WASHINGTON — The search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq continues and so too does the hunt for a government scapegoat if weapons of mass destruction are never found.

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (search) is about to release a report that is highly critical of the CIA's work.

And the intelligence agency has already gone on the defensive, saying it's too soon to conclude the intelligence was unfounded while the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq continues.

"It is hard to understand how the committee could come to any conclusions at this point, particularly while the efforts of (weapons search leader) Dr. David Kay (search) in Iraq are at an early stage," said CIA spokesman Bill Harlow.

Harlow said "the committee has yet to take the opportunity to hear a comprehensive explanation of how and why we reached our conclusions," nor has it accepted an offer made Wednesday by CIA Director George Tenet (search) to hear from him and senior intelligence officials.

The Washington Post reported Friday that the bipartisan Senate committee, which is reviewing pre-war intelligence, will blame the CIA for using single-source information and circumstantial evidence about Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. The panel apparently has interviewed more than 100 people and pored over volumes of classified material.

Democrats have increasingly blamed President Bush for hyping the threat in the run-up to the Iraq war. Bush just returned to Washington from a six-nation tour of Asia.

Why? Because that's EXACTLY what his arse did! And in NO BIG surprise......Dubya and Co. are and will continue to look for "scapegoats" to save their sorry-war-mongering-arses.
And also NO BIG surprise that this so called White House Committee could care less on what expalnation, conclusion, evidence (or lack there of) Tenet and Co. would like to say/give. But of course he was appointed by the late GREAT Clinton, all the more to shaft his arse...right? :rolleyes:

The New Republicans (TNR)
TNR, as it is called, was trapped by the Bush administration's Iraq war. Coming from the liberal tradition, it doesn't like agreeing with Bush, but, being pro-Israel, it had to back a war instigated by Bush's neoconservative, pro-Israel hawks.

The result was that TNR proved as pro-war rabid as conservative publications such as The Wall Street Journal and Weekly Standard.

They whooped up the war, sanitized it and share the blame for an operation gone badly wrong. An administration that came into office arguing that wars must have exit strategies, now faces the ugly reality that it has no clue when or how we will leave Iraq.

Most of the war whoopers do not have TNR's legacy. To preserve its liberal bona fides, its editors decided to rip into everything Bush did except the war. "He's Still Lying," screamed a cover story this month on Bush's tax cuts. Bush policies on education, Medicare, homeland security, etc. have all come under attack.

One exasperated letter to the editor finally complained, "one couldn't help wondering if the editors were actually aware that the war was being run by the same people whose untrustworthiness they were so clearly demonstrating elsewhere in the magazine."

It is therefore more than surprising that TNR has just published the most thorough dossier of the administration's deceptions, flimflammery and pettifoggery about the war yet seen.

I have written at length about the methods Bush used to hoodwink Americans about his war (see June 9 column, "We are a nation awash in a sea of lies"), but what TNR published last week is the fruit of two reporters throwing themselves totally into a search of the record so we might know the full extent of the deception.

This in a publication that willingly, though perhaps not knowingly, accepted the deception.

There are no heroes in this account. Bush, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, Condoleezza Rice, each one misled us. For convention's sake, TNR's authors, Spencer Ackerman and John B. Judis, shy away from the word "lie," but never conceal that that is what they are talking about.

Some conclusions from the evidence they present:

l Bush "engaged in a pattern of deception concerning the most fundamental decisions a government must make."

l America "was not justified in (going to war) on the national security grounds that President Bush put forth throughout last fall and winter."

l Bush "deceived Americans about what was known of the threat from Iraq and deprived Congress of its ability to make an informed decision about whether or not" to go to war.

l "The administration turned the CIA – and George Tenet in particular – into an advocate for war with Iraq at a time when the CIA's own classified analysis contradicted the public statements of the agency and its director."

When CIA intelligence did not conform to the plans of the Pentagon hawks, the Pentagon set up its own intelligence operation to supply the information it wanted. Thus was Rumsfeld able to claim "bulletproof" ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda when in fact no such ties existed.

In his seminal war speech in Cincinnati on Oct. 7, Bush stated: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program."

In fact, CIA evidence showed no such thing.

In his State of the Union message three months later, Bush stated that Iraq had sought to buy enriched uranium from Niger for nuclear bombs.

In fact, it was known throughout the administration such charges were based on forged documents. "They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie," states the former ambassador who investigated the charges. And yet those charges were included in Bush's address to the nation. Polls showed Americans believed Bush by 90 percent to 7 percent that Saddam was developing nuclear weapons.

Bush railroaded Congress. The Senate Intelligence Committee, says TNR, "was the greatest obstacle" to Bush's push for war, and in late 2002, it asked for a classified CIA analysis of the Iraqi threat. Completed, the analysis did not substantiate Bush's claims.

When the committee, led by Florida Democrat Bob Graham, asked for a declassified version that could be circulated prior to a vote on Iraq, it received a version that had deleted all "countervailing evidence" and "played up the claims that strengthened the administration's case for war."

Graham asked the CIA to declassify the deleted portions and was told that "the White House had ordered Tenet not to release anything more."

Americans were manipulated into this war. Bush believed the causes for war were unimportant, and that quick victory would bring short memories.

But victory has been anything but quick. Our occupation will be long and bloody, and, if past is prologue, as soon as we are gone, Iraq will pick up where it left off.

You're forgetting that some members of Congress were briefed extensively with the very same information Bush had and then they voted to go to war. Now the Democrats have done an about-face and claim the war was illegitimate so they can gain momentum to bolster their bid for presidency. :rolleyes:

I'm not contending that some of the intelligence was not based on sketchy evidence, I'm contending that Congress knew this and still voted to support the war. Lieberman and Daschle saw this very same intelligence and have stated that the President didn't lie.

Bush is the most extremist president the United States has ever had.
Repeat: Bush is the most extremist president the United States has ever had.
Repeat: Bush is the most extremist president the United States has ever had.
Repeat: Bush is the most extremist president the United States has ever had.

This is a fact.

He has even alienated himself from the Republican party. Every week, sane Republican Congressmen increasingly defy Bush and Bush's policy ranging from FCC regulation, to Iraq policy and Iraq funding, to tax cuts, and drug importation. The only people I see still hanging on to Bush's every word are the Bush myrmidons and fanatics. This is likely due to the fact that they do not keep up with current events and politics and merely adhere to tired old post-9/11 sentiments. The watching of a certain thought-shaping news channel doesn't help either....

Originally posted by lex400sc
watching of a certain thought-shaping news channel doesn't help either....
Are you speaking about the O'Reilly Factor? So what if they stated Bush did not lie on this show, they stated it and that's what matters. Where these Congressmen bamboozled into making these statements by O'Reilly's "power of persuasion"? LOL.

Originally posted by lex400sc
Bush is the most extremist president the United States has ever had.
Repeat: Bush is the most extremist president the United States has ever had.
Repeat: Bush is the most extremist president the United States has ever had.
Repeat: Bush is the most extremist president the United States has ever had.

This is a fact.


With due respect, I think you were less than 10 years old when Clinton got into office. So you only have two Presidents to really compare in terms of your own experience. I think your hatred of Bush distorts and obscures your perspective.

Here's why I like Bush (but certainly not everything he's done, especially pissing away a fortune of taxpayer money appeasing Ted Kennedy on education, who later came back recently to RIP Bush in a speech in the Senate):

Bush was a drunk, but has turned that around. He's extremely disciplined, he gets up early, keeps very fit, and keeps appointments ON TIME (unlike his predecessor who was never on time). Bush has delegated real authority to senior cabinet members, respecting their experience and defering to them. Bush has focused on a few issues (defense, education, taxes, for example), not on just what the latest focus group might tell him (like his predecessor). These are signs of a great leader.

As far as his taking us into Iraq - I look at it this way... while it may not have had direct ties to 9/11, although terrorists have clearly been operating in Iraq, Saddam Hussein was an evil bully who absolutely intended to invade his neighbors again at some point in the future. Hussein and his fans believe Kuwait should be part of Iraq. They believe Israel should be destroyed. Granted, all of that region believes Israel should be destroyed, but the difference is Hussein was intent on making it happen. But regardless of his regional intentions, he was EVIL TO HIS OWN PEOPLE. Now before you reply "well there's lots of evil people in the world but we're not invading those countries" the difference is Iraq represents a significant chunk of the world's oil supply and the REGION represents a HUGE chunk of the world's oil supply, and oil, like it or not, until Lexus and other car companies produce more hybrids and electrics, is currently critical to the world economy. And while 9/11 just provided the 'reason', even if dubious, I fully support getting rid of an evil and ruthless dictator that threatened the world economy because that affects ME too, but moreover, I simply feel for all the suffering that s.o.b. has caused and he deserves to be gotten rid of. Bush didn't waver, he recognized the threat to the global economy, and yes, to the oil industry, something he's familiar with, and perhaps he, Cheney, Powell etc., viewed Iraq as a place likely to become a terrorist haven now that Afghanistan was being cleaned out. Whatever their reasons, I'm GLAD they invaded Iraq.

Now lex400sc, you probably consider me one of those 'myrmidons' you refer to a lot, but I do not consider myself blindly loyal to Bush.

Originally posted by 93LexoGS300
Are you speaking about the O'Reilly Factor? So what if they stated Bush did not lie on this show, they stated it and that's what matters. Where these Congressmen bamboozled into making these statements by O'Reilly's "power of persuasion"? LOL.

Before you "LOL", please re-read what I said so that you may understand what I was really saying. It might not be so funny to you afterwards. Here:

Originally posted by lex400sc
The only people I see still hanging on to Bush's every word are the Bush myrmidons and fanatics. This is likely due to the fact that they do not keep up with current events and politics and merely adhere to tired old post-9/11 sentiments. The watching of a certain thought-shaping news channel doesn't help either....

If you'll take notice, I underlined the words "Bush myrmidons and fanatics". This is the noun that modifies and qualifies "thought-shaping new channel". The noun "Congressmen" was part of a completely seperate thought.

And no, I'm not singling out the O'Reilly Factor, the whole news channel blows. Just ask any prestigious, independent journalism institute in the nation that's released a study on Fox News Channel. Here's one such example:

Program on International Policy Attitudes
Conducted by the Univ. of Maryland and Knowledge Networks with support from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Ford Foundation:

Misperceptions vary widely depending on new source: Fox viewers more likely to misperceive, PBS-NPR less likely

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Press.pdf

In this study, a poll was conducted using these three false statements::

1) Evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been found.
2) Weapons of Mass Destruction have been found in Iraq.
3) World public opinion favored the US going to war with Iraq.

Of Fox New Channel viewers polled on these statements, 80% believed one or more of these statements to be true. Of PBS viewers polled on these statements, only 23% believed one or more of these statements to be true.


Networks conveying misconceptions:

Fox........................ 80%
CBS...................... 71%
ABC...................... 61%
NBC...................... 55%
CNN..................... 55%
Print news .......... 47%
PBS...................... 23%


What is sad is that government propaganda is 80% effective in the leading news network. These statistics ressemble that of a communist/fascist disctatorship.

