If Clinton Had Kept His Promise
bm2boats
11-30-2003, 10:03 PM
If Clinton Had Kept His Promise
After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured
1,000; President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted
down and punished.
After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five US military
personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down
and punished.
After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19
and injured 200 US military personnel; Clinton promised that those
responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 1998 bombing of US embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and
injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible! Would be hunted
down and punished.
After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39
US sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down
and punished.
Maybe if Clinton had kept his promise, an estimated 3,000 people in New
York and Washington, DC that are now dead would be alive today.
And, now that Bush is taking action to bring these people to justice, we
have opponents charging him with being a war monger...
AN INTERESTING QUESTION:
This question was raised on a Philly radio call-in show. Without casting
stones, it is a legitimate question.
There are two men, both extremely wealthy. One develops relatively cheap
software and gives billions of dollars to charity. The other sponsors
terrorism. That being the case, why was it that the Clinton
Administration spent more money chasing down Bill Gates over the past
eight years than Osama bin Laden?
THINK ABOUT IT!
It is a strange turn of events.
Hillary gets $8 Million for her forthcoming memoir.
Bill gets about $12 Million for his memoir yet to be written.
This from two people who have spent the past 8 years being unable to
recall anything about past events while under oath!
After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured
1,000; President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted
down and punished.
After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five US military
personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down
and punished.
After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19
and injured 200 US military personnel; Clinton promised that those
responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 1998 bombing of US embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and
injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible! Would be hunted
down and punished.
After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39
US sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down
and punished.
Maybe if Clinton had kept his promise, an estimated 3,000 people in New
York and Washington, DC that are now dead would be alive today.
And, now that Bush is taking action to bring these people to justice, we
have opponents charging him with being a war monger...
AN INTERESTING QUESTION:
This question was raised on a Philly radio call-in show. Without casting
stones, it is a legitimate question.
There are two men, both extremely wealthy. One develops relatively cheap
software and gives billions of dollars to charity. The other sponsors
terrorism. That being the case, why was it that the Clinton
Administration spent more money chasing down Bill Gates over the past
eight years than Osama bin Laden?
THINK ABOUT IT!
It is a strange turn of events.
Hillary gets $8 Million for her forthcoming memoir.
Bill gets about $12 Million for his memoir yet to be written.
This from two people who have spent the past 8 years being unable to
recall anything about past events while under oath!
TexasF355F1
11-30-2003, 10:29 PM
Interesting. I also heard today that the some sort of investigation involving the Clintons and some sort of money from 1993 i believe is underway. I wish I could remember what it was i heard, but i had just woke up and flipped on the tv.
Toksin
12-01-2003, 12:21 AM
In 2001, after the World Trade Centre and Pentagon attacks which killed over 3000 people, Bush promised that those who were responsible would be hunted down and punished.
Recently he said that Osama Bin Laden has taken himself out of the picture and is no longer a priority.
Recently he said that Osama Bin Laden has taken himself out of the picture and is no longer a priority.
blindside.AMG
12-01-2003, 01:22 AM
Recently he said that Osama Bin Laden has taken himself out of the picture and is no longer a priority.
Which is still more than Clinton ever did.
Which is still more than Clinton ever did.
Pick
12-01-2003, 11:04 AM
If Clinton Had Kept His Promise
After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured
1,000; President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted
down and punished.
After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five US military
personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down
and punished.
After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19
and injured 200 US military personnel; Clinton promised that those
responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 1998 bombing of US embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and
injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible! Would be hunted
down and punished.
After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39
US sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down
and punished.
Maybe if Clinton had kept his promise, an estimated 3,000 people in New
York and Washington, DC that are now dead would be alive today.
And, now that Bush is taking action to bring these people to justice, we
have opponents charging him with being a war monger...
AN INTERESTING QUESTION:
This question was raised on a Philly radio call-in show. Without casting
stones, it is a legitimate question.
There are two men, both extremely wealthy. One develops relatively cheap
software and gives billions of dollars to charity. The other sponsors
terrorism. That being the case, why was it that the Clinton
Administration spent more money chasing down Bill Gates over the past
eight years than Osama bin Laden?
THINK ABOUT IT!
It is a strange turn of events.
Hillary gets $8 Million for her forthcoming memoir.
Bill gets about $12 Million for his memoir yet to be written.
This from two people who have spent the past 8 years being unable to
recall anything about past events while under oath!
That's a very interesting insight. And very true and understandable.
But prepare to get flamed by those among us who oppose anything,good or bad, right or wrong, done by GWB.
Clinton was an irresponsible, lying, son-of-a-b****. He did absolutely nothing good for this country's interest, and those of you that claim him keeping us out of wars was enough, the lives of 3,000 people were taken because of this ideal.
After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured
1,000; President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted
down and punished.
After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five US military
personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down
and punished.
After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19
and injured 200 US military personnel; Clinton promised that those
responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 1998 bombing of US embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and
injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible! Would be hunted
down and punished.
After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39
US sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down
and punished.
Maybe if Clinton had kept his promise, an estimated 3,000 people in New
York and Washington, DC that are now dead would be alive today.
And, now that Bush is taking action to bring these people to justice, we
have opponents charging him with being a war monger...
AN INTERESTING QUESTION:
This question was raised on a Philly radio call-in show. Without casting
stones, it is a legitimate question.
There are two men, both extremely wealthy. One develops relatively cheap
software and gives billions of dollars to charity. The other sponsors
terrorism. That being the case, why was it that the Clinton
Administration spent more money chasing down Bill Gates over the past
eight years than Osama bin Laden?
THINK ABOUT IT!
It is a strange turn of events.
Hillary gets $8 Million for her forthcoming memoir.
Bill gets about $12 Million for his memoir yet to be written.
This from two people who have spent the past 8 years being unable to
recall anything about past events while under oath!
That's a very interesting insight. And very true and understandable.
But prepare to get flamed by those among us who oppose anything,good or bad, right or wrong, done by GWB.
Clinton was an irresponsible, lying, son-of-a-b****. He did absolutely nothing good for this country's interest, and those of you that claim him keeping us out of wars was enough, the lives of 3,000 people were taken because of this ideal.
Cbass
12-01-2003, 12:03 PM
Oh god, now there are two of them.
Clinton was an irresponsible, lying, son-of-a-b****. He did absolutely nothing good for this country's interest, and those of you that claim him keeping us out of wars was enough, the lives of 3,000 people were taken because of this ideal.
Care to offer any points in how Bush has done anything for the US, for the American people, excluding issues like invading other countries and cutting taxes for the rich, which are issues that have been gone over at least a hundred times in this forum, and are arguably against the interests of the United States, and Americans.
