Let's Have The Poor Pay For Bush's Spending

[clarky003]

oo, umm thinking out loud.. just to see what everyone else thought aswell,, Im sorry if anyone wants to keep it open, but I just think we should leave it to the politicians, being as we really dont have much of a say at the end of the day, the arguments become more of an ego ironing debate to attempt to make us all feel good about where we stand,, I can see through it all,, and its endlessly spanning forward.. and people are going to get banned. I can just see it..

please someone agree with me

 

[bliink]

bliink ... this is a serious question, theres alot of grief in this particular forum, we all get immature now and then, but theres too many cat fights, and childish bitter remarks, and it ruins almost all of the threads.

anyway the question.. do we really need an official politics forum. anymore I enjoy discussing stuff and all, but its .. well repetitive, sure the subjects can be different , but the subject matter shows us all up for teenager's.. (even though im 20 ), im saying if need be, youve got my vote to imply harsher rules, or close it down, and we can discuss gadgets.. and new misc technology and science instead .

I really dislike the politics forum.. all it does is make everyone argue pointlessly.
But, I feel like I should give everyone a second chance to make it work (which is very generous considering the original rules here that everyone should know).
The place is on its second (and last) chance now. If the stricter rules don't lead to people being a little more civilised in here, well, you can kiss the section goodbye..
And I'm sure the majority of people will be happy to see the back of it.
I'm just going to make sure the posts in here will be removed from everyone's post counts after the section is removed. :thumbs:
That way, members who have focused too much on being politcal rather than playing HL2 will need to work their way back up again.

 

[The Mullinator]

I really dislike the politics forum.. all it does is make everyone argue pointlessly.
But, I feel like I should give everyone a second chance to make it work (which is very generous considering the original rules here that everyone should know).
The place is on its second (and last) chance now. If the stricter rules don't lead to people being a little more civilised in here, well, you can kiss the section goodbye..
And I'm sure the majority of people will be happy to see the back of it.
I'm just going to make sure the posts in here will be removed from everyone's post counts after the section is removed. :thumbs:
That way, members who have focused too much on being politcal rather than playing HL2 will need to work their way back up again.

Problem is that this forum was originally created to divert political threads from the general off-topic forum. If this gets removed they will simply migrate back to their point of origin (although there won't be quite as many).

 

[clarky003]

well thanks for taking me seriously bliink, I immediately got a PM from *unknown* stating that I couldnt take the pressure of the arguments, etc, which is why im quote 'moaning'.

Im just forseeing bans, and more banta, identical nearly to the day before's thread , etc, its predictably odd.

I agree with Mullinator too, but I think the general forum is governed a bit more harshly when it comes political material, I remember many locks, and a few bans.. and it stayed suprising civilised. until a few spoiled it.

 

[Bodacious]

I really dislike the politics forum.. all it does is make everyone argue pointlessly.
But, I feel like I should give everyone a second chance to make it work (which is very generous considering the original rules here that everyone should know).
The place is on its second (and last) chance now. If the stricter rules don't lead to people being a little more civilised in here, well, you can kiss the section goodbye..
And I'm sure the majority of people will be happy to see the back of it.
I'm just going to make sure the posts in here will be removed from everyone's post counts after the section is removed. :thumbs:
That way, members who have focused too much on being politcal rather than playing HL2 will need to work their way back up again.

What Mullinator said. Also, no one forces you to click on the politics forum. If you don't want to read it, don't. I know you have to discover the context of reported posts, but as a mod you shoudl be able to look past what goes on in here and leave this place be. That is my pov anyways.

 

[Tr0n]

I really dislike the politics forum.. all it does is make everyone argue pointlessly.
But, I feel like I should give everyone a second chance to make it work (which is very generous considering the original rules here that everyone should know).
The place is on its second (and last) chance now. If the stricter rules don't lead to people being a little more civilised in here, well, you can kiss the section goodbye..
And I'm sure the majority of people will be happy to see the back of it.
I'm just going to make sure the posts in here will be removed from everyone's post counts after the section is removed. :thumbs:
That way, members who have focused too much on being politcal rather than playing HL2 will need to work their way back up again.

