I am watching F-911 tomorrow

Page 2 of 3 First 123 Last

  1. What ever happened to the movie Moore Hates America which was supposed to come out?

  2. Exclamation


    Saving and investment creates new opportunities for profit and exchange. And the rich, like it or not, are more likely to try and use capital productively than the poor or middle class.
    This is an inaccurate statement because savings do not create potential of anything. Net worth means a lot when you're talking about the United States' net worth, but otherwise it's useless unless it involves investment and moving capital. Savings is just that. Savings. The word suggests stability and lack of capital movement. If capital is not moving, it is not contributing to the economy. Perhaps years later such money might be reinvested into the economic system. For now, it's stagnant. The middle and lower classes can't afford to save much and are typically the group with the greatest amount of insolvent debt. Large businesses can often write off debts and expenses to an extent that would strangulate most middle class earners. The lower half of the earning public provides the backbone of the economy. They are the day-to-day spenders, the check-to-check savers, the common consumer upon which most large businesses depend to provide a steady source of income. The Wal Mart and supermarket shopper. The Home Depot do-it-yourselfer. That is where the money that is steadily flowing into the economy originates, and that is why tax breaks should focus more on the middle class. More individual spending power = stronger economy. How did this country get by before income taxes existed, anyway?
    •   
       


  3. Quote Originally Posted by Brooklyn
    How did this country get by before income taxes existed, anyway?
    Trade tariffs. We removed them, which is why we stopped being able to be competitive in manufacturing goods. We used to tax imports extensively and thus it was cheaper to buy an American made product than a foreign one. This kept a HUGE domestic job pool in manufacturing. The tariffs over time were reduced lower and lower, and the income tax was raised (income tax was introduced during the Depression and was meant to be temporary) to compensate for the loss in government revenue. As the tariffs decreased more and more manufacturing plants of various types closed down. For some it took many years, others it was nearly instantaneous.

  4. Quote Originally Posted by Nullifidian
    Trade tariffs. We removed them, which is why we stopped being able to be competitive in manufacturing goods. We used to tax imports extensively and thus it was cheaper to buy an American made product than a foreign one. This kept a HUGE domestic job pool in manufacturing. The tariffs over time were reduced lower and lower, and the income tax was raised (income tax was introduced during the Depression and was meant to be temporary) to compensate for the loss in government revenue. As the tariffs decreased more and more manufacturing plants of various types closed down. For some it took many years, others it was nearly instantaneous.
    Once more, wrong. Tariffs are just an offshoot of mercantilism. Imports don't hurt the economy, nor do they steal jobs. What they do is stop others from providing goods and services in our economy more efficiently that we can. Stopping those imports offers the illusion of saving jobs when all it really does is force people to pay higher prices for goods that should be cheap, and stops money from being freed up to be spent on other items or invested. Constantly pushing a price higher is the opposite of what the market does and what policies should be doing. It's basic comparitive advantage, and the problem arises because people don't realize that just because an American isn't making a car and a foreigner is, that there isn't anything else that American could be doing. Nor do we need to enforce tariff's to offset those enacted by other countries, as they'll be hurting themselves more than anyone else. If other people can do something good enough for us and cheaper than we can, that's a good thing, not a bad thing. Good article on trade deficits and fallacies of protectionism: http://www.mises.org/story/1762

    As for not being able to compete in manufacturing, look to wage laws, unions and their general tendency to push the price of labor far above the market price with government help of course, and a devalued currency for the cause of that.

  5. Quote Originally Posted by Brooklyn
    This is an inaccurate statement because savings do not create potential of anything.
    Then where does the investment capitol come from? Economists tend to try to make things more complex than they are. Money is a commodity, and like anything else its price is largely determined by its availability measured against its demand. Banks don't just hold on to the money in savings, especially in our near zero reserve system. It's loaned out to others to use, hopefully productively.

