Iraq War (Final Product)
My apologies to everyone, with school going on its been hard to post. Here is the iraq war post I had earlier, but repolished and some facts to solidify the wmd argument. I rewrote it for a speech in my debate class. Enjoy.
In 2001, 9/11 happened. Soon after that, Congress decided to invade Iraq. Eventually Saddam Hussein was captured. So why are we still there? Ill tell you why. Because of all our troops there, it has attracted terrorists local to that area. So we have them right where we want them now, out of hiding. Another reason is because we want to create a self sustaining democracy.
And you know, there’s always that ignorant class that thinks the whole world can just sit down and sing koombiyah. It’s just not that simple. The truth is that freedom is not free. There are people out there that want to destroy us. And the conservatives in charge of this country have made the right decision, and have decided to do something about it.
In the 40s people donated their time and money to the great cause. More than that they donated their spirit. America fought a tough battle for 4 years. Lost a lot of good men and women, caused some innocent casualties, but stayed the course and got the job done.
Forget about how our men and women are dying all over the globe protecting freedom. Forget about how we have liberated millions of Islamic women and children from a life of oppression. Forget about the freedom and opportunity that this country has given millions. Forget about all the good that we do in the world. Instead, all you hear from liberals and media is a constant attack on the good nature of our country. And the brainless peasants are starting to let it get to them.
“Whine” But the wmd’s weren’t there. . . “Whine”
Saddam has been in power since 1979. He invaded Kuwait in 1990. We came to their rescue, and got Saddam out of there. You can imagine Saddams anger toward us. He obviously was building up military strength since he first came into power, enough to challenge the power of the U.S. But then he lost, and has been reaccumulating ever since (keep in mind bush's dad was in office at this time). I think he made a deal with al quida, and became the terrorist "patron" if you will. With the help of al quida, he got back up on his feet, and reassessed his strength (Saddam Hussein had the 4th most powerful army before we went to war with him) and prepared to declare war on America by having al quida orchestrate some terrorists attacks (9/11) After the Gulf War, Iraq continued its weapons of mass destruction programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions.
Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons; most analysts assess Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. After 9/11, bush saw that saddam needed to be taken out, because saddam pulled this same trick 11 years ago on his dad. He knew what needed to be done, so he did it. Those in this country who didn’t have enough foresight and awareness to see it coming, thought that bush went to war for no reason, just wanted the oil.
This is the part I have the most trouble understanding. If we were really invading Iraq for its oil, we would have tons of oil now, wouldn’t we? And plus if this was really true, the entire world would be outraged! A country conquering other countries for its natural resources? The truth is that it’s only the democrats who are outraged on that one.
There is a poster in my english class that says, “You can’t be all that you can be if you’re dead” I know this is shocking and offensive, but hold that thought. There is a mother named Cindy Sheehan whose son died in Iraq. She wants to meet President Bush, and ask him why he killed her son. Well let me tell you something, Cindy Sheehan. Bush didn’t “kill” your son. Your son died in the United States Armed Forces, and there is NOTHING more honorable than that! When you say the things you say, not only are you dishonoring your own son, but you’re dishonoring every soldier that ever stepped up to the plate and fought in Iraq!
UPDATE
There has been some people on this blog that have said I made "guesswork" on the wmd's, so heres my source:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm
In 2001, 9/11 happened. Soon after that, Congress decided to invade Iraq. Eventually Saddam Hussein was captured. So why are we still there? Ill tell you why. Because of all our troops there, it has attracted terrorists local to that area. So we have them right where we want them now, out of hiding. Another reason is because we want to create a self sustaining democracy.
And you know, there’s always that ignorant class that thinks the whole world can just sit down and sing koombiyah. It’s just not that simple. The truth is that freedom is not free. There are people out there that want to destroy us. And the conservatives in charge of this country have made the right decision, and have decided to do something about it.
In the 40s people donated their time and money to the great cause. More than that they donated their spirit. America fought a tough battle for 4 years. Lost a lot of good men and women, caused some innocent casualties, but stayed the course and got the job done.
Forget about how our men and women are dying all over the globe protecting freedom. Forget about how we have liberated millions of Islamic women and children from a life of oppression. Forget about the freedom and opportunity that this country has given millions. Forget about all the good that we do in the world. Instead, all you hear from liberals and media is a constant attack on the good nature of our country. And the brainless peasants are starting to let it get to them.