Also, point out what Bush did to stop 9/11 in the year he was in office before it happened... You'd think the glorious terror fighting hero Bush, when getting into office would say "Dear lord! Look at what this Clinton has done, leaving us exposed to terrorists! I'd better do something about that right away, perhaps tighter security at airports and points of entry to the US, or maybe pressure the governments of middle eastern countries to crack down on them! Maybe I could make some concessions to these countries, like stop blocking condemnations against Israel in the UN..."
You'd think that, but instead, he did nothing about it... Instead, he cut taxes for the rich... :eek7:
Clinton was an irresponsible, lying, son-of-a-b****. He did absolutely nothing good for this country's interest, and those of you that claim him keeping us out of wars was enough, the lives of 3,000 people were taken because of this ideal.
Care to offer any points in how Bush has done anything for the US, for the American people, excluding issues like invading other countries and cutting taxes for the rich, which are issues that have been gone over at least a hundred times in this forum, and are arguably against the interests of the United States, and Americans.
Also, point out what Bush did to stop 9/11 in the year he was in office before it happened... You'd think the glorious terror fighting hero Bush, when getting into office would say "Dear lord! Look at what this Clinton has done, leaving us exposed to terrorists! I'd better do something about that right away, perhaps tighter security at airports and points of entry to the US, or maybe pressure the governments of middle eastern countries to crack down on them! Maybe I could make some concessions to these countries, like stop blocking condemnations against Israel in the UN..."
You'd think that, but instead, he did nothing about it... Instead, he cut taxes for the rich... :eek7:
Pick
12-01-2003, 12:53 PM
Oh god, now there are two of them.
Care to offer any points in how Bush has done anything for the US, for the American people, excluding issues like invading other countries and cutting taxes for the rich, which are issues that have been gone over at least a hundred times in this forum, and are arguably against the interests of the United States, and Americans.
You'd think that, but instead, he did nothing about it... Instead, he cut taxes for the rich... :eek7:
That is a total load of horse $hit. Cutting taxes for the rich? It was an even percentage, across-the-board tax-cut. If you paid taxes, you got money back. If you didn't, you got no money back. How is that not fair? The "rich" in America are 1% of the population and pay 60% of our taxes. That is ridiculous. The well-to-do are the mainstay of our economy, not some welfare-hording bum who takes money he doesn't deserve. They make our capitalist economy work. I don't know what bone you have to pick with the people that made their way in their lives and were successful, but it is absolutely absurd. Taxing success is ridiculous......what a stupid idea!!
Care to offer any points in how Bush has done anything for the US, for the American people, excluding issues like invading other countries and cutting taxes for the rich, which are issues that have been gone over at least a hundred times in this forum, and are arguably against the interests of the United States, and Americans.
You'd think that, but instead, he did nothing about it... Instead, he cut taxes for the rich... :eek7:
That is a total load of horse $hit. Cutting taxes for the rich? It was an even percentage, across-the-board tax-cut. If you paid taxes, you got money back. If you didn't, you got no money back. How is that not fair? The "rich" in America are 1% of the population and pay 60% of our taxes. That is ridiculous. The well-to-do are the mainstay of our economy, not some welfare-hording bum who takes money he doesn't deserve. They make our capitalist economy work. I don't know what bone you have to pick with the people that made their way in their lives and were successful, but it is absolutely absurd. Taxing success is ridiculous......what a stupid idea!!
TexasF355F1
12-01-2003, 12:55 PM
Recently he said that Osama Bin Laden has taken himself out of the picture and is no longer a priority.
When did he say this?
When did he say this?
Cbass
12-01-2003, 01:23 PM
That is a total load of horse $hit. Cutting taxes for the rich? It was an even percentage, across-the-board tax-cut. If you paid taxes, you got money back. If you didn't, you got no money back. How is that not fair? The "rich" in America are 1% of the population and pay 60% of our taxes. That is ridiculous. The well-to-do are the mainstay of our economy, not some welfare-hording bum who takes money he doesn't deserve. They make our capitalist economy work. I don't know what bone you have to pick with the people that made their way in their lives and were successful, but it is absolutely absurd. Taxing success is ridiculous......what a stupid idea!!
The "rich" are that 1%, with the majority of the money, therefore the majority of the taxes, and the majority of the tax return. The tax cut put the majority of the money in the pockets of those who already have much more than they spend, which leads one to think that maybe, just maybe, they're not going to spend all of that tax cut, effectively taking it out of the economy. How about the lower 50% of the income tax bracket, the ones who could actually do something with the majority of that tax cut, like, pay rent, buy food, products, put their children through university or college, that sort of thing... You know, the lower 50% who actually spend every dollar they can get on, who are the REAL mainstay of the economy... You know, the ones actually doing the work, and earning the money, buying the products... Guess you forgot about them, huh?
The "rich" are that 1%, with the majority of the money, therefore the majority of the taxes, and the majority of the tax return. The tax cut put the majority of the money in the pockets of those who already have much more than they spend, which leads one to think that maybe, just maybe, they're not going to spend all of that tax cut, effectively taking it out of the economy. How about the lower 50% of the income tax bracket, the ones who could actually do something with the majority of that tax cut, like, pay rent, buy food, products, put their children through university or college, that sort of thing... You know, the lower 50% who actually spend every dollar they can get on, who are the REAL mainstay of the economy... You know, the ones actually doing the work, and earning the money, buying the products... Guess you forgot about them, huh?
jon@af
12-01-2003, 01:26 PM
If Clinton Had Kept His Promise
After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured
1,000; President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted
down and punished.
After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five US military
personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down
and punished.
After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19
and injured 200 US military personnel; Clinton promised that those
responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 1998 bombing of US embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and
injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible! Would be hunted
down and punished.
After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39
US sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down
and punished.
Maybe if Clinton had kept his promise, an estimated 3,000 people in New
York and Washington, DC that are now dead would be alive today.
And, now that Bush is taking action to bring these people to justice, we
have opponents charging him with being a war monger...
I completely understand what you are saying, but at the same time I think it's dwelling too much on what happened. That said I would like to make it known that when I say that I dont say it in the way that "oh it's not that important, get over it." I say it in the way that as much as I and Im sure many others would like it to be different, it's not. He SAID he would and didn't. It has happened, and we cannot change that. I think that instead of looking back to what we could have done, we should be looking forward to what we can do now. I apologize if that sounds a bit cold.
After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured
1,000; President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted
down and punished.
After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five US military
personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down
and punished.
After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19
and injured 200 US military personnel; Clinton promised that those
responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 1998 bombing of US embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and
injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible! Would be hunted
down and punished.
After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39
US sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down
and punished.
Maybe if Clinton had kept his promise, an estimated 3,000 people in New
York and Washington, DC that are now dead would be alive today.
And, now that Bush is taking action to bring these people to justice, we
have opponents charging him with being a war monger...
I completely understand what you are saying, but at the same time I think it's dwelling too much on what happened. That said I would like to make it known that when I say that I dont say it in the way that "oh it's not that important, get over it." I say it in the way that as much as I and Im sure many others would like it to be different, it's not. He SAID he would and didn't. It has happened, and we cannot change that. I think that instead of looking back to what we could have done, we should be looking forward to what we can do now. I apologize if that sounds a bit cold.
