I said he used tricky juxtaposition, not lies. The lies were about WMDs, and the high-school paper that Powell found on the internet to try to justify the war to the UN. (Granted, Fox News is more guilty for these misconceptions about 9/11 and WMDs.) The 4th amendment doesn't protect U.S. citizens from unreasonable search and seizure? The specific FISA law is (and was) very clear on this. He was compelled by law to, at least, use the secret FISA court to secretly obtain a warrant. This could be done after-the-fact. No president has used signing statements as much as Bush. He's saying the rules don't apply to himself. Libertarians are all about checks on government. Libertarians want the government controlled and limited by the people (rather than the people controlled and limited by the government). The Libertarian Party officially supports the right of homosexual and polyamorous marriage. This is because libertarians support the right of citizens to enter any voluntary contracts without governmental restrictions. Libertarians are against straight people imposing their ideal family on others, and libertarians are against homosexuals imposing their ideal family on others. Libertarians wish to allow anyone to marry (i.e. enter a contact with) anyone, so long as all parties in the contract have entered voluntarily. I do not suggest "we" appease OBL's wishes. Rather, I suggest that "we" don't do business with corrupt leaders in the world, as not to anger the citizens of such countries, and thus anti-Americanism and facilitate terrorism. I did not say (and I do not think) that Bush is the only cause of terrorism. I said Bush's actions increase and foster terrorism. Are you comparing geo-politics to a gameof dominoes? That is a false analogy. What I want is a foreign policy like Canada or Costa Rica, etc. I would have preferred if the U.S. never made the world hate it's citizens by stealing the state of Israel in the first place. The over 1.8 billion that the U.S. gives to Israel annually is a crime against the innocent Palestinians who are killed by the IDF (and innocent Israelis killed in retaliation) and the U.S. taxpayers. I am for lower taxes. I, like all libertarians I know, want tax-cuts to be given to working-class people also. I've never known a libertarian who would rather see dead rich people (estate tax) given tax relief before working-class families. In what way am I not a libertarian? Let me summarize my opinion again: Because I'm a libertarian: I support decreased governmental spending. I oppose Bush and the republican congress, because they are spendthrifts who increase spending and reversed the surplus. I do not want the government to enter into needless wars that have cost over $320 billion so far, and will cost over a trillion total. I support the free-trade and the right of people to enter into contracts (including "marriage") with anyone, voluntarily. Bush wants the government to interfere in these private contracts and use governmental imposition to disallow these contracts. I support the separation of church and state, and oppose theocracy. Bush wants the state to legislate morality and sanctity, and says he does god's work. I oppose fascism (i.e. the mix of corporation and state). Bush's connection to Big Oil, the military-industrial complex, the prison-industrial complex, the pharmaceutical industry, etcetera, and their lobbyists & bribes, is fascist and anti-democratic. I want tax-cuts given to the working-class. (In fact, if I could have my way, I'd want the entire income tax system destroyed and the 1913 Federal Reserve Act repealed.) Thanks, Scott Hughes
Your explanation was not needed. I understand simple ratios. It's a good story, though. And, I mean that seriously. I assume you've read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand? If not, I recommend it. However, in our society this example doesn't apply. I believe it's common knowledge that the rich never end up paying the bulk of the taxes. They always get out of it, because they can lobby and bribe politicians and news stations. It's the middle-classes and working-classes that pay all the taxes. The many Republican tax-cuts are purposely designed to benefit the rich. http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040906fa_fact George Carlin put it best when he said, The rich are there to get all the money and pay none of the taxes. The middle classes are there to do all the work and pay all the taxes. The poor are there to scare the sh*t out of the middle class, so they keep working and going to those jobs.
Tax cuts were given to the working class. 94 million, to be exact. Bush lied about wmd? News to me: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=283676&postcount=4 http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/ http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=99312 No 9/11 to saddam connection? http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,103176,00.html http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50621
Did you just link to the same single tax cut, with misconstrued numbers, and the same republican congressman's quote? Okay, let me repost my reply link: http://www.cbpp.org/9-19-05tax.htm
Did you just link to the same post again? The tax cuts are in place, as noted, through 2010. Is this indicative that you would intentionally lie in order to get your message across? Surely you are not in denial?
Please quote yourself correctly. You said the Bush made a juxtaposition to assert the Iraq was involved with 9/11. He never made that connection. People who opposed Bush and the war lied to say that he did. He's said more than a few times that Iraq was not involved with 9/11. The "lies" you refer to never existed either. As referenced here a million times. Quotes and documents from 1998-present all say that Saddam had WMD. People on the D and R side of the aisle all said. Saying "bush lied" is sophmoric, at best. Before the ruling (by a judge who had dealings with the ACLU and should have recused herself for bias, anyways), no court had EVER ruled that the president lacked the authority to do wiretapping. In fact; The "judge" who made her ruling back in August did not make mention of this precedent at all. ACLU's judge shopping won them a short victory. But hers and their political expediancy will be overturned on appeal. Explains all of these attacks. Doesn't it? http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ Ouch. Hard to believe you actually typed AND believe that. So you think the Palestinians are over there twiddling their thumbs will Israeli's slaughter them? I guess I was right before when I said you'd before to see Israel destroyed by the Islamists. Actually, I have read Atlas Shrugged. Other than the last few chapters (which seemed oddly out of place to hurry to a conclusion). It was a great book. I suggest you re-read the "pirate's" (I forget his name) description of Robin Hood. I think you need a little refresher in the concept.