Hey wait a second!What about me...You know...about how I haven't...mmmm...*cough*played hl2 yet*cough*.

 

[Ames]

I really dislike the politics forum.. all it does is make everyone argue pointlessly.
But, I feel like I should give everyone a second chance to make it work (which is very generous considering the original rules here that everyone should know).
The place is on its second (and last) chance now. If the stricter rules don't lead to people being a little more civilised in here, well, you can kiss the section goodbye..
And I'm sure the majority of people will be happy to see the back of it.
I'm just going to make sure the posts in here will be removed from everyone's post counts after the section is removed. :thumbs:
That way, members who have focused too much on being politcal rather than playing HL2 will need to work their way back up again.

I'm going to have to agree with bliink here. The politics forum is for people who spend their time arguing about stuff they don't even know about or have experienced.

I avoid the politics forum for this reason. I don't mean all of you, just a select few.

:|

 

[bliink]

but as a mod you shoudl be able to look past what goes on in here and leave this place be.

Uhh.. its my job not to "look past" any goings on... "leaving this place be"? well.. we dont have any unmoderated forums here, and we never will.

Problem is that this forum was originally created to divert political threads from the general off-topic forum. If this gets removed they will simply migrate back to their point of origin (although there won't be quite as many).

Now, if we closed the politics board, we wouldnt let people simply migrate to a different one.

well thanks for taking me seriously bliink, I immediately got a PM from *unknown* stating that I couldnt take the pressure of the arguments, etc, which is why im quote 'moaning'.

well, *unknown* needs to come to me if there are any complaints, and I'll deal with it.

 

[The Mullinator]

Now, if we closed the politics board, we wouldnt let people simply migrate to a different one.

Its not exactly an easy thing to prevent though. IIRC there were at least 2 attempts at outright stopping all political threads posted in the general off-topic section but they never worked, we still ended up with this politics forum.

 

[bliink]

Its not exactly an easy thing to prevent though. IIRC there were at least 2 attempts at outright stopping all political threads posted in the general off-topic section but they never worked, we still ended up with this politics forum.

Another good reason to keep this section open I guess, albiet strictly controlled.
Better than releasing it into the wild.

Now, back on topic :E

 

[MarcoPollo]

OMFG OMFG thats what i have to say to all the demi's in this forum posting about how much they hate bush because he is spending money THATS ALL THAT DEMOCRACTS DO THEY TAX AND SPEND jesus, you guys all need to go look at every single liberal or highly democratic person in a position of gov't where they are allowed to spend.....now im not really partial to bush although i am republican in most ways u should stop posting about how bush has us in a defacit just look at gray davis he was the biggest example of democratic spending ever

btw both Republicans and Democrats it's ALL propaganda lol

 

[RZAL]

Why do you think it's supposed to be simple? Have you been raised to think everything is supposed to be handed to you?

It's not... It's called (New concept coming) WORK.

Work is not simple. It's hard.

You people make me sic. (But I still gotta go to work tommorrow.)

Not just ouch, but double ouch. Before you jump to conclusions read back through the post, I think you will find that I am far from thinking its so simple. My reply was in regards to “I wish it were so simple to get the govt. out of my pocket and back on the right path.” I have been arguing against the very point your accusing me of. As for me saying your not right, I was referring to Poor Toby….I thought it was creative, even though it was just a little off colored.






The Patriot “Freedom is not Free”

 

[burner69]

Why do you think it's supposed to be simple? Have you been raised to think everything is supposed to be handed to you?

It's not... It's called (New concept coming) WORK.

Work is not simple. It's hard.

You people make me sic. (But I still gotta go to work tommorrow.)

Do you have any concept of the idea of people being UNABLE to work? Of there being no jobs in their town? Of them being too ill to come to work? Or when you get influenza do you still show up to work, give it to everyone else, and then your whole work force is screwed.

I can't believe you really think everyone who's unemployed can find work, and is just begging for hand outs.

And bliink, keep politics open. :thumbs:

 

[RZAL]

, your petrol is the cheapest in the world, 'UK'ers' pay through the nose, but we still keep on giving, but we know it helps us all. I dont know, compromise sounds good.

