[QUOTE=Reality_Check;1042886]I’m not Drake, but…no.[/QUOTE]
I asked Drake, and not you, for a reason. You’re a borderline conspriracy theorist in regards to everything Bush, so I knew what your answer would be.
And nowhere in your reply did you refute my point, that Saddam threw out the inspectors that he agreed to allow by signing the treaty ending the 1st Gulf War.
[QUOTE=David Jamieson;1042897] Dude, grab a brain, they’re over there on the table. We’re talking about people who put themselves above the law and don’t answer to anybody, not even to the american peolpe and to this day do not do so.[/QUOTE]
Oh Jeez, not this again. :rolleyes:
How is Bush above the law? He served as the Constitution allowed. Despite having a VERY liberal Speaker of the House and Senate Majority leader who were constantly being begged by people like you to impeach him, they did not. Again, you may not like the man, but calling him a dictator/above the law/etc is ridiculous. And I hope everyone sees who is being rational, and who is once again throwing out incendiary rhetoric.
[QUOTE=David Jamieson;1042897]yeah you figure thirty teabaggers are gonna make a difference?[/QUOTE]
If you believe that, November is gonna be like a ton of bricks raining down on your head. Most polls agree now the GOP will very likely gain control of the House, and they have a legitimate shot at taking control of the Senate as well.
More people voted in GOP primaries this year then Democrat primaries. Obama has lost the independant voters that propelled him to office. The young ‘educated’ people who voted for him are abandoning him because they are now seeing firsthand that under him they cannot find jobs despite having college degrees. His approval rating has fallen from ~70% to ~40%. You just wait and see. 
[QUOTE=David Jamieson;1042897]Your country is a mess because the right refuses to do things within the framework of a democracy. The entire right has been usurped by fascists and morons for the most part and all they have is rants that are either racists, exclusionary or over the top with references to imaginary sky gods.
the whole country is a joke at this point and it’s the right wing goofs like palin and teabaggers and beck and their ilk taht have made america this strange curiosity of babbling fools on tv 24/7.[/QUOTE]
We are in a mess because liberals like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd thought they could mandate home ownership for all Americans, regardless of people’s ability to actually pay for those houses. We are in debt deeper now than ever before and we have only HIGHER unemployment to show for that debt. You people with children should have the pitchforks and torches out. After all, it’s your kids who are gonna have to pay these bills.
[QUOTE=David Jamieson;1042897]get used to it, because as long as there is no unity there’s no real nation. just a bunch of states hanging around doing their own thing getting poorer and poorer, languishing in how it use to be.[/QUOTE]
No, not all States are getting poorer and poorer. Texas is doing ok, but it’s liberal States like Michigan, California, and New York that are facing bankruptcy/bailouts. Doesn’t it seem odd to you that ‘rich’ states like New York and California are facing bankruptcy, yet ‘poor, backwards redneck’ States like Mississippi and Alabama are not facing bankruptcy.
Actually now that I mention that fact, can you explain why that is?
[QUOTE=BJJ-Blue;1043014]I asked Drake, and not you, for a reason. You’re a borderline conspriracy theorist in regards to everything Bush, so I knew what your answer would be.
And nowhere in your reply did you refute my point, that Saddam threw out the inspectors that he agreed to allow by signing the treaty ending the 1st Gulf War.[/QUOTE]
Nowhere did I refute your point? Really? And I’m not surprised you knew what my answer would be. I do tend to traffic in facts, unlike people of your ilk.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/17/iraq/main544280.shtml
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Monday ordered all U.N. inspectors and support staff, humanitarian workers and U.N. observers along the Iraq-Kuwait border to evacuate Iraq after U.S. threats to launch war.
So, the inspectors were withdrawn due to US threats, not thrown out. As I’ve pointed out to you before.
https://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=901399&postcount=520
Now he did throw them out in 1998 (long before George W. Bush was President), but he allowed them back in. Also, Bill Clinton did bomb Iraq in December of 1998, (after they were thrown out). And he was accused of wagging the dog. The inspectors were withdrawn in 2003 by the U.N. as the U.S. was about to start bombing. Saddam’s regime also publicly stated that they did not have WMDs. Which was backed up by the inspectors. Both of which I noted in my previous post.
So, once again, what didn’t I refute?
It’s also rather amusing to be called a conspiracy theorist by a birther.
Pointing out that inspectors were withdrawn on the brink of the US invasion does not negate the fact that they had been stifled by Saddam’s refusal to comply for years before this. I commend the inspectors for staying as long as they did. If it were my call, the second they refused my inspectors access to a suspected WMD site, I’d leave the same day and have my report ready for the UN by the end of the week.
Are you going to deny that Saddam was playing a dangerous bluffing game with the US?