In denial about what? That Saddam and Osama were sworn enemies? That the majority of Bush's tax-cuts were aimed at the rich, and as I showed you, even your tax-cuts benifeted the rich. That Bush lied about WMDs: How can I be in denial, when what I say is true? Bush in December '05: "It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. And I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities. And we're doing just that."
Read. Weep. Pick an order: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=283676&postcount=4 Further. On the Iraq War, there were 23 "whereas" clauses to justify the invasion. How many dealt with WMD? 2. How many dealt with Saddam's continuing disobeyance of UN resolutions (including the ceasefire that ended the first gulf war)? 12.
It looks to me like everything you initially posted. As when proven wrong, you simply ignore it. That's called denial, right? Is that what the sources I provided said? Denial. There were strong ties there that have been covered for many years. When sources prove you wrong, you pretend otherwise. Denial. Incorrect, I showed otherwise. You quoted a liberal organization with an obvious bias. 94 million people benefited. Not only that, your source clearly shows they do not take effect UNTIL 2010. Accurately, mine shows they are active UP TO 2010. Denial. So what you are saying is, that new discovery doesn't exist? Denial. WMD were discovered and the UN noted as well that wmd were moved to syria. To assert Bush lied about wmd is to say that all these democrats did as well. Denial. Because you are not saying the truth. In fact, you are deliberately ignoring it. Only the message matters. And since that time, more wmd have been found. Time doesn't stand still. Well, maybe in your world, but not the real world. Are you trying to say that credibility doesn't matter? That only the message matters? It sure looks like it.
This is my last post today, but I'll check this thread tomorrow if I have time. I said, [Bush] (and his administration, and namely Rumsfield) wasted the tax-dollars of U.S. citizens by using tricky juxtaposition to convince (conservative) America that there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11. That is true; Bush did use many tricky juxtapositions: http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html He did lie many times. For exampl, Bush said, "Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons." That was not true. The law was created by congress. Are you honestly suggesting that, if the "state secrets" excuse wasn't used, the court would find these programs legal? From what little we know about all these secret programs (which involve Orwellian unwarranted wiretaping of U.S. citzens on U.S. soil), the courts are already finding him a criminal. Let me repeat myself, I did not say (and I do not think) that Bush is the only cause of terrorism. I said Bush's actions increase and foster terrorism. I did not say that. However, I would rather see Israel fight its own wars than receive welfare from our government. Again, let me quote myself, I want tax-cuts given to the working-class. (In fact, if I could have my way, I'd want the entire income tax system destroyed and the 1913 Federal Reserve Act repealed.) I'm against all forms of theft, including Robin Hood theft.
I am not sure about "Robin Hood theft" per say, but I am quite versed in "Robin Hood Taxes"... That is when you take money from the working, and give it to the non-working. Liberals like to call that "paying your fair share."
I think you do need to re-read the book. I think you've completely missed some of the points it was trying to make. In that particular section of the book; the pirate (Fransisco perhaps, I think the mexican guy) goes on a long tirade about Robin Hood. In his head, he is Robin Hood. And he goes on to say that Robin Hood did NOT steal from the rich to give to the poor; he took from an oppressive overtaxing government and gave it back to the people whom were stolen from (taxation). That the only vessels he ever attacked were government vessels. He was destroying and sinking vessels that were using ill-gotten (nationalized) goods to distribute to people; thus speeding then inevitable decline of society that government had created. Since he had his mine (gold or diamond, I forget exactly) nationalized he no longer had the desire to make a living inside the law. You should also re-read the part of the story where they visit the automobile factory. Where the "perfect engine" lie there unused and unknown by anyone because - due to fairness practices - the plant had to be shut down because it was outcompeting the other businesses in the same field. Perhaps the section where Dagny is forced to make her train go slower because the new rail she develops gives her a competitive advantage over her rivals. The section on soy beans is particularly enlightening as well. See, so while you want "tax cuts for the middle class," you are simply continuing a cycle of class warfare through taxation. Supporting across the board tax cuts is the only rational taxation policy. Supporting tax cuts for this group or that group simply continues the negative trend of "he's got more than me...take it from him; not me"
WHAT THE HELL!?! THIS POST IS A BLOODY SHAM - YOU ASK FOR OPINIONS, THEN LEAVE NEGATIVE FEEDBACK BECAUSE I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION?! .. Morons
I thought you were talking about a different part of the book where either Fransisco or Galt literally say that Robin Hood was not a hero, but was the worst of tyrants. Let me repeat myself again, I am against all forms of taxation, and if I had my way I'd want the entire tax system destroyed. You're preaching to the choir.
Ah, no. No one in the Bush administration, Bush and Rumsfeld included ever said that Iraq or Saddam was responsible for 9/11. This is a fabrication by the left that sadly too many people seem to believe and accept even though it never happened. Iraq was in fact responsible for terrorism, supporting and harboring terrorists. This much is true.
true can't remember any mention of Bush and co saying that Saddam was responisble for 9/11 but why did Bush order the invasion of Iraq when he hadn't dealt with the Osma first (who is still free by the way)
We did go after Osma first. But he either got away, or died in the attacks. No one has seen him in 5 years. On the other hand, Clinton had him 3 times, and each time, let him go. We entered Iraq to remove a dictator and insure he could not produce Weapons of Mass Destruction. This was done only after some 14 UN resolutions and more than a decade of failed diplomacy by the US and the UN. Glad to be of help.
ok another question why attack iraq and not iresal who have also broken resolutions and there was no proof of wmd's or means of making them.