A bit off topic but, how much tax is imposed on your petrol, percentage wise per gallon/litter. I’ll have to check but I want to say in the US its around 45 to 60% per gal for state/federal tax.

oo, umm thinking out loud.. just to see what everyone else thought aswell,, Im sorry if anyone wants to keep it open, but I just think we should leave it to the politicians, being as we really dont have much of a say at the end of the day, the arguments become more of an ego ironing debate to attempt to make us all feel good about where we stand,, I can see through it all,, and its endlessly spanning forward.. and people are going to get banned. I can just see it..

please someone agree with me

You want to close down public forums!!!! No you didn’t say that, please tell me you didn’t say that………. I could care less how old people are, all people have the right to express their views, young and old alike. Closing forums like this would be tantamount to waiving your freedom of speech and expression. I truly hope you’ll reconsider your position on public forums…….

I really dislike the politics forum.. all it does is make everyone argue pointlessly.

True, some people will argue pointlessly with stop sign, but are you really saying people shouldn’t discuss their political views? Sure the forum needs rules to protect its users and its integrity, but to simply “outlaw” the forum would be an injustice to everyone.



The Patriot “Freedom is not Free”

 

[firemachine69]

Well there wasnt really a choice other then him, as bad as he is. A flip-flopper that's known to switch opinions within thirty seconds (indecisive), or a deep-rooted Texan... Thank god I wasn't in your shoes, I would have HATED to vote.

 

[Korgoth]

Dude... Feel free to take the TAX money you saved in the GW cuts and throw it into the closest trailer park on your way to work.

You don't need to have the Govt. dispersing your funds if you want to help the people who don't work. You can do it yourself.

Take photo's and post em.

Or did you just want everyone else to give to the poor (But not you)?

If me and my family could afford to I gladly would. I donate to charity, Since I only make $6.50 an hour working through a temp service because no one in my area is hiring full time, I can't really afford to throw all my money away.

And I PAY my taxes, so I don't know where you get the idea that I expect everyone but myself to pay. I'll also add that my taxes haven't changed any, I haven't seen a single shred of evidence that taxes were actually cut.

And to bliink, i'm sorry if my post (previously, and this one as well) are out of line. I'm still just a little peeved over his (shellbacks) recent racist remarks towards me (which were totally uncalled for). By all means close this forum if you wish, ban me to if you must. I just felt like expressing myself, sorry.

 

[staticprimer]

OMFG OMFG thats what i have to say to all the demi's in this forum posting about how much they hate bush because he is spending money THATS ALL THAT DEMOCRACTS DO THEY TAX AND SPEND jesus, you guys all need to go look at every single liberal or highly democratic person in a position of gov't where they are allowed to spend.....now im not really partial to bush although i am republican in most ways u should stop posting about how bush has us in a defacit just look at gray davis he was the biggest example of democratic spending ever

btw both Republicans and Democrats it's ALL propaganda lol

Please, please, please use punctuation! It really isn't that hard. Look! Look! I'm doing it now! Not only is this OT, but I seriously hope it was an ironic post because if not, well... let's not go there.

 

[RZAL]

Come on guys enough with the flaming, name-calling doesn't solve anything. Get back on topic please.








The Patriot “Freedom is not Free”

 

[Dasparov]

He amazes me all the time, look at this
omg

i think he even says sobereignties :|

 

[bliink]

but are you really saying people shouldn’t discuss their political views?

Hell no, I'm just telling everyone to stop deraling every thread with flames and spam.

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

Hell no, I'm just telling everyone to stop deraling every thread with flames and spam.

Looks like you're the biggest offender of not staying on topic

Or did you you rename this to 'Should we close down Politics because I can't stand anyones opinion but my own'

 

[KoreBolteR]

aww cmon bliink, dont take it seriously, its only a laugh. politics are my fav forums :b

 

[No Limit]

Looks like you're the biggest offender of not staying on topic

Or did you you rename this to 'Should we close down Politics because I can't stand anyones opinion but my own'

:upstare: :upstare:

Maybe you aren't familiar with what a moderator is?

