your understanding is probably better than my own.. I did not mean it to be a question of intellegence.... just for clarity..
1993 saw the Clinton-Gore Deficit Reduction Plan Enacted to cut the deficit in half.. the largest deficit reduction plan in history without a single republican vote I might add...
In 1997 the deficit was practically null and for the first time in history our country and gone from a record deficit in 1992 to a record surplus in 1997.. Clinton intended to keep this surplus until social security problems could be addressed.. For the rest of Clinton's term our government opperated with a surplus...
If memory serves correct (will look up soon) Clinton had a plan to pay down half the national debt by 2015.. (All things remaining the same, which they probably wouldnt)
I side with you in the fact that politians will spend all the money they are given and in many circumstances, more...
Fiscal plans are made by the president.. Congress passes said plans.. However, the president has more control over the federal budget than any one entity....
I consider your point to be very valid. Very true.. party affiliation has less to do with responsibility than the individual doing the actions.. (hope that makes since)
My point about Bush? Bush is not a president for the people.. I let the numbers stand for themselfs.. No politician with such a disreguard of our countrie's welfare could be for the comman american..
-
Just checking.
It's not that often we agree. Wanted to make sure I had it right.
-
Wait a minute!
You didn't think I was agreeing with YOU did you?
No, YOU were agreeing with me!
;)
-
Originally posted by kappa
No, one of us is seeing it wrong.. clinton was pres from 92-2000?
93-2001, to be exact, are you saying he wasn't?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Better justifying the sucessful removal of a hated murderous dictator than the attempted and failed removal of a stain....
Not really, not really at all,..... a stain only effects domestic boundries, if it reaches outside it's done with laughter. Creating a war on lies reaches world wide, which creates deep anger and loss of credibility.
There is a HUGE difference.
A blow-job didn't cost lives.
Animal
(Damn Bush supporters always walking around with their eyes and ears shut, claiming ignorance)
-
Originally posted by Westy
Why Blair? Because IMO Blair comes across as highly intellegent He delivers an actual speech. Blair expresses his passion and beliefs much better than Bush (like night and day) and I find that while I may not agree with what it is Blairs is saying I'm able to respect him.
And unlike Bush, Blair doesn't stop for a quick self admiring smirk or condesceding partisan applause at the end of every other sound byte.
Compared to Blair, Bush is a mental idiot from hell, and comes off that way, because he is.
Not compared to Blair, Bush is a mental idiot from hell, and comes off that way, because he is.
Bush is the worst president the USA has ever had, at least in the last 100 years.
What else has Bush done besides start wars he cannot "honestly" justify? Zip, zero, nothing, maybe stepped backwards 3 or 4 steps. If walking backwards is an accomplishment then, by golly, he's progressing.
;-)
AnImAl
-
There is one lines that still kills me during his say nothing speech.
"..... home building is on the rise,....."
Well folks,..... lets look at this grand daddy of a trip.
To build homes, you must have open land, the only open land left in USA is *mostly* farm land.
To build more homes means more farm land is being sold. For farm land to be sold farming is suffering or not profitable.
So while more homes are being built, farming is suffering to make way for more homes being built.
Did you ever buy an ear of corn from a house in suburbia>????
So in turn, he's really saying,....
Home building is one the rise, because Agriculture is failing.
just a thought ;-)
Animal
-
Originally posted by FT_Animal
There is one lines that still kills me during his say nothing speech.
"..... home building is on the rise,....."
Well folks,..... lets look at this grand daddy of a trip.
To build homes, you must have open land, the only open land left in USA is *mostly* farm land.
To build more homes means more farm land is being sold. For farm land to be sold farming is suffering or not profitable.
So while more homes are being built, farming is suffering to make way for more homes being built.
Did you ever buy an ear of corn from a house in suburbia>????
So in turn, he's really saying,....
Home building is one the rise, because Agriculture is failing.
just a thought ;-)
Animal
This has to be one of the most stupid posts I've ever read....not only is it completely inaccurate, but lacks any thought on your part.
I'm sure you are probably a good person and would be a good friend to many....still, it would serve you best to only comment on subject matter of which you have a real working knowledge....less risk that way.
-
Originally posted by Rude
This has to be one of the most stupid posts I've ever read....not only is it completely inaccurate, but lacks any thought on your part.
I'm sure you are probably a good person and would be a good friend to many....still, it would serve you best to only comment on subject matter of which you have a real working knowledge....less risk that way.
What makes you think I don't know what I am talking about>?
My family has been building homes since 1957. Both my dad and brother were\are president of the plan commision. Living in the country, a lot of my friends *had* farms. So I DO see both sides of it.
The only land available for building on *here* is farm land. 70% of those farms were replaced with roof tops. Most of those farms were sold in the last 5 years.
If a farmer can get $15,000+ per acre, which he paid $800 for, what do you think is going to happen to that farm? If the owner owns 150 aces, which is a small farm, guess what, that farmer just sold and retired with $2,250,000 in his pocket. Great for the farmer, and great for the contractor he's going to make his money back x3 or x4.
This isn't really Bush's doing, and I know home building shows state of the economy. But to say one means the other is most likely happening.
Quite frankly I believe YOU don't have ANY idea what you're talking about. Other then maybe you like to hear\see yourself talk smart. Masking an insult with a compliment.
BTW, I'm sure you're a good friend to a lot of people, but sometimes it's best not to try to make someone look small to make yourself look bigger then life, especialy when you don't have a friggin clue about the subject yourself. It will save you some embarrassment in the future.
The point I made is stupid, no less stupid then you replying to it.
Animal