Originally posted by lex400sc
Before you "LOL", please re-read what I said so that you may understand what I was really saying. It might not be so funny to you afterwards. Here:

Originally posted by lex400sc
The only people I see still hanging on to Bush's every word are the Bush myrmidons and fanatics. This is likely due to the fact that they do not keep up with current events and politics and merely adhere to tired old post-9/11 sentiments. The watching of a certain thought-shaping news channel doesn't help either....

If you'll take notice, I underlined the words "Bush myrmidons and fanatics". This is the noun that modifies and qualifies "thought-shaping new channel". The noun "Congressmen" was part of a completely seperate thought.
Your stretching, "Bush myrmidons and fanatics" was used to describe people who "I see still hanging on to Bush's every word". Your trying to say that "Bush myrmidons and fanatics" modifies "thought-shaping new channel", which occurs two sentences away. Again, you're stretching it, so don't try to argue your way out of this. ;)

You did say, "the watching of a certain thought-shaping news channel doesn't help either.... " was a reason that people are "still hanging on to Bush's every word are the Bush myrmidons and fanatics."

It appears that you need to re-read your post before you try to say that I didn't understand it. LOL
I don't like saying things like "you need to re-read your post", but if you stretch statements and use funny English to justify the statement "please re-read what I said so that you may understand what I was really saying" I'll retort in the same manner.

Originally posted by bitkahuna
With due respect, I think you were less than 10 years old when Clinton got into office. So you only have two Presidents to really compare in terms of your own experience. I think your hatred of Bush distorts and obscures your perspective.

With all due respect, what is the hell is the relevance of age and having political-mindedly sat through a presidency to critiquing it? Are you not able to comment on Reagan because you weren't an American at the time? Are you not qualified to comment on Lincoln, Jefferson, or Hitler because they were all before your time? I suppose no historian or political scientist has the right to comment on any president before Roosevelt because they weren't alive at the time!

I think I have more qualifications to speak than some of the other geriatrics here because I actually study and research this stuff on some level while some others here may well have been dead during those eras considering all their surface-level doorstep opinions.

Originally posted by bitkahuna
I think your hatred of Bush distorts and obscures your perspective.

My hatred of Bush stems from his inability to manage a nation or steer the world community in what I believe to be the right direction: a relative peace. It is dictated by the fact that nine out of ten things he does is driven by profit or ideology and there is no time to stop for compromise or even reflection. And in the future, please point out my distortions and obscurities so that I don't just think you're making this all up ;).

Originally posted by bitkahuna
Bush was a drunk, but has turned that around. He's extremely disciplined, he gets up early, keeps very fit, and keeps appointments ON TIME (unlike his predecessor who was never on time).

Disciplined? Every president has had to get up early, they have aids and assistants that wake them up, keep them on schedule, and even dress them. What did Clinton do wrong in this area?

Originally posted by bitkahuna
Bush has delegated real authority to senior cabinet members, respecting their experience and defering to them. Bush has focused on a few issues (defense, education, taxes, for example), not on just what the latest focus group might tell him (like his predecessor). These are signs of a great leader.

More like he has delegated accountability to all his cabinet officials. Whenever an outcry or scandal breaks loose in the presidency, it's blame everyone else first. Bad intelligence? Blame the Director of the CIA. Lies in a speech? Blame the speechwriters. Bad post-war planning? Blame the Chief Administrator of Iraq. Blame the Defense Secretary. Bad press? Blame the Press Secretary. Bad diplomacy? Blame the Secretary of State. Bush absolutely refuses to take responsiblity for the people that work under him like a real "great leader" would. Has he ever admitted to a mistake? No. Has he ever committed one? Yes, many.

Originally posted by bitkahuna
As far as his taking us into Iraq - I look at it this way... while it may not have had direct ties to 9/11, although terrorists have clearly been operating in Iraq, Saddam Hussein was an evil bully who absolutely intended to invade his neighbors again at some point in the future. Hussein and his fans believe Kuwait should be part of Iraq. They believe Israel should be destroyed. Granted, all of that region believes Israel should be destroyed, but the difference is Hussein was intent on making it happen. But regardless of his regional intentions, he was EVIL TO HIS OWN PEOPLE. Now before you reply "well there's lots of evil people in the world but we're not invading those countries" the difference is Iraq represents a significant chunk of the world's oil supply and the REGION represents a HUGE chunk of the world's oil supply, and oil, like it or not, until Lexus and other car companies produce more hybrids and electrics, is currently critical to the world economy. And while 9/11 just provided the 'reason', even if dubious, I fully support getting rid of an evil and ruthless dictator that threatened the world economy because that affects ME too, but moreover, I simply feel for all the suffering that s.o.b. has caused and he deserves to be gotten rid of. Bush didn't waver, he recognized the threat to the global economy, and yes, to the oil industry, something he's familiar with, and perhaps he, Cheney, Powell etc., viewed Iraq as a place likely to become a terrorist haven now that Afghanistan was being cleaned out. Whatever their reasons, I'm GLAD they invaded Iraq.

It doesn't bother you that the President of the United States lied to you to start a baseless first-strike war that cost almost 400 American lives and countless thousands of Iraqi lives? If you have a bleeding heart for those poor Iraqis, it might sadden you to know that Bush Sr.'s sanctions killed two million Iraqis with malnutrition and diarhea. It doesn't bother you that this fallicious war was the key contributor to the dimunition of our federal budget, market uncertainty, and disintegration of social and domestic services? It doesn't bother you that he ignored the only established and recognized international body of peace and conflict resolution, and sent a global message that unilateralism is okay? It doesn't bother you that Bush was gifted with a unique opportunity of national and international unity and that instead of rising together, he's ripped us all apart?

You are concerned with our dependancy on oil. Why not instead of violently taking oil from other sovereign peoples using cheap excuses, we instead make laws in our own homeland that restrict fuel consumption, penalize gas guzzlers, encourage tax breaks for zero emmissions motors, and promote fuel efficiency.... rather than encouraging everyone to buy H2 Hummers with tax incentives. In order to fix an entirely internal/domestic problem (such as oil consumption), Bush heads out of country and stirs up the bee hive half way across the world and robs another country of their proverbial honey? How do you respect that kind of policy? Oil is not our right. Moreover, his Middle East policy on the whole is dangerous and flat out stupid. Regardless of how bad Saddam is or how precious his commodities are, we as a nation need to eventually learn that mass consumption and mass wasting can't be fixed by squeezing other nations of whatever we're in shortage of. It isn't necessary for our nation to consume 32% of the world's oil reserves. In fact that is quite an unhealthy percentage of use that is only growing larger.

Originally posted by bitkahuna
Now lex400sc, you probably consider me one of those 'myrmidons' you refer to a lot, but I do not consider myself blindly loyal to Bush.

Actually I considered you a more moderate Republican because at least you aren't spewing out 100% propaganda garbage. Some of what you say is valid, and on a few occassions, we actually agree.

Originally posted by lex400sc
You are concerned with our dependancy on oil. Why not instead of violently taking oil from other sovereign peoples, we make laws in our own homeland that restrict fuel consumption and fuel efficiency instead of encouraging the world to buy H2 Hummers. In order to fix a strictly internal/domestic problem (oil consumption), he heads out and stirs up the bee hive and robs another country of their proverbial honey? How do you respect that kind of policy? Oil is not our right. Moreover, his Middle East policy on the whole is dangerous and flat out stupid.
You're right, we've got to curb our dependency on oil because it is causing so many problems politically, economically, and environmentally. Fuel alternatives will be expensive initially, but in the long run everyone will benefit.

I think people tend to look at Bush and judge his performance by their personal like of him, not the quality of his leadership or lack thereof, just as people who don't care for Clinton are lookin' at his choices on a personal level and associating that with the quality of leadership. If you look at the end result of his tenure thus far, his claims vs delivery, allegations vs tangible proof,. he is so lackin' it's pathetic. This war had nothin' to do with safety and security of this country as a primary principle, but more so with acquiring land that meant cash to the US and avenging his father's incomplete task of dealing with another leader. Hell, every week I read some propaganda of Bush waging war on terrorism in a new country,... we'll have gone to war with every eastern country by the end of his tenure at this rate. He's a scrub, appeals to people like him, and is playing off of the division between die hard fanatics of politics. I see more people worried about what party is in office than what either party is doing to ruin the world in the big picture, or if they are committing us as a country to some bull******t.

Originally posted by 93LexoGS300
Your stretching, "Bush myrmidons and fanatics" was used to describe people who "I see still hanging on to Bush's every word". Your trying to say that "Bush myrmidons and fanatics" modifies "thought-shaping new channel", which occurs two sentences away. Again, you're stretching it, so don't try to argue your way out of this. ;)

You did say, "the watching of a certain thought-shaping news channel doesn't help either.... " was a reason that people are "still hanging on to Bush's every word are the Bush myrmidons and fanatics."

It appears that you need to re-read your post before you try to say that I didn't understand it. LOL
I don't like saying things like "you need to re-read your post", but if you stretch statements and use funny English to justify the statement "please re-read what I said so that you may understand what I was really saying" I'll retort in the same manner.

Aiye, you're slow.... Let me try on a different tact considering that I know I'm right about what I said because I was there when I said it. Your reply had me talking about Congressmen watching Fox News and believing it. Where in my original statement did I say it was the Congressmen who are watching Fox News? It never happened. I was specifically referring to the myrmidons and fanatics. You originally confused that, which is what I was clarifying. Don't tell me I'm wrong about something I wrote with my own two hands ;).

Lex400sc, "Aiye, you're slow...."

I've been nice recently, but you continue to be condescending, abusive, and disrespectful. You've got to grow up and stop acting this way. You detract from the discussions on this board with an attitude like this. We are trying to be adults here but you continue to use abusive language to try to get your point across. Can you not argue any other way? I've noticed this for months now. :nono:

That is an observation that I'm entitled to about you being slow to catch on to the meaning of a simple three sentences of mine. Admittedly, I could have done without that remark, but can you really blame my frustration with having to explain the meaning of a few sentences over and over? So far a substantial part of this thread's dialogue is dedicated to me trying to explain to you a small paragraph that you keep trying to laugh about and ridicule because you don't understand it.

The point is this: Do you understand it yet?

Stop trying to paint me as a rude insulting person off a perfectly justified, benign comment like "you're slow". That's a very poor way to change the subject. If I really wanted to be vicious and insulting, there's a whole side of me that you don't know about, and "you're slow" isn't a part of it ;). Just admit that you made an over-zealous assumption and have been trying to justify it this entire time to save face :).

Originally posted by 93LexoGS300
I've been nice recently, but you continue to be condescending, abusive, and disrespectful.

And I've felt that I've been respectful as well except when it comes to people miscontruing my words and making a big deal out of it as you have. I'm really not dumb enough to think and write that Congressmen make their decisions based off what they see on Fox News. I really thought you'd give me more credit than that, even I would give you more credit than that. I politely clarified my sentence over and over, and you were insistent that I made some idiotic remark that I did not. If you knew when to stop and quit pushing the same buttons, there would be no issue over "rudeness" here. I'm sure if I were bored enough to test it, I could draw an equally if not worse response from you for repeating the same mistake over and over

Originally posted by lex400sc
With all due respect, what is the hell is the relevance of age and having political-mindedly sat through a presidency to critiquing it?