 

[sniperelite7]

*sighs* im about pisssed with people like No limit and his freinds with there BS like Bush's fualt we went to war.*taps on thier heads* hey asshats democrats and republicans and eurowhinies saw the same intell neccesary to go to war. Might i aslo remind you all congress voted to go to war with a few aganst(2 or 3 dont know) Please do not fall into the liberal brainwashing machine they want you to forget the past so you wonder why in closing:

 

[CptStern]

hey newcomer stfu and look up the previous 6000 threads on this subject ..you just got here, do us a favour and get caught up before you start flaming people and while you're at it read the rules ..enjoy your stay :E

 

[burner69]

*sighs* im about pisssed with people like No limit and his freinds with there BS like Bush's fualt we went to war.*taps on thier heads* hey asshats democrats and republicans and eurowhinies saw the same intell neccesary to go to war. Might i aslo remind you all congress voted to go to war with a few aganst(2 or 3 dont know) Please do not fall into the liberal brainwashing machine they want you to forget the past so you wonder why in closing:

Yeah it's the Bush's administrations fault. They lied about links with Saddam and 9/11, lied about his ability to launch WMDs, lied about his poessession of WMDs (they admitted he had none a few months before before 9/11), they lied about his willingness to use them against us - Saddam has never threatened, or shown any sign of wanting to attack America.

You got dragged to war on a lie, a worst case scenario (were any of the information true) situation was cooked up, and now thousands of Iraqi civilians are dead, around a thousand (I believe) troops are dead, and you're whining because liberals don't want this to continue.

You HAVE to finish the job in Iraq, and in Afghanistan - that's the country that's totally f*cked now, most liberals will say "Yes, support the troops in sorting out Iraq and Afghanistan." What we're opposed to his how we ended up in Iraq in the first place, and are concerned that more of this idiocy will continue, and more troops will get sent to risk their lives over nothing.

Try supporting the troops for once buddy, not spouting abuse and showing funny pictures.

 

[Bodacious]

*sighs* im about pisssed with people like No limit and his freinds with there BS like Bush's fualt we went to war.*taps on thier heads* hey asshats democrats and republicans and eurowhinies saw the same intell neccesary to go to war. Might i aslo remind you all congress voted to go to war with a few aganst(2 or 3 dont know) Please do not fall into the liberal brainwashing machine they want you to forget the past so you wonder why in closing:

There is no use reasoning with these people. They wounldn't know a fact if it knocked them over. And even then, they would twist it, misrepresent it, and do whatever is necesessary to further their agenda.

Here is one of my favorite quotes about liberals.

"You can give liberals every fact in the world and they're going to have a mantra rooted in their emotional hatred for George Bush that they will fire right back at you. You will not permeate, there's a boundary around their brain that doesn't allow anything factual in if it concerns Bush and good news, or the country and good news. They simply won't allow it. They won't process it. They won't think about it. They will simply react by calling you names. A mind-numbed robot or you're stupid or you're an idiot or you're a partisan or whatever.

 

[Korgoth]

hey newcomer stfu and look up the previous 6000 threads on this subject ..you just got here, do us a favour and get caught up before you start flaming people and while you're at it read the rules ..enjoy your stay :E

Quoted for emphasis

And isn't it funny bodacious, how you reference an article that accuses liberals of reverting to name calling, in the post that you quote the guy who posted a sign calling liberals morons.

The irony... it burns.

 

[jondy]

Well, it's not burning me. Perhaps if I stand closer. *shuffles forward*

*sizzling* Ah, yes.

 

[burner69]

There is no use reasoning with these people. They wounldn't know a fact if it knocked them over. And even then, they would twist it, misrepresent it, and do whatever is necesessary to further their agenda.

Here is one of my favorite quotes about liberals.

"You can give liberals every fact in the world and they're going to have a mantra rooted in their emotional hatred for George Bush that they will fire right back at you. You will not permeate, there's a boundary around their brain that doesn't allow anything factual in if it concerns Bush and good news, or the country and good news. They simply won't allow it. They won't process it. They won't think about it. They will simply react by calling you names. A mind-numbed robot or you're stupid or you're an idiot or you're a partisan or whatever.

Facts like:

We have begun a search for chemical and biological weapons, and already know hundreds of sites that will be investigated

Where are those sites?