    Net worth means a lot when you're talking about the United States' net worth, but otherwise it's useless unless it involves investment and moving capital. Savings is just that. Savings. The word suggests stability and lack of capital movement. If capital is not moving, it is not contributing to the economy. Perhaps years later such money might be reinvested into the economic system.
    Which is why I said savings and investment. Higher savings means more money in the banks and thus a higher availability for loands, that is if the interest rates weren't manipulated but a genuine reflection of the market. Higher savings also means a longer term time preference on the part of consumers, meaning they're interested in future consumption as opposed to present consumption. Yes the capitol has to move, but first it has to be available, which it won't be if people are spending like crazy. Unless of course the government injects it into the system, which brings with it its own set of problems.

    For now, it's stagnant. The middle and lower classes can't afford to save much and are typically the group with the greatest amount of insolvent debt. Large businesses can often write off debts and expenses to an extent that would strangulate most middle class earners. The lower half of the earning public provides the backbone of the economy. They are the day-to-day spenders, the check-to-check savers, the common consumer upon which most large businesses depend to provide a steady source of income. The Wal Mart and supermarket shopper. The Home Depot do-it-yourselfer. That is where the money that is steadily flowing into the economy originates, and that is why tax breaks should focus more on the middle class. More individual spending power = stronger economy. How did this country get by before income taxes existed, anyway?
    Easy. A smaller but just as misguided government. As Null said, tariffs were a big part of it, as was inflationary banking though not to the point it's reached today.
    •   
       


  6. and the income tax was raised (income tax was introduced during the Depression and was meant to be temporary)
    Actually, income tax predated the depression, but it was expanded enormously by none other than socialist FDR. I disagree that it was intended to be temporary. FDR pushed his New Deal legislature with the intent for it to be permanent (Closed banks, Social Security, land redistribution, wide-scale government employment) but it failed in almost every way. FDR's goal was redefining the United States as a communist country in disguise. Heavy Federal income taxes are part of the communist platform.


    Imports don't hurt the economy, nor do they steal jobs. What they do is stop others from providing goods and services in our economy more efficiently that we can. Stopping those imports offers the illusion of saving jobs when all it really does is force people to pay higher prices for goods that should be cheap, and stops money from being freed up to be spent on other items or invested.
    It's great to be able to say that with impunity, but if you're laid off because your job got outsourced to India or anywhere with cheaper labor standards than here, would you feel the same? The fact is that, like it or not, the U.S. has been on a free ride as far as prices go and on a wage scale vastly distorted in contrasts. Paying more in order to keep jobs in America is a bad thing? Inflating prices amounts to greed, and calls for government regulation, because fully free markets tend to fail due to monopolizing. Investing in this country is the best investment an American can make. That is a sense of pride in your country. That is patriotism in its truest form.

    The Germans have it right when they make the quality of what they build, the quality of their work a matter of pride. They are proud to have quality workmanship be associated with their country. Made in America used to mean something. It was only when the obsession with foreign competition became a struggle for rock bottom prices that quality here began to suffer. And it's only gotten worse. Sure, there are some companies that carve out a niche market by being established, long-lasting quality American corporations, but most of what is sold here is cheaply imported from countries with rates of exchange far lower than our own and labor rates and conditions which are often appalling. The obsession with a "global economy" is killing our pride, killing our economy, and trickling down in places we least expect it, like the ingredients now added to our foods, or the giant pharmaceutical companies that don't care if their products are safe as long as they sell. It took a German automaker (Daimler) to revitalize Chrysler. Maybe it's time we started looking at why there was ever a discrepancy.

    Higher savings means more money in the banks and thus a higher availability for loands, that is if the interest rates weren't manipulated but a genuine reflection of the market.
    Ah, but they aren't. That's idealism, not reality. Idealism makes for a pretty picture, but doesn't save American jobs at the end of the day.

