God what a crock! If you think it's just " ok " to have the country run by one man without the imput of the people in this democracy you're in the wrong country bucko! Myself and many other people would battle to their last breath to keep that from happening!
Don't they call that a dictatorship?
Recall that Bush did publicly pronounce: "my job would be far easier if I were a dictator".
I'm sure it's out of context to some extent. But can a member of this administration utter the words 'oil' and 'Iraq' in the same sentence without being fired?
A report which was posted on our website on June 4 under the heading "Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil" misconstrued remarks made by the US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, making it appear that he had said that oil was the main reason for going to war in Iraq. He did not say that. He said, according to the Department of Defence website, "The ... difference between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq." The sense was clearly that the US had no economic options by means of which to achieve its objectives, not that the economic value of the oil motivated the war. The report appeared only on the website and has now been removed.
It's interesting how the only conception of the word 'threat' you can wrap your brain around consists of wither terrorist or military attacks on the US.
Educate me, Wildcat.
Quote:
how things change
There's a reason you had to cut that sentence off before it finished and removed it from context. You don't want to acknowledge what I was really saying.
All that hard research work to try and bust me and that's all you can come up with?
Could I get a copy of the old thread, please? I'd really appreciate it.
God what a crock! If you think it's just " ok " to have the country run by one man without the input of the people in this democracy you're in the wrong country bucko! Myself and many other people would battle to their last breath to keep that from happening
When did I say anything of the sort, my angry partisan friend?
Also, how is the country run by one man without the input of the people any more than it was 5 years ago when we dropped bombs all over Iraq?
There's a reason you had to cut that sentence off before it finished and removed it from context. You don't want to acknowledge what I was really saying.
All that hard research work to try and bust me and that's all you can come up with?
Could I get a copy of the old thread, please? I'd really appreciate it.
When did I say anything of the sort, my angry partisan friend?
Also, how is the country run by one man without the input of the people any more than it was 5 years ago when we dropped bombs all over Iraq?
Sorry but, you've already lost your crediability. You can't wiggle out of this one by clouding the issue. Also it seems to me that you're the one who's partisan. You're the one who's always bringing up these Republican - Democrat comparisons. But keep slinging the crap about how you'd like a dictator instead of a democracy. At this point it's almost amusing.
When did I say anything that would even remotely resemble support of a dictatorship?
Also:
What about what Bush has done in any way resembles a dictatorship more than any previous modern president?
Please answer those questions.
Do I really have to quote you? I wasn't the only ( or first one ) in this thread to draw that conclusion.
He stepped over the line. That's why he's being " crucified ".
Nice backpeddling! But as Nicholas Cage's character in " Vampire's Kiss " ( a hilarious film if you've never seen it ) says, " Too late! Too late! Too late! "
There's a reason you had to cut that sentence off before it finished and removed it from context. You don't want to acknowledge what I was really saying.
Actually, no, that was the entire post. The periods are yours. I'll post a picture when I get my laptop out again.
It's funny how vanity works that way, isn't it? It does the opposite of what folks like this want.
I actually am starting to really like groverat, but this whole idea that he wants to comment on every subject in the world is really hard to deal with. Hell, I studied finance for years, yet I realize I'm not paying enough attention to comment definitively on what's going on now. When was the last time you saw me in one of those threads, yet I have probably studied it more and have a higher household income (girlfriend's a financial analyst ) than most folks over there.
What's really so hard about stepping back and learning about the thinks that one finds interesting?
I don't try to tell trumpetman about real estate, but I certain have listen to what he says.
It's funny how vanity works that way, isn't it? It does the opposite of what folks like this want.
I actually am starting to really like groverat, but this whole idea that he wants to comment on every subject in the world is really hard to deal with. Hell, I studied finance for years, yet I realize I'm not paying enough attention to comment definitively on what's going on now. When was the last time you saw me in one of those threads, yet I have probably studied it more and have a higher household income (girlfriend's a financial analyst ) than most folks over there.
Yeah I have to admit I sort of like him too. I have several close friends that are Bush supporters. We tend to talk about different things. Must dash. Work time!
And even if it was in context, it has nothing to do with the subject now.
Phantom moral victories abound.
--
jimmac:
Quote:
Do I really have to quote you? I wasn't the only ( or first one ) in this thread to draw that conclusion.
Why start backing up your arguments now?
For all the blustering you guys do, you really think you would come up with more than an 8-month-old quote that is semi-incriminating, and only then when taken completely out of context.
Now that we know that the basis for attacking Iraq, WOMD, is simply a lie, we can now see without any doubt that, as the title states, our president and his administration are lying to the citizens of the United States in order to start a war with Iraq...
What does it mean that "WMD is simply a lie"? (1st reason I want to see the entire thread)
Bush lied about WMD in certain circumstances, but as I've told you before the WMD issue was around 10 years before Bush took office. It is an issue outside of Dubya and his war aims.
