Go research it before you do all this speculation.
Quote:
So if chemicals are found on a shelf past their "expiration date", do they cease to be evidence of WMD? Why is there a requirement that they still be "viable" when they are found to be deemed as evidence? The real factor is did he have them at any time when he explicitly was banned from having them.
1. The finding of a large quantity of undocumented biological agents found buried this spring outside of fort detrick demonstrates the problems with documentation.
2. We went to war over an 'urgent' and 'imminent threat.' Discovery of degraded and useless chemicals is evidence of a discontinued weapons program because
3. If they aren't viable then they aren't weapons and they were not being hidden for any reason.
I actually hope that we do find degraded nerve agents, since the Bush admin's attempt to tout them will blow the lid of the whole scam once and for all.
No consequecnes? Wow, that's really wishful. The Republican party will FRY them poticically if this happens. Unless of course, you mean that they are going to lose badly anywaya nd regardless of what happens.
I suppose that could be considered "no consequences".
Keyboard:
Quote:
Agreed, no repercussions for the Democrats. WMD not found. Hearings try to find out why bush,cheney,rice,rumfield and wolfawitz(sp) LIED.
The democrats will instead focus on the economy. They will talk about things like this:
No consequecnes? Wow, that's really wishful. The Republican party will FRY them poticically if this happens. Unless of course, you mean that they are going to lose badly anywaya nd regardless of what happens.
I suppose that could be considered "no consequences".
Keyboard:
Your links don't work. If the economy improves (and it already has...mark my words) this will be a non-issue. And Healthcare???
George W. Bush will sign the Medicare bill. He'll fry them with that, too.
But back on THIS TOPIC. No reprecussions? What's your reasoning behind that thought? I think I was pretty clear about my reasoning. What's yours?
" If the economy improves (and it already has... "
If you cannot add anything useful to the thread, then please leave. This thread was of a hypothhetical nature. I have a right to post a thread like this, just as there are about 1,000 anti-bush, anti-Republican threads out there.
keyboard:
Quote:
what my links no longer work!?
AHHhh!
i'm blaming this on the liberal media!
I've seen people disagree with the notion of a liberally biased media, but to openly mock and dismiss such a notion as a crackpot theory is really beyond me. And no...your links don't work.
Quote:
my reasoning?
It's the economy stupid!
How original. Are you gonna party like it's 1992?
giant:
Quote:
You know what the funniest thing about this thread is? The fact that it is a discussion about pure fantasy concocted in SDW's head. Look:
That's why it's called a premise, giant. It's hypothetical. Perhaps you should cancel your subscription to foreinaffairs.org and buy a dictionary instead. All discussion was to be predicated on an assumed fact. It amazes me that you are so polarized you cannot discuss the topic from the premise given.
jimmac:
It's really sort of impossible to argue with you. Not because I think you are right ("pun intended...pun intended!"), but because when I reference economic data you tell us that "numbers can be twisted". Meanwhile, your perception of how the economy is doing is based (apparently) on how your fellow liberal arts college friends are doing in the great bastion of Conservativism...Oregon. But, never being one to allow your bullshit to go unchallenged:
Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property
located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 1.4 percent in the first quarter of 2003,
according to revised estimates released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the fourth quarter, real
GDP also increased 1.4 percent.
And the forecast is for 3-4.75% growth, which is considered solid sustainable growth by most economists. That's an average of private and government estimates. The headline talks of the discrepency between the government and private sectors, but even the lowest of estimates is decent growth.
3. Unemployment, while higher than we'd all like, stands at 6.4%. Average US unemployment for the last 40 years is about 8.5%. That means unemployment is actually more than 24% BELOW average. Unemployment is also a trailing indicator.
4. As I've mentioned, the markets are WAY up for the year. This is a leading indicator.
But I suppose jimmac will just say "This is just like the 70's and 80's", call me a nut job, and be on his way.
On an anectdotal note, my low risk mutual fund made me $1000 "richer" this quarter (instead of just holding steady or losing 3% increments for the past 2 years). From all the indicators I look at, the economy is showing signs of recovery.
I guess all this discovery that the anti-war people here cannot even imagine a hypothetical case w/o throwing a rod could suggest that on some level, they cannot even imagine that they might be "wrong". ...Just an observation. Don't throw another rod, people.