“Whine” But the wmd’s weren’t there. . . “Whine”
Saddam has been in power since 1979. He invaded Kuwait in 1990. We came to their rescue, and got Saddam out of there. You can imagine Saddams anger toward us. He obviously was building up military strength since he first came into power, enough to challenge the power of the U.S. But then he lost, and has been reaccumulating ever since (keep in mind bush's dad was in office at this time). I think he made a deal with al quida, and became the terrorist "patron" if you will. With the help of al quida, he got back up on his feet, and reassessed his strength (Saddam Hussein had the 4th most powerful army before we went to war with him) and prepared to declare war on America by having al quida orchestrate some terrorists attacks (9/11) After the Gulf War, Iraq continued its weapons of mass destruction programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions.
Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons; most analysts assess Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. After 9/11, bush saw that saddam needed to be taken out, because saddam pulled this same trick 11 years ago on his dad. He knew what needed to be done, so he did it. Those in this country who didn’t have enough foresight and awareness to see it coming, thought that bush went to war for no reason, just wanted the oil.
This is the part I have the most trouble understanding. If we were really invading Iraq for its oil, we would have tons of oil now, wouldn’t we? And plus if this was really true, the entire world would be outraged! A country conquering other countries for its natural resources? The truth is that it’s only the democrats who are outraged on that one.
There is a poster in my english class that says, “You can’t be all that you can be if you’re dead” I know this is shocking and offensive, but hold that thought. There is a mother named Cindy Sheehan whose son died in Iraq. She wants to meet President Bush, and ask him why he killed her son. Well let me tell you something, Cindy Sheehan. Bush didn’t “kill” your son. Your son died in the United States Armed Forces, and there is NOTHING more honorable than that! When you say the things you say, not only are you dishonoring your own son, but you’re dishonoring every soldier that ever stepped up to the plate and fought in Iraq!
UPDATE
There has been some people on this blog that have said I made "guesswork" on the wmd's, so heres my source:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm
54 Comments:
Man, you are truly unbelievable. Trotting out the same discredited reasoning about the same falsified issues...do you ever feel angry at your chosen heroes for making you look so damn bad?
Unless you are going to enlist to fight in the war in Iraq, you should really tone down your cheerleader rhetoric. But like the chickenhawks that you worship, I'm sure you've already decided that the promise of your particular future is too important to wager on the chance of being killed defending your country.
Defending Pat Robertson, illegal wars, and sheer incompetence while allowing members of the lower economic strata to do your military dirty work--yep, that sounds like a Bush fan to me.
If Bush hadn't failed the country so badly in 2001, perhaps the hurricane of 2005 wouldn't be so bad. It's now being revealed that he chose to ignore the warnings of FEMA about two of the three most likely disasters to befall the USA domestically--a New Orleans hurricane AND a terrorist attack involving airplanes in New York City--and in doing so is even being criticized by his own loyalists in the Republican Party. How can you defend such willful incompetence? It has been proven that his Justice Dept. deliberately blocked FBI investigations into the men who ultimately hijacked the planes on 9-11; now his own federal disaster agency looked like a bunch of helpless morons or evil obstructionists in their attempts to "help" the citizens of New Orleans. How does that make you feel? Or are you too busy churning out propaganda to even notice reality anymore?
Your politics and ideology would make for great comedic writing if it wasn't so ignorant and sad.
I agree. If you support the war, you need to stfu and go enlist. Of course... Bush, Cheney, Rummy... they would never do something like that.... well.. not without defferments anyway. So why aren't Bush's daughters in Iraq?
Y'all, according to Mr. Wilson's profile, he's only 15-years-old, so keep that in mind as you respond to him. I certainly agree with the two comments above, but this is a very young man with whom you're talking.
Jayson,
You write pretty well for such a young guy. My son is only one year younger than you and he's not up to this sort of writing, yet. Well done, in that regards.
Having said that, I'd encourage you to be careful with your logic.
When I was not much older than you, I was a fiery young conservative, too. And I spouted off quite frequently about things that I felt deeply. Unfortunately, I was also quite wrong about the things I believed.
I'm not saying you should keep quiet. Go ahead and explore your beliefs and express them. I'm just encouraging you to take a logic course as soon as you get a chance. There are too many people who make arguments using bad logic and that serves no one well, least of all you.
That, and while you cling to your beliefs, be open to other opinions. You CAN do both at the same time.
Peace.
(and I apologize for how condescending this sounds.)
I am interested to know how this goes over in your debate class. I know if I was in that class this would make me quite angry.
BTW it's "Al Qaeda" not "Al Quida". Also, there are a lot of factual errors in your argument, but I am not going to address them, since you are ignoring me anyway.
This is the part I have the most trouble understanding. If we were really invading Iraq for its oil, we would have tons of oil now, wouldn't we?
No. Certainly you must have heard that the oil industry is reporting record profits? The US military is in Iraq to secure the oil for Bush's big business buddies. They are going to soak the consumer for all they can get. This is all about making the rich richer.
don't let these guys con you into thinking conservatism is wrong. They can think and say whatever they want, but that doesn't make them right.