TexasF355F1
12-01-2003, 02:45 PM
You know yes its sad that there are poor people in America, but there are poor people all over the world. Life isn't fair. Even the rich get screwed around in life at some point. The problem with the system in America is laziness. Every single poor person is capable of living a middle class life. All they have to do is work extremely hard to make it out of the ghetto or whatever you want to call it. My dad busted his hump to get to where he is today and make life better for me and my mom. He worked 50+ hours while attending college, which took him around 7 years to finish. Then when I was born he took on his day time job as well as a night time job to pay for all the bills(house, hospital, so on and so on). Everyone in America expects something for free and that's a problem. To end, there will always be the lower, middle and upper classes, its been like that since the dawn of time and nothing can change that. People want a utopian society and there is no way everyone will ever be equal.
Pick
12-01-2003, 02:47 PM
The "rich" are that 1%, with the majority of the money, therefore the majority of the taxes, and the majority of the tax return. The tax cut put the majority of the money in the pockets of those who already have much more than they spend, which leads one to think that maybe, just maybe, they're not going to spend all of that tax cut, effectively taking it out of the economy. How about the lower 50% of the income tax bracket, the ones who could actually do something with the majority of that tax cut, like, pay rent, buy food, products, put their children through university or college, that sort of thing... You know, the lower 50% who actually spend every dollar they can get on, who are the REAL mainstay of the economy... You know, the ones actually doing the work, and earning the money, buying the products... Guess you forgot about them, huh?
I have no problem with the middle class and lower class getting a tax cut. If you pay taxes, you should get a return. Now, how would you propose explaining to the people who "work for their money" that you are going to be raising taxes so you can pay for people that don't work for their money to buy drugs and booze? The people who work for their money are the ones who will be the most pissed about no tax-cuts, but you claiming we shouldn't give tax-cuts to the rich is absurd. Just because they can afford it does not make it right. That is dishonest and morally wrong. We, in America, should not tax somebody more just because they chose to make a fortune for themselves. Let me ask you something: how much would you say in a year that a person on welfare pays in taxes? Or a jobless bum with no steady income? How come these people deserve money from the government, but the people who work for it don't? Its the people's money to begin with, not the government's. And some of the proposed things that these liberals want to spend my money on are absolutely ridiculous.
I have no problem with the middle class and lower class getting a tax cut. If you pay taxes, you should get a return. Now, how would you propose explaining to the people who "work for their money" that you are going to be raising taxes so you can pay for people that don't work for their money to buy drugs and booze? The people who work for their money are the ones who will be the most pissed about no tax-cuts, but you claiming we shouldn't give tax-cuts to the rich is absurd. Just because they can afford it does not make it right. That is dishonest and morally wrong. We, in America, should not tax somebody more just because they chose to make a fortune for themselves. Let me ask you something: how much would you say in a year that a person on welfare pays in taxes? Or a jobless bum with no steady income? How come these people deserve money from the government, but the people who work for it don't? Its the people's money to begin with, not the government's. And some of the proposed things that these liberals want to spend my money on are absolutely ridiculous.
Pick
12-01-2003, 02:50 PM
You know yes its sad that there are poor people in America, but there are poor people all over the world. Life isn't fair. Even the rich get screwed around in life at some point. The problem with the system in America is laziness. Every single poor person is capable of living a middle class life. All they have to do is work extremely hard to make it out of the ghetto or whatever you want to call it. My dad busted his hump to get to where he is today and make life better for me and my mom. He worked 50+ hours while attending college, which took him around 7 years to finish. Then when I was born he took on his day time job as well as a night time job to pay for all the bills(house, hospital, so on and so on). Everyone in America expects something for free and that's a problem. To end, there will always be the lower, middle and upper classes, its been like that since the dawn of time and nothing can change that. People want a utopian society and there is no way everyone will ever be equal.
Very well said :werd: My family has been in every class at some point. But we've always paid our taxes.
Very well said :werd: My family has been in every class at some point. But we've always paid our taxes.
bm2boats
12-01-2003, 08:08 PM
Hey Pick, Your right, Bush was in office for a little over 8 monthes. But bill fired and cut back on CIA, FBI, NSC. Billy was in office when the first wire came in about Terrorist in this country and are training in aircraft which they MAY or MAY NOT use as a weapon.
Bush was trying to get more people into the FBI, CIA, and the NSC but, do you know how long it takes to train people for this field?
But, I would like to why Bush when he got the wire about Terrorist in this country, he did not jump into action.
I Really don't fault our last 2 Presidents for the doings of 9-11. I fault the Whackos that we are Currently bombing the living Sh** out of. Everyone makes mistakes, weather it be Presidents, Kings, Queens, Prime Ministers..., Rebound and make up for it. 2 Presidents got caught with their pants down( Sorry about the pun Libs). Now We must get All the A$$holes that did this, Planed it and Paid for it.
Like I stated in another post, If you dislike America, Move!!! No one will stop you except for, maybe your mommy. Go to France, Italy, Sweden. Go anywhere but, Please get out of OUR Country. Like the Song says, Home of the BRAVE!
Bush was trying to get more people into the FBI, CIA, and the NSC but, do you know how long it takes to train people for this field?
But, I would like to why Bush when he got the wire about Terrorist in this country, he did not jump into action.
I Really don't fault our last 2 Presidents for the doings of 9-11. I fault the Whackos that we are Currently bombing the living Sh** out of. Everyone makes mistakes, weather it be Presidents, Kings, Queens, Prime Ministers..., Rebound and make up for it. 2 Presidents got caught with their pants down( Sorry about the pun Libs). Now We must get All the A$$holes that did this, Planed it and Paid for it.
Like I stated in another post, If you dislike America, Move!!! No one will stop you except for, maybe your mommy. Go to France, Italy, Sweden. Go anywhere but, Please get out of OUR Country. Like the Song says, Home of the BRAVE!
taranaki
12-01-2003, 09:52 PM
Hey Pick, Your right, Bush was in office for a little over 8 monthes. But bill fired and cut back on CIA, FBI, NSC. Billy was in office when the first wire came in about Terrorist in this country and are training in aircraft which they MAY or MAY NOT use as a weapon.
Bush was trying to get more people into the FBI, CIA, and the NSC but, do you know how long it takes to train people for this field?
But, I would like to why Bush when he got the wire about Terrorist in this country, he did not jump into action.
I Really don't fault our last 2 Presidents for the doings of 9-11. I fault the Whackos that we are Currently bombing the living Sh** out of. Everyone makes mistakes, weather it be Presidents, Kings, Queens, Prime Ministers..., Rebound and make up for it. 2 Presidents got caught with their pants down( Sorry about the pun Libs). Now We must get All the A$$holes that did this, Planed it and Paid for it.