"That reassurance failed to sway the bond market, where Mr. Greenspan's sunny predictions ignited a sell-off. The yield on the Treasury's 10-year note rose to 3.99 percent, from 3.73 percent on Monday, as more investors seemed to decide that the economy will pick up speed later this year, possibly spelling an end to the bond rally that has lasted three and a half years.
The bond market was also jolted by Mr. Greenspan's comment that the Fed was unlikely to try to keep interest rates in check by buying large amounts of longer-term securities. Bond prices, which move in the opposite direction of interest rates, also fell on the Bush administration's acknowledgment today that the federal budget deficit would be much larger this year and next. That means the government will be issuing even more debt, increasing the supply of bonds in the market, which can be expected to depress bond prices while putting additional upward pressure on interest rates.
Stocks ended the day down slightly, which analysts attributed to the bond market's reversal and the possibility that mortgage refinancing may begin to slow.....
" He acknowledged, in advance of highly critical comments from several committee Democrats, that unemployment keeps moving up and that the tax cuts have increased the federal budget deficit ? all arguments for keeping rates low. But he said that in many cases, unemployment has resulted from improved business productivity that has enabled work forces to be cut. And the deficit is not necessarily a problem, he said, unless it persists for many years, which he said could be prevented by government spending cuts that match the reductions in taxes."
"who represents the borough of Queens in New York City. "For the past few sessions here, you have predicted job growth and wealth creation, and all we have seen, at least in my city, is more job loss and the loss of wealth.""
"Mr. Greenspan has a recent history, however, of predicting turnarounds that have failed to materialize on schedule. In May 2001, he said there was "ample evidence that we are experiencing only a pause in the investment in a broad set of innovations." But the pause has lasted more than two years. And in March of last year, he said that the job market seemed to be improving, a prediction that occurred before an additional 519,000 jobs were lost."
"Nonetheless, the certified cases of NAFTA driven job losses reveal some key patterns. According to the "NAFTA at Two Years" Report from the Institute for Policy Studies, job losses due to the relocation of production to Mexico have disproportionately affected women and rural communities. The latter, with 20% of the US population, have experienced 40% of the certified job losses. These groups of the working population have been disproportionately impacted because job losses have tended to take place in the low wage, labour intensive manufacturing industries, where women, rural workers, and minorities workers predominate. Two sectors have been particularly hard hit and account for 51% of closed plants - electronics (29% of closed plants compared to 9% of total US manufacturing employment ) and apparel (22.4% of closed plants and 5% of total manufacturing employment). [See Table 11.] Both sectors employ roughly double the average proportion of women and minority workers in manufacturing. The IPS study also documents links between plant relocations and previous corporate non compliance with environmental regulation."
and......
from a discussion at Macintouch:
"[Matt Snider] Additional to your posting on the export of highly technical and paid jobs to India, I wanted to followup with a comment. Last year, on my way back from Japan in September, I happened to be sitting across the aisle from a senior manager for AVID. With my interest in digital video production, we struck up a conversation.
_ He told me, which is a confirmation of the story you posted, that AVID, too, has exported virtually all its hardware and software development to India, China (Hong Kong), Korea, Thailand, Singapore and Taiwan simply because, as he said, "we can hire four engineers there for less than the cost of one here." When I pointed out that it was, at the least, un-American to put our own workers out of their jobs and hire foreign nationals, he countered by saying that it was un-American to pay high prices for products and if companies wanted to keep products priced low to be competitive, they have no choice but to move abroad.
_ Simple economics seems to be all there is to the issue: the economics of corporate profits, shareholder value and executive greed.
"
You really think the economy is going to rebound and then grow without a major shift in corporate operations?
I've seen people disagree with the notion of a liberally biased media, but to openly mock and dismiss such a notion as a crackpot theory is really beyond me. And no...your links don't work.
Some media leans left.
Some media leans right.
Most of the time, most media is driven by the bottom dollar.
And race downward for this bottom dollar hurts Americans.
That is what i believe.
You are the one that gave a laundry list of who is the "liberal" media and who can be trusted.
You are the one that claimed "liberal media" when a news source offered information you did not agree with.
