DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Dire economic predictions
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 37 of 37, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 02/28/2004 04:21:50 PM · #26
How about you just provide us with a transcript of the pertinent portions? Like "What was the lie Bush told"? WHO said it was a lie? WHEN did they say it was a lie? What proof did they offer that it was a lie? I'll trust you to do a good job at transcribing.
 02/28/2004 04:38:17 PM · #27
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by garrywhiye2:
I may be all alone on this but I don't think the Bush Budget has anything to do with Bush. Business interests wields the greatest political power in the US and I believe exerts enormous control over both major political parties. I don't believe if Gore was elected, nor if Kerry is elected that the shape of the economy would be changed.


Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Agreed...they're all in the pockets of big business.


They may all be in the pocket of big business but to use that as a reason to excuse the current administration for where the economy has gone defies recent history. When Clinton was president we found a way to balance the budget (and, indeed, develope a large surplus) and we had full employment. How long before we wake up and realize that "trickle down" doesn't work.


I would like to know what definition is being used when one states "we had full employment." I guess if one can surmise that low unemployment numbers constitute full employment, it makes it easier to see how an unbalanced budget can be balanced and a deficit can become a surplus.
 02/28/2004 05:53:05 PM · #28
here is the website for that video.

here is a list of only a few of the people who give information on this documentary.

Robert Baer
Robert Baer is a former CIA operative who spent twenty-five years in the Middle East serving in Iraq and Lebanon.

Milt Bearden
Bearden headed up the CIA's Soviet/Eastern European division as the Soviet Union was coming undone. He was the CIA station chief in Pakistan and was responsible for that agency's covert action program in support of the Afghan resistance to the Soviet-supported government.

David Corn
David Corn is the Washington editor of the Nation magazine and a Fox News Channel contributor. He has written for the Washington Post, the New York Times, Harper's, The New Republic, Mother Jones, Washington Monthly, Slate, Salon and many other publications. He is also the author of "The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception" (Crown Publishers).www.bushlies.com

Chas Freeman
Former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Chas Freeman is currently the President of the Middle East Policy Council and Chairman of Projects International, Inc. He previously served as Assistant Secretary of Defense.

Karen Kwiatkowski
Karen Kwiatkowski is a recently retired Air Force Lt. Colonel who worked in the office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Near East South Asia and Special Plans (USDP/NESA and SP) in the Pentagon.

Joe Wilson
Joe Wilson is the former Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Iraq. More recently, Wilson served as the Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for African Affairs at the National Security Council.

watch the documentary on your own or buy it. but dont cast judgment until you do. this is no mickey mouse bs.
 02/28/2004 06:57:30 PM · #29
Well, thanks for THAT link, MadMordegan. At least I didn't have to wait for an hour to do a little research. But actually, yes, it is Mickey Mouse BS.

First - I don't really care who the cast of characters are - they can lie just as easily as they say George Bush does :-). If you need proof, just look at Bill Clinton, former President of the United States.

Secondly - those people didn't give information. I didn't see a single attribution of a pertinent fact in any of their accusations that would indicate that a lie was perpertrated by Bush or any of his high-ranking officials.

Thirdly - I actually read the entire first web page of the movie transcript and I STILL only see accusations and innuendo - Not ONE SINGLE DIRECT QUOTE ( in context ) of a LIE told by George Bush or any high-ranking official in his administration. They make it LOOK like lies by excerpting single words or phrases out of their speeches, leaving out the introductory verbiage ( like, "British Intelligence indicates that ". . .) Mind you, there IS a lot of 20-20 hindsight showing that much of our intelligence information was faulty, which I dont' think any of us would debate - EVEN GEORGE BUSH.

There are lots of neat quotes like this one from Mel Goodman: "There was never a clear and present danger, there was never an imminent threat." Interestingly enough, George Bush never said there WAS a "clear and present danger", nor did he ever say there was an "imminent threat". Those are obfuscatious accusations IMPLYING that he said them with the hope that gullible people will actually BELIEVE that he lied. Another quote from good old Mel: "President Bush, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, particularly Vice President Cheney, but also National Security Advisor Condi Rice drummed up the idea of a reconstituted nuclear capability". Wrong, wrong, wrong. Neither Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice EVER said that Saddam had a reconstituted nuclear capability. What they DID say was that Saddam had " resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons", which, to the best of their knowledge, at the time, was true ( based on both American and British intelligence ). That idea was NOT "drummed up".