[QUOTE=Drake;1043021]Pointing out that inspectors were withdrawn on the brink of the US invasion does not negate the fact that they had been stifled by Saddam’s refusal to comply for years before this. I commend the inspectors for staying as long as they did. If it were my call, the second they refused my inspectors access to a suspected WMD site, I’d leave the same day and have my report ready for the UN by the end of the week.
Are you going to deny that Saddam was playing a dangerous bluffing game with the US?[/QUOTE]
The game he played with the US had to do with dumping their dollar and switching to a euro based model.
He was simply too weak to get through the backlash on that one and forfeited his life and power for it. All in all though, the US put Saddam in power through backroom support and supplied him with all the goodies he needed to oppress Iraq and even to commit genocide with American made products such as he did with the Kurds in the north back in the 80s.
there was nothing righteous about the Iraq invasion and the whole wmd thing was a play up and a sham. hindsight makes that quite clear. It was about money, regional power and oil and that’s all it has ever been about.
Terrorists are NOTHING. They can be crushed with relative ease one by one or in a group. Right now, the war on terror is a convenient way to keep the military industrial complex ( that outfit that sucks up 50% of every tax dollar in America) going due to a lack of wars.
Americas economy is dependent on continual warfare.
The middle east will never stabilize if America wants to continue being a strong economy. Israel is the immediate patsy and policeman all in the same go and America strong arms the rest into compliance with their agenda. Britain sticks her nose in because she started the whole ball rolling and the Ruskies keep a hand in because they control most of the petro-wealth in Eurasia.
The Chinese decided to prop up the American dollar for the simple fact that the Americans owe them a heck of a lot of money and there is no return in dumping the American currency. Also, they likely have trust issues with the real power on the continent that is Russia.
If America can keep up the charade that they will actually pay the Chinese what they owe them, they will temporarily keep this game going.
What’s unfortunate is that this is temporary and without a doubt the winds of big war will be blowing as soon as the Russians seize control and the Chinese realize they’ve been consistently lied to about getting their money back.
America cannot possibly get out of her debt of 12 Trillion dollars! Quite a good chunk of which, she owes to China.
It will get a whole lot darker before the light comes I think. I am thankful to be a Canadian in all this. America has some hard days, even harder than what has already happened ahead and the trigger for the whole snowball was 9/11.
Just hindsight and documented stuff there. no conspiracy involved. Listen between the words, read between the lines. that’s where the message is because as Jack Nicholson said: “You can’t handle the truth” and you know what? People really can’t! They go hysterical when the truth is given to them. People want their big dumb comfy lie surrounding them all warm and cozy.
sad isn’t it.
Actually, terrorists are more dangerous than standing armies.
[QUOTE=Drake;1043021]Pointing out that inspectors were withdrawn on the brink of the US invasion does not negate the fact that they had been stifled by Saddam’s refusal to comply for years before this. I commend the inspectors for staying as long as they did. If it were my call, the second they refused my inspectors access to a suspected WMD site, I’d leave the same day and have my report ready for the UN by the end of the week.
Are you going to deny that Saddam was playing a dangerous bluffing game with the US?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Drake;1043087]Actually, terrorists are more dangerous than standing armies.[/QUOTE]
You’re using logic and facts against someone who is arguing on pure emotion, ie hatred of one man. No matter what facts or even your own personal experiences you show him, he will not change his mind.
[QUOTE=David Jamieson;1043077]Terrorists are NOTHING. They can be crushed with relative ease one by one or in a group. [/QUOTE]
And to think all the minds at the Mossad, the CIA, the FBI, and the Pentagon have not figured this out, yet you have.
[QUOTE=David Jamieson;1043077]America cannot possibly get out of her debt of 12 Trillion dollars! Quite a good chunk of which, she owes to China.[/QUOTE]
And yet you have been repeatedly defending our President for adding record amounts to that debt because you say thats the way out of our mess. 
[QUOTE=BJJ-Blue;1043121]You’re using logic and facts against someone who is arguing on pure emotion, ie hatred of one man. No matter what facts or even your own personal experiences you show him, he will not change his mind.[/QUOTE]
what are you talking about?
There’s no hatred, it’s an observation of an American political executive administration that behaved like a criminal enterprise.
I think you’re the over emotional one here 1bad. I mean you’re constantly lying and spreading misinformation and disinformation to cover your precious republican/fascist ideals. For whatever reason, you are unable to see how transparent and false your overall shpiel is.
every now and then, you can be credited with a fact or two, but for the most part, you;re a snow job. Not hard to read through and start punching huge holes in your ideas.
but as is the nature of a troll, you will never ever answer a straight question and constantly duck duck duck.
meh, it’s to be expected by now. old song. lol
[QUOTE=BJJ-Blue;1043124]And to think all the minds at the Mossad, the CIA, the FBI, and the Pentagon have not figured this out, yet you have.