To discuss whether or not the media is liberal, we need to discuss those arms of the media that you have confidence in like fox news. They are doing the EXACT thing you are claiming the liberal media is going, only they are doing it in the polar political opposite. Yet you do not throw around the term, "conservative media" If you think FoxNews is the kind of media that's good for America, then i feel sorry for you.
I find it hilarious and sad people seem to need to scapegoat the media when the news show's their guy in a bad light. Despite the fact most media is owned by five companies whose CEOs i'd willing to bet don't vote democrat. and the fact that hate( i mean conservative radio) rules the airways.
(and let's not leave out the double standard of clinton vis a vis bush JUNIOR on any number of subjects.)
Blame the messenger all you want, just don't be naive enough to think he comes in only one form.
Not absolutely conclusive of the state of the economy, but FWIW:
1 year NASDAQ
1 year S&P500
Looks like a clearly rising trend since March 2003... Not saying this will go on forever, or that there won't be a dip tomorrow. Just a positive looking trend for the time being.
Not absolutely conclusive of the state of the economy, but FWIW:
1 year NASDAQ
1 year S&P500
Looks like a clearly rising trend since March 2003... Not saying this will go on forever, or that there won't be a dip tomorrow. Just a positive looking trend for the time being.
Well anybody who believes the economy is healthy is ignoring the facts.
Exactly. The facts here are that his has been the worst summer in a long time. For a long time th eweather was awful and everyone believed that as soon as it was sunny people would come to th ebeach in droves, but the crowds have never materialized. On my street half the apartments are empty, which is unheard of in the middle of the summer.
Comments
Originally posted by Randycat99
Is it really as simple as that?
Go research it before you do all this speculation.
So if chemicals are found on a shelf past their "expiration date", do they cease to be evidence of WMD? Why is there a requirement that they still be "viable" when they are found to be deemed as evidence? The real factor is did he have them at any time when he explicitly was banned from having them.
1. The finding of a large quantity of undocumented biological agents found buried this spring outside of fort detrick demonstrates the problems with documentation.
2. We went to war over an 'urgent' and 'imminent threat.' Discovery of degraded and useless chemicals is evidence of a discontinued weapons program because
3. If they aren't viable then they aren't weapons and they were not being hidden for any reason.
I actually hope that we do find degraded nerve agents, since the Bush admin's attempt to tout them will blow the lid of the whole scam once and for all.
The democrats will instead focus on the economy. They will talk about things like this:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....storyID=3093128
and the Unemployment rate, and health care. And oh yes. this:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....storyID=3093128
I suppose that could be considered "no consequences".
Keyboard:
Agreed, no repercussions for the Democrats. WMD not found. Hearings try to find out why bush,cheney,rice,rumfield and wolfawitz(sp) LIED.
The democrats will instead focus on the economy. They will talk about things like this:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....storyID=3093128
and the Unemployment rate, and health care. And oh yes. this:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....storyID=3093128
Your links don't work. If the economy improves (and it already has...mark my words) this will be a non-issue. And Healthcare???
George W. Bush will sign the Medicare bill. He'll fry them with that, too.
But back on THIS TOPIC. No reprecussions? What's your reasoning behind that thought? I think I was pretty clear about my reasoning. What's yours?
AHHhh!
i'm blaming this on the liberal media!
Originally posted by SDW2001
But back on THIS TOPIC. No reprecussions? What's your reasoning behind that thought? I think I was pretty clear about my reasoning. What's yours?
Yes, you were very clear with your reasoning.
SDW's reasoning:
I'M A REPUBLICAN SO THE LIBERALS WILL FRY HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA COME HERE MY PRETTIES HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHA!
It's the economy stupid!
Premise: We find substantial WMD in Iraq.
SDW is so far gone that he now has to play make-believe.
Originally posted by SDW2001
No consequecnes? Wow, that's really wishful. The Republican party will FRY them poticically if this happens.
Well, we all know how Republicans have perfected the art of frying Democrats. No one does it better.
Originally posted by SDW2001
No consequecnes? Wow, that's really wishful. The Republican party will FRY them poticically if this happens. Unless of course, you mean that they are going to lose badly anywaya nd regardless of what happens.
I suppose that could be considered "no consequences".
Keyboard:
Your links don't work. If the economy improves (and it already has...mark my words) this will be a non-issue. And Healthcare???
George W. Bush will sign the Medicare bill. He'll fry them with that, too.
