thats all i hear.. cry more.
Seriously, ATG, I am so tired of hearing you spew your liberal garbage all over this thread. I mean honestly, where to you get off with your anti-Bush propoganda and general hippie bullshit???ATG wrote:
I can tell you don't know me so I'll explain;
I voted for bush twice. I am a loyal supporter of the U.S. military. I run a small business and have seen with me own eyes grotesge scams, payoffs and kick back schemes. Money laundering by government employees evidenced by cash payments for everything they buy.
I wanted the police officers and FBI agents in the Waco debacle shot. I think we should build a fence along the Mexican border and resurect the Sedition Act.
Clinton was a disgrace to America and a sorry ass excuse for a Commander in Chief.
Bush has outspent all but the wildest fantasies of the most extreme social liberals. He has made a poor case that Iraq was the right thing to do and we are the big cat on the block simply by tollerating Irans interference. I think the lack of border security rises to a crime level worthy of capital punishment.
I found our Jets being used in Kosovo to kill civilians with U.N. flags painted on was also a very serious offense.
I'm honestly asking everybody to whom shall I direct this anger?
It's much bigger than Bush its a culture of corruption.
I couldn't have voted for Kerry, a posistionally challenged war protester during a time of war? pfft.
I actually liked Clinton until Waco and Kosovo and China and Monica and lying under oath, and Somolia and Hillary being considered a legitimate candidate for president.
heheheh ...
Enemy wheelbarrow spottedsergeriver wrote:
Uh, Enemy boat spotted.dstock9 wrote:
sergeriver wrote:
the other scum will run under the stones when these assholes are banned.Ha, someone needs to lay off the bf2 a bit...sergeriver wrote:
They deserve c4 in the ass
I'd do it if I was smart enough. Easy money is easy money.
If America really wanted to stick it to OPEC we would rally support for an alternative energy source. With a viable alternative to oil as an energy source, our reliance on the middle east would dwindle quickly. Aside from the fact that belching co2 into the atmosphere day in and day out is destroying our the ecosystem, oil is just going to become ever harder to obtain. Surely developing more suv's isn't the right track to weening ourselves from foreign oil. Futhermore, judging from the massive new refineries being built in Eastern Russia and Canada...I doubt oil will be out of the mainstream in my lifetime.
My argument for oil concerns that Both Bush's families are heavily vested in oil companies. Has nothing to do with why we left Iraq the first time. And to refresh your memory the reason we left the first time was so we did not create a vacuum in Iraq that Iran would fill. One of the few smart moves Bush I made.Kmarion wrote:
The oil argument is by far the stupidest. Only people who have zero comprehension of how the oil market works states something as idiotic as that. If it was about oil why did we leave after the first gulf war ? Do you have any idea who dictates the price of oil?
The rest of the stuff I'll listen to.
You are correct on the price of oil. The oil companies dictate the price of it's end products. See the connection yet?Kmarion wrote:
Ultimately OPEC controls the price via price per barrel.
Edit: If I were to buy your assumption, explain the record income's of the oil companies in past year when oil was at record buying highs.
Last edited by GATOR591957 (2006-09-13 10:21:33)
You seem to forget that Bush changed the way the unemployment numbers are derived. He made sure to add the military as employment. It's called bait and switch. Add the military into the numbers from 1990's and see what you get.SoC./Omega wrote:
If you're blaming Bush here is a news flash ; Clinton sucked ex. the unemployment rate was at 5.5 in the 90s and the media says "Oh the unemployment rate was great!", now Bush is president with a 4 something unemployment and here is what they say "The unemployment rate is bad and we need to fix it." Notice you people, the media brainwashes people.ATG wrote:
So far 300+ Billion have been spent in Iraq on this war, which I still argue was the right thing, just not fought aggressively enough. http://costofwar.com/numbers.html
270 Billion have been spent on Homeland Security and the illegal aliens still flood across our border. http://nationalpriorities.org/
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1104/111004a1.htm
Where is the accountability for all this money.
Who is getting rich.
Where is my rope and a strong tree so we can hang these fuckers that are ruining this nation.
Please refrain from spewing conspriacy nonsense about 9-11
What i want to know is, where is it going, and why so much.