Like I stated in another post, If you dislike America, Move!!! No one will stop you except for, maybe your mommy. Go to France, Italy, Sweden. Go anywhere but, Please get out of OUR Country. Like the Song says, Home of the BRAVE!
This post is wonderful.It encapsulates everything that is wrong and stupid about the American government's attitude to foreign affairs.
Why is there a Republican president?
Because people as dumb as this are allowed to vote.
Bush was trying to get more people into the FBI, CIA, and the NSC but, do you know how long it takes to train people for this field?
But, I would like to why Bush when he got the wire about Terrorist in this country, he did not jump into action.
I Really don't fault our last 2 Presidents for the doings of 9-11. I fault the Whackos that we are Currently bombing the living Sh** out of. Everyone makes mistakes, weather it be Presidents, Kings, Queens, Prime Ministers..., Rebound and make up for it. 2 Presidents got caught with their pants down( Sorry about the pun Libs). Now We must get All the A$$holes that did this, Planed it and Paid for it.
Like I stated in another post, If you dislike America, Move!!! No one will stop you except for, maybe your mommy. Go to France, Italy, Sweden. Go anywhere but, Please get out of OUR Country. Like the Song says, Home of the BRAVE!
This post is wonderful.It encapsulates everything that is wrong and stupid about the American government's attitude to foreign affairs.
Why is there a Republican president?
Because people as dumb as this are allowed to vote.
Pick
12-01-2003, 09:59 PM
Why is there a Republican president?
Because people as dumb as this are allowed to vote.
Funny that its the opposite........ :disappoin
Because people as dumb as this are allowed to vote.
Funny that its the opposite........ :disappoin
TexasF355F1
12-01-2003, 10:30 PM
Why is there a Republican president?
Because people as dumb as this are allowed to vote.
:rolleyes: :loser:
Because people as dumb as this are allowed to vote.
:rolleyes: :loser:
taranaki
12-01-2003, 11:58 PM
Funny that its the opposite........ :disappoin
Here you go pick,Monty Python wrote a sketch just for you.....;)
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/1510/argument.txt
Now I know where you get your debating technique from. :lol:
Here you go pick,Monty Python wrote a sketch just for you.....;)
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/1510/argument.txt
Now I know where you get your debating technique from. :lol:
Pick
12-02-2003, 04:07 PM
Here you go pick,Monty Python wrote a sketch just for you.....;)
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/1510/argument.txt
Now I know where you get your debating technique from. :lol:
cute.
Funny how somebody as seemingly intelligent as yourself can be so wrong.
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/1510/argument.txt
Now I know where you get your debating technique from. :lol:
cute.
Funny how somebody as seemingly intelligent as yourself can be so wrong.
2strokebloke
12-02-2003, 06:26 PM
No matter who gets ellected, you can always say stupid people voted for them, so it's useless to write something like that.
However it is interesting to note, that there is no shortage of stupid people, and being that the majority of people are stupid, stupid people usually conquer the smarter people simply by outnumbering them.
The problem is not because of two past presidents - the problem goes back farther than that and is more complex than that. It's blindingly obvious that certain people don't like the U.S. Is that our problem or theirs? It can't be answered in black and white, and as always no matter what part of the globe you occupy, you'll be surrounded by stupid people - and that's the source of the real problem. Anyway I'll quit ranting and raving while my post is still semi coherent.
However it is interesting to note, that there is no shortage of stupid people, and being that the majority of people are stupid, stupid people usually conquer the smarter people simply by outnumbering them.
The problem is not because of two past presidents - the problem goes back farther than that and is more complex than that. It's blindingly obvious that certain people don't like the U.S. Is that our problem or theirs? It can't be answered in black and white, and as always no matter what part of the globe you occupy, you'll be surrounded by stupid people - and that's the source of the real problem. Anyway I'll quit ranting and raving while my post is still semi coherent.
Cbass
12-04-2003, 08:40 AM
I have no problem with the middle class and lower class getting a tax cut. If you pay taxes, you should get a return.
That's fair enough, I'm just saying the tax cuts should have been proportionate to your income bracket. Small flat tax cuts give huge benefit to people with plenty of money, and practically no benefit to those with low income. It's a pretty sound economic principle that in a closed economy, when you give a tax cut, the money goes back into the economy, and revitalizes industry. The majority of people spend their little slice of the pie buying products, which increases demand, creates jobs, etc. The rich take their newfound pocketmoney and do what they do with the rest of their money, invest it. This spurs further economic growth, even though this is speculative growth, and not actual economic growth. This is a proven principle in a closed economy.
The US is the furthest thing from a closed economy in the world. A couple hundred dollars will not make a major difference in consumer spending, especially once they have to pay more for the services of the government to pay for the tax cut. When the wealthy receive their cut, which is the lions share of the tax cut, instead of spending it on products, or even investing it in US corporations, with the exception of a few who understand the principles of economics, will invest it in the most profitable businesses they can. In the middle of a recession with consumer spending dropping, the US is most assuredly not the most appealing market to invest in. Offshore corporations post much higher returns, and make believe all you want, but the investing groups put their money into companies that make the most money.
Now, how would you propose explaining to the people who "work for their money" that you are going to be raising taxes so you can pay for people that don't work for their money to buy drugs and booze?
I notice a common theme in your posts, you make outlandish and absurd claims that are slightly relevant to the topic, but have not been mentioned or even hinted at by whoever you are debating.
First of all, there was no mention of raising taxes. Some democrats have proposed repealing personal income tax cuts for the highest income brackets. In this case, I would explain that the cuts are being repealed because they were irresponsible and economically foolish. Only some of the cuts, the personal income tax cuts for the outlandishly wealthy, who got 60%+ of the cuts. So in effect, any benefit that the average person who works and pays taxes gets is still there, and the impact on social programs and goverment services is minimal.
Second, where the does the reference to the welfare bum come from? Were they mentioned? No. Was there any suggestion of increasing taxes to increase their benefits? No, there was not, but this is exactly what you implied with your statement... You are a poor debater.
The people who work for their money are the ones who will be the most pissed about no tax-cuts, but you claiming we shouldn't give tax-cuts to the rich is absurd. Just because they can afford it does not make it right. That is dishonest and morally wrong.
The people who work for their money should be pissed off alright, that the Bush administration has just taken a large chunk of money they have been entrusted with, and given it to the rich, with transparent claims of economic stimulation. Instead of giving perhaps, a flat tax credit every year, with the same cheque for every citizen? That would certainly have a larger impact on the economy.
Explain the dishonesty, or morales being broken in this situation. Let's see, you have a debt laden lower and middle class from inflation, a labour shortage, and a recession... This means you should take money and put it into the pockets of the rich, right? Not give it to the middle class who will immediately go out and spend it, revitalizing the economy like the one time rebate did...
Why is it absurd that the rich be taxed at a higher rate than the poor? If you make over 100K a year, paying the bills probably isn't a major concern, like it is for millions of Americans.