And yet you have been repeatedly defending our President for adding record amounts to that debt because you say thats the way out of our mess. [/QUOTE]
I think you need remedial reading classes.
tell me 1bad, where was that debt when clinton left office?
where was it when Bush left?
thanks and good night. lol
also, please explain why a us journalist can walk into a cave and interview OBL but for some reason the people you refer to cannot?
You are so incredibly naive. I can hear Israeli mossad agents laughing at you from here. 
[QUOTE=David Jamieson;1043127]what are you talking about?
There’s no hatred, it’s an observation of an American political executive administration that behaved like a criminal enterprise. [/QUOTE]
Calling a President a war criminal and above the law when he broke no laws and ordered/committed ZERO war crimes is simply name-calling out of anger and nothing more.
I dislike Obama’s policies immensely, but I have stopped the name-calling and simply stick to the facts.
[QUOTE=David Jamieson;1043127]I think you’re the over emotional one here 1bad. I mean you’re constantly lying and spreading misinformation and disinformation to cover your precious republican/fascist ideals. For whatever reason, you are unable to see how transparent and false your overall shpiel is.[/QUOTE]
Get out of here with that garbage. I’ve sourced CBO figures, IRS figures, polling sources, etc. And just because you do not like them and cannot refute them, you simply say I’m lying. The truth must really hurt.
[QUOTE=David Jamieson;1043127]every now and then, you can be credited with a fact or two, but for the most part, you;re a snow job. Not hard to read through and start punching huge holes in your ideas.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for at least giving me that. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=David Jamieson;1043127]but as is the nature of a troll, you will never ever answer a straight question and constantly duck duck duck.[/QUOTE]
You’re lying. Plain and simple.
Speaking of duck, duck duck; I just asked a question you have not answered. So here it goes again. Please answer it, then feel free to ask me any question ON THIS TOPIC, and I’ll answer it for all to see.
Here is my question again:
Doesn’t it seem odd to you that ‘rich’ states like New York and California are facing bankruptcy, yet ‘poor, backwards redneck’ States like Mississippi and Alabama are not facing bankruptcy.
Actually now that I mention that fact, can you explain why that is?
[QUOTE=David Jamieson;1043127]meh, it’s to be expected by now. old song. lol[/QUOTE]
Let’s just see who is right. My question is on the table. We shall see if you answer it. 
Once you do, it’s your turn to ask me an on topic question.
[QUOTE=David Jamieson;1043128]tell me 1bad, where was that debt when clinton left office?
where was it when Bush left?
thanks and good night. lol[/QUOTE]
Without giving the exact numbers, I’ll give you a quick answer. Should you need the real numbers, I’ll dig them up, but once I post I bet your satified with my answer.
US Debt:
Under Clinton < Under GW Bush
Agreed?
[QUOTE=David Jamieson;1043128]also, please explain why a us journalist can walk into a cave and interview OBL but for some reason the people you refer to cannot?[/QUOTE]
i forgot about that… :rolleyes:
not to mention who trained him and why… he’s an unforseen consequence of questionable actions taken by the c.i.a., and the like, during the cold war…
and saddam for that matter… when iran was enemy #1 the US had no problem arming the baathists and giving them $3 billion… they also threw their weight and support behind saddam when it came time for him to take over the party…
and saudi arabian and pakistani muslims ok, iranian, palestinian, iraqi, not so good??? after all the bullsh!t they say to make afghans and iraqis look bad, it all applies to US key allies… so is it oportunistic? or is it an upright moral responsibility??? shady or hypocrite… pick one…
i choose both… democrats and republicans alike… all guilty… ofcourse its not a crime tho, its a fukcing time honored tradition to **** on somebody and get rich doing it… things havent changed that much since somebody like crassus can grab an army and rape the east to fill a war chest to go rape the parthians… unfortunatey for him he died shortly thereafter at the hands of parthian archers… but how many survived and brought home the loot? cut the treasury in and keptr the slave sales free and clear… this model is how alot of blue bloods became the wealthy establishements they are… then the invested it and created business… things havent changed that much…
for 5000 years of recorded history we’ve been *******s to eachother and then somehow in the last 150 years the western world figured out how to be super awesome people???
alot of it has always been down low… and still is… just because, with the global cummunity we have now, the world is litterally watching now, doesnt mean they cant still get away with it… please, that would be naive… for every inspired leader, there are 2000 that are selfish and manipulative… and what, we just happened to have a whoe bunch of good ones all in the last few hundred years???
[QUOTE=Syn7;1043333]for 5000 years of recorded history we’ve been *******s to eachother and then somehow in the last 150 years the western world figured out how to be super awesome people???