But back on THIS TOPIC. No reprecussions? What's your reasoning behind that thought? I think I was pretty clear about my reasoning. What's yours?
" If the economy improves (and it already has... "
That's rich!
Hey! I made a funny! Pun intended, pun intended!
Still in check.
keyboard:
what my links no longer work!?
AHHhh!
i'm blaming this on the liberal media!
I've seen people disagree with the notion of a liberally biased media, but to openly mock and dismiss such a notion as a crackpot theory is really beyond me. And no...your links don't work.
my reasoning?
It's the economy stupid!
How original. Are you gonna party like it's 1992?
giant:
You know what the funniest thing about this thread is? The fact that it is a discussion about pure fantasy concocted in SDW's head. Look:
That's why it's called a premise, giant. It's hypothetical. Perhaps you should cancel your subscription to foreinaffairs.org and buy a dictionary instead. All discussion was to be predicated on an assumed fact. It amazes me that you are so polarized you cannot discuss the topic from the premise given.
jimmac:
It's really sort of impossible to argue with you. Not because I think you are right ("pun intended...pun intended!"), but because when I reference economic data you tell us that "numbers can be twisted". Meanwhile, your perception of how the economy is doing is based (apparently) on how your fellow liberal arts college friends are doing in the great bastion of Conservativism...Oregon. But, never being one to allow your bullshit to go unchallenged:
1. Greenspan sees growth
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,91955,00.html
or if you hate Fox News:
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2003/s903734.htm
or, if you want the guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/...998882,00.html
2. GDP growth is not high per se, but's not terrible either.
http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/newsrel/gdpnewsrelease.htm
Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property
located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 1.4 percent in the first quarter of 2003,
according to revised estimates released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the fourth quarter, real
GDP also increased 1.4 percent.
And the forecast is for 3-4.75% growth, which is considered solid sustainable growth by most economists. That's an average of private and government estimates. The headline talks of the discrepency between the government and private sectors, but even the lowest of estimates is decent growth.
http://www.forbes.com/technology/new...tr1027072.html
3. Unemployment, while higher than we'd all like, stands at 6.4%. Average US unemployment for the last 40 years is about 8.5%. That means unemployment is actually more than 24% BELOW average. Unemployment is also a trailing indicator.
4. As I've mentioned, the markets are WAY up for the year. This is a leading indicator.
But I suppose jimmac will just say "This is just like the 70's and 80's", call me a nut job, and be on his way.
I guess all this discovery that the anti-war people here cannot even imagine a hypothetical case w/o throwing a rod could suggest that on some level, they cannot even imagine that they might be "wrong". ...Just an observation. Don't throw another rod, people.
"That reassurance failed to sway the bond market, where Mr. Greenspan's sunny predictions ignited a sell-off. The yield on the Treasury's 10-year note rose to 3.99 percent, from 3.73 percent on Monday, as more investors seemed to decide that the economy will pick up speed later this year, possibly spelling an end to the bond rally that has lasted three and a half years.
The bond market was also jolted by Mr. Greenspan's comment that the Fed was unlikely to try to keep interest rates in check by buying large amounts of longer-term securities. Bond prices, which move in the opposite direction of interest rates, also fell on the Bush administration's acknowledgment today that the federal budget deficit would be much larger this year and next. That means the government will be issuing even more debt, increasing the supply of bonds in the market, which can be expected to depress bond prices while putting additional upward pressure on interest rates.
Stocks ended the day down slightly, which analysts attributed to the bond market's reversal and the possibility that mortgage refinancing may begin to slow.....
" He acknowledged, in advance of highly critical comments from several committee Democrats, that unemployment keeps moving up and that the tax cuts have increased the federal budget deficit ? all arguments for keeping rates low. But he said that in many cases, unemployment has resulted from improved business productivity that has enabled work forces to be cut. And the deficit is not necessarily a problem, he said, unless it persists for many years, which he said could be prevented by government spending cuts that match the reductions in taxes."
"who represents the borough of Queens in New York City. "For the past few sessions here, you have predicted job growth and wealth creation, and all we have seen, at least in my city, is more job loss and the loss of wealth.""