"Iraq has probably dispersed its special weapons, including its CBW [chemical and biological warfare] weapons. Intelligence also indicates that from forward-deployed storage sites, chemical and biological munitions could be with military units and ready for firing within 45 minutes.

No they couldn't.

Those 'facts' took us to war - twist and turn all you like, accuse lefties of lying, misinterpreting things all you want, several lies lead us into a war.

 

[No Limit]

There is no use reasoning with these people. They wounldn't know a fact if it knocked them over. And even then, they would twist it, misrepresent it, and do whatever is necesessary to further their agenda.

Here is one of my favorite quotes about liberals.

"You can give liberals every fact in the world and they're going to have a mantra rooted in their emotional hatred for George Bush that they will fire right back at you. You will not permeate, there's a boundary around their brain that doesn't allow anything factual in if it concerns Bush and good news, or the country and good news. They simply won't allow it. They won't process it. They won't think about it. They will simply react by calling you names. A mind-numbed robot or you're stupid or you're an idiot or you're a partisan or whatever.

Do we need to go down this road again? I disproved everything he said in this thread but you seem to think he is right as if you forgot you didn't have a response to things like Condi saying tubes could only be used for Uranium enrichement yet the entire world at the time was telling her this wasn't so. Please don't make me repeat everything as I will be upset.

 

[Bodacious]

Do we need to go down this road again? I disproved everything he said in this thread but you seem to think he is right as if you forgot you didn't have a response to things like Condi saying tubes could only be used for Uranium enrichement yet the entire world at the time was telling her this wasn't so. Please don't make me repeat everything as I will be upset.

Do whatever you want. I recall a large list of questions you left unanswered. There are even more in this thread alone. Bullcrap like saying SS ins't a tax, even when the SS admin says it is a tax, and SS isn't an expenditure, when the CBO says it is an expenditure.

You tried to say the gov spends more on war than it does it's own people, when in reality the gov spends 1 trillion dollars more on the people than they did on the war in Iraq. This is coming from the CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, and you treid to ay SS didn't count as an expenditure. That fact bent you over and raped you and you, and you still tried to spin it.

 

[No Limit]

Do whatever you want. I recall a large list of questions you left unanswered. There are even more in this thread alone. Bullcrap like saying SS ins't a tax, even when the SS admin says it is a tax, and SS isn't an expenditure, when the CBO says it is an expenditure.

You tried to say the gov spends more on war than it does it's own people, when in reality the gov spends 1 trillion dollars more on the people than they did on the war in Iraq. This is coming from the CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, and you treid to ay SS didn't count as an expenditure. That fact bent you over and raped you and you, and you still tried to spin it.

You are the one that didn't reply to my point, stop trying to twist this as everyone sees you are full of shit in this case. I clearly pointed out that while the CBO does list it as an expense (400 billion) they list social security (the social security you pay on each pay check) as a profit (700 billion). That means they are not losing $400 billion on SS as you claim; they are actually earning $300 Billion. So please, stop this nonsense. If you still don't understand this let me know.

I am making the case for Bush's war that I will expect you to reply to, I will have it up shortly. I am so sick of your crap I am going to put an end to it today.

 

[jondy]

Uhn, Bodacious, you still didn't give a response. You just kindof ... dodged. :|

edit: Yup.

 

[Bodacious]

You are the one that didn't reply to my point, stop trying to twist this as everyone sees you are full of shit in this case. I clearly pointed out that while the CBO does list it as an expense (400 billion) they list social security (the social security you pay on each pay check) as a profit (700 billion). That means they are not losing $400 billion on SS as you claim; they are actually earning $300 Billion. So please, stop this nonsense. If you still don't understand this let me know.

I am making the case for Bush's war that I will expect you to reply to, I will have it up shortly. I am so sick of your crap I am going to put an end to it today.

Quote anything I said that said in this thread about the SS administration losing 400 billion. You can't because I never made that claim, ever. I don't even know why I would make that claim.

My point is, you claimed the gov spent more on the Iraq war than it did it's people. I showed you that the gov spent 1 trillion more on the people than the war. You are still trying to spin it. I can quote everything if you want.

 

[Bodacious]

Uhn, Bodacious, you still didn't give a response. You just kindof ... dodged. :|

edit: Yup.