Because seeing events day in and day out is far more valuable than looking at past events through historical accounts.

Are you not able to comment on Reagan because you weren't an American at the time?

I was living in the U.S. during almost all of Reagan's Presidency, so I feel able to comment on it.

Are you not qualified to comment on Lincoln, Jefferson, or Hitler because they were all before your time?

Yes, I am not qualified to say much of any value. My knowledge is far too scant. I know a few things and have opinions but I don't think that makes me 'qualified'.

I think I have more qualifications to speak than some of the other geriatrics here because I actually study and research this stuff on some level while some others here may well have been dead during those eras considering all their surface-level doorstep opinions.

While you've certainly studied a lot, and I certainly respect your intelligence, I just think your inexperience in life means you can't appreciate fully what leaders have to deal with and the compromises and shades of gray they deal with all the time, which you then describe as 'lies' or 'incompetence' or some other strong words. Hey, I was your age once and I thought I knew a lot. But now I try not to judge negatively so much. There's ALWAYS more to the story than we can dig out. Heck there's still things I'm finding out about my FAMILY, so how am I supposed to know the ins and outs of what made a President behave a certain way. There's a LOT going on there and I don't feel that qualified to know how they came to the conclusions and decisions any of them do.

My hatred of Bush stems from his inability to manage a nation...

Ah, first misconception. Leading is different than managing, and the President of the U.S. is FAR less empowered to manage than the typical CEO is. Presidents pick issues to keep the nation focused on, and manage a team of politicians/bureaucrats each of whom run HUGE departments, but have little control over them in the end.

...or steer the world community in what I believe to be the right direction: a relative peace.

Ah, 'steer the world' toward 'relative peace' - have there been any Presidents you've studied that you think have done this well?

It is dictated by the fact that nine out of ten things he does is driven by profit or ideology and there is no time to stop for compromise or even reflection.

I see NOTHING wrong with what you say drives him and what makes you think he has no time for compromise or reflection? He compromises ALL the time. And I believe he takes time to reflect - he makes sure he has at least some 'personal' time. And when you say 'profit' I assume you're thinking it's for his corporate buddies - well, if those corporate buddies fail, what do you think will happen to the economy then? I don't disagree that there is excessive executive greed in many corporations, but we need corporations to be successful, or the government is in DEEP trouble.

Disciplined? Every president has had to get up early, they have aids and assistants that wake them up, keep them on schedule, and even dress them. What did Clinton do wrong in this area?

It has been mentioned many times that Clinton stayed up very late a lot making it hard for him to get going in the mornings, and that he frequently ran late for appointments driving staffers a bit nuts.

Whenever an outcry or scandal breaks loose in the presidency, it's blame everyone else first.

All administrations do this (ever heard of 'plausible deniability'?). The best we ever got out of Clinton were 'mistakes were made' or something bad was 'politically motivated by a vast right wing conspiracy' - never 'we screwed up'.

Has he ever admitted to a mistake? No. Has he ever committed one? Yes, many.

They're all like that.

It doesn't bother you that the President of the United States lied to you to start a baseless first-strike war that cost almost 400 American lives and countless thousands of Iraqi lives?

No. If 'baseless wars' weren't started, this country would still be populated primarily by native indians. Sometimes progress isn't pretty. :D

If you have a bleeding heart for those poor Iraqis, it might sadden you to know that Bush Sr.'s sanctions killed two million Iraqis with malnutrition and diarhea.

Your beloved U.N. authorized all those sanctions.

It doesn't bother you that this fallicious war was the key contributor to the dimunition of our federal budget, market uncertainty, and disintegration of social and domestic services?

I don't agree with your analysis so it doesn't bother me.

It doesn't bother you that he ignored the only established and recognized international body of peace and conflict resolution

He ignored France and Germany, but the U.N. didn't block our actions as far as I know and supported them through resolutions.

Why not instead of violently taking oil from other sovereign peoples using cheap excuses, we instead make laws in our own homeland that restrict fuel consumption, penalize gas guzzlers, encourage tax breaks for zero emmissions motors, and promote fuel efficiency.... rather than encouraging everyone to buy H2 Hummers with tax incentives.

Because this is a (relatively) free country. Taxing and regulating consumption never works to change behavior significantly. In Europe they've taxed the CRAP out of gas and people STILL drive cars as much as they want to. There is already tax breaks for zero emissions vehicles here by the way. Maybe if people were better drivers here in general they wouldn't feel the need to drive tanks. I would definitely support a tougher driving test over here.

In order to fix an entirely internal/domestic problem (such as oil consumption), Bush heads out of country and stirs up the bee hive half way across the world and robs another country of their proverbial honey? How do you respect that kind of policy?

I know the news doesn't report it much, but the majority of Iraqis are THRILLED Hussein is gone. Had the U.S. not invaded, he'd still be there and his sons would have continued to rule for decades. As I've said before, they posed a threat to the entire region threatening a huge chunk of the world's oil supplies.

we as a nation need to eventually learn that mass consumption and mass wasting can't be fixed by squeezing other nations of whatever we're in shortage of. It isn't necessary for our nation to consume 32% of the world's oil reserves. In fact that is quite an unhealthy percentage of use that is only growing larger.

It isn't NECESSARY to do lots of things, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do them. It wasn't necessary to put a man on the moon - should we have not done it, because it cost a lot?

We create more than half the world's wealth, why not use a big chunk of oil to do it. And unlike the panic-stirrers, I don't believe we're anywhere near close to running out of oil or that we're polluting the world excessively in the U.S.

Actually I considered you a more moderate Republican because at least you aren't spewing out 100% propaganda garbage. Some of what you say is valid, and on a few occassions, we actually agree.

Thanks, I think. I don't really consider myself Republican though, just free market oriented with minimal government intrusion. I'm more Libertarian.

"With all due respect, what is the hell is the relevance of age and having political-mindedly sat through a presidency to critiquing it?"


Reading about it and living in it makes a big difference. You read about a time when interest rates were 12-13-14% and there was no JOBS, try living in it, the people who are bashing the current economy saying it is "the worse in 30-40 years", well they must have missed the 80's

Originally posted by lex400sc
That is an observation that I'm entitled to about you being slow to catch on to the meaning of a simple three sentences of mine. Admittedly, I could have done without that remark, but can you really blame my frustration with having to explain the meaning of a few sentences over and over? So far a substantial part of this thread's dialogue is dedicated to me trying to explain to you a small paragraph that you keep trying to laugh about and ridicule because you don't understand it.

The point is this: Do you understand it yet?
You are so misguided it ceases to amaze me. You misconstrue things people say and even what you say just so you can feel you are right and then you try to cover-up your mistakes by whining that other person can't understand your arguments.

1. I stated in my first post that Congressmen Daschle and Lieberman stated that Bush did not lie. These statements were made on the O'Reilly Factor, which I've mentioned before in another thread.

2. You replied by pointing out that Congressmen are defying Bush and that Bush is alienating his party. And then you stated that the only ones you see hanging on to Bush's words are the Bush myrmidons and fanatics who don't keep up with current events and politics, hold on to 9/11 sentiments, and may watch a certain thought-shaping network. You stated that your use of the term "Congressmen" refers to another thought.

If you're referring to me as being a Bush myrmidon and fanatic because I watched these two Congressmen on this certain thought-shaping network and that it might not be funny to me afterwards, then I must have given you too much credit. If you are referring to me, then you are seriously misguided and assume that anyone who stands up for Bush is a fanatic and faithful follower. Apparently you have overlooked the fact that I have disagreed with Bush, but you ASSumed and stated that I am a faithful follower and fanatic of Bush. I gave you too much credit and assumed that you were a little smarter and wouldn't make such assumptions, I guess I made an ASS out of myself by believing you were above making such misguided assumptions. I also assumed that you would not make an ad-hominem attack just because I pointed out that there were powerful Democrats who stated that Bush didn't lie. I don't know why adults still use such grade-school arguments (just an observation ;)).

This is the problem, when someone brings up a fact that is contrary to lex400sc’s arguments he responds by attacking the person. This has been going on for such a long time now and it is getting exasperating hearing personal attacks hurled against me and members of this forum.

3. With my misguided assumptions about you, I replied by stating that it doesn't matter where they made these statements as long as they made it.

4. You appeared concerned by the use of "LOL". I can't help it if you are thin-skinned and are offended by this term. After the on-set of confusion, you replied by stating that I didn't understand something. And then you made some argument about underlying the words "Bush myrmidons and fanatics" and stated that it modifies and qualifies the term "thought-shaping new (sp) channel." Huh?

"The only people I see still hanging on to Bush's every word are the Bush myrmidons and fanatics. " Hmm. What does the term "Bush myrmidons and fanatics" modify in this sentence? Well, the only subject in this sentence are "people [who] I see hanging on to Bush's every word". Where is the term "thought-shaping new (sp) channel"? It's not in this sentence. Maybe it magically appeared but no one sees it except for the person stating that it is the subject of the above-quoted sentence.

Low-and-behold, the term "thought-shaping new (sp) channel" appears two sentences away. I don't remember a rule in the English language where a modifier in one sentence modifies a subject of another sentence. LOL

Originally posted by lex400sc
Stop trying to paint me as a rude insulting person off a perfectly justified, benign comment like "you're slow". That's a very poor way to change the subject. If I really wanted to be vicious and insulting, there's a whole side of me that you don't know about, and "you're slow" isn't a part of it ;). Just admit that you made an over-zealous assumption and have been trying to justify it this entire time to save face :).
I'm not painting you as being rude and insulting, you do it yourself quite often here on CL. It is ingenious how you changed the subject by stating that I didn't understand something because I did not understand your "grammar" :egads: And now you accuse me of changing the subject in a very poor way. LOL

And then you try to justify the statement "you're slow" by claiming it is benign and just an observation so that you don't violate the rules of CL, but I don't think you have to worry about that because you get away with abrasive language/comments against numerous members on this forum. I started out by stating a fact about two Congressmen and you followed by attacking me by accusing me, through insinuation, of being a Bush myrmidon and fanatic. Although I am not offended by the comment, it is highly presumptuous and did not address the topic of my post, which were the facts that Congress approved the war and that two Congressmen stated Bush did not lie. And then you use ad-hominem attacks to draw attention away from the facts I pointed out (a not too uncommon tactic). And then you accuse me of not understanding your posts and therefore your unsavory comments are justified. You then you posted something based on mangled English to justify your comments (see your comments about modifiers and qualifiers).

Originally posted by lex400sc
And I've felt that I've been respectful as well except when it comes to people misconstruing my words and making a big deal out of it as you have.
Misconstruing words, how about your broken English. It always seems that you get insulted when someone points out a fact that contradicts your contentions. Then you start using abrasive language to try to get your point across and justify your arguments with mangled grammar and ad-hominem attacks.