Now the worst accusation is that he ( Bush ) determined ( along with Rumsfeld and others ) that it was time to go after Husssein early on, but NOWHERE is there a quote as to WHAT their reasoning was. I maintain that it was the consensus of the intelligence communities' reports, coupled with the intelligence provided by BILL CLINTON's administration during the turnover. If you NEED me to, I can provide MULTIPLE quotations from high-ranking Clinton Administration officials that Saddam Hussein posed a "serious threat" to our security and to his own people. Clinton believed it before Bush did, and said so publicly. The only difference is that Clinton was ( and is ) too weak in character to take action apart from U.N. approval ( unless, of course, he wants to draw attention away from himself, like when he bombed an aspirin factory ).

At any rate, you STILL fall short of proving that he lied. I'll wait a while longer for a verifiable lie to be presented. Good luck.

Ron
 02/28/2004 08:13:56 PM · #30
you win. im goin to go make dinner and shnuggles my woman to a movie. gnight.
 02/28/2004 08:29:24 PM · #31
Originally posted by garrywhite2:
I would like to know what definition is being used when one states "we had full employment."


Here's a Bureau of Labor Statistics page that shows what I mean by full employment. You could call it Record Low Unemployment, if you like that better.

Originally posted by Parents4u:
just because the rich CAN pay almost all of the taxes, should they HAVE to?


Can you think of a better way than the progressive income tax to offset the tendency for the rich to get richer and for the poor to get poorer that is built in to free enterprise capitalism as currently practiced in the US? I'm open to suggestions.
02/28/2004 08:39:58 PM · #32
MadMordegan - Sounds like a good plan. I wish you a good night in all of your endeavors.

Coolhar - Look at the Fair Tax link I posted earlier in this thread. I think it addresses your issues. The rich WOULD pay more ( because they desire, and can afford to buy, NEW merchandise, even WITH the Consumer Tax on New Goods ) while the poor would pay much less ( because they would buy USED merchandise, WITHOUT the Consumer Tax ). Depreciation on new goods would increase dramatically ( 23%+ the minute you take ownership ). The USED merchandise market would increase dramatically, too. And, barter COULD become more viable, especially where USED goods are being bartered ( remember, there would be NO TAX on USED goods, so Uncle Sam wouldn't care ).

Ron

(edited to correct typos)

Message edited by author 2004-02-28 20:40:45.
 02/28/2004 08:55:38 PM · #33
Originally posted by RonB:
... here's your DPC Challenge for today. You say he ( Bush ) has lied before. Enlighten us ( or at least me ). What lie has he told? Remember, a lie is a statment that was KNOWN to be false when it was made.

Ron

"I'm a uniter, not a divider."

I suppose you could argue that he's unifying the opposition, but I don't think that was the intent of the statement.
 02/28/2004 09:12:22 PM · #34
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by garrywhite2:
I would like to know what definition is being used when one states "we had full employment."


Here's a Bureau of Labor Statistics page that shows what I mean by full employment. You could call it Record Low Unemployment, if you like that better.


I would not call it record low either. From the stats you have selected I believe that status belongs to the Nixon era.

Message edited by author 2004-02-28 21:14:11.
 02/28/2004 09:57:20 PM · #35
Originally posted by RonB:
Coolhar - Look at the Fair Tax link I posted earlier in this thread.


I have heard of that proposal before and thought about it some. It is far too much of a departure from the present system to get adopted; and I don't like the way it separates the rich from the poor. I would like to buy a new car or a new camera without paying 23% more than it is worth. Rich people buy many used things such as collector cars and art by the masters. Poor people would be permanently sentenced to living with the hand-me-downs from the rich. Far too "classist" for me.
 02/28/2004 10:22:44 PM · #36
Ron, are you saying that Bush never said that there was an imminent threat of attack from Sadaam Hussein? That he was within 6 months of developing nuclear weapons? That reports showed that Hussein tried to buy uranium from Niger? That in Colin Powellâs report to the UN he did not say and show in pictures that there was known WMD laboratories? That al Quaida and Hussein were buddies and Hussein was giving them WMDâs? I could swear those were the reasons given by the Bush administration for going to war in Iraq. If they didnât say it, then how did it get into our consciousness?