Otherwise, why does UNMOVIC even exist?
Also note that 8 months ago we hadn't seen the all of the "evidence" brought by Bush; Powell's speech was in February of '03. (2nd reason I want to see the entire thread)
Not only that, how much of what was said prior to the posting date has actually been shown to be lies? (3rd reason)
So I'd really like to see the thread. If it shows that some of my opinions from nearly a year ago differ from those I hold today, then I'm prepared to acknowledge that fully.
groverat . . ordinarily you argue and seem to mean it . . . I mean you seem to actually believe what you say
but the post above is just plain silly . . and it seems that even you know it . . . somehow in the prose
everybody knows that there had been an 'issue' for ten years or more . . . but what many came to doubt was the continued existence of said 'issue' and definitely the proported exigency of the demand to do away with the 'issue' through the invasion of another country, killing people including our own young American soldiers . . . and many who came to doubt the existence were themselves part of the apparatus that was supposed to KNOW . . . unlike the 'politicians' wo knew that they didn't know (at best) or, at worst knew the issue was false and therefor LIED like hell
but your post above seems to be grasping at straws . . . perhaps its time to admit that the title of this thread is right . . .
FWIW, Blix had this to say today about the missing WMD:
"As I have noted before, this does not necessarily mean that such items could not exist," he said. "They might -- there remain long lists of items unaccounted for -- but it is not justified to jump to the conclusion that something exists just because it is unaccounted for."
but what many came to doubt was the continued existence of said 'issue' and definitely the proported exigency of the demand to do away with the 'issue' through the invasion of another country, killing people including our own young American soldiers
Better to keep the issue alive by killing civilians by the truckload and getting nothing done than to remove the issue entirely by killing a few soldiers and less than a month's worth of civilians?
I don't see what the problem is, really.
Quote:
perhaps its time to admit that the title of this thread is right . . .
Title of the thread:
The Bush admin is still lying to start a war
Have I not been saying that Bush lied, or at least seems to have bent the truth a good deal? Have I not?
Perhaps it's time you read my freaking posts.
In this thread, in March, before the first bombs fell:
Finding holes in the arguments of politicians is not a challenge.
Yeah, I'll FINALLY admit Bush isn't honest. You broke me!
--
tonton:
Quote:
Groverat, the basis of the American system of government, the very system that has made our country the greatest in the world is that major decisions are made with the support of the people paramount in its regard. Bush took away the people's right to make an informed choice on this issue. He spent OUR tax dollars. He sent OUR sons and daughters to war. He greatly reduced OUR COUNTRY'S international reputation in terms of morality and global equality. This was all done without our consent. If you claim he had our consent, then you are wrong. He lied. You admit that. He had no consent because he lied.
tonton... this is me you're talking to. Do you really think you can sell me this line of bullshit? I mean honestly... "the very system that has made our country the greatest in the world is that major decisions are made with the support of the people paramount in its regard"?
Did you just say that to me in a serious tone?
And let's just imagine that isn't a load of over-idealistic crap... the majority of the country supported the war. Lest we forget.
When did this retarded idea that democracy meant rule by protest #s and opinion polls come out? heh.. Christ
Quote:
We might have chosen to pursue further diplomatic solutions, a course that in hindsight, as we see there was no threat to the US at all, would have been a much better use of our resources. All those billions could have been put back into our economy in ways that would benefit all Americans. But by lying, Bush took that choice away from us. That is un-American. That is unpatriotic. That is overstepping the authority of the Executive Branch.
How? How is that overstepping the authority of the Executive Branch?
Bush took WHAT choice away from you? You HAD no choice. And don't give me this "but what about democracy!?" bullshit, did Clinton become a dictator when he bombed Iraq the night before his ****ing impeachment hearing? We're in a representative democracy, they do what they can in the bounds of law (and what Bush did was 100% kosher WRT American law). Don't vote for him next time.
What a joke. What a stupid joke. What a ridiculously stupid joke.
Do you know how the government works? I'm curious.
Comments
Originally posted by jimmac
God what a crock! If you think it's just " ok " to have the country run by one man without the imput of the people in this democracy you're in the wrong country bucko! Myself and many other people would battle to their last breath to keep that from happening!
Don't they call that a dictatorship?
Recall that Bush did publicly pronounce: "my job would be far easier if I were a dictator".
Originally posted by sammi jo
Don't they call that a dictatorship?
Recall that Bush did publicly pronounce: "my job would be far easier if I were a dictator".
Yeah and groverat seems to think that's ok and business as usual.
" By The People For The People ". It doesn't say " By The President For The President ". I think we've located the heart of the problem.