    Higher savings also means a longer term time preference on the part of consumers, meaning they're interested in future consumption as opposed to present consumption.
    ...Which is a killer to a global-based capitalist economic system, because again, it's money that's moving which is necessary when you run a shoddy economic ship such as the U.S. does.

    but first it has to be available, which it won't be if people are spending like crazy. Unless of course the government injects it into the system, which brings with it its own set of problems.
    Now you're discussing the issue of revolving credit. Most banks are so large and well-funded by now that the amount of capital they have on hand or through their "net worth" credit is great enough as to take the focus off of savings and onto daily spending as the actual means by which the current economy is fueled. The dollar is how devalued now? Our bonds are worth what? Our deficit is where?

    Easy. A smaller but just as misguided government. As Null said, tariffs were a big part of it, as was inflationary banking though not to the point it's reached today
    Well, my question on how we got by, as in the case of those I similarly posed above, was rhetorical. But yes, smaller Federal government. The trademark of a Republic, as opposed to a communist government. No, it wasn't perfect. But then, America didn't rely on Korea and Pakistan to make our clothing, either.

  7. Taxes, economics, dogs or cats we can all argue about, but one thing we can all agree on.

    Mr. Moore is a fat ass doody head.

  8. Quote Originally Posted by Brooklyn
    It's great to be able to say that with impunity, but if you're laid off because your job got outsourced to India or anywhere with cheaper labor standards than here, would you feel the same?
    Yes, because it has happened to me and the world didn't end. I got another job, the company that outsourced my job is in better shape and more productive. Appealing to the emotion of the situation doesn't negate the facts of the situation. Life can suck sometimes, it's no reason to screw the economy.

    The fact is that, like it or not, the U.S. has been on a free ride as far as prices go and on a wage scale vastly distorted in contrasts. Paying more in order to keep jobs in America is a bad thing?
    Yes. You ignore the costs of not keeping the jobs in America, not the least of which is a skyrocketing cost of living in the face of a consistently debased currency.

    Inflating prices amounts to greed, and calls for government regulation, because fully free markets tend to fail due to monopolizing.
    Um, no. Look at the price indexes of all the trusts and corps that later in the 19th century were accused of monopolization. They were falling faster than anyone elses'. The only way people can monopolize and inflate prices is with government help, either by imposing tariffs or other such regulations to make competitor's goods cost more, or by outright banning competition. The truth is without government collusion every attempt at monopolization failed because of competition, both externally and internally. When you look at the speeches by senators and congressmen in the first days of antitrust law they were basically complaining that larger companies were, for various reasons, able to sell the same goods as smaller companies in their home states, but at lower prices. This was driving a large number of their local supporters out of business because they couldn't compete. This pissed them off.

    The Germans have it right when they make the quality of what they build, the quality of their work a matter of pride. They are proud to have quality workmanship be associated with their country. Made in America used to mean something. It was only when the obsession with foreign competition became a struggle for rock bottom prices that quality here began to suffer. And it's only gotten worse. Sure, there are some companies that carve out a niche market by being established, long-lasting quality American corporations, but most of what is sold here is cheaply imported from countries with rates of exchange far lower than our own and labor rates and conditions which are often appalling. The obsession with a "global economy" is killing our pride, killing our economy, and trickling down in places we least expect it, like the ingredients now added to our foods, or the giant pharmaceutical companies that don't care if their products are safe as long as they sell. It took a German automaker (Daimler) to revitalize Chrysler. Maybe it's time we started looking at why there was ever a discrepancy.
    Not quite sure what you're driving at here. As far as labor conditions in other countries being appalling, sometimes they are. By my standards and your standards. But then again, our only other option isn't prostitution or crime. Those people take those jobs because they are better than their other alternatives. And as they increase their productivity they will be able to demand better and better conditions, and they will get them. No economy develops over night, especially if the government is working dilligently to help it develop. People here in America used to work in **** too until they could demand better conditions.

    Ah, but they aren't. That's idealism, not reality. Idealism makes for a pretty picture, but doesn't save American jobs at the end of the day.
    I'm not interested in saving American jobs, nor anyone else's jobs. I'm interested in the economy being allowed to move itself toward more and more efficient means of production so everyone can be better off.