Originally posted by lex400sc
I'm really not dumb enough to think and write that Congressmen make their decisions based off what they see on Fox News.
This just clarifies the fact that you attacked me for bringing up the fact about the Congressmen.

And no, I didn't think you made an "idiotic remark". Again, I was stating that Congressmen stated Bush did not lie and this was aired on a network that you considered to be thought-provoking. Then you stated that Bush is losing support in Congress and you made your grand assumption about me. I assumed you were above ad hominem arguments and that you would not make such misguided assumptions about me, so I retorted by stating it doesn't matter where it was aired. Then you were slighted by my use of the term "LOL" when I stated that it is ridiculous to think these two Congressmen were bamboozled into making their statement. Maybe you thought they were bamboozled, I don't know, but you responded by using mangled grammar to justify an argument and to make it clear to me that you were referring to me when you insinuated that I am a Bush myrmidon and fanatic and that I don’t understand your arguments because I gave you too much credit. But I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I should have realized that you were not above making such comments when I saw that Bit was offended by your insults and condescending remarks earlier in the morning.

I did make one mistake and that was assuming you were above making personal attacks in response to a statement of fact.

Originally posted by DaveGS4
Keep it clean, keep to the topic, keep it impersonal. You should reply based on the facts of the post, not on the person making them. Anyone who cannot follow these simple rules - and the general rules of our forum (click here to read them ) - will have their posting priviledges removed from this subforum or all of ClubLexus.

Wow, that was long-winded... and you still don't understand.... http://www.intellexual.net/cl/nonono.gif

Originally posted by lex400sc
Wow, that was long-winded... and you still don't understand.... http://www.intellexual.net/cl/nonono.gif

I don't think anyone will ever understand you. Guess that is what being extreme is all about

Originally posted by jpa2400
Reading about it and living in it makes a big difference. You read about a time when interest rates were 12-13-14% and there was no JOBS, try living in it, the people who are bashing the current economy saying it is "the worse in 30-40 years", well they must have missed the 80's

Absolutely. The economy under Carter SUCKED (I'm not blaming him entirely, Presidents have FAR less control over the economy than most people think). My first car loan was 13%. My first mortgage was 12.25%. And my investments maybe made 10-15% so it wasn't 'dot com' land either.

"Absolutely. The economy under Carter SUCKED (I'm not blaming him entirely, Presidents have FAR less control over the economy than most people think). My first car loan was 13%. My first mortgage was 12.25%. And my investments maybe made 10-15% so it wasn't 'dot com' land either."

I wasn't old enough to go through all that, but you learn so much more talking to people who lived through it, like my parents, rather then reading about it. People think the job market is bad now, talk to people who seeked employment in the 70's-80's, no fun stories here thats for sure. At least today, you can find work, may not be to your standard, but you can find work.

Car loans at 13+, I bet thats with A credit, think about those with 620 fico scores, same with the home loans, I think I can buy a car and a home for under 5% these days, how bad are things really?

Experience can sometimes give you a good perspective on things, but then again it can also warp your perceptions and hinder objectivity. I'm fortunate enough not to have lived through the Carter years I guess, but if I was so inclined to, I could study it to a degree that dwarfs your experience. I never had to pay 12% interest on a car, but I have paid interest and I know that 12% is not a good rate. And realistically that's really all you do need to know about it.

Besides, most of my focus is not upon "economics and you"--or the personal experience--I am more focused on policy, international relations, and historical events. Being a soldier in Iraq surely would give me a whole new outlook, but does that mean I'd know why I was fighting in Iraq and why others want to fight me back over there? For most soldiers, no it doesn't. Though you can call into question my sense of nationalism, my level of education is not as easily approachable. This just goes to show that experience doesn't equate to merit. I do not need to live for 250 years to determine which president was most extreme. All I have to do is study and educate myself on 227 years of United States history.

Originally posted by lex400sc
Experience can sometimes give you a good perspective on things, but then again it can also warp your perceptions and hinder objectivity.

I agree. I believe your experience with Bush has warped your preceptions and hindered your objectivity.

I'm fortunate enough not to have lived through the Carter years I guess, but if I was so inclined to, I could study it to a degree that dwarfs your experience.

As an example of I disagree, NO ONE who has studied the holocaust in Germany who wasn't there can possibly appreciate what it was like to have ACTUALLY been there.

I never had to pay 12% interest on a car, but I have paid interest and I know that 12% is not a good rate. And realistically that's really all you do need to know about it.

No, there really is no substitute for experience. When that 12% chunk comes out of your pay check you appreciate it a good bit more than seeing it as two times 6% for example.

I do not need to live for 250 years to determine which president was most extreme. All I have to do is study and educate myself on 227 years of United States history.

Yes, I realize you think Bush is the most extreme president, but it's like arguing evolution with a Creationist - it's pointless. I give up.

Originally posted by bitkahuna
I agree. I believe your experience with Bush has warped your preceptions and hindered your objectivity.

What experience is that? The breadth of my experience with Bush is what I've observed about him, his policies, and his abilities through media. I thought experience is all that was required to give merit to an opinion? Only in the case of president Carter then?

I never claimed to be objective about Bush. I do try to be as objective as possible by having something solid to base my opinions on. I also weigh in the goods and the bads before I decide whether or not I like the man. You might not know this, but I was actually a big fan of Bush during the 2000 campaign because he said a lot of good things (problem is he's not done any of those things.). I sported all his campaigning banners and buttons at the time. Hell I would have voted for him if I'd registered back then! My opinion of him went from high to low over the last three years.

I may come off as a person that just hates Bush because he's Bush, but the fact is that I've never heard a good policy come from him. If he passed good legislation, if he did something admirable, don't you think I'd feel pretty at ease commending him for such? (At least for the purpose of me sounding reasonable to you Bush fans here). But no, he's deregulating big businesses, which I don't like, he's deregulating media ownership, which I don't like, he's deregulating energy, which I don't like, he's giving tax breaks to the rich in the name of patching a tattered economy, which has been proven in the past not to have worked, he lies a lot, which I don't like, he is undiplomatic and a political bully, which I don't like, he's shredding environmental protection laws, which I don't like, he's cutting funding to federal programs and states, which I don't like. Name something that he's done that I would agree with in principle and it would be quite difficult for me to continue the criticism. It's no secret that I dislike Bush, but it's not because he's a Republican, it's not because he's Bush, I judge him based on his actions.

When it comes to issues, such as terrorism, I strive to be completely objective. Though I disagree with Muslim extremists and their terrorist actions, I do make an effort to understand their viewpoint and motives because it makes whatever opinion I formulate all the more valueable. When you ignore half the problem, your opinions aren't worth the neurons they're stored on. Can you imagine a sports commentator that knows everything about the Yankees and nothing about the Marlins, trying to comment on the World Series? Can you imagine what kind of joke he must sound like? I try not to be that joke by going beyond the propaganda and learning the accurate history that has led us to this point. My opinions are certainly more objective than others in our country who are ignorant of all the context of terrorism yet try to offer solutions to it at the same time.

Originally posted by bitkahuna
As an example of I disagree, NO ONE who has studied the holocaust in Germany who wasn't there can possibly appreciate what it was like to have ACTUALLY been there.

If the question is over understanding the degree of severity, then given, experience has no substitute. But again, my interest isn't in trying to feel all the weight of emotion the Holocaust must have caused, only that it was a horrible, horrible reflection on mankind. I don't have to experience the Holocaust to know it was the most tragic example of systematic genocide in our history. Notice I characterized it as the "most". Now according to you, there would be no way of me knowing it was the most because I wasn't there for it and I wasn't there for all the other genocides in the world. However, studying enough history, you CAN know that it was such. (Either that or the 72 million Chinese murdered by the PROC over the last 50 years).

Originally posted by bitkahuna
No, there really is no substitute for experience. When that 12% chunk comes out of your pay check you appreciate it a good bit more than seeing it as two times 6% for example.

Again, I'm not concerned with the personalized aspects of politics. 12% must have been hard on you, but when you're weighing the 0% interest rate of last year against the 12% of the Carter years, it's simple 12 is worse than 0.

Originally posted by bitkahuna
Yes, I realize you think Bush is the most extreme president, but it's like arguing evolution with a Creationist - it's pointless. I give up.

No, it isn't because in this case there is empirical evidence to back the opinion. I say he is the most ideologically extreme president in practice that we've ever had. If you know of another, let's open a dialogue on what make the other more extreme.

Originally posted by NAZTY97
I think people tend to look at Bush and judge his performance by their personal like of him, not the quality of his leadership or lack thereof, just as people who don't care for Clinton are lookin' at his choices on a personal level and associating that with the quality of leadership.

Well, you completely make your point in rest of this don't you... lol

Originally posted by NAZTY97

If you look at the end result of his tenure thus far, his claims vs delivery, allegations vs tangible proof,. he is so lackin' it's pathetic.

Well, you forgot to mention all the events that took place in his tenure that no other President has had to deal with at the level it hit us.

Originally posted by NAZTY97
This war had nothin' to do with safety and security of this country as a primary principle, but more so with acquiring land that meant cash to the US and avenging his father's incomplete task of dealing with another leader.

Thats interesting, please post the site or any other source that states this as factual and not "Libel Slander"...

Originally posted by NAZTY97

Hell, every week I read some propaganda of Bush waging war on terrorism in a new country,... we'll have gone to war with every eastern country by the end of his tenure at this rate. He's a scrub, appeals to people like him, and is playing off of the division between die hard fanatics of politics.

No, we are raging war on TERRORIST COUNTRIES... just like he promised 2 years ago.. Remember?

Originally posted by NAZTY97

I see more people worried about what party is in office than what either party is doing to ruin the world in the big picture, or if they are committing us as a country to some bull******t.

At least he is doing what he said he was going to do. Remember, when everyone supported him 2 years ago? (Nows the part where you say "I Never Supported him"):rolleyes:

Originally posted by SCLexus3.0
Well, you completely make your point in rest of this don't you... lol

I think Nazty's point is that Bush is not judged enough on his merit and accomplishments. He is moreso judged on his personability, charisma, and of course those talented speechwriters :). I think he has a point because when you compare Bush's approval rating, right now somewhere around 50%, it is about the same as Clinton's approval rating at the same time in his first term, yet the climate and outlook of the nation and world are completely different than eight years ago. Bush is similar to Reagan: more popular than his policies.

Originally posted by SCLexus3.0
Well, you forgot to mention all the events that took place in his tenure that no other President has had to deal with at the level it hit us.

9/11 was out of his control. Afghanistan was a necessary measured response to it. Iraq doesn't make any sense whatsoever, pure ideology. But just look at the end result of everything he's done. Postwar Afghanistan is a failure, postwar Iraq is hardly a success. Israel-Palestine has a very grim outlook. North Korea is looking more menacing than before. Employment at home is horrible, not one new job created, 2.5 million lost. State of the Union is horrible, 49 state crises. Social funding is slashed to nothing and is being sustained by government pension funds. The environment is stripped of many of its safegards, including Kyoto. Our European camradery is hurting. World opinion is hurting. Budget deficit is the worst ever. You'd think with all his presidential powers, at least one thing could have gone right.