What do you want me to give a response to? How about you read the thread and keep your nose out of it until you are more educated on the subject instead of chiming in when you think I am wrong?

 

[No Limit]

Since I am spending a lot of time on this you have to address everything or else you lose all credibility.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/06/09/wmd.controversy/index.html

Democrats were making the following claims:

I do think there's evidence that the CIA did shade and embellish this information in a number of areas.

Remember, this is only 3 months after we went in to war meaning it didn't have anything to do with elections and it made it clear that serious questions were coming up about this 'intelligence'. Well guess what, it turns out that these idiot liberals were 100% correct a year and a half before it was official that no WMDs would be found.

Moving right along. Now read the following; remember this is just days before the war:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/07/aldouri.transcript/index.html

Now, what I want you to find is any instence of a lie he was telling. Everything he said was 100% true. Also, take note of the following:

The French, German, Russian, Chinese position clearly expresses the fact that there is no need for a second resolution to be adopted in the Security Council. It demands that the work of the inspectors continue and that enough time is given them to complete their tasks by peaceful means.

Let me affirm that Iraq's strategic decision to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction was indeed taken in 1991. UNSCOM worked for eight years. Iraq handed over many of those weapons to UNSCOM for destruction in the period from 1991 to 1994. Indeed, UNSCOM did undertake the destruction of those weapons. That, in addition to the weapons unilaterally destroyed by Iraq in the summer of 1991. These include all proscribed material in the biological area.

Let me also point to what Secretary Powell stated, arguing regarding Iraq's VX program. The fact of the matter is that Iraq had no weapons, no VX weapons to declare, no VX agents remained to be declared by Iraq. Iraq never produced stable VX and never weaponized VX. No one has any evidence whatsoever to prove the contrary.

Mr. Powell ought not to jump into such hasty conclusions as he has in the past concerning aluminum tubes and the claims on importing uranium

We heard directly from Mr. ElBaradei today to the exact opposite.

In that press conference, he stated that Iraq is cooperating proactively. I would underline the word proactively. He stated that a real disarmament is taking place on the ground -- real disarmament. He stated that the efforts exerted by Iraq and the inspectors represent steps towards actual verification, verification of Iraq's unilateral destruction of its previous proscribed programs.

When asked if Iraq represents a threat now, he replied that all agree that Iraq possesses very limited military capacities in comparison with 1991 and that Iraq is being monitored and very closely guarded by the inspectors.

Mr. President, the U.S.-U.K. statements in addition with some others today show a state of confusion, because officials in the United States and the U.K. and those standing on their side are unable to provide any evidence proving the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They have also not been able to mask their own private agenda in the region and the world.

So it all started with the issue of Iraq possessing and developing weapons of mass destruction. Then they demanded that Iraq accept the return of inspectors. Then they moved on to proactive cooperation with the inspectors. Then they demanded the submission of evidence, proof that Iraq was free of weapons of mass destruction. Then, at the last meeting, they concentrated on the need to destroy the Al-Samoud 2 missiles.

Then talk moved on to the alleged link that Iraq is destroying on the one hand and manufacturing on the other. Then talk began of an alleged link with terrorism and regime change. And finally, here we are hearing about Iraq being a threat to U.S. national security, stated by President Bush, having previously heard that Iraq is a threat to its neighbors.

Let me add, Mr. President, that war against Iraq will not unearth any weapons of mass destruction. But it will wreak destruction for a very simple reason. There are no such weapons except in the imagination of some. And therefore, all those who abetted in the commission of that crime without a direct interest will be sorry indeed.

The bottom line there is that no matter what Iraq did to comply nothing was good enough for Bush. When they complied with something Bush found another reason. This just went around in circles until Bush finally invaded.

Moving on...

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/14/sprj.irq.elbaradei/index.html

Why did Bush not give them six months? If you say Iraq was a threat show me the exact intelligence that says this. If you say they don't want to share this intelligence tell me why. Not knowing why is not a valid response.

Now, remember that you said the entire world had the same intelligence that Saddam clearly had these WMDs? This is a load of shit:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/30/sprj.irq.iaea/index.html

The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency says that, in his view, Iraq as yet is not in material breach of a U.N. resolution on disarmament -- contrary to what Britain and the United States have said.