    Now you're discussing the issue of revolving credit. Most banks are so large and well-funded by now that the amount of capital they have on hand or through their "net worth" credit is great enough as to take the focus off of savings and onto daily spending as the actual means by which the current economy is fueled. The dollar is how devalued now? Our bonds are worth what? Our deficit is where?
    Our deficit is the fault of the government's over spending, which is necessary for the regulations you seem to love so much to be enforced. Our dollar is devalued because we've been in a terminal state of inflation for a long, long time. Once more, the fault of the government.

    Well, my question on how we got by, as in the case of those I similarly posed above, was rhetorical. But yes, smaller Federal government. The trademark of a Republic, as opposed to a communist government. No, it wasn't perfect. But then, America didn't rely on Korea and Pakistan to make our clothing, either.
    Hate to break it to you pal, but a healthy import export market has always been a stapple of the American market.

  9. CDB, relatively speaking, we don't export much of anything anymore. Any goods that is. We export services; that's all.

  10. Quote Originally Posted by Nullifidian
    CDB, relatively speaking, we don't export much of anything anymore. Any goods that is. We export services; that's all.
    And...

    I've yet to see one economist of any stripe explain why too much or too little exporting, or too much or too little importing is good or bad, depending on what stripe of economist of course. There is no optimal level of either.

  11. Life can suck sometimes, it's no reason to screw the economy.
    Yet you don't think outsourcing our jobs and corporations is screwing our economy? What is Michael Moore always complaining (you would say whining) about? Flint, Michigan, and how GM taking its factory south crippled the town. Now, maybe GM saves some money on labor by building in Mexico. But maybe that hurts the U.S. more than it helps us by GM making a bigger profit. Maybe NAFTA wasn't such a good idea. Bringing our wages down to comensate for the lack of foreign solvency is not a solution. It's "global thinking." The kind of global thinking employed in a communist economic system.

    Yes. You ignore the costs of not keeping the jobs in America, not the least of which is a skyrocketing cost of living in the face of a consistently debased currency.
    What? First it's good for companies to outsource because it saves them money, which helps somebody in the economy (though I'm not sure who) and now you're telling me that they should complain of LOSING money by sending our jobs to Pakistan? Our currency is "debased" (Well, it goes back to coming off the gold standard, really) because we don't invest heavily enough in our own country, instead we send our jobs elsewhere, borrow and print more money and generally dig ourselves into a hole.


    The only way people can monopolize and inflate prices is with government help, either by imposing tariffs or other such regulations to make competitor's goods cost more, or by outright banning competition.
    Wow, Microsoft and Wal Mart don't seem to be doing too bad of a job without the government's help. "Name any other big multimerged company here." Government collusion merely indicates corruption, not the actual role of the government. I sure wonder how much the economy would suffer if antitrust regulations were more strictly enforced. Wow, we might have to pay a bit more, which would only illustrate how far wage scales have fallen for the general populace and how great a discrepancy there is. Minimum wage isn't livable wage. Start there.

    But then again, our only other option isn't prostitution or crime. Those people take those jobs because they are better than their other alternatives. And as they increase their productivity they will be able to demand better and better conditions, and they will get them. No economy develops over night, especially if the government is working dilligently to help it develop.
    Well, considering the extent of our non-millitary foreign aid is about 0.01% of the economy here, maybe we should be aiding those countries in other ways to help them build their economies. You know, other than by taking American jobs in what you are characterizing as a "charitable measure." We should feel good that they're taking our jobs. What a country!

    People here in America used to work in **** too until they could demand better conditions.
    And if we keep exporting labor, what will we be working in exactly here? Or will we just not be working? If the American public built this country and this economy to where they could demand better conditions, should they then abandon their ambition? Did we conquer the world or something?

    I'm not interested in saving American jobs
    That, sir, is obvious.

    nor anyone else's jobs. I'm interested in the economy being allowed to move itself toward more and more efficient means of production so everyone can be better off.
    What you mean is you are knee-deep in global capitalism. The problem is that we don't run the globe. We barely run this country. More efficient means of production in your definition is "cheap labor, and plenty of it." How is an American better off because someone else is doing his job cheaper? Oh yeah, you don't care about American jobs. Where exactly will most Americans have left to work when everything is outsourced? McDonalds?