Originally posted by SCLexus3.0
Thats interesting, please post the site or any other source that states this as factual and not "Libel Slander"

I don't think any site or public source would ever be able to determine what Bush's real intentions with Iraq were. Only he is able to know for sure. But we can see the signs. PNAC was founded five years ago by Bush Administration officials to strategically plan a war in Iraq. Bush did already determine he was going to war with Iraq before even asking the UN of their opinion. Bush used UN resolutions as the primary justification of war, yet he seemed pretty unconcerned that Iraq was finally complying. There are just too many cue for me to believe this war was based on what he said it was. But either way, we may never know his true motives.

Originally posted by SCLexus3.0
No, we are raging war on TERRORIST COUNTRIES... just like he promised 2 years ago.. Remember?

Afghanistan, yes. Iraq, no. I think this guy Paul Sperry, a Republican voter who voted Bush in 2000, said it best in his editorial on WorldNetDaily.com, a right-wing news source:

" Forget that Bush lied about the reasons for putting our sons and daughters in harm's way in Iraq; and forget that he sent 140,000 troops there with bull's-eyes on their backs, then dared their attackers to bring it on. It was the height of irresponsibility to have done so in the middle of a war on al-Qaida, the real and proven threat to America. Bush diverted those troops and other resources - including intelligence assets, Arabic translators and hundreds of billions of tax dollars - from the hunt for Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders along the Afghan-Pakistani border. And now they've regrouped and are as threatening as ever. That's inexcusable, and Bush supporters with any intellectual honesty and concern for their own families' safety should be mad as hell about it - and that's coming from someone who voted for Bush. "

Originally posted by SCLexus3.0
At least he is doing what he said he was going to do. Remember, when everyone supported him 2 years ago? (Nows the part where you say "I Never Supported him"):rolleyes:

Interesting that you mention this. One of the sticking points with me is that Bush has made many claims that he did not fullfill.

In 2000 Bush campaigned on this line:

"The vast majority of my tax cuts go to the bottom end of the spectrum."

Absolutely false, 60% of the tax cut goes to the very rich. He also lied about making America a "humble nation" and lied about "changing the tone". After 9/11 Bush also promised vast new funding to the police, fire, and EMT services in New York. Not a dime yet.

Originally posted by lex400sc
I think Nazty's point is that Bush is not judged enough on his merit and accomplishments. He is moreso judged on his personability, charisma, and of course those talented speechwriters :). I think he has a point because when you compare Bush's approval rating, right now somewhere around 50%, it is about the same as Clinton's approval rating at the same time in his first term, yet the climate and outlook of the nation and world are completely different than eight years ago. Bush is similar to Reagan: more popular than his policies.


BTW: Bush's ratings are up to 55% and going up as recorded by this. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/stateNation/) Please be acurate when quoting polls. And yes, there is a huge difference between "somewhere around 50%" and 55%.

Originally posted by lex400sc

9/11 was out of his control. Afghanistan was a necessary measured response to it. Iraq doesn't make any sense whatsoever, pure ideology. But just look at the end result of everything he's done. Postwar Afghanistan is a failure, postwar Iraq is hardly a success. Israel-Palestine has a very grim outlook. North Korea is looking more menacing than before. Employment at home is horrible, not one new job created, 2.5 million lost. State of the Union is horrible, 49 state crises. Social funding is slashed to nothing and is being sustained by government pension funds. The environment is stripped of many of its safegards, including Kyoto. Our European camradery is hurting. World opinion is hurting. Budget deficit is the worst ever. You'd think with all his presidential powers, at least one thing could have gone right.


Iraq made perfect sense if you go back to what the President said. He stated that we are going to go after Terrorism where ever it is and we will go after the countries that support and harbor terrorists. Iraq would fall under one of those countries in a big way.. North Korea did what they did because they knew we had a conflict at hand already, and this would be a great time for them to make some dumb political statement. Plus, how is North Afghanistan a failure? Please post PROOF of this (not just from Democratic Politicians that "Think" its a failure). Iraq is going VERY well. Why don't you watch Non-left News forums as see for yourself. Every school is open, They are at the same power levels as Prewar Iraq, and their employment is up.... did you know that even with the soldiers (God Bless them) that are being killed, THERE ARE FAR LESS THAN HALF OF WHAT WAS ANTISIPATED IN U.S. CASUALTIES! You’re also missing the point that the Economy is going way up very quickly. More Job increases higher salaries, and less lay off.. But of course it is easy to follow only the bad things if that’s all your looking for.

Originally posted by lex400sc

I don't think any site or public source would ever be able to determine what Bush's real intentions with Iraq were. Only he is able to know for sure. But we can see the signs. PNAC was founded five years ago by Bush Administration officials to strategically plan a war in Iraq. Bush did already determine he was going to war with Iraq before even asking the UN of their opinion. Bush used UN resolutions as the primary justification of war, yet he seemed pretty unconcerned that Iraq was finally complying. There are just too many cue for me to believe this war was based on what he said it was. But either way, we may never know his true motives.


If you are going to make this statement, then you must assume that the Bush doesn't plan on WANTING to stay in office. He is smarter than that. He is not going to "take over Iraq" and "Keep Control of Iraq" because his admin as stated probably hundreds of times what they are planning to do. GIVE THE COUNTRY BACK TO THE Iraqi’s. But not until they can take care of themselves..

Originally posted by lex400sc

Afghanistan, yes. Iraq, no. I think this guy Paul Sperry, a Republican voter who voted Bush in 2000, said it best in his editorial on WorldNetDaily.com, a right-wing news source:


I wouldn't consider Iraq to be a safe. It has been proven that they did and do have Terrorist Training camps.. So if you are going to fight a war against Terrorism, and a countries that support and harbor terrorists, then yes, Iraq was a valid target. Just like the President stated.

Originally posted by lex400sc

"The vast majority of my tax cuts go to the bottom end of the spectrum."

Absolutely false, 60% of the tax cut goes to the very rich. He also lied about making America a "humble nation" and lied about "changing the tone". After 9/11 Bush also promised vast new funding to the police, fire, and EMT services in New York. Not a dime yet.

Interesting your mention this. I know the exact numbers, so please let me know what salaries fall under the 60% that goes to the very rich... And when you do find those numbers, I really hope you don't think that those people are the "Very Rich", because if you do, that would be like endorsing uneducation and the "Right" for people not to succeed in life. I guess you could make the point that "if you are happy with your job it doesn't matter how much you make".:rolleyes:

BTW: Bush's ratings are up to 55% and going up as recorded by this. Please be acurate when quoting polls. And yes, there is a huge difference between "somewhere around 50%" and 55%.

Ok, polls change with time,... so it could be something else tomorrow... The thing that amazed me on Houston's news was that his REPUBLICAN approval rating was significantly down, not the public rating, but his own party was loosing faith in his ability. So, with that, it is no longer a dem vs rep thing.

On another note, Iraq made / makes no sense to pursue because, the same results we came up with when Saddam agreed to comply is the same results we have after removal from power and occupation. No WMD found, or even the slightest evidence of their existence. I would see, "POSSIBLE SIGNS OF WMD FOUND AT XXXXXXX LOCATION - DETAILS LATER".... then, it was only some unknown canisters with explosives under a bridge to the location, but no chemical or mechanical evidence of any WMD... so sorry to get you all excited! Tune in tomorrow for the next teaser. I think ( my opinion, no facts here ) a lot of that stuff was staged to keep America's interest, and to bolster the idea this war was justified. There were way too many findings that looked like the smoking gun, that were totally busted. We don't hear that type of stuff any more,... now it's just occupation and a daily ambush,... painting the picture that we are where we are supposed to be, and the "bad guys" are lurking, killing our men for nothing. I bet if Mexico invaded Texas, I'd probably be ambushing them too,... defending my homeland,...so I can't really be mad at them for that, and that in no way insinuates that I don't value our American's soldiers' lives,...but most of them didn't want to go anyways,...they were ordered by our current misguided administration.

Go after terrorism wherever it is.... Did we go after EVERYONE Timothy McVeigh is affiliated with, and is that manhunt still underway... that's homeland terrorism right there. What about the unibomber? Are we waging war everyone associated with him?? I'm sure your instant response will be, we have incarcerated the offender, or killed them, ...but yet, somehow, the problem still remains,... anthrax mailings to Columbine killings,... we treat that as if it's different,... in my eyes it the same for me as an American, because I live in America. If we want to expand it and say Saddam's WMD could affect more people than the isolated events of these American offenders,... well then, North Korea would have taken precedence over sorry azz Iraq. Considering Japan is a major player in our economy, I'd be more concerned with a nuclear bomb fallin' on Japan and that throwing the world economy into hell. I'd be more concerned with a nuclear bomb fallin' into Alaska and causing bigger global environmental problems for short and long term. The discoveries of Saddam's weaponry is so primitive, that they would probably blow themselves up before ever being a legitimate threat to the US, as opposed the more advanced and equally as crazy N. Korea. So, protect American soil, or protect American sought oil? I think it's obvious what this war is about.

Look at the first war.... OPEC says keep it up, and no more oil,... the war stops instantly. He who controls the oil controls a good majority of the world. If it was compliance, and safety,...we'd just now be going to war, or the war would never have happened. There was nothing Saddam could have done to have prevented the war. He could have even accepted exile, and Bush would have alleged in my opinion, that Saddam never really left, and now we must find him, OR the new leader was not acceptable and equally a threat, so we must follow through and oust him as well.

If you are going to make this statement, then you must assume that the Bush doesn't plan on WANTING to stay in office. He is smarter than that. He is not going to "take over Iraq" and "Keep Control of Iraq" because his admin as stated probably hundreds of times what they are planning to do. GIVE THE COUNTRY BACK TO THE Iraqi’s. But not until they can take care of themselves..

Propaganda! Pretend to care, the people think you're a good guy, and they approve. Just like corporate America. They publicize the cut salaries, and benefits, ( which save them money ) in attempts to preserve jobs because they care about their employees, so that people ( primarily consumers and shareholders ) keep a good image of them, and STILL lay off the employees to further stay profitable. Good business sense, but still a play on the public's emotions. The lay offs were still planned, but not until all other cost cutting measures were exhausted while maintaining productivity, and then expended. PR is everything, and companies know that, just like the president knows this. If he says anything else, then we think he's an idiot,...so he plays the game, and obviously, he did it well enough to get your brain to regergitate every word he says and if he asked, you'd probably pin yourself to a cross with his name on it for him.