Let me ask you something: how much would you say in a year that a person on welfare pays in taxes? Or a jobless bum with no steady income? How come these people deserve money from the government, but the people who work for it don't? Its the people's money to begin with, not the government's. And some of the proposed things that these liberals want to spend my money on are absolutely ridiculous.
Actually, if you knew anything about the economics of welfare, instead of just the rhetoric of the right wing, you would know that every dollar that someone on welfare or unimployment insurance goes right back into the local economy. They pay rent, buy products, and eat food. This is in effect a government subsidy of the economy at it's base level. That's a good thing, if that explanation was too complicated for you. Almost every dollar put into welfare goes back into the economy.
Not like when you give a huge tax cut to the rich, who immediately shuttle that money offshore...
That's fair enough, I'm just saying the tax cuts should have been proportionate to your income bracket. Small flat tax cuts give huge benefit to people with plenty of money, and practically no benefit to those with low income. It's a pretty sound economic principle that in a closed economy, when you give a tax cut, the money goes back into the economy, and revitalizes industry. The majority of people spend their little slice of the pie buying products, which increases demand, creates jobs, etc. The rich take their newfound pocketmoney and do what they do with the rest of their money, invest it. This spurs further economic growth, even though this is speculative growth, and not actual economic growth. This is a proven principle in a closed economy.
The US is the furthest thing from a closed economy in the world. A couple hundred dollars will not make a major difference in consumer spending, especially once they have to pay more for the services of the government to pay for the tax cut. When the wealthy receive their cut, which is the lions share of the tax cut, instead of spending it on products, or even investing it in US corporations, with the exception of a few who understand the principles of economics, will invest it in the most profitable businesses they can. In the middle of a recession with consumer spending dropping, the US is most assuredly not the most appealing market to invest in. Offshore corporations post much higher returns, and make believe all you want, but the investing groups put their money into companies that make the most money.
Now, how would you propose explaining to the people who "work for their money" that you are going to be raising taxes so you can pay for people that don't work for their money to buy drugs and booze?
I notice a common theme in your posts, you make outlandish and absurd claims that are slightly relevant to the topic, but have not been mentioned or even hinted at by whoever you are debating.
First of all, there was no mention of raising taxes. Some democrats have proposed repealing personal income tax cuts for the highest income brackets. In this case, I would explain that the cuts are being repealed because they were irresponsible and economically foolish. Only some of the cuts, the personal income tax cuts for the outlandishly wealthy, who got 60%+ of the cuts. So in effect, any benefit that the average person who works and pays taxes gets is still there, and the impact on social programs and goverment services is minimal.
Second, where the does the reference to the welfare bum come from? Were they mentioned? No. Was there any suggestion of increasing taxes to increase their benefits? No, there was not, but this is exactly what you implied with your statement... You are a poor debater.
The people who work for their money are the ones who will be the most pissed about no tax-cuts, but you claiming we shouldn't give tax-cuts to the rich is absurd. Just because they can afford it does not make it right. That is dishonest and morally wrong.
The people who work for their money should be pissed off alright, that the Bush administration has just taken a large chunk of money they have been entrusted with, and given it to the rich, with transparent claims of economic stimulation. Instead of giving perhaps, a flat tax credit every year, with the same cheque for every citizen? That would certainly have a larger impact on the economy.
Explain the dishonesty, or morales being broken in this situation. Let's see, you have a debt laden lower and middle class from inflation, a labour shortage, and a recession... This means you should take money and put it into the pockets of the rich, right? Not give it to the middle class who will immediately go out and spend it, revitalizing the economy like the one time rebate did...
Why is it absurd that the rich be taxed at a higher rate than the poor? If you make over 100K a year, paying the bills probably isn't a major concern, like it is for millions of Americans.
Let me ask you something: how much would you say in a year that a person on welfare pays in taxes? Or a jobless bum with no steady income? How come these people deserve money from the government, but the people who work for it don't? Its the people's money to begin with, not the government's. And some of the proposed things that these liberals want to spend my money on are absolutely ridiculous.
Actually, if you knew anything about the economics of welfare, instead of just the rhetoric of the right wing, you would know that every dollar that someone on welfare or unimployment insurance goes right back into the local economy. They pay rent, buy products, and eat food. This is in effect a government subsidy of the economy at it's base level. That's a good thing, if that explanation was too complicated for you. Almost every dollar put into welfare goes back into the economy.
Not like when you give a huge tax cut to the rich, who immediately shuttle that money offshore...
Cbass
12-04-2003, 08:44 AM
This post is wonderful.It encapsulates everything that is wrong and stupid about the American government's attitude to foreign affairs.
Why is there a Republican president?
Because people as dumb as this are allowed to vote.
:lol2: :lol: :rofl: :iceslolan
Mr T, as this forum's ambassador from NZ, you are making a strong case for me moving down there :sunglasse
Why is there a Republican president?
Because people as dumb as this are allowed to vote.
:lol2: :lol: :rofl: :iceslolan
Mr T, as this forum's ambassador from NZ, you are making a strong case for me moving down there :sunglasse
tmm2471
12-30-2003, 10:14 AM
Two things amaze me.
1. President Carter had a military of over 2 Million
President Regan had a military of over 2 Million
President Clinton was handed a military of over 2 Million
President Bush was handed a military of just over 1 million once President Clinton was finished with it.
2. Americans that think tax cuts are some way to allow the rich to steal.
1. President Carter had a military of over 2 Million
President Regan had a military of over 2 Million
President Clinton was handed a military of over 2 Million
President Bush was handed a military of just over 1 million once President Clinton was finished with it.
2. Americans that think tax cuts are some way to allow the rich to steal.
justacruiser
12-30-2003, 02:24 PM
Well, I'll admit that some of the things that Bush has done are probably not for the overall good. However, I think Clinton should have been hung as a traitor, not praised as a good president.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/1997/printer_33.shtml
http://www.nci.org/nci-usc.htm
http://www.nci.org/nci-usc.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/10/27/politics/main244829.shtml
Anyone else remember this stuff? Clinton "Selling" China our Nuclear weapons tech? Wait.... I seem to remember a little something about Clinton-
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/05/05/china.senate.report/
http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/1999/printer_185.shtml
-having supposedly accepted Chinese campaign money! Would these nuke plans have been compensation maybe? What about that little scandal with Gore about recieving Chinese money funneled through a fucking Buddhist monestary? Notice how all of this stuff kind of just .....dissapeared into the wild blue yonder? You ever hear the end of the Whitewater scandal? I never heard much about it after Clinton was elected...
What about this?
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1571/30_15/55481519/p1/article.jhtml
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9709/07/panama.canal/
Clinton just let the whole deal slip on by without too much of an outcry, this never even hit the news very hard, again.