    Our deficit is the fault of the government's over spending, which is necessary for the regulations you seem to love so much to be enforced.
    No, government inefficiency is what leads to overspending. The ineffiency can be decreased. It's like in New Jersey, where the NJ Turnpike has never made a profit. Does it make any sense, considering that the Turnpike was established to make money to pay for the road, and it takes in huge sums of money? No. That's why you establish independent boards to oversee large scale projects. That way you're more likely to see your money's worth, rather than it ending up in executive pockets. Trusting corporations to oversee themselves as opposed to government intervention, I might add, is laughable. Remember Enron?

    Our dollar is devalued because we've been in a terminal state of inflation for a long, long time. Once more, the fault of the government.
    OK, so let's look at your suggestion to solve it- send our jobs elsewhere and punish the evil American middle class for making too much money. CEOs and upper management deserve that hard-earned cash for figuring out that they could make a bigger profit elsewhere. After all, it's "a more efficient means of production"! What better way to stimulate the American economy than by having fewer jobs here!

    Hate to break it to you pal, but a healthy import export market has always been a stapple of the American market
    Uh.. hate to break it to you, pal, but about the only thing we've been exporting lately are Big Macs and our jobs.

  12. hate bush, love america. he is a retart that didnt even really win the fisrt time and had the contry so cracked out with "its a red day, no its ok now its only yellow" to even vote with a clear mind the second time. oh and his side kicks are are real winners too! alot of brave men and women are over seas being orderd to **** with scape goat nations that may not like us but sure as hell didnt start with us and over seeing it all you got bush jr. looking down like some 8 year old kid playing with his army men in the sand box. PULL OUR TROOPS OUT NOW! cause there are few reasons in this world to give up your life and getting killed so the bush`s have more of a say in the oil bizz is NOT one of them.

  13. Quote Originally Posted by goldylight
    yeah and hold an affirmative action bake sale after. whites pay 1 dollar for a cookie, asians and mexicans pay 50 cents and black only have to pay 25 cents........that always pisses of the libs at the universities.
    OMG that is hilarious. I'm still laughing about that one. Thanks for that
  14. Thumbs up


    [QUOTE=VanillaGorilla]Is that why Moore said on national television that the U.S Government knows where Bin Laden is?


    Facts are facts. Moore doesn't report facts he reports propaganda. He distorts, omits, and flat out lies. For example the scene were he says Bush did nothing at the school for 7 minutes. It turns out it was 5 minutes and Bush was writing notes and passing notes to the people around him. Moore had to of watched that footage but deliberately left it out to make Bush look bad. Moore is also being sued by a newspaper because he doctored the front page of the paper to say that Gore won the election when it never appeared on the front page.



    Moore is not trying to help anyone. He is a propagandist. There is a huge monumental difference between lying , distorting, and omitting and reporting who, what where and when. You can not compare or even mention in the same sentence Moore and any news channel. The guy has done a great job is presenting himself as Mr.. average crusader for the working man but he is not. He didn't grow up in Flint, he lives in a million dollar condo in Manhattan, he sends he kids to private school and he is a socialist. Nothing in that movie is designed to help the American people. The movie is design to make Moore a boat load of money (I don't have a problem with that but it makes him a hypocrite when he whines about capitalism and evil corporations) and make Bush look Bad.
    Vanilla Gorilla - I wish I could express myself the way you do. You're right on Bro. Now I got a problem - Im gonna be up for the next couple of days reading the other 700 something posts you've done. I love the way you write. If I didnt know any better I'd think you were my man, Dick Chaney.
  15. Thumbs down


    Quote Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
    Is that why Moore said on national television that the U.S Government knows where Bin Laden is?
    Uh.... hello?

