Everyone, it's going to be OK: George Knows.

12728293032

Comments

  • Reply 621 of 653
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    (forget it)
  • Reply 622 of 653
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    They HAD ACCESS TO THE INTEL. THEY VOTED BASED ON IT. HELLO?



    They had access to the intel. They had the OSP too.



    George told everyone:



    "This isn't the intel we want. We want to invade. Go away and get some better intel. He has WMD. Is that clear? He's got WMD, Right George?"



    "He's got WMD, right Rummy. Right Richard?"



    "He's got WMD, right George. Right Condi?"



    "He's got WMD, right Richard."



    "Right, he's got WMD. Where's that intel dammit?"
  • Reply 623 of 653
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    The intelligence is what matters. The action based on that intel is not the point.



    The Intel 5 years later wasn't the same.
  • Reply 624 of 653
    gilschgilsch Posts: 1,995member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    Senator Byrd? Robert KKK Byrd? Oh my God.



    You're a real piece of work, jimmac. It's not like Bush sat down with his "Super Secret False Iraq Intel" folder, let Congress peek at it, and then slammed it shut. They HAD ACCESS TO THE INTEL. THEY VOTED BASED ON IT. HELLO?




    My goodness. You're more fanatical and in denial than I thought.



    They were given access to the "intelligence" the admin. wanted them to see. A good example would be when they trumpeted a debriefing report by Saddam's son in law about the WMDs but conveniently left out the part where he also said that under his command(he was in charge of the bio-chemical and nuclear weapons programs) all those weapons were destroyed back in 91. How convenient eh? Seriously man, why don't you quit now before you fall into ridicule?
  • Reply 625 of 653
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,026member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    The Intel 5 years later wasn't the same.



    Riiiight. So you're saying Clinton had MORE to go on, or LESS? Gee, let me think.
  • Reply 626 of 653
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,026member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gilsch

    My goodness. You're more fanatical and in denial than I thought.



    They were given access to the "intelligence" the admin. wanted them to see. A good example would be when they trumpeted a debriefing report by Saddam's son in law about the WMDs but conveniently left out the part where he also said that under his command(he was in charge of the bio-chemical and nuclear weapons programs) all those weapons were destroyed back in 91. How convenient eh? Seriously man, why don't you quit now before you fall into ridicule?




    How about you prove that.
  • Reply 627 of 653
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,026member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by tonton

    Wow. The Bureau of Labour Statistics. Part of the Executive Branch of the US Government... yeah, they're trustworthy? Did you already forget (or you never even considered because it didn't follow your rosy view of things) the graph earlier in this thread about the INSANE jobs projections coming from Bush and the... Bureau of Labour Statistics?



    Try this source.



    SDW, I'm very happy that your job is going well. Unfortunately, that's not the case for the majority of Americans, no matter what exaggerated data you believe.



    The US is in a deep shithole of a recession. In addition to the loss of jobs, the loss of benefits for those who have jobs MUST be taken into consideration.




    Wow. Just, wow. The jobs forecast DID NOT come from the BLS. The BLS is the most unbiased source of information available. Not ****ing "jobwatch.org". Oh my lord.



    As for being "in a shithole of a recession", you're just utterly, utterly wrong. Either that, or you have no idea what the word "recession" means. GDP is very strong, which is primary measure of the economy. Unemployment is low. The markets in overall, in very good shape. Factories are operating at the fastest pace in almost 20 years. We are NOWHERE NEAR a recession. We're in "strong growth". The piece missing is job growth. Almost all other sectors of the economy are doing well. You're crazy, with all due respect.



    And, how can Bush be blamed for the loss of benefits? Those are business decisions and a growing trend due to a variety of issues.
  • Reply 628 of 653
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    Wow. Just, wow. The jobs forecast DID NOT come from the BLS. The BLS is the most unbiased source of information available. Not ****ing "jobwatch.org". Oh my lord.



    As for being "in a shithole of a recession", you're just utterly, utterly wrong. Either that, or you have no idea what the word "recession" means. GDP is very strong, which is primary measure of the economy. Unemployment is low. The markets in overall, in very good shape. Factories are operating at the fastest pace in almost 20 years. We are NOWHERE NEAR a recession. We're in "strong growth". The piece missing is job growth. Almost all other sectors of the economy are doing well. You're crazy, with all due respect.



    And, how can Bush be blamed for the loss of benefits? Those are business decisions and a growing trend due to a variety of issues.




    The problem is that Bush specifically advertised his policies as tools for creating new jobs. The job projections based on those policies have been unrealistic from the start, and now the administration has backed away from them. Remember, how many hundreds of thousands of jobs were supposed to be created? He's failed spectacularly.
  • Reply 629 of 653
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    jimmac, SDW, tonton, Gilsch and anyone else: you can get in a chat room or something if you're going to jump on each other. Thank you.
  • Reply 630 of 653
    gilschgilsch Posts: 1,995member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    How about you prove that.



    Fine, just because I love to educate people.



    http://middleeastreference.org.uk/kamel.html



    Complete with transcript.



    Edit: edited a sentence after reading the Mods warning.
  • Reply 631 of 653
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    SDW, factories are operating at the fastest pace and aren't hiring. Do you see a problem with that?
  • Reply 632 of 653
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,026member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by billybobsky

    SDW, factories are operating at the fastest pace and aren't hiring. Do you see a problem with that?



    Yes. That's because job growth is last to come back. You'll see
  • Reply 633 of 653
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    Yes. That's because job growth is last to come back. You'll see



    SDW, no. These companies aren't rehiring because they updated their factories to need less workers. They made capital investments into automation. People were expendable.
  • Reply 634 of 653
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    Riiiight. So you're saying Clinton had MORE to go on, or LESS? Gee, let me think.



    You're saying Bush had less info to use to make a decision? You're wrong.
  • Reply 635 of 653
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,026member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by billybobsky

    SDW, no. These companies aren't rehiring because they updated their factories to need less workers. They made capital investments into automation. People were expendable.



    manpower, INC. is predicting the highest percentage of companies willing to hire in the Spring season since 2000.



    Btw, your statement above is unsupported. Thanks.
  • Reply 636 of 653
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,026member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    You're saying Bush had less info to use to make a decision? You're wrong.



    I'm saying he had more reason than Clinton did. You can't be arguing there was less of a reason.
  • Reply 637 of 653
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    I'm saying he had more reason than Clinton did. You can't be arguing there was less of a reason.





    Yeah! He just wasn't telling anybody what the " reason " was.
  • Reply 638 of 653
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    manpower, INC. is predicting the highest percentage of companies willing to hire in the Spring season since 2000.



    Btw, your statement above is unsupported. Thanks.




    You aren't seriously relying on predictions, now, are you, SDW?
  • Reply 639 of 653
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,026member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnJ

    You aren't seriously relying on predictions, now, are you, SDW?



    Well since they are, I don't know, in the EMPLOYMENT industry, I'll take their word. Their data was based on a survey of their client companies. It's a pretty decent prediction...you know, talking to the actual companies who hire.
  • Reply 640 of 653
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    Well since they are, I don't know, in the EMPLOYMENT industry, I'll take their word. Their data was based on a survey of their client companies. It's a pretty decent prediction...you know, talking to the actual companies who hire.





    Well, I'm sure their heart's in the right place.........





    Come back and talk about it when it's actually happened.
Sign In or Register to comment.