[/QUOTE]
About time someone got to the point. Democrats, Republicans, Socialist, Communist, Capitalist…it doesn’t matter. Here’s the truth. The world has been taken to a point of ultra intensification. There are simply not enough resources to go around. I’m not talking about money. Currency is an artificial construct to represent an arrangement of physical, material necessities. At least it used to be. Now its just magic numbers that don’t represent anything and someone decided to call it economics. But the real things, food, shelter ect. There’s not enough to sustain global society at the rate we are going. The truth is, we need a war. A big one. Because for all the idiotic religions, unnecessary sentimentality, rules, morals, social norms, it all comes down to the fact that we despite what some may think, are just a pack of animals like all the birds in the air and all the fish in the sea. We are a bunch of apes, nothing more. And as such we are every bit as bound to the laws of nature as any other creature. And mother nature is the master of warfare. Mother nature had WMD’s before humans were taking craps in caves (seriously, look up how penicillin was discovered). We’ve long since left the log phase, we’re now stationary. Soon enough, death. The only thing that’s going to save this planet is for a couple billion people to disappear, a few civilizations to be erased. Right/wrong? Doesn’t matter, those are artificial terms just like good/evil heaven/hell. Its just the natural way. The ability to survive and reproduce, that’s what is ultimately important. Survival of the fittest. Why people seem to think we’ve somehow removed ourselves from the natural cycle…
yeah… we need to cut our global population by about 70%… 30% leftover could do some great things and not do nonreversable damage…
simple fact is this, no matter what we do, unless we lose a whole chunk of our population or find another planet to colonate, we’re dead… mama nature has a way of gettin hers tho… however, natural disaster, plagues, whatever… if we dont do it she probably will… and if she doesnt, and we dont, we’re done… and now i hear china is seriously considering lifting the one child policy… chinese and indians need to slow down… i know its not pc to say this, but they are growing too large and are become more of a burden to the globe than any nation should be…
I found this to be very interesting. It seems to perfectly encapsulate a certain poster on this board.
The individuals in the Tea Party may come from very different walks of life, but most of them have a few things in common. After nearly a year of talking with Tea Party members from Nevada to New Jersey, I can count on one hand the key elements I expect to hear in nearly every interview. One: Every single one of them was that exceptional Republican who did protest the spending in the Bush years, and not one of them is the hypocrite who only took to the streets when a black Democratic president launched an emergency stimulus program. (“Not me — I was protesting!” is a common exclamation.) Two: Each and every one of them is the only person in America who has ever read the Constitution or watched Schoolhouse Rock. (Here they have guidance from Armey, who explains that the problem with “people who do not cherish America the way we do” is that “they did not read the Federalist Papers.”) Three: They are all furious at the implication that race is a factor in their political views — despite the fact that they blame the financial crisis on poor black homeowners, spend months on end engrossed by reports about how the New Black Panthers want to kill “cracker babies,” support politicians who think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was an overreach of government power, tried to enact South African-style immigration laws in Arizona and obsess over Charlie Rangel, ACORN and Barack Obama’s birth certificate. Four: In fact, some of their best friends are black! (Reporters in Kentucky invented a game called “White Male Liberty Patriot Bingo,” checking off a box every time a Tea Partier mentions a black friend.) And five: Everyone who disagrees with them is a radical leftist who hates America.
It would be inaccurate to say the Tea Partiers are racists. What they are, in truth, are narcissists. They’re completely blind to how offensive the very nature of their rhetoric is to the rest of the country.
I see RC has once again managed to play the race card. :rolleyes:
Look, I’ve been called the resident “Teabagger” on this site and I’ve repeatedly blamed the subprime issue for the mess we are in. And not once have I blamed it on “poor BLACK homeowners”. I’ve repeatedly said that people were put in houses regardless of the ability to pay for said houses, but not once have I brought race into the equation. Once again it was a liberal on this site who brought race up. Yet the people I identify with politically, as well as myself, have been repeatedly called the racists.
RC, your racist article also said this:
Tea Party people “support politicians who think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was an overreach of government power”. Can you please show me one candidate supported and/or endorsed by the Tea Party who said that he/she feels the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is an overreach of Gov’t power?
I bet you cannot. And just like I told Jamieson that he wouldn’t answer my question about bankrupt States, I’m betting you can’t answer my question to you.
[QUOTE=BJJ-Blue;1043517]RC, your racist article also said this:
Tea Party people “support politicians who think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was an overreach of government power”. Can you please show me one candidate supported and/or endorsed by the Tea Party who said that he/she feels the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is an overreach of Gov’t power?.[/QUOTE]
Your hero Ron Paul believes that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 “violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty.”
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.
This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a businesss workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judges defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.
Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.
Your hero Ron Paul believes that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 “violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty.”
is that the cross dressing dude?
oh different … thought it was this guy/it.