    CNN.com - CIA chief has 'excellent idea' where bin Laden is - Jun 20, 2005

    Cheney knows where bin Laden is hiding, but not exact 'address' - Yahoo! News


    Quote Originally Posted by AGELESS
    If I didnt know any better I'd think you were my man, Dick Chaney.
    Cheney is almost as bad as Rumsfeld. This administration is more about pandering to corporate interests than anything I've ever seen. Score another contract for Halliburton.

  16. Uh, Brooklyn.....there is a "slight" difference in that those guys are ...hmmm, what is the word I am searching for here ....starts with the letter "q"...oh yeah....

    QUALIFIED to say those things. Being some dumb**** fatass movie director does NOT make one qualified to make analysis of our intelligence and security agency, sorry.

    And Moore said it in the context of some global conspiracy to keep him hidden.

  17. Uh.... hello?

    CNN.com - CIA chief has 'excellent idea' where bin Laden is - Jun 20, 2005
    Moore said that right after 9-11 not a week ago.

  18. Moore said that right after 9-11 not a week ago.
    And we had a good idea of where he was then. In fact, we've often had a very good idea of where he was and let him slip through our fingers. This goes back to the Clinton administration.

  19. And we had a good idea of where he was then. In fact, we've often had a very good idea of where he was and let him slip through our fingers. This goes back to the Clinton administration.
    Nope............... Moore said he believed we knew exactly were he were doing nothing about it shortly after 9-11. In Moore speak this means that Bush and Bin Laden are connected and we are purposfully not finding him because he believes we went to war for oil and Hillburton. It's funny how the fact Clinton blew a few chances to get him didn't make it into his movie.

  20. Quote Originally Posted by Brooklyn
    Uh.... hello?

    CNN.com - CIA chief has 'excellent idea' where bin Laden is - Jun 20, 2005

    Cheney knows where bin Laden is hiding, but not exact 'address' - Yahoo! News



    Cheney is almost as bad as Rumsfeld. This administration is more about pandering to corporate interests than anything I've ever seen. Score another contract for Halliburton.
    Um, is that the same CIA that made that little WMD mistake. True, they made it along with a lot of other people, but still...

    I love Rumsfeld. He's completely politically incorrect, makes no effort to reassure people or make them feel good at all. He says the most amazingly hilarious things too. There's a book out called Pieces of Intelligence: The Existential Poetry of Donald Rumsfeld. It's hilarious. I'd recommend it for anyone who likes a good laugh.

  21. I am a Libertarian, but also a big fan of the jolly fat man. Unfortunately, I tought F-911 fell flat.

  22. Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    And...

    I've yet to see one economist of any stripe explain why too much or too little exporting, or too much or too little importing is good or bad, depending on what stripe of economist of course. There is no optimal level of either.
    The wholesale trade balance is somewhat of a Red Herring, That being stated, there are some ramifications of running a continuing-deficit of this magnitude. China receives USD in payment for it's goods and buys US paper&hard assets in the form of Treasury debt and RE. This occurs with every trading partner we have, an artifact of being a Nation that does nothing but consume due to its [relative] vast wealth.

  23. Quote Originally Posted by BigSwede
    The wholesale trade balance is somewhat of a Red Herring, That being stated, there are some ramifications of running a continuing-deficit of this magnitude. China receives USD in payment for it's goods and buys US paper&hard assets in the form of Treasury debt and RE. This occurs with every trading partner we have, an artifact of being a Nation that does nothing but consume due to its [relative] vast wealth.
    True. However it's not a bad thing. With few exceptions, when you look at economies around the world those running with trade deficits tend to be doing a lot better than those with surpluses. It's too complicated an issue to encapsulate it so easily in the idea of more imports than exports, or more exports than imports. What's being imported and exported alone make it hard to determine if at any given moment having a deficit is harmful or not. You're basically right, it's a red herring.

    It is however of great importance to America First types, who think opening a factory overseas costs Americans jobs in the long run, or that in the long run the best thing to do is enact restrictive trade policies to raise the cost of imports relative to American goods and services.