I can answer that. Bureaucracy. Guaranteed to waste billions of dollars a month on absolutely nothing. If I ever get into a political office(which I doubt I will cause you are only aloud in one if you spew BS alot usually and suck up) I would argue for a complete overhaul of government agency's. Money is wasted constantly on over researching and over testing and over EVERYTHING stuff. Military hardware costs are being driven WAYYY up because of that and that is just one of many examples. Want to solve the problem? Get people in congress who don't give a shit about anything besides this country, the constitution, the people, and saving money. Only problem is these people are working the bottom level jobs and don't want a seat in congress or somewhere like that.ATG wrote:
So far 300+ Billion have been spent in Iraq on this war, which I still argue was the right thing, just not fought aggressively enough. http://costofwar.com/numbers.html
270 Billion have been spent on Homeland Security and the illegal aliens still flood across our border. http://nationalpriorities.org/
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1104/111004a1.htm
Where is the accountability for all this money.
Who is getting rich.
Where is my rope and a strong tree so we can hang these fuckers that are ruining this nation.
Please refrain from spewing conspriacy nonsense about 9-11
What i want to know is, where is it going, and why so much.
Last edited by Capt. Foley (2006-09-13 15:59:15)
Wrong wrong wrong:
The Biggest Scam of All Time
Just so you can understand my arguement:
scam
–noun
1. a confidence game or other fraudulent scheme by making use of deceitful, and usually illegal acts for the sole purpose to deprive and gain.
de‧ceit
–noun
1. the act or practice of deceiving; concealment or distortion of the truth for the purpose of misleading; duplicity; fraud; cheating: Once she exposed their deceit, no one ever trusted them again.
The Iraq war, as far as real history and facts show, does not display any of the above factors. Saddam did though, to make a good deal of money.
The Biggest Scam of All Time
As for the Iraq war, that is not a scam, unless you can provide proof otherwise, conspiracy theories don't count, sorry.The Associated Press wrote:
NEW YORK - Saddam Hussein diverted money from the U.N. oil-for-food program to pay millions of dollars to families of Palestinian suicide bombers who carried out attacks on Israel, say congressional investigators who uncovered evidence of the money trail.
The former Iraqi president tapped secret bank accounts in Jordan — where he collected bribes from foreign companies and individuals doing illicit business under the humanitarian program — to reward the families up to $25,000 each, investigators told The Associated Press.
The humanitarian program that let Iraq trade oil for goods was set up in 1996 to help Iraqis get food, medicine and other items that had been scarce under strict U.N. economic sanctions imposed after the Gulf War. But investigators say Saddam made more than $21.3 billion in illegal revenue under the program as well as by evading the sanctions for more than a decade.
According to employees of the Iraqi Central Bank and the Rafidain Bank, the former Iraqi ambassador to Jordan, Sabah Yassen, personally withdrew money from the accounts to make payments ranging from $15,000 to $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, Hyde said.
Just so you can understand my arguement:
scam
–noun
1. a confidence game or other fraudulent scheme by making use of deceitful, and usually illegal acts for the sole purpose to deprive and gain.
de‧ceit
–noun
1. the act or practice of deceiving; concealment or distortion of the truth for the purpose of misleading; duplicity; fraud; cheating: Once she exposed their deceit, no one ever trusted them again.
The Iraq war, as far as real history and facts show, does not display any of the above factors. Saddam did though, to make a good deal of money.
Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-09-13 21:59:13)
Uh, except that there are a number of companies with links to the American goverment who are making it rich.
Illegally???...I think not, try again Bubbalo.Bubbalo wrote:
Uh, except that there are a number of companies with links to the American goverment who are making it rich.
You missed the whole definition of the word scam.
here a refresher from just one post above yours
1. a confidence game or other fraudulent scheme by making use of deceitful, and usually illegal acts for the sole purpose to deprive and gain.
Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-09-13 22:04:25)
I think you'd be rather surprised.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
scam
–noun
1. a confidence game or other fraudulent scheme by making use of deceitful, and usually illegal acts for the sole purpose to deprive and gain.
de‧ceit
–noun
1. the act or practice of deceiving; concealment or distortion of the truth for the purpose of misleading; duplicity; fraud; cheating: Once she exposed their deceit, no one ever trusted them again.