Truman or Roosevelt would roll over in their graves if they saw what their party has turned into now and what Clinton got away with in office. I can only hope that the history books show him for what he truly was, not the 'great president' that everyone seemed to think he was.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/1997/printer_33.shtml
http://www.nci.org/nci-usc.htm
http://www.nci.org/nci-usc.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/10/27/politics/main244829.shtml
Anyone else remember this stuff? Clinton "Selling" China our Nuclear weapons tech? Wait.... I seem to remember a little something about Clinton-
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/05/05/china.senate.report/
http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/1999/printer_185.shtml
-having supposedly accepted Chinese campaign money! Would these nuke plans have been compensation maybe? What about that little scandal with Gore about recieving Chinese money funneled through a fucking Buddhist monestary? Notice how all of this stuff kind of just .....dissapeared into the wild blue yonder? You ever hear the end of the Whitewater scandal? I never heard much about it after Clinton was elected...
What about this?
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1571/30_15/55481519/p1/article.jhtml
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9709/07/panama.canal/
Clinton just let the whole deal slip on by without too much of an outcry, this never even hit the news very hard, again.
Truman or Roosevelt would roll over in their graves if they saw what their party has turned into now and what Clinton got away with in office. I can only hope that the history books show him for what he truly was, not the 'great president' that everyone seemed to think he was.
Pick
12-30-2003, 03:07 PM
Well, I'll admit that some of the things that Bush has done are probably not for the overall good. However, I think Clinton should have been hung as a traitor, not praised as a good president.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/1997/printer_33.shtml
http://www.nci.org/nci-usc.htm
http://www.nci.org/nci-usc.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/10/27/politics/main244829.shtml
Anyone else remember this stuff? Clinton "Selling" China our Nuclear weapons tech? Wait.... I seem to remember a little something about Clinton-
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/05/05/china.senate.report/
http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/1999/printer_185.shtml
-having supposedly accepted Chinese campaign money! Would these nuke plans have been compensation maybe? What about that little scandal with Gore about recieving Chinese money funneled through a fucking Buddhist monestary? Notice how all of this stuff kind of just .....dissapeared into the wild blue yonder? You ever hear the end of the Whitewater scandal? I never heard much about it after Clinton was elected...
What about this?
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1571/30_15/55481519/p1/article.jhtml
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9709/07/panama.canal/
Clinton just let the whole deal slip on by without too much of an outcry, this never even hit the news very hard, again.
Truman or Roosevelt would roll over in their graves if they saw what their party has turned into now and what Clinton got away with in office. I can only hope that the history books show him for what he truly was, not the 'great president' that everyone seemed to think he was.
Man, finally somebody to back me up. I made assertations of Clinton selling nuke info to the Chinese about a year ago and nobody believed me. I read about it in a book by one of his former army officials(the carrier of the so called "nuclear football').
There is video of Gore at the monestary in Cali recieving money.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/1997/printer_33.shtml
http://www.nci.org/nci-usc.htm
http://www.nci.org/nci-usc.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/10/27/politics/main244829.shtml
Anyone else remember this stuff? Clinton "Selling" China our Nuclear weapons tech? Wait.... I seem to remember a little something about Clinton-
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/05/05/china.senate.report/
http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/1999/printer_185.shtml
-having supposedly accepted Chinese campaign money! Would these nuke plans have been compensation maybe? What about that little scandal with Gore about recieving Chinese money funneled through a fucking Buddhist monestary? Notice how all of this stuff kind of just .....dissapeared into the wild blue yonder? You ever hear the end of the Whitewater scandal? I never heard much about it after Clinton was elected...
What about this?
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1571/30_15/55481519/p1/article.jhtml
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9709/07/panama.canal/
Clinton just let the whole deal slip on by without too much of an outcry, this never even hit the news very hard, again.
Truman or Roosevelt would roll over in their graves if they saw what their party has turned into now and what Clinton got away with in office. I can only hope that the history books show him for what he truly was, not the 'great president' that everyone seemed to think he was.
Man, finally somebody to back me up. I made assertations of Clinton selling nuke info to the Chinese about a year ago and nobody believed me. I read about it in a book by one of his former army officials(the carrier of the so called "nuclear football').
There is video of Gore at the monestary in Cali recieving money.
Cbass
12-30-2003, 05:54 PM
Man, finally somebody to back me up. I made assertations of Clinton selling nuke info to the Chinese about a year ago and nobody believed me.
Oh god no! :grinno:
It's no secret that the US is one of the largest exporters of weapons technology in the world... Along with Israel, and Russia, and France... So what's your point?
Oh god no! :grinno:
It's no secret that the US is one of the largest exporters of weapons technology in the world... Along with Israel, and Russia, and France... So what's your point?
Pick
12-30-2003, 07:30 PM
Oh god no! :grinno:
It's no secret that the US is one of the largest exporters of weapons technology in the world... Along with Israel, and Russia, and France... So what's your point?
My point is he sold OUR nuclear secrets to the Chinese. Prior to this deal, the Chinese couldn't hit hte broad side of a barn with a nuclear missile. Now they know fully how to and could strike the US at anytime they wanted to.
It's no secret that the US is one of the largest exporters of weapons technology in the world... Along with Israel, and Russia, and France... So what's your point?
My point is he sold OUR nuclear secrets to the Chinese. Prior to this deal, the Chinese couldn't hit hte broad side of a barn with a nuclear missile. Now they know fully how to and could strike the US at anytime they wanted to.
Cbass
12-30-2003, 08:53 PM
If you think that the Chinese could not deliver a nuclear weapon to each major US city before the Clinton administration sold them any weapons technology, you are gravely mistaken.
It just so happens that the US and China do so much trade, that neither country is willing to jeapordize the trade, so don't worry about China. Worry about Russia, they're the most influential wildcard in the deck right now.
It just so happens that the US and China do so much trade, that neither country is willing to jeapordize the trade, so don't worry about China. Worry about Russia, they're the most influential wildcard in the deck right now.
justacruiser
12-30-2003, 09:48 PM
"It's no secret that the US is one of the largest exporters of weapons technology in the world... Along with Israel, and Russia, and France... So what's your point?"
Tanks and planes are one thing, Nuclear weapons are another. Also, it wasn't just any nuke technology that was sold to China, but the designs for the W88 model, which at the time it was sold, was our most advanced type. Like I said, Clinton was a traitor.
Tanks and planes are one thing, Nuclear weapons are another. Also, it wasn't just any nuke technology that was sold to China, but the designs for the W88 model, which at the time it was sold, was our most advanced type. Like I said, Clinton was a traitor.
Cbass
12-31-2003, 05:24 AM
"It's no secret that the US is one of the largest exporters of weapons technology in the world... Along with Israel, and Russia, and France... So what's your point?"
Tanks and planes are one thing, Nuclear weapons are another. Also, it wasn't just any nuke technology that was sold to China, but the designs for the W88 model, which at the time it was sold, was our most advanced type. Like I said, Clinton was a traitor.
I said weapons technology, not just weapons. Economically, China is the US's greatest ally. Keep in mind that money runs the US, and improving political relations with China will undoubtedly improve trade relations.