  24. Well, the deficit is also artifact of our success as a Nation, obviously, and certainly our socioeconomic success is the overriding input. However, running a deficit as large as ours puts more and more US assets under foreign control. Balance of Power, economically-speaking, has ebbed and flowed based upon such trade.

    I am not suggesting policies restricting trade[Buchanan], but the deficit could lead to a significant loss of buying power for the American consumer. This would be very destructive to our domestic economy and could signal the death-rattle for the US job market, further shifting the BoP towards holders of US assets.

  25. Moore: “What happened to the search for Osama bin Laden??
    Costas : “Obviously they're pursuing Osama bin Laden as we speak.?
    Moore challenged the premise: “Really, you believe that??
    Costas: “Yes.?
    Moore: “You do believe that??
    Costas: “Sure. And if they could find him, and perhaps they eventually will, they'd be gratified by that.?
    Moore: “You don't think they know where he is??
    Costas: “You think they know where Osama bin Laden is and it's hands off??
    Moore: “Absolutely, absolutely.?
    Costas: “Why??
    Moore: “Because he's funded by their friends in Saudi Arabia! He's back living with his sponsors, his benefactors. Do you think that Osama bin Laden planned 9-11 from a cave in Afghanistan? I can't get a cell signal from here to Queens, alright, I mean, come on. Let's get real about this. The guy has been on dialysis for two years. He's got failing kidneys. He wasn't in a cave in Afghanistan playing-?
    Costas : “You think he's in Saudi Arabia, not Afghanistan, not Pakistan.?
    Moore: “Well, could be Pakistan, but he's under watch of those who have said put a stop to this because-?
    Costas : “Including, at least by extension, the United States, he's under the protective watch of the United States??
    Moore: “I think the United States, I think our government knows where he is and I don't think we're going to be capturing him or killing him any time soon.?

  26. Quote Originally Posted by CrAzyOttER
    hate bush, love america. he is a retart
    Boy you look like a ****ing genius calling someone else a retard and spelling it wrong.

    /karp

  27. Quote Originally Posted by Brooklyn
    And we had a good idea of where he was then. In fact, we've often had a very good idea of where he was and let him slip through our fingers. This goes back to the Clinton administration.
    To what end? If we brought OBL in or killed him (and could prove it), Bush would look like such a hero people (who, in general, are sheep) would forget most of the mistakes he's made.

    /karp

  28. Bottom line.........There are NO GOOD POLITICIANS, that includes Presidents and ex-Presidents. It doesn't matter who is in office, they will be critized.

    Here is one of the definitions of Politician from Merriam Webster online;

    Politician - a person primarily interested in political office for selfish or other narrow usually short-sighted reasons.

    Politicians DO NOT have your, my, our best or ANY of our personal interests in mind. This country is not free anymore, it is ran by politicians with THEIR own agenda in mind.

    GOBIG
  29. Lightbulb


    To what end? If we brought OBL in or killed him (and could prove it), Bush would look like such a hero people (who, in general, are sheep) would forget most of the mistakes he's made.
    Osama Bin Laden/Usama Bin Ladin is a symbol. If we kill him he can become a martyr. If we capture him it makes it look to the masses like the war on terror is pretty much over, which is far from the truth. Anytime Bush wants to get support for his agenda he trumps the threat of Bin Laden out. He is the face of terror like Saddam Hussein was the face of the old Iraq. The best thing for Bush, as far as the long-term is concerned, is not to catch Bin Laden. Why do you think we keep capturing his "Number 2 guy"?
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-13-2011, 03:00 AM
  2. So who is gonna watch I am Legend ?
    By ReaperX in forum General Chat
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 12-23-2007, 06:31 AM
  3. Stupid AM.com Heisman Watch 2006-2007
    By CEDeoudes59 in forum Sports Talk
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 11-10-2006, 09:16 PM
  4. I am trying out a NO2 hombrew for kicks!
    By windwords7 in forum Supplements
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 04-13-2003, 12:50 PM
  5. I AM SICK.. of feeling over loaded with info
    By WanaKnowMore in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 10-28-2002, 09:34 PM
Log in
Log in