"Mr. Greenspan has a recent history, however, of predicting turnarounds that have failed to materialize on schedule. In May 2001, he said there was "ample evidence that we are experiencing only a pause in the investment in a broad set of innovations." But the pause has lasted more than two years. And in March of last year, he said that the job market seemed to be improving, a prediction that occurred before an additional 519,000 jobs were lost."
and.......
"Nonetheless, the certified cases of NAFTA driven job losses reveal some key patterns. According to the "NAFTA at Two Years" Report from the Institute for Policy Studies, job losses due to the relocation of production to Mexico have disproportionately affected women and rural communities. The latter, with 20% of the US population, have experienced 40% of the certified job losses. These groups of the working population have been disproportionately impacted because job losses have tended to take place in the low wage, labour intensive manufacturing industries, where women, rural workers, and minorities workers predominate. Two sectors have been particularly hard hit and account for 51% of closed plants - electronics (29% of closed plants compared to 9% of total US manufacturing employment ) and apparel (22.4% of closed plants and 5% of total manufacturing employment). [See Table 11.] Both sectors employ roughly double the average proportion of women and minority workers in manufacturing. The IPS study also documents links between plant relocations and previous corporate non compliance with environmental regulation."
and......
from a discussion at Macintouch:
"[Matt Snider] Additional to your posting on the export of highly technical and paid jobs to India, I wanted to followup with a comment. Last year, on my way back from Japan in September, I happened to be sitting across the aisle from a senior manager for AVID. With my interest in digital video production, we struck up a conversation.
_ He told me, which is a confirmation of the story you posted, that AVID, too, has exported virtually all its hardware and software development to India, China (Hong Kong), Korea, Thailand, Singapore and Taiwan simply because, as he said, "we can hire four engineers there for less than the cost of one here." When I pointed out that it was, at the least, un-American to put our own workers out of their jobs and hire foreign nationals, he countered by saying that it was un-American to pay high prices for products and if companies wanted to keep products priced low to be competitive, they have no choice but to move abroad.
_ Simple economics seems to be all there is to the issue: the economics of corporate profits, shareholder value and executive greed.
"
You really think the economy is going to rebound and then grow without a major shift in corporate operations?
I've seen people disagree with the notion of a liberally biased media, but to openly mock and dismiss such a notion as a crackpot theory is really beyond me. And no...your links don't work.
Some media leans left.
Some media leans right.
Most of the time, most media is driven by the bottom dollar.
And race downward for this bottom dollar hurts Americans.
That is what i believe.
You are the one that gave a laundry list of who is the "liberal" media and who can be trusted.
You are the one that claimed "liberal media" when a news source offered information you did not agree with.
To discuss whether or not the media is liberal, we need to discuss those arms of the media that you have confidence in like fox news. They are doing the EXACT thing you are claiming the liberal media is going, only they are doing it in the polar political opposite. Yet you do not throw around the term, "conservative media"
I find it hilarious and sad people seem to need to scapegoat the media when the news show's their guy in a bad light. Despite the fact most media is owned by five companies whose CEOs i'd willing to bet don't vote democrat. and the fact that hate( i mean conservative radio) rules the airways.
(and let's not leave out the double standard of clinton vis a vis bush JUNIOR on any number of subjects.)
Blame the messenger all you want, just don't be naive enough to think he comes in only one form.
i suppose that you are all intelligent enough to discuss theoretical extenuations and permutations without resorting to mudslinging, right?
Not absolutely conclusive of the state of the economy, but FWIW:
1 year NASDAQ
1 year S&P500
Looks like a clearly rising trend since March 2003... Not saying this will go on forever, or that there won't be a dip tomorrow. Just a positive looking trend for the time being.
Originally posted by Randycat99
Excellent advice! ...and well worded.
Not absolutely conclusive of the state of the economy, but FWIW:
1 year NASDAQ
1 year S&P500
Looks like a clearly rising trend since March 2003... Not saying this will go on forever, or that there won't be a dip tomorrow. Just a positive looking trend for the time being.
Well anybody who believes the economy is healthy is ignoring the facts.
http://money.cnn.com/2003/07/16/markets/banks/index.htm
And
http://money.cnn.com/index.html?cnn=yes
There is the possibility of deflation ( which I've never heard of in my lifetime ), the interest rates, and the sickly job market.
It's just igonoring the obvious. I wish it was different and I was wrong.