The first definition: there are three parts
1. Deceitful? Yes. They lied to us over hte WMDs AND the links to terror - and they were their top arguments for going to war.
2. Illegal? Definitely. No approval of international body, not proportionate.
3. Deprive and Gain? Dunno *cough*oil*cough*
Second:
1."the act or practice of deceiving; concealment or distortion of the truth for the purpose of misleading; duplicity; fraud; cheating" See no. 1 and 2 above.
2.'No one ever trusted'... Gee, let's have a look at Bush's approval ratings. They generally tell you how much you trust someone.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
I think you'd be better off taking some journalism classes...oh nm,Spark wrote:
I think you'd be rather surprised.
The first definition: there are three parts
1. Deceitful? Yes. They lied to us over hte WMDs AND the links to terror - and they were their top arguments for going to war.
2. Illegal? Definitely. No approval of international body, not proportionate.
3. Deprive and Gain? Dunno *cough*oil*cough*
Second:
1."the act or practice of deceiving; concealment or distortion of the truth for the purpose of misleading; duplicity; fraud; cheating" See no. 1 and 2 above.
2.'No one ever trusted'... Gee, let's have a look at Bush's approval ratings. They generally tell you how much you trust someone.
1. Deceitful? Who lied? They didn't LIE about the WMD's its called bad intel moron, they did not KNOW that they WEREN'T There and still say that. Thats not lying, its called beliving something is true, and than later it is not. Hardly lying. Links to terror? When did Bush link Iraq to 9/11, but Iraq was linked to many terrorist cells funnelling funds supporting terrorists acts.
2. Illegal? No approval of int'l body, not proportionate, your opinion I guess on the latter, doesn't mean its illegal, sorry.
3. Oil, *cough* where is it at than? *cough*, sorry you have failed to show any FACTS that prove that the Iraq war was deceitful or illegal. Better luck next time, you have failed to understand the definition of LYING, as that was not what happened. Go back to your talking points.
Edit: Almost forgot, approval ratings have NOTHING to do with trust per se, just the percentage of people that APPROVE how the President is doing his job, I see how you can relate that to trustworthiness but that is a different question altogether. Keep trying.
Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-09-13 23:27:32)
Or lying hard?AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
Hardly lying
The 'intel' about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was flimsy, incorrect and, as you state, 'bad'.
The decision to wage war was based on that 'bad intel'. Therefore,
a) gross incompetence of the intelligence agencies involved in acquiring the 'intel' and the US government's analysis of said 'intel'
or
b) very selective interpretation of the 'intel'
was involved.
What makes you so sure that it was all a) and none of b) ?
wouldn't the biggest scam of all time be BF2?
Think about it, most people shelled out 50.00$(US dollars) great game play, then came the shitty patches.. not mention all the clans and people paying for servers that crashed every 2 hours..
now that is a scam.
Actually Real Life is the biggest Scam now that i think about it.
Think about it, most people shelled out 50.00$(US dollars) great game play, then came the shitty patches.. not mention all the clans and people paying for servers that crashed every 2 hours..
now that is a scam.
Actually Real Life is the biggest Scam now that i think about it.
Oil companies make money on the refining and distribution of oil. The demand for oil has increased substantially therefore more oil is being refined and sold, there is no doubt about that. I don't think I need to explain to you the basic economics of supply and demand. The argument I am disputing is that invading Iraq will increase oil company profits . That is simply not true. When is the last time you have heard of an oil company needing to be bailed out by the government in recent years ? They have always been financially secure. As I said before when you invade an oil producing country production of oil decreases and causes gas prices to go up. If you have to pay more for a barrel of oil due to lack of supply the difference is made at the pumps. Maybe in a perfect world the Oil companies would suck it up and take the loss due to lack of supply, but lets be real. What successful company does not pass the increased cost of manufacturing a product on to the consumer? With regards to profit what is also overlooked is the incredibly large amount of money that eventually gets re-invested into researching and locating new sources of oil. Ever hear of Jack-2?GATOR591957 wrote:
You are correct on the price of oil. The oil companies dictate the price of it's end products. See the connection yet?Kmarion wrote:
Ultimately OPEC controls the price via price per barrel.