ElBaradei said IAEA inspectors were still investigating aluminum tubes found in Iraq for signs that they were being readied as part of banned weapons, but he said the agency's preliminary conclusion was that they were being used for conventional arms.

So let me summerize what I want from you:

What did Iraq's ambassador to the UN say that wasn't true? If your response will be that at the time we thought he was lying I want to know why. Show me examples of intelligence that directly contradicted anything he said.

Why did Bush not listen to the inspectors who were saying Saddam was complying fully?

Why did Bush not listen to Blix when he said Saddam posed no threat to the world?

Why did Bush not give the inspectors the 6 months they asked for?

Why did Bush not listen to the head of the UN's nuclear watchdog who said he didn't believe Saddam wasn't violating the resolution?

Why did Condoleeza Rice say the only thing the aluminum tubes could be used for was for uranium when a large part of the world; including the IAEA, was saying otherwise? This is A DIRECT LIE from the administration.

If you can not address anyone one point I want you to admit that the WHITE HOUSE LIED. If you do not admit this you are a LIAR and you are fully supporting a LIAR that led us in to war on LIES.

Now, you also claimed that liberals (me) would twist facts and misrepresent facts. I want you to point out one example of me doing this; if you can't you are a LIAR.

 

[No Limit]

Quote anything I said that said in this thread about the SS administration losing 400 billion. You can't because I never made that claim, ever. I don't even know why I would make that claim.

My point is, you claimed the gov spent more on the Iraq war than it did it's people. I showed you that the gov spent 1 trillion more on the people than the war. You are still trying to spin it. I can quote everything if you want.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE ****ING MATH I GAVE YOU THIS IS THE CASE. YOU JUST SAID WE AREN'T LOSING ANY MONEY ON SS. THAT IS THE ENTIRE ****ING POINT MEANING WE ARE SPENDING MORE ON IRAQ THAN WE ARE ON THE WELFARE OF OUR PEOPLE because you have to subtract SS from the trillion some dollars you gave.

 

[Bodacious]

This is what No Limit said in post 19 of this thread:

So you are blaming the few that abuse the system on all the problems in this country? Do you know how much we pay these people? Let me give you a hint, it is less than the war in Iraq.

Clearly you see that No Limit says that we pay, "needy people," "less than the war in Iraq."

My response? Post 24 of this thread.

Source?

Here is mine that proves you're wrong.

Mandatory spending far outweighs discretionary speding.

Total mandatory spending in 2004 (welfare, SS, vet benefits, etc): 1.237 trillion

Total discrecionary spending in 2004 (defense, non defense, and homeland security): 925 billion dollars.


On what planet is 1.237 tirillion less than 925 billion?

And the war in Iraq is what? 200 billion?

You can clearly see that the mandatory expenditures far outweigh the cost of the war in Iraq, my more than 1 trillion dollars.

No limit's response?

Post 26 of this thread:

Ok, lets start with your 1.237 trillion figure. First off the people pay for Social Security, not the government. So lets remove that from your total, 1.237 - 492 = 745 Billion. We are not talking about retirement of disability (unless you think those people shouldn't get any money in which case you would be a cold-hearted prick) so lets remove 135 from your total which comes to 610 billion. Now lets assume that 50% of the people abuse the system (common sense tells you this would be much less) that would leave 305 Billion which is SLIGHTLY more than the cost of the war in Iraq (I am not including other defense spending). Keep in mind Bush is going to ask for another 80 billion in addition to the 25 billion already going into Iraq this year. Does that math help you out?

Now instead of a slight decrease in the tax cuts Bush wants to eliminate a good portion of these programs that so many people in this country rely on.

Here, No Limit tries to think he knows better than the CBO, and that SS and disablity payments somehow don't count.

Now I ask you, what kind of crap is that? Is he not trying to spin facts by saying SS doesn't count? What is going on here?

 

[Tr0n]

The word LIAR is so harsh sometimes.

Well in my mind these are the two things that coulda happend.

A.Saddam did in fact had these so called "WMD's" and shipped them over the border to another country so he could hide them.

B.He never really had them in the first place...He said he did just to be one of the "big boys".