Most of us look to Bush as the protector of the world and a shepherd of the lost. The irony is, he is the lost from which we need protection. I wonder, everytime I see the news or hear on the radio, what is he getting us, as a global community into. Is he further dividing the world, or bringing it together. In a sermon in church yesterday, the Pastor said that baby's don't come into this world knowing how to cooperate, and that is something they just don't do well. Put 3 babies in a play pen without toys, they are cool. Put one ball in the pen with the the 3 kids and you introduce problems. Most people confuse babies playing together for cooperation, and I think our "playing the partners in global protection from terrorism" is a perferct illustration of that. The strongest kid becomes visible by who takes the ball first, or he who takes the ball from the kid who got it first. Then the weaker of the 3 conspire to topple the other, thus division. This is why babies ( immature leaders ) end up fighting amongst themselves because someone changes the rules, and or doesn't wanna play the same game anymore at all. It won't be long before, this war sprouts into a bigger mess. But most of us are too preoccupied with the foolishness of the obvious and short term, temporary gains.

Interesting your mention this. I know the exact numbers, so please let me know what salaries fall under the 60% that goes to the very rich... And when you do find those numbers, I really hope you don't think that those people are the "Very Rich", because if you do, that would be like endorsing uneducation and the "Right" for people not to succeed in life. I guess you could make the point that "if you are happy with your job it doesn't matter how much you make".

Uhhhh,... hello, I believe only 12 or 15% of the population hold 85% of the monetary wealth, so that small percentage is who he was referring to, and if they hold the majority of the money,... no matter how you slice, you are not in that catergory. In Houston, the median income per family was like $38K,... I found that hard to believe. But then why didn't I believe that? I was 27 at the time and made double that by myself... but then that just showed, I thought the rest of the world was like me, and that rich was those who made $200K a year,... but then to the millioniare, we are all poor. To the minimum wage worker, I am rich, to me, the dell director is rich, to him, Michael Dell is rich,...so that can be a relative thing, or an absolute, but who sets the scale? Here's something to think about:

http://www.lcurve.org/

Tax breaks are just like credit. Credit is not for those who don't have cash on hand, and need a payment plan, it's for those who can pay upfront, who don't wanna tie their money up immediately, yet have NO NEED FOR CREDIT!

Originally posted by NAZTY97
Ok, polls change with time,... so it could be something else tomorrow... The thing that amazed me on Houston's news was that his REPUBLICAN approval rating was significantly down, not the public rating, but his own party was loosing faith in his ability. So, with that, it is no longer a dem vs rep thing.


Look at the Democratic Party Debate.. They bashed each other more than they agreed on anything.. Most people wouldn't elect ANY democratic cand. running according to a poll.. What does that tell you about them. The only issue all of them could agree on was that they hated Bush... WOW thats new.

Originally posted by NAZTY97

On another note, Iraq made / makes no sense to pursue because, the same results we came up with when Saddam agreed to comply is the same results we have after removal from power and occupation. No WMD found, or even the slightest evidence of their existence. I would see, "POSSIBLE SIGNS OF WMD FOUND AT XXXXXXX LOCATION - DETAILS LATER".... then, it was only some unknown canisters with explosives under a bridge to the location, but no chemical or mechanical evidence of any WMD... so sorry to get you all excited!


hmm, Missiles capable of transferring WMD, Nuke Fire Pins, Trucks that look like they were used to develop Chemical weapons... They are all signs and Slight Evidence....Iraq was a Major terrorist country that why, it wasn't just 1 individual to hunt down.

Originally posted by NAZTY97

Go after terrorism wherever it is.... Did we go after EVERYONE Timothy McVeigh is affiliated with, and is that manhunt still underway... that's homeland terrorism right there. What about the unibomber? Are we waging war everyone associated with him?? I'm sure your instant response will be, we have incarcerated the offender, or killed them, ...but yet, somehow, the problem still remains,... anthrax mailings to Columbine killings,...


This is a pointless paragraph you wrote. Because.... do you know who Timothy McVeigh is associated with? Did we find groups of terrorists training in his yard? Did we have information on him stating that he was seeking to develop WMD? Please keep your topics relative to whats going on.


Originally posted by NAZTY97

Look at the first war.... OPEC says keep it up, and no more oil,... the war stops instantly. He who controls the oil controls a good majority of the world. If it was compliance, and safety,...we'd just now be going to war, or the war would never have happened. There was nothing Saddam could have done to have prevented the war. He could have even accepted exile, and Bush would have alleged in my opinion, that Saddam never really left, and now we must find him, OR the new leader was not acceptable and equally a threat, so we must follow through and oust him as well.


Please provide any proof of OPEC making this claim and statement... I was under the impression that we drove Iraq out and thats all we planned on doing in the first war.

Your second statement is false as well. When we launch the first missle strike against Baghdad, we thought we killed Saddam, so we held off until we could contirm this. When we found out it was negative, we proceeded.

NAZTY97, you are making too many statements that are opinion based only, not factual. Its cool to have an opinion, but don't say what Bush "would" have done, or what he "was going to do anyways" if you have no idea on the legitimacy of it.

Originally posted by NAZTY97

Propaganda! Pretend to care, the people think you're a good guy, and they approve. Just like corporate America. They publicize the cut salaries, and benefits, ( which save them money ) in attempts to preserve jobs because they care about their employees, so that people ( primarily consumers and shareholders ) keep a good image of them, and STILL lay off the employees to further stay profitable. Good business sense, but still a play on the public's emotions. The lay offs were still planned, but not until all other cost cutting measures were exhausted while maintaining productivity, and then expended. PR is everything, and companies know that, just like the president knows this. If he says anything else, then we think he's an idiot,...so he plays the game, and obviously, he did it well enough to get your brain to regergitate every word he says and if he asked, you'd probably pin yourself to a cross with his name on it for him.


Well, here comes the conspiracy theory... Close the windows, or the Black Helicopter will see everything you are doing. Believe it or not, BUSH is a good guy. You guys keep saying how dumb he is, but when you make statements like the one above you make him out to be the smartest man in the world. Make up your mind. Maybe your brain needs a bit of regurgitation so you can see what is really going on. I actually do very well with thinking and acting on my own recognizance. I just happen to agree with many of the things Bush says.. And trust me, I disagree with many things he says as well. You, on the other hand, apear to only like bashing EVERYTHING he says. I'm sure he could say something that you completely agreed with, until he said it, then you would protest it.



Originally posted by NAZTY97

Most of us look to Bush as the protector of the world and a shepherd of the lost. The irony is, he is the lost from which we need protection. I wonder, everytime I see the news or hear on the radio, what is he getting us, as a global community into. Is he further dividing the world, or bringing it together. In a sermon in church yesterday, the Pastor said that baby's don't come into this world knowing how to cooperate, and that is something they just don't do well. Put 3 babies in a play pen without toys, they are cool. Put one ball in the pen with the the 3 kids and you introduce problems. Most people confuse babies playing together for cooperation, and I think our "playing the partners in global protection from terrorism" is a perferct illustration of that. The strongest kid becomes visible by who takes the ball first, or he who takes the ball from the kid who got it first. Then the weaker of the 3 conspire to topple the other, thus division. This is why babies ( immature leaders ) end up fighting amongst themselves because someone changes the rules, and or doesn't wanna play the same game anymore at all. It won't be long before, this war sprouts into a bigger mess. But most of us are too preoccupied with the foolishness of the obvious and short term, temporary gains.


WOW.. you know, I don't think I've ever seen 3 babies conspire to do anything, let alone topple a 4th baby. That would have to be the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard. Tell your Pastor to go learn some new analogies.

Originally posted by NAZTY97

Uhhhh,... hello, I believe only 12 or 15% of the population hold 85% of the monetary wealth, so that small percentage is who he was referring to, and if they hold the majority of the money,... no matter how you slice, you are not in that catergory. In Houston, the median income per family was like $38K,... I found that hard to believe. But then why didn't I believe that? I was 27 at the time and made double that by myself... but then that just showed, I thought the rest of the world was like me, and that rich was those who made $200K a year,... but then to the millioniare, we are all poor. To the minimum wage worker, I am rich, to me, the dell director is rich, to him, Michael Dell is rich,...so that can be a relative thing, or an absolute, but who sets the scale? Here's something to think about:


60% of the people who will receive the largest cuts are the families of 4 in the $34,000-$60,000. Thats not the most weathly people I know. BTW, I probably pay about 3 times as much as you make per year in taxes. I pay almost 40% of what I earn in taxes. Were as someone making $20,000 a year pays almost nothing in taxes. Sounds fair to me. I went to school(s), started a business and the only reward I get is more taxes because I make more money, where as people who might not have put the same effort forth as I did get my money.


Tax breaks are just like credit. Credit is not for those who don't have cash on hand, and need a payment plan, it's for those who can pay upfront, who don't wanna tie their money up immediately, yet have NO NEED FOR CREDIT! [/B][/QUOTE]

Look at the Democratic Party Debate.. They bashed each other more than they agreed on anything.. Most people wouldn't elect ANY democratic cand. running according to a poll.. What does that tell you about them. The only issue all of them could agree on was that they hated Bush... WOW thats new.

Ok... what does that have to do with the republican's current opinion that bush sucks? Nothing,... if anything you've identified the obvious... politicians are like you and me? don't agree, whether they are of opposing or same parties... GENIUS!!!

hmm, Missiles capable of transferring WMD, Nuke Fire Pins, Trucks that look like they were used to develop Chemical weapons... They are all signs and Slight Evidence....Iraq was a Major terrorist country that why, it wasn't just 1 individual to hunt down.

1. trucks that look like??? well hell,...where are the facilities / equipment needed to process anything nuclear, since it is highly dangerous stuff that can't just be dealt with off the shelf?? All of the missle documentation I've seen suggested these were the remains of an abandoned program from many years ago,... not new technology...

2. Iraq is a major terrorist country?? I guess Saddam and minions represent the whole country since they elected him there right??? ( not! ) ..probably why they were helping topple his statue. Labeling a whole country's population by their dictatorship is hardly an intelligent act.

3. One individual... I got one for you,... no two... Osama Bin Laden,.... Saddam Hussein... we can intercept tapes, and videos,... but have no idea of where he is... I could give you a million dollars to use cash only in this country and drop you off in a undisclosed location, I guarantee the IRS or the US government will have your azz locked in a lot less time, and America is much larger than Iraq or any of those neighboring countries.

Please provide any proof of OPEC making this claim and statement... I was under the impression that we drove Iraq out and thats all we planned on doing in the first war.

Look the $40 cost per barrel vs the war end $10 cost per barrel,.... if it wasn't about money, the price wouldn't have changed.


Because.... do you know who Timothy McVeigh is associated with? Did we find groups of terrorists training in his yard? Did we have information on him stating that he was seeking to develop WMD? Please keep your topics relative to whats going on.

lets see,...since maybe you think he is any different than your feared iraq... here's just an excerpt from the actual trial.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

No CR 95-110

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
--VS--
TIMOTHY JAMES McVEIGH and
TERRY LYNN NICHOLS,
Defendants.