Originally posted by BRussell
Wolfowitz is out of control.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/...970334,00.html
I'm sure it's out of context to some extent. But can a member of this administration utter the words 'oil' and 'Iraq' in the same sentence without being fired?
So, the Guardian has corrected itself.
A report which was posted on our website on June 4 under the heading "Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil" misconstrued remarks made by the US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, making it appear that he had said that oil was the main reason for going to war in Iraq. He did not say that. He said, according to the Department of Defence website, "The ... difference between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq." The sense was clearly that the US had no economic options by means of which to achieve its objectives, not that the economic value of the oil motivated the war. The report appeared only on the website and has now been removed.
Full transcript of Wolfowitz's remarks at this DoD link.
It's interesting how the only conception of the word 'threat' you can wrap your brain around consists of wither terrorist or military attacks on the US.
Educate me, Wildcat.
how things change
There's a reason you had to cut that sentence off before it finished and removed it from context. You don't want to acknowledge what I was really saying.
All that hard research work to try and bust me and that's all you can come up with?
Could I get a copy of the old thread, please? I'd really appreciate it.
ftmsucks@yahoo.com
Please.
--
jimmac:
God what a crock! If you think it's just " ok " to have the country run by one man without the input of the people in this democracy you're in the wrong country bucko! Myself and many other people would battle to their last breath to keep that from happening
When did I say anything of the sort, my angry partisan friend?
Also, how is the country run by one man without the input of the people any more than it was 5 years ago when we dropped bombs all over Iraq?
Originally posted by groverat
giant:
Educate me, Wildcat.
There's a reason you had to cut that sentence off before it finished and removed it from context. You don't want to acknowledge what I was really saying.
All that hard research work to try and bust me and that's all you can come up with?
Could I get a copy of the old thread, please? I'd really appreciate it.
ftmsucks@yahoo.com
Please.
--
jimmac:
When did I say anything of the sort, my angry partisan friend?
Also, how is the country run by one man without the input of the people any more than it was 5 years ago when we dropped bombs all over Iraq?
Sorry but, you've already lost your crediability. You can't wiggle out of this one by clouding the issue. Also it seems to me that you're the one who's partisan. You're the one who's always bringing up these Republican - Democrat comparisons. But keep slinging the crap about how you'd like a dictator instead of a democracy. At this point it's almost amusing.
Che Guevera and his "bourgeoise details", eh?
"Don't confuse me with the facts!" - Bill McNeal
Originally posted by groverat
Asking you to back up your accusations is clouding the issue?
Che Guevera and his "bourgeoise details", eh?
"Don't confuse me with the facts!" - Bill McNeal
Nice try. Won't work.
Also:
What about what Bush has done in any way resembles a dictatorship more than any previous modern president?
Please answer those questions.
Originally posted by groverat
When did I say anything that would even remotely resemble support of a dictatorship?
Also:
What about what Bush has done in any way resembles a dictatorship more than any previous modern president?
Please answer those questions.
Do I really have to quote you? I wasn't the only ( or first one ) in this thread to draw that conclusion.
He stepped over the line. That's why he's being " crucified ".
Nice backpeddling! But as Nicholas Cage's character in " Vampire's Kiss " ( a hilarious film if you've never seen it ) says, " Too late! Too late! Too late! "
Originally posted by groverat
There's a reason you had to cut that sentence off before it finished and removed it from context. You don't want to acknowledge what I was really saying.
Actually, no, that was the entire post. The periods are yours. I'll post a picture when I get my laptop out again.
Originally posted by jimmac
Sorry but, you've already lost your crediability.
It's funny how vanity works that way, isn't it? It does the opposite of what folks like this want.
I actually am starting to really like groverat, but this whole idea that he wants to comment on every subject in the world is really hard to deal with. Hell, I studied finance for years, yet I realize I'm not paying enough attention to comment definitively on what's going on now. When was the last time you saw me in one of those threads, yet I have probably studied it more and have a higher household income (girlfriend's a financial analyst
What's really so hard about stepping back and learning about the thinks that one finds interesting?
I don't try to tell trumpetman about real estate, but I certain have listen to what he says.
Originally posted by giant
It's funny how vanity works that way, isn't it? It does the opposite of what folks like this want.
I actually am starting to really like groverat, but this whole idea that he wants to comment on every subject in the world is really hard to deal with. Hell, I studied finance for years, yet I realize I'm not paying enough attention to comment definitively on what's going on now. When was the last time you saw me in one of those threads, yet I have probably studied it more and have a higher household income (girlfriend's a financial analyst
Yeah I have to admit I sort of like him too. I have several close friends that are Bush supporters. We tend to talk about different things. Must dash. Work time!
And even if it was in context, it has nothing to do with the subject now.
Phantom moral victories abound.
--
jimmac:
Do I really have to quote you? I wasn't the only ( or first one ) in this thread to draw that conclusion.