I don't see how selling technology to an ally, even if it is highly sensitive technology, constitutes treason. Probably because it doesn't.
Tanks and planes are one thing, Nuclear weapons are another. Also, it wasn't just any nuke technology that was sold to China, but the designs for the W88 model, which at the time it was sold, was our most advanced type. Like I said, Clinton was a traitor.
I said weapons technology, not just weapons. Economically, China is the US's greatest ally. Keep in mind that money runs the US, and improving political relations with China will undoubtedly improve trade relations.
I don't see how selling technology to an ally, even if it is highly sensitive technology, constitutes treason. Probably because it doesn't.
justacruiser
12-31-2003, 12:22 PM
"I don't see how selling technology to an ally, even if it is highly sensitive technology, constitutes treason. Probably because it doesn't."
There's a difference between the kind of ally that Britain is and China is. Britain is a military ally as well as economical, Australia is also a military ally as well as an economical ally. China isn't even really an economic ally, even though they are considered a top trade partner. They sell us a bunch of cheap shit and only buy a little bit in return. As for military alliance, when we give Britain our nuclear weapons technology, Britain doesn't turn around and make missiles just to aim them at us, do they?
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/
http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/china/nuke99.html
some stuff on their capabilities, which they are spending quite a bit on improving.
"and improving political relations with China will undoubtedly improve trade relations."
There's where i totally agree. China will within the next century probably turn into the biggest, or at LEAST second biggest market for products in the world. If the politicos were smart here, they'd be doing everything in their power to try and strengthen Chinese-U.S. ties, especially since China is turning more and more Capitalist-Democratic all the time...
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/12/10/china.wen.rights.ap/
However, I still think that selling China Nuclear weapons technology, especially after recieving campaign contributions from them, is traitorous. Right now at least.
There's a difference between the kind of ally that Britain is and China is. Britain is a military ally as well as economical, Australia is also a military ally as well as an economical ally. China isn't even really an economic ally, even though they are considered a top trade partner. They sell us a bunch of cheap shit and only buy a little bit in return. As for military alliance, when we give Britain our nuclear weapons technology, Britain doesn't turn around and make missiles just to aim them at us, do they?
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/
http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/china/nuke99.html
some stuff on their capabilities, which they are spending quite a bit on improving.
"and improving political relations with China will undoubtedly improve trade relations."
There's where i totally agree. China will within the next century probably turn into the biggest, or at LEAST second biggest market for products in the world. If the politicos were smart here, they'd be doing everything in their power to try and strengthen Chinese-U.S. ties, especially since China is turning more and more Capitalist-Democratic all the time...
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/12/10/china.wen.rights.ap/
However, I still think that selling China Nuclear weapons technology, especially after recieving campaign contributions from them, is traitorous. Right now at least.
Cbass
01-05-2004, 09:01 AM
"I don't see how selling technology to an ally, even if it is highly sensitive technology, constitutes treason. Probably because it doesn't."
There's a difference between the kind of ally that Britain is and China is. Britain is a military ally as well as economical, Australia is also a military ally as well as an economical ally. China isn't even really an economic ally, even though they are considered a top trade partner. They sell us a bunch of cheap shit and only buy a little bit in return. As for military alliance, when we give Britain our nuclear weapons technology, Britain doesn't turn around and make missiles just to aim them at us, do they?
China is currently bankrolling Dubyas massive deficits by buying hundreds of billions of US dollars, I would say that makes them a massive economic ally, and a much more important ally than either Britain or Australia.
"and improving political relations with China will undoubtedly improve trade relations."
There's where i totally agree. China will within the next century probably turn into the biggest, or at LEAST second biggest market for products in the world. If the politicos were smart here, they'd be doing everything in their power to try and strengthen Chinese-U.S. ties, especially since China is turning more and more Capitalist-Democratic all the time...
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/12/10/china.wen.rights.ap/
However, I still think that selling China Nuclear weapons technology, especially after recieving campaign contributions from them, is traitorous. Right now at least.
To be a traitor, you must be guilty of treason. Selling technology does not constitute treason, if it did, you'd be hard pressed to find a President who was not a traitor.
China's middle class is exploding, and so is the demand for products. Currently, the Japanese auto industry doesn't have anywhere near the necessary manufacturing infrastructure to supply the demand that is coming. If the big 3 are smart, they'll be cutting deals right now with The Party.
There's a difference between the kind of ally that Britain is and China is. Britain is a military ally as well as economical, Australia is also a military ally as well as an economical ally. China isn't even really an economic ally, even though they are considered a top trade partner. They sell us a bunch of cheap shit and only buy a little bit in return. As for military alliance, when we give Britain our nuclear weapons technology, Britain doesn't turn around and make missiles just to aim them at us, do they?
China is currently bankrolling Dubyas massive deficits by buying hundreds of billions of US dollars, I would say that makes them a massive economic ally, and a much more important ally than either Britain or Australia.
"and improving political relations with China will undoubtedly improve trade relations."
There's where i totally agree. China will within the next century probably turn into the biggest, or at LEAST second biggest market for products in the world. If the politicos were smart here, they'd be doing everything in their power to try and strengthen Chinese-U.S. ties, especially since China is turning more and more Capitalist-Democratic all the time...
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/12/10/china.wen.rights.ap/
However, I still think that selling China Nuclear weapons technology, especially after recieving campaign contributions from them, is traitorous. Right now at least.
To be a traitor, you must be guilty of treason. Selling technology does not constitute treason, if it did, you'd be hard pressed to find a President who was not a traitor.
China's middle class is exploding, and so is the demand for products. Currently, the Japanese auto industry doesn't have anywhere near the necessary manufacturing infrastructure to supply the demand that is coming. If the big 3 are smart, they'll be cutting deals right now with The Party.
justacruiser
01-05-2004, 11:32 AM
"To be a traitor, you must be guilty of treason. Selling technology does not constitute treason, if it did, you'd be hard pressed to find a President who was not a traitor."
Selling weapons tech to a country that uses that tech to build weapons that they aim right back at you? That sounds treasonous to me...
"China's middle class is exploding, and so is the demand for products. Currently, the Japanese auto industry doesn't have anywhere near the necessary manufacturing infrastructure to supply the demand that is coming. If the big 3 are smart, they'll be cutting deals right now with The Party."
Hell, they're already starting, GM just got a deal to start selling a decent number of Cadillacs over there. They already have their foot in the door there.
Selling weapons tech to a country that uses that tech to build weapons that they aim right back at you? That sounds treasonous to me...
"China's middle class is exploding, and so is the demand for products. Currently, the Japanese auto industry doesn't have anywhere near the necessary manufacturing infrastructure to supply the demand that is coming. If the big 3 are smart, they'll be cutting deals right now with The Party."
Hell, they're already starting, GM just got a deal to start selling a decent number of Cadillacs over there. They already have their foot in the door there.
kazzman
01-05-2004, 03:41 PM
Oh god, now there are two of them.