Violations

18 USC Sec. 2332a;
18 USC Sec. 844(f);
18 USC Sec. 1114;
18 USC Sec. 1111;
18 USC Sec. 2(a)&(b)

I N D I C T M E N T

COUNT ONE (Conspiracy to Use a Weapon of Mass Destruction)

The Grand Jury charges:

1. Beginning on or about September 13, 1994 and continuing
thereafter until on or about April 19, 1995, at Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, in the Western District of Oklahoma and elsewhere,

TIMOTHY JAMES McVEIGH
and
TERRY LYNN NICHOLS,

the defendants herein, did knowingly, intentionally, willfully and
maliciously conspire, combine and agree together and with others
unknown to the Grand Jury to use a weapon of mass destruction,
namely an explosive bomb placed in a truck (a "truck bomb"),
against persons within the United States and against property that
was owned and used by the United States and by a department and
agency of the United States, namely, the Alfred P. Murrah Federal
Building at 200 N.W. 5th Street, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma,
resulting in death, grievous bodily injury and destruction of the
building.

2. It was the object of the conspiracy to kill and injure innocent
persons and to damage property of the United States.

So, how again is this different,... because it's not nuclear, or not biological,... those people are equally as dead as anyone else,... maybe you should visit their memorial since you don't think my paragraph has relevance. I guess you think because it's 2003, extreme / organized groups that participate with things as such don't exist in America. You sound like this highly intelligent political guru I used to work with that told me "Masonry" and "llluminist" didn't exist and was a conspiracy theory because in his life, he has never heard of such, never read and or witnessed their alleged influence in government, so therefore,...a baseless account,...all the while, working right next to a Mason, and my showing him of symbols that exist in our everyday life of their existance,... still his disbelief, however changing nothing about their existence. There are still Nazi members in this country, communists that don't wanna leave / havent left, and other groups,..so if we wanted to know everyone he was attached to, the US would be chasing that rabbit.

When we launch the first missle strike against Baghdad, we thought we killed Saddam, so we held off until we could contirm this. When we found out it was negative, we proceeded.

Ok.... rewind prior to the war,... I remember Saddam agreeing prior to the deadline, and Bush's response then as it was prior was... he's a deceiver!!! don't believe him!! NO MORE GAMES!!! - so, right there shows how intent he was on going to war, whether Saddam was gone, complied, or did nothing. So please,... spare the justification of why the hunt for Saddam continues. That is more or less a justification to occupy. Saddam is still a threat ( so says Bush ). What if he's already dead, but they keep telling you, they can't find him, but hear rumors he's alive for the next 50 yrs??? didn't think about that one huh?.

NAZTY97, you are making too many statements that are opinion based only, not factual. Its cool to have an opinion, but don't say what Bush "would" have done, or what he "was going to do anyways" if you have no idea on the legitimacy of it.

well here comes some contradiction.... and is this based on your own personal account?
Believe it or not, BUSH is a good guy.

You guys keep saying how dumb he is, but when you make statements like the one above you make him out to be the smartest man in the world. Make up your mind.

A car thief can be very intelligent,...thus making him successful at stealing cars, but still considered dumb for breaking the law and paying a consequence greater than his reward.... insight with knowledge is a little deeper than knowledge without the ability to see past surface level things.

You, on the other hand, apear to only like bashing EVERYTHING he says. I'm sure he could say something that you completely agreed with, until he said it, then you would protest it.

Wrong,...I don't need to praise him,... he has people like you that do that very well. I choose to speak on what matters to me, and for what you and the rest of his follows tend to praise him, probably doesn't mean as much to me as other things,...so keep singing his hymns and washing his feet.

WOW.. you know, I don't think I've ever seen 3 babies conspire to do anything, let alone topple a 4th baby. That would have to be the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard. Tell your Pastor to go learn some new analogies.

I forget, sometimes in these debates, we can look more at detail than principle,..and play semantics.... so let me make the picture more vivid.... baby in biblical allogory synomous with immature, not fully developed, as with the illustration of a toddler, obviously not a damn newborn,... old enough to play, and coordinate their brain with hands / feet / eyes, but not enough to reason between right and wrong. I was a one of those babies / toddlers who smelled some food cooking the a kitchen that had 2 doors. My parents kept turning me around ( as they explained to me cuz i don't remember the incident, but there are pictures as proof ). So eventually they put a baracade in front of the door,...I figured out how to get around through 2 other rooms and came through the back door and burned all the skin of my hand from touching the oven door,... so I guess it was an accident that I found my way to where I wanted to go? It's funny how you can't see the comparison, but every single mother knew exactly where he was going with that analogy before he finished.... again a little bit more depth than I guess you looked at it with.

tax?? this is probably what you're hoping for huh?

Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates, the richest man in the world, stands to net $50 million in one year from a single provision of the tax-cutting plan unveiled by President Bush last week. Michael Dell of Dell Computer will reap $6 million if the plan is enacted. John Snow, the CEO of CSX railway, nominated to be secretary of the treasury, will get $600,000.Vice President Cheney will benefit to the tune of over $327,000, while Bush himself will gain $44,500. But working people will receive little or nothing from the administration’s proposal.

These figures have been reported by such establishment publications as the New York Times, the Financial Times, the Wall Street Journal, Businessweek magazine and Bloomberg News, owned by the billionaire Republican mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg.

Perhaps the most grotesque figures appeared in the newspaper USA Today, which reported that each of the five children of the late Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton would save $197 million on their taxes under the Bush plan. The combined total comes to $984 million—nearly one billion dollars a year—in new tax breaks for one of the wealthiest families in America, whose fortune is based on the exploitation of low-wage labor. The five Waltons stand to collect far more from the White House proposal than the nearly one million workers who are employed in Wal-Mart stores.

Wow... well said NAZTY97 http://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif


SCLexus3.0, one question: What the heck is a nuclear firing pin? :confused:

Originally posted by NAZTY97


Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates, the richest man in the world, stands to net $50 million in one year from a single provision of the tax-cutting plan unveiled by President Bush last week. Michael Dell of Dell Computer will reap $6 million if the plan is enacted. John Snow, the CEO of CSX railway, nominated to be secretary of the treasury, will get $600,000.Vice President Cheney will benefit to the tune of over $327,000, while Bush himself will gain $44,500. But working people will receive little or nothing from the administration’s proposal.

These figures have been reported by such establishment publications as the New York Times, the Financial Times, the Wall Street Journal, Businessweek magazine and Bloomberg News, owned by the billionaire Republican mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg.

Perhaps the most grotesque figures appeared in the newspaper USA Today, which reported that each of the five children of the late Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton would save $197 million on their taxes under the Bush plan. The combined total comes to $984 million—nearly one billion dollars a year—in new tax breaks for one of the wealthiest families in America, whose fortune is based on the exploitation of low-wage labor. The five Waltons stand to collect far more from the White House proposal than the nearly one million workers who are employed in Wal-Mart stores.

The best I can say is get off your ass and build yourself a company like Wal-Mart, Microsoft, or Dell. People like this change the world, and make a lot of money doing so. So what if they are going to save money on their taxes, it is money they earned, and still contribute a lot more than you do. Why don't you try to pay the amount of taxes that they do to compensate?? The fraction you contribute to the US is probably pocket change to these people, yet you think you should be able to decide how much of their money should be taken? Instead of doing whatever you are doing and complaining about others contributions, try a little contribution yourself. One person like Bill Gates pays the same taxes as thousands of people combined, who cares if he get's a little back, if it wasn't for the elite rich, either a) taxes would be much higher to compensate, b) there would not be nearly enough revenue to cover all the worthless programs and dept. of the government. Why not instead of penalizing those who work hard and are successful, ask those that don't contribute much of anything to cover their share?

You are right!

Look at it this way, if there was no Microsoft there would be no Windows (or at least in the form and the degree it is now) and there would probably somehow be NO CLUB LEXUS.. Also, there also wouldn't be much of the software and FREEDOM you have to spread your ideas to us.

Give the man his dollar (or $299)

Originally posted by lex400sc
Wow... well said NAZTY97 http://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif


SCLexus3.0, one question: What the heck is a nuclear firing pin? :confused:

Well I actually heard about it on CNN, it was found buried behind some scientists house in Iraq.. They explained what it was but I really did pay much attention..

Originally posted by SDuquette
The best I can say is get off your ass and build yourself a company like Wal-Mart, Microsoft, or Dell.

You forget that Walton, Gates, and Dell are all innovators of their day who created products or services that were attractive to consumers at the right place and the right time. Walton created the first bargain retail franchise, Gates brought to market the first widely successful PC operating system, and Dell established the first customizable PC retailer. It's easy to say that anyone in America can rise to become a multi-billionaire just because these individuals did it. Well I guess the first person here to do something like cure cancer or develop fusion power will achieve that kind of wealth, but there are millions of entrepreneurs out there all vying for the same success. Only one out of thousands ever achieves a marginal level of success. Just look at Webvan, a company I bought stock in in '98 :(.

Originally posted by lex400sc
You forget that Walton, Gates, and Dell are all innovators of their day who created products or services that were attractive to consumers at the right place and the right time. Walton created the first bargain retail franchise, Gates brought to market the first widely successful PC operating system, and Dell established the first customizable PC retailer. It's easy to say that anyone in America can rise to become a multi-billionaire just because these individuals did it. Well I guess the first person here to do something like cure cancer or develop fusion power will achieve that kind of wealth, but there are millions of entrepreneurs out there all vying for the same success. Only one out of thousands ever achieves a marginal level of success. Just look at Webvan, a company I bought stock in in '98 :(.

The point is, those people earned their money, why take the easy way out, and try to take it from them. We all get the same PD, FD, FBI, military, president, congress, SSI, etc. So shouldn't we be thanking these people because they contribute so much, because they are not the ordinary $30k a year wage earner. Yet it seems once you are a success, everyone wants to exploit you.

Originally posted by SDuquette
The point is, those people earned their money, why take the easy way out, and try to take it from them.

I'm confused, I thought the point was "get off your ass and be like them".


Originally posted by SDuquette
Yet it seems once you are a success, everyone wants to exploit you.

Who's being exploited here? You think the rich are losing out? Then who's winning? The rich sit in a corner office all day and make their money off the backs of low-to-middle income workers. The only people being exploited here is the middle class which is shrinking because their jobs are being exported by the rich executives who find a bonus at the end of every year for screwing them over, the tax code hurts the middle class the most, and no matter how much money the middle class makes from their employers, the employers are making even more money off their work, otherwise they get laid off. The blue-collar workers are screwed just as hard. The rich know how to take care of themselves and have no heavy heart in doing so. They feel no financial burden or insecurity ever, and if they did, all they have to do is sweeten up their pensions, and give themselves more stock options and year end bonuses. God forbid they fall on hard times and have to be degraded from their sizeable mansions and yachts to a demoralizing 3,000 sq ft house in the suburbs. Can anyone else in society live as fruitfully and comfortably? Nope.

Originally posted by lex400sc
I'm confused, I thought the point was "get off your ass and be like them".

I suppose I could call people names and tell them they are misconstruing everything I ever said. But no, you are wrong, "get off your ass and be like them" was a suggestion, not a point

Riiiiiight.... http://www.intellexual.net/cl/nopity.gif

Originally posted by SDuquette
The point is, those people earned their money, why take the easy way out, and try to take it from them.

The point is, these people are rich enough... we're not 'trying to take it away from th***... do you think Bill Gates really needs the extra $50 million?