Edit: If I were to buy your assumption, explain the record income's of the oil companies in past year when oil was at record buying highs.
So my question is this. We both know that Oil companies control the price of oil on it's "end product". How does invading Iraq dictate the REFINING process cost? For your argument to make sense you would have to convince me that invading Iraq would cause the cost to change oil into gasoline to decrease. We have just agreed that this is what they have control over and not control over the supply of oil. Do oil companies have huge profit margins? Hell yes. Is it because of our policy in Iraq ? No.
Last edited by Kmarion (2006-09-14 07:05:49)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I never said the Iraq war was a scam, my point was the spending on Homeland security, being a free for all rip off of celestial magnatude.
This thread should be the hands down winner of the “best use of logic award.” I'm in awe of the splendid use of deductive reasoning and philosophical prowess. I am no doubt a better man for having read these fine, fine words. I can't wait for the paperback!
~Sarcasm
~Sarcasm
Your post should be the hands down winner of " worst use of Sarcasm award ".
Care to clarify your beef, or you just bored and throwning some bombs?
Care to clarify your beef, or you just bored and throwning some bombs?
Wow - I can't believe everyone is so down on the Mexicans - I mean if you were to compile a list of the worlds most dangerous people i'd hardly put the Mexicans anywhere near the top. This use of "homeland security" is a misnomer when talking about the Mexican Boarder, lets face it if you lived in Mexico i'm sure you'd chance your arm to get into the USA - it's not like they're trying to get in and destroy the nation, they just want to do the shit jobs no one else wants to do.
Last edited by IG-Calibre (2006-09-14 07:48:53)
No I was . . . disappointed with almost everything like the call for civil war instead of revolution. The original question was good enough. There is obviously something very wrong with what our country is enduring right now. My beef is where the blame seems to be going. It seems as if the blame is always going towards the scapegoats. I know, I should be so supprised, right? It's just that, there is very little reframing of the argument going on. Everyone seems to be likeminded and saying, yeah, I want to blame an easy target too!!!
I would suggest we blame ourselves. We have a fantastic structure of government here in the United States . . . when we demand that it works correctly. We need to hold ourselves accountable during election time. Why do we run around blaming politicians for being corrupt while we refuse to blame ourselves for putting them in office? We are quick to listen to a preacher about voting, and we refuse to listen to a professor. Why?
I know I'm rambling, but there is just too much to argue with.
P.S. I.G. Calibre, Parte de toda gente de Mexico, gracias por tus palabras buenas, y Slainte!
I would suggest we blame ourselves. We have a fantastic structure of government here in the United States . . . when we demand that it works correctly. We need to hold ourselves accountable during election time. Why do we run around blaming politicians for being corrupt while we refuse to blame ourselves for putting them in office? We are quick to listen to a preacher about voting, and we refuse to listen to a professor. Why?
I know I'm rambling, but there is just too much to argue with.
P.S. I.G. Calibre, Parte de toda gente de Mexico, gracias por tus palabras buenas, y Slainte!
My two cents worth. All Southern states from Texas to California seceed and become an independant Republic. We would shore up relations with Mexico since we are the states that are affected by border security. We already have many of Mexican nationals living in those states so we would make them dual national citizens. We would strengthen our borders against our Northern state allies limiting entrance to these our states. Oh wait, snap.... It would have been that way if Americans had not take the terrorities by acts of aggression and war to begin with.
Easy for you to say in Ireland.IG-Calibre wrote:
Wow - I can't believe everyone is so down on the Mexicans - I mean if you were to compile a list of the worlds most dangerous people i'd hardly put the Mexicans anywhere near the top. This use of "homeland security" is a misnomer when talking about the Mexican Boarder, lets face it if you lived in Mexico i'm sure you'd chance your arm to get into the USA - it's not like they're trying to get in and destroy the nation, they just want to do the shit jobs no one else wants to do.
Their culture, for the most part, has no respect for litter laws, zoning laws and common sense # of children.
I live 93 miles from the Mexican border. My wife is half Mexican and my two lovely children have lovely brown skin, so if your thinking I'm a racist, screw you.
Ethnocentrism buddy...