Care to offer any points in how Bush has done anything for the US, for the American people, excluding issues like invading other countries and cutting taxes for the rich, which are issues that have been gone over at least a hundred times in this forum, and are arguably against the interests of the United States, and Americans.
Also, point out what Bush did to stop 9/11 in the year he was in office before it happened... You'd think the glorious terror fighting hero Bush, when getting into office would say "Dear lord! Look at what this Clinton has done, leaving us exposed to terrorists! I'd better do something about that right away, perhaps tighter security at airports and points of entry to the US, or maybe pressure the governments of middle eastern countries to crack down on them! Maybe I could make some concessions to these countries, like stop blocking condemnations against Israel in the UN..."
You'd think that, but instead, he did nothing about it... Instead, he cut taxes for the rich... :eek7:
Bush could do nothing to prevent it because Clinton had left him a mess of lies, and a military in shambles. What would have happened if Clinton was still in office when the twin towers collapsed. He would have run and hid. Then said our bad, our towers were in your way. Screw that!!
Somebody had a deal from Fox News to release bin Laden into US Custody when Clinton was still in office and the pussy turned it down. Look at where that got us. 3000 dead and Bin Laden still on the loose (maybe). At least Bush had the balls to go after him.
Care to offer any points in how Bush has done anything for the US, for the American people, excluding issues like invading other countries and cutting taxes for the rich, which are issues that have been gone over at least a hundred times in this forum, and are arguably against the interests of the United States, and Americans.
Also, point out what Bush did to stop 9/11 in the year he was in office before it happened... You'd think the glorious terror fighting hero Bush, when getting into office would say "Dear lord! Look at what this Clinton has done, leaving us exposed to terrorists! I'd better do something about that right away, perhaps tighter security at airports and points of entry to the US, or maybe pressure the governments of middle eastern countries to crack down on them! Maybe I could make some concessions to these countries, like stop blocking condemnations against Israel in the UN..."
You'd think that, but instead, he did nothing about it... Instead, he cut taxes for the rich... :eek7:
Bush could do nothing to prevent it because Clinton had left him a mess of lies, and a military in shambles. What would have happened if Clinton was still in office when the twin towers collapsed. He would have run and hid. Then said our bad, our towers were in your way. Screw that!!
Somebody had a deal from Fox News to release bin Laden into US Custody when Clinton was still in office and the pussy turned it down. Look at where that got us. 3000 dead and Bin Laden still on the loose (maybe). At least Bush had the balls to go after him.
Ludelover
01-05-2004, 09:19 PM
if it wasn't bin laden, there would've been another 500 to take his place.
justacruiser
01-05-2004, 09:51 PM
"if it wasn't bin laden, there would've been another 500 to take his place."
Probably more than that unfortunately. Those people hate everything and everyone. Other Arabs are targets in their eyes. Even if the world left them totally alone and isolated, they'd still just kill each other. What used to be the cradle of civilization, they've turned into the asshole of civilization.
Probably more than that unfortunately. Those people hate everything and everyone. Other Arabs are targets in their eyes. Even if the world left them totally alone and isolated, they'd still just kill each other. What used to be the cradle of civilization, they've turned into the asshole of civilization.
Cbass
01-07-2004, 02:58 PM
"if it wasn't bin laden, there would've been another 500 to take his place."
Probably more than that unfortunately. Those people hate everything and everyone. Other Arabs are targets in their eyes. Even if the world left them totally alone and isolated, they'd still just kill each other. What used to be the cradle of civilization, they've turned into the asshole of civilization.
That is a sickenly American view. :disappoin
They are no worse than the religious zealots in the US, they just have to resort to more dramatic tactics to achieve their goals. Don't think that there aren't people in the US who would doing the exact same thing if they weren't in the same situation.
Probably more than that unfortunately. Those people hate everything and everyone. Other Arabs are targets in their eyes. Even if the world left them totally alone and isolated, they'd still just kill each other. What used to be the cradle of civilization, they've turned into the asshole of civilization.
That is a sickenly American view. :disappoin
They are no worse than the religious zealots in the US, they just have to resort to more dramatic tactics to achieve their goals. Don't think that there aren't people in the US who would doing the exact same thing if they weren't in the same situation.
justacruiser
01-07-2004, 04:22 PM
*snaps fingers* and here I thought this thread might finally rest in peace...
"That is a sickenly American view. "
Uh... just look at the history books dude. Since when HAVEN'T the people in that region been killing something? Anything, themselves or anyone else around them?
They're no worse than ANY religious zealot, not just U.S. ones. They seem to have a lot more of them though. Religious Zealots that is.
"That is a sickenly American view. "
Uh... just look at the history books dude. Since when HAVEN'T the people in that region been killing something? Anything, themselves or anyone else around them?
They're no worse than ANY religious zealot, not just U.S. ones. They seem to have a lot more of them though. Religious Zealots that is.
Cbass
01-07-2004, 05:32 PM
*snaps fingers* and here I thought this thread might finally rest in peace...
"That is a sickenly American view. "
Uh... just look at the history books dude. Since when HAVEN'T the people in that region been killing something? Anything, themselves or anyone else around them?
They're no worse than ANY religious zealot, not just U.S. ones. They seem to have a lot more of them though. Religious Zealots that is.
Well when you consider that fact that 3 religions view the region as the holy land, it has historically been the bridge between the west and the east, and that in the 20th century it became clear the region has the largest reserves of easily extractable and refinable crude oil in the world... That's an awful lot to kill over.
The reasont the religious zealots have as much sway there as they do is they offer the only alternative to western run puppet goverments and monarchies.
"That is a sickenly American view. "
Uh... just look at the history books dude. Since when HAVEN'T the people in that region been killing something? Anything, themselves or anyone else around them?
They're no worse than ANY religious zealot, not just U.S. ones. They seem to have a lot more of them though. Religious Zealots that is.
Well when you consider that fact that 3 religions view the region as the holy land, it has historically been the bridge between the west and the east, and that in the 20th century it became clear the region has the largest reserves of easily extractable and refinable crude oil in the world... That's an awful lot to kill over.
The reasont the religious zealots have as much sway there as they do is they offer the only alternative to western run puppet goverments and monarchies.
justacruiser
01-07-2004, 07:04 PM
"The reasont the religious zealots have as much sway there as they do is they offer the only alternative to western run puppet goverments and monarchies."
Or... Maybe, just maybe.... because the dictators and oligarchies there force themselves into power and use their own 'military' forces to supress the public will and enforce their own hateful views? Monarchies? Sounds like what ol Sa-damn had going. Bit nicer wording than 'militant dictator' though.
Or... Maybe, just maybe.... because the dictators and oligarchies there force themselves into power and use their own 'military' forces to supress the public will and enforce their own hateful views? Monarchies? Sounds like what ol Sa-damn had going. Bit nicer wording than 'militant dictator' though.
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2025