They would have never received it in the first place if it wasn't for the tax-cutting plan, and I never heard them complaining. I'm not saying take it away from them, just prevent them from getting more money that they don't need. How can you take away something that hasn't been given yet? :confused:

But no, you are wrong, "get off your ass and be like them" was a suggestion, not a point

well, i would have to ask.... are you, or any other members here like them you mention?? does anyone here have the type of wealth Bill Gates or Michael Dell has? Did anyone here have the same EXACT opportunity as they did,.. exact timing, resources, contacts, eduation, etc... I love when everyone tries to play the "get off your azz" song, when in actually no one was ever on their ass. It's funny, Mr. SDuquette you should even make that comment when we've had this discusssion of your misguided assumptions of someone ( me ) being the lazy american looking for a handout in another post because you didn't like my opinion on bush and the economy. I am busting my ass day in and day out as an entreprenuer, but i am no were close to where they are, and may never get there,... but that doesn't discredit my efforts, or any other american's efforts to be successful and affluent. It's like the millions of people who play the lotto,... only a few win, even though many play... so do those who loose need to buy more tickets? or consult psychics for better numbers?? GIVE ME A BREAK!

As with most typical people, no one realizes anything until it directly / blatently affects them on an individual level,...and I don't wish any negatives upon anyone here, but sometimes I wish you could walk a different walk on both extremes, from poverty to filthy rich and then make an assessment of life since you can't do it from where you are.

Originally posted by bluepiz
The point is, these people are rich enough... we're not 'trying to take it away from th***... do you think Bill Gates really needs the extra $50 million?

They would have never received it in the first place if it wasn't for the tax-cutting plan, and I never heard them complaining. I'm not saying take it away from them, just prevent them from getting more money that they don't need. How can you take away something that hasn't been given yet? :confused:

Hey, $50 or $50 billion, it's their money, if they want to donate it to the poor, let their conscience convince them to do so, not tax laws. I'm sure me and my wife don't need $75k a year to live on, hell, take $50k of it, since others can live on $25k, why shouldn't we. Premium cars, they aren't necessary, why not take those away too, people can get around in Hyundais just as well. Bah, who needs to spend more than $120k on a house, I mean shelter is shelter, take away their nice houses too. Starting to sound like comunists to me?

Originally posted by NAZTY97
well, i would have to ask.... are you, or any other members here like them you mention?? does anyone here have the type of wealth Bill Gates or Michael Dell has? Did anyone here have the same EXACT opportunity as they did,.. exact timing, resources, contacts, eduation, etc... I love when everyone tries to play the "get off your azz" song, when in actually no one was ever on their ass. It's funny, Mr. SDuquette you should even make that comment when we've had this discusssion of your misguided assumptions of someone ( me ) being the lazy american looking for a handout in another post because you didn't like my opinion on bush and the economy. I am busting my ass day in and day out as an entreprenuer, but i am no were close to where they are, and may never get there,... but that doesn't discredit my efforts, or any other american's efforts to be successful and affluent. It's like the millions of people who play the lotto,... only a few win, even though many play... so do those who loose need to buy more tickets? or consult psychics for better numbers?? GIVE ME A BREAK!

As with most typical people, no one realizes anything until it directly / blatently affects them on an individual level,...and I don't wish any negatives upon anyone here, but sometimes I wish you could walk a different walk on both extremes, from poverty to filthy rich and then make an assessment of life since you can't do it from where you are.

Not trying to pick on you or anything. Yes everything has to fall in to place just right for all of this to happen, but it also takes a certain person to realize what is happening, and make it work out. If you got it, you got it, if you don't you don't. I'm 23 years old now, and know I will be rather wealthy in the future, so I know I have to be concerned with my future assets now. I work hard, and I'll be damned if someone tries to tell me that I should give up 60% of my income because I don't "need" the rest.

Originally posted by SDuquette
Not trying to pick on you or anything. Yes everything has to fall in to place just right for all of this to happen, but it also takes a certain person to realize what is happening, and make it work out. If you got it, you got it, if you don't you don't. I'm 23 years old now, and know I will be rather wealthy in the future, so I know I have to be concerned with my future assets now. I work hard, and I'll be damned if someone tries to tell me that I should give up 60% of my income because I don't "need" the rest.

I have to agree with you completely.

I think I am on my way to my goal, which is to own a company that employs over 20,000 people.

I won't be happy until I reach my goal. When I do reach that goal the salary will come right behind it.

I have no intentions of settling for what I make now.

Because I refuse to "sit on my a$$"... I am where I am because I chose to be, not because I "was in the right place at the right time" nor "had that lucky opportunity that no one else had".... I did the research, found the partners, started the company, and operate it responsibly and professionally.

Originally posted by SDuquette
Hey, $50 or $50 billion, it's their money, if they want to donate it to the poor, let their conscience convince them to do so, not tax laws. I'm sure me and my wife don't need $75k a year to live on, hell, take $50k of it, since others can live on $25k, why shouldn't we. Premium cars, they aren't necessary, why not take those away too, people can get around in Hyundais just as well. Bah, who needs to spend more than $120k on a house, I mean shelter is shelter, take away their nice houses too. Starting to sound like comunists to me?

You sound absolutely absurd. When someone is taxed $50 million, it's because they make over $110 million every year. You think they're going to be hurting with only $60 million to spend every year? Not to mention they have half their ammenities accounted for as corporate write-offs, and they don't have to save for retirement because of their huge pensions. And $110 million is just their salary, we aren't even talking about their stock dividends or liquid assets like five or more houses around the world (such is the case with Enron execs). The problem is that when you're middle class, making $80,000 a year and $30,000 or so is taxed, you're hurting far more than a billionaire only keeping $60 million of his $110 million. And then when the econmy is in a downturn, the guy that gets the biggest chunk of taxes back is the $110 million guy? Proposterous!

Tax is a part of being a citizen in America. You make it sound like the government is stealing their money. Everyone pays taxes. The tax code has been around for many many decades. It's nothing new that you pay more the more you make. If Gates doesn't like that, he knew about it since he knew what the word tax meant and could have moved somewhere else and tried to make it there. Giving $50 million back to Gates doesn't imply the government illegally took it to begin with. That's what you're making it out to be and that's absolutely absurd.

And I think you're missing the bigger picture here, the fundamental question is: Can we afford a tax cut at all when we have the biggest deficit in the history of the country, and a war going on with nobody to pay for it? In the last 34 years, no Republican president has ever balanced the national budget. I'm amazed you people still have faith in your party to manage America's hard earned revenue. :rolleyes:

I'm 23 years old now, and know I will be rather wealthy in the future, so I know I have to be concerned with my future assets now. I work hard, and I'll be damned if someone tries to tell me that I should give up 60% of my income because I don't "need" the rest.

Let's see, 23, sounds like you're fresh out of college ( this is an assumption ),... I don't doubt that you are a hard worker, but that guarantees nothing but you will work, not wealth, not high salary, not a comfortable life. the minimum wage construction worker or ditch digger can be equally, if not harder working and make no where near what you MIGHT MAKE in this lifetime. You don't know what you'll be in the future, because the future isn't promised to you, and it isn't promised to be any particular way by anyone's grace, whether you believe in a God or fate... I look at all of my high school hopefuls who sounded just like you who are either only after 11 yrs, dead, strung out, working hard and still not rich, mediocre, married with kids and no sight of their original goals due to circumstance, or single with no kids with no sign of their goals in the near distant future. Life in itself has too many variables to pretend you can predict anything, especially when it comes to financial success or monetary gain. Look at the stock market and all of those who invested in Enron... this lady in houston lost 4 million dollars overnight! Look at how many big businesses with 20,000 or more employees get bought or just get ran out of business by factors they have no control over. If everybody had the key to life, I doubt anybody would choose to be where they are because there is always better than where you are. That's why I made the comparison to lotto,.. it's not impossible to win, just close to impossible,... so is it with becoming the next Bill Gates and or M. Dell. I worked for Compaq, learned the history of it, now at that time, there was a need, a young guy who had the talent to fulfill that need, and he was of the right age, location, background, and financial backing to explore that option. Since I or you showed up on this green earth many years later, do we get that same opportunity he had?? No, kinda hard to participate in something prior to your time, so the idea of this below is absolutely ridiculous.
Because I refuse to "sit on my a$$"... I am where I am because I chose to be, not because I "was in the right place at the right time" nor "had that lucky opportunity that no one else had".... I did the research, found the partners, started the company, and operate it responsibly and professionally.

I hope you don't think because you are soooooooo talented that in itself will make you successful. What if whatever your product is goes out of demand?? Orrrrr,... since you have partners, the partnership dissolves because they don't like how you are operating?? There are thousands of scenario's that can kill any business machine,... that what you read and discuss in MBA case studies. Toooo many to name that come and go, and everything you just mentioned is simply a snapshot of today, with a hopeful outlook like predicting the weather for the rest of your life today because it's sunny outside right now.

Now back to this busted azz president,... if you choose to read this article from today's paper, you will find the guy lying through his teeth and the public's general discent with his lack of talent and ability to lead;

U.S. 'not leaving' Iraq, says president

Bush blames attacks on Saddam, denies public being duped

By BENNETT ROTH
Copyright 2003 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau
RESOURCES

WASHINGTON -- President Bush vowed Tuesday to keep troops in Iraq and denied he had misled Americans about the perils of a post-war mission that has been losing public support in the face of mounting guerrilla attacks.

At a Rose Garden news conference, Bush defended his policies and likened the insurgent forces in Iraq to the terrorists who attacked the United States on Sept. 11, 2001.

"Iraq is dangerous, and it's dangerous because terrorists want us to leave," Bush said. "And we're not leaving."

With polls showing Americans losing patience with his post-war policies, Bush dismissed assertions that he had underestimated the dangers that remained in Iraq after he declared on May 1 that major combat operations had ended.

"I said Iraq's a dangerous place in which we've got hard work to do," Bush said. "There's still more to be done."

The president's session with reporters -- the 10th solo news conference of his presidency -- came after two days of brazen, well-coordinated attacks in Baghdad that struck the Red Cross headquarters, police stations and a hotel where U.S. officials were staying.

Fresh rocket blasts and a bombing left at least four people dead and scores wounded Tuesday, bringing the two-day death toll to 40.

The president again blamed the attacks on Saddam Hussein loyalists and terrorists who had entered Iraq from neighboring Syria and Iran, which he said might prompt a change in tactics to disrupt the movement of insurgent forces.

"Basically what they're trying to do is -- is cause people to run. They want to kill and create chaos. That's the nature of a terrorist," Bush said.

It was the second time in two days that Bush has responded to the rash of bombings that have undercut a White House effort to paint a rosier assessment of progress in Iraq than it claims the media have portrayed.

The president's defense of his Iraq strategy comes as a new CNN/USA TODAY/Gallup poll found 57 percent of Americans saying the U.S. should withdraw all or some of its troops from Iraq. In August, 46 percent said the U.S. should begin pulling out.

The poll also found that half of the respondents disa