Why start backing up your arguments now?
For all the blustering you guys do, you really think you would come up with more than an 8-month-old quote that is semi-incriminating, and only then when taken completely out of context.
Originally posted by groverat
..an 8-month-old quote that is semi-incriminating....
So, you're finally going to admit it?
Originally posted by groverat
Out of context, giant, out of context.
~~~~~~~~
In context, groverat, in context.
Oh, and I was wrong about the periods. Sorry. See how easy it is? And I wouldn't have gone to all the trouble if I didn't respect you.
Admit what?
8 months ago giant said:
Now that we know that the basis for attacking Iraq, WOMD, is simply a lie, we can now see without any doubt that, as the title states, our president and his administration are lying to the citizens of the United States in order to start a war with Iraq...
What does it mean that "WMD is simply a lie"? (1st reason I want to see the entire thread)
Bush lied about WMD in certain circumstances, but as I've told you before the WMD issue was around 10 years before Bush took office. It is an issue outside of Dubya and his war aims.
Otherwise, why does UNMOVIC even exist?
Also note that 8 months ago we hadn't seen the all of the "evidence" brought by Bush; Powell's speech was in February of '03. (2nd reason I want to see the entire thread)
Not only that, how much of what was said prior to the posting date has actually been shown to be lies? (3rd reason)
So I'd really like to see the thread. If it shows that some of my opinions from nearly a year ago differ from those I hold today, then I'm prepared to acknowledge that fully.
but the post above is just plain silly . . and it seems that even you know it . . . somehow in the prose
everybody knows that there had been an 'issue' for ten years or more . . . but what many came to doubt was the continued existence of said 'issue' and definitely the proported exigency of the demand to do away with the 'issue' through the invasion of another country, killing people including our own young American soldiers . . . and many who came to doubt the existence were themselves part of the apparatus that was supposed to KNOW . . . unlike the 'politicians' wo knew that they didn't know (at best) or, at worst knew the issue was false and therefor LIED like hell
but your post above seems to be grasping at straws . . . perhaps its time to admit that the title of this thread is right . . .
"As I have noted before, this does not necessarily mean that such items could not exist," he said. "They might -- there remain long lists of items unaccounted for -- but it is not justified to jump to the conclusion that something exists just because it is unaccounted for."
UPI report here.
but what many came to doubt was the continued existence of said 'issue' and definitely the proported exigency of the demand to do away with the 'issue' through the invasion of another country, killing people including our own young American soldiers
Better to keep the issue alive by killing civilians by the truckload and getting nothing done than to remove the issue entirely by killing a few soldiers and less than a month's worth of civilians?
I don't see what the problem is, really.
perhaps its time to admit that the title of this thread is right . . .
Title of the thread:
The Bush admin is still lying to start a war
Have I not been saying that Bush lied, or at least seems to have bent the truth a good deal? Have I not?
Perhaps it's time you read my freaking posts.
In this thread, in March, before the first bombs fell:
Finding holes in the arguments of politicians is not a challenge.
Yeah, I'll FINALLY admit Bush isn't honest. You broke me!
--
tonton:
Groverat, the basis of the American system of government, the very system that has made our country the greatest in the world is that major decisions are made with the support of the people paramount in its regard. Bush took away the people's right to make an informed choice on this issue. He spent OUR tax dollars. He sent OUR sons and daughters to war. He greatly reduced OUR COUNTRY'S international reputation in terms of morality and global equality. This was all done without our consent. If you claim he had our consent, then you are wrong. He lied. You admit that. He had no consent because he lied.
tonton... this is me you're talking to. Do you really think you can sell me this line of bullshit? I mean honestly... "the very system that has made our country the greatest in the world is that major decisions are made with the support of the people paramount in its regard"?
Did you just say that to me in a serious tone?
And let's just imagine that isn't a load of over-idealistic crap... the majority of the country supported the war. Lest we forget.
When did this retarded idea that democracy meant rule by protest #s and opinion polls come out? heh.. Christ
We might have chosen to pursue further diplomatic solutions, a course that in hindsight, as we see there was no threat to the US at all, would have been a much better use of our resources. All those billions could have been put back into our economy in ways that would benefit all Americans. But by lying, Bush took that choice away from us. That is un-American. That is unpatriotic. That is overstepping the authority of the Executive Branch.
How? How is that overstepping the authority of the Executive Branch?
Bush took WHAT choice away from you? You HAD no choice. And don't give me this "but what about democracy!?" bullshit, did Clinton become a dictator when he bombed Iraq the night before his ****ing impeachment hearing? We're in a representative democracy, they do what they can in the bounds of law (and what Bush did was 100% kosher WRT American law). Don't vote for him next time.
What a joke. What a stupid joke. What a ridiculously stupid joke.
Do you know how the government works? I'm curious.