So if the Bush admin did not lie about these things (technically) then what did we go to war for if these were not the reasons? Maybe instead of such a strong word as âlieâ we should say Bush was âstretching the false?â

Paul OâNeill said in his book that the Bush admin were talking about going to war with Iraq very early on. This is a man who was president of Alcoa Co. and Secretary of Treasury.

Also, wasnât the document given to the UNâs International Atomic Energy Agency by the US that showed that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Niger found to be a fraud by itâs director?
02/29/2004 10:55:03 AM · #37
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Ron, are you saying that Bush never said that there was an imminent threat of attack from Sadaam Hussein? That he was within 6 months of developing nuclear weapons? That reports showed that Hussein tried to buy uranium from Niger? That in Colin Powellâs report to the UN he did not say and show in pictures that there was known WMD laboratories? That al Quaida and Hussein were buddies and Hussein was giving them WMDâs? I could swear those were the reasons given by the Bush administration for going to war in Iraq. If they didnât say it, then how did it get into our consciousness?

So if the Bush admin did not lie about these things (technically) then what did we go to war for if these were not the reasons? Maybe instead of such a strong word as âlieâ we should say Bush was âstretching the false?â

Paul OâNeill said in his book that the Bush admin were talking about going to war with Iraq very early on. This is a man who was president of Alcoa Co. and Secretary of Treasury.

Also, wasnât the document given to the UNâs International Atomic Energy Agency by the US that showed that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Niger found to be a fraud by itâs director?


1) Yes - Bush NEVER said that there was an "imminent threat" of attack from Saddam Hussein. He said that Saddam posed a "serious threat", not an "imminent threat".

2) Yes - Bush NEVER said that Saddam Hussein was within 6 months of developing nuclear weapons. He said: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program." ( emphasis mine ) He did not provide a timetable.

3) No - Reports DID show that. In his State of the Union address in Jan 2003, Bush said: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." ( emphasis mine ). Those are the reports that showed what you refer to. It wasn't even OUR intelligence he was referring to.

4) No - Colin Powell DID show those photos and DID indicate that the "before" images contained the signature indicators of active WMD storage and that the "after" images, taken just prior to U.N. Inspections, did not. He did not show ANY photos claimed to be current, active, WMD sites. He DID, however, provide taped recordings of phone conversations that clearly demonstrated that the Iraqis were actively moving banned weaponry around to get it out of areas that were to be inspected.

5) Yes - Bush actually said: "Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own." ( emphasis mine ). He did NOT say that Al Queda and Hussein were buddies, only that Hussein "aids and protects members of Al Queda", and that he could give them weapons, not that he was giving them weapons.

6) All that BS got into your consciousness because the liberals spread all kinds of half-truths, mis-truths, unfounded accusations, and innuendo in an attempt to discredit Bush and his administration so that they can take back the White House. They are desperate and will stop at nothing.

7) We went to war because Saddam Hussein repeatedly violated sixteen United Nations Security Council Resolutions designed to ensure that Iraq did not pose a threat to international peace and security, and the U.N. would NOT enforce them. In light of the U.N.'s failure to act, and intelligence reports believed to be true at the time, Bush felt that he had to take action.

8) A big deal was made over O'Neill's revelation that the Bush Administration was making plans for an invasion of Iraq almost as soon as they moved into the White House. But, the truth be known, the Clinton Administration had been making the very same plans - in fact those plans were required after a law was passed in 1998 making regime change in Iraq an integral part of American foreign policy.

9) Yes - Many of the documents upon which our intelligence was based were found to be false after-the-fact. But they were thought to be true at the time.

Regards,

Ron
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/20/2025 01:27:52 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/20/2025 01:27:52 AM EDT.