Nice article BTW.
You know before I even write anything that I agree with you. You wrote an excellent essay. Now you are getting an admittedly condescending lecture because you are only fifteen, but at least he was polite about it. You may be fifteen "biologically" but you are truly mentally older than your age. You've got full grown men (and one woman) talking to you like you are an equal. How many fifteen year olds can say that? I wonder what they were doing when they were fifteen? I know I certainly wasn't as politically savvy at that age! One of these guys picked on you because of your having misspelled "Al Quaeda". But boy, did I hear from them when I pointed out Saint didn't capatalize "Republican"! Hypocrisy is rampant among libs, never forget that. Loyalty to their country of birth and to what this country has done for them is not an option for them, unless, of course, they are in control of it.
And to Drew: Maybe President Bush's daughters don't aspire to being in the military, just as you obviously don't. Please remember that no one has to be in the military unless they voluteer. We still have a full volunteer military force in this country; unless I missed the draft being reinacted. If you would take the time and wherewithal to talk to soldiers in Iraq, or to read Michael Yon at www.michaelyon.blogspot.com you might understand how the people who are in the military and on the ground over there really feel. They do not feel like the victims of the big war-monger Bush, as liberals try to portray them and it angers them when they see what the media is doing to them. They aren't the only ones who are angered by it, but I do try to stay as civil as possible. There is a lot of good going on in Iraq. We are not being allowed to see it because the media doesn't want us to see it. But I see it because I correspond with people who are there in the midst of it. I'm here to tell you they don't appreciate it when liberals say "I support our troops but I don't support the war." You cannot support them unless you support what they are doing. It's so shallow it's embarrassing.
bushcheney08: I think your age is one of the factors of why so many liberals are on your blog. They are attempting to change your mind, because your age makes you vulnerable. I don't believe it will work in your case. Especially not with the weak arguments presented.
Stay cool!
Alyosha Mcbain, you are truly unbelievable! I wouldn't take the time to even bother with you, you are so far out there in the twilight zone. But I feel I need to defend bushcheney08. He's busy at school and doesn't have much time to do it himself.
Did you bother to even check his profile? He's 15 year old, and you are bullying him. You should be ashamed of yourself! He may not know what he wants to do with himself yet, but I will tell you one thing, he will be good at whatever he chooses to become, and I'll also bet that if he feels his country needs him he would volunteer for some sort of military duty. But please let him finish school first, okay?
That you have the audacity to say "allowing members of the lower economic strata to do your military dirty work---" You are really a piece of work, aren't you? Here's news for you: I am not of a "lower economic strata." Nor is my husband, nor were we ever. My husband served the Army for 20 years and is a war veteran. My son served in the 82nd airborne. I would be interested in knowing when and where you served. And just what you will do when the terrrorists start tearing up this country, if that should happen. Probably run to Canada is my guess.
I've had my say. I'm so angry with you that I hope you don't respond. I wont even bother dirtying my mind with your volitile retoric. This was a one time thing in defense of someone I have come to think of as a friend. Unless you can keep a civil tongue in your head, I hope you will go away and leave him alone. I'd ask you to apologize to him, but I know for certain that isn't going to happen.
One of these guys picked on you because of your having misspelled "Al Quaeda".
It was a clarification. The same as my explaining the liberal position regarding what is happening with Iraq's oil. Now that Jayson isn't confused anymore he can explain why I'm wrong and add that to his essay.
I didn't include any put-downs in my last post, as they are a waste of time. Neither of you are going to listen.
I'm here to tell you they don't appreciate it when liberals say "I support our troops but I don't support the war." You cannot support them unless you support what they are doing. It's so shallow it's embarrassing.
gayle, YOU are unbelievable. Stupid statements like this really remind me how much I hate Bush supporters. Clarification: I don't hate you personally -- I don't know you -- but I really hate how blind you are.
bushcheney08: Unless your teacher is unfair because he/she may be a liberal, I'll bet you received an A+ on your essay.
BC08, you would be much more believable if you credited your sources and refrained from starting sentences with, "I think..." As a debater myself, I can confidently say that what you just wrote was an extremely weak argument.
And Gayle, in reading your profile, I couldn't help but notice your age. Now, as we have already established, age shouldn't be a factor when it comes to knowledge about the world. Age, in this case, DOES play another major role, however. You and I are from completely different generations. The way people felt during WWII was completely different and came from a totally different place than the feelings currently being expressed in the United States. The fact of the matter is that you know a time when the whole world was on the side of the President and his grand United States. You know a time when people didn't speak out like the do now. Why is that? Because there wasn't cause to speak out. There was undoubtedly justification and passion with the cause. That is NOT what America is facing today. The reason that many young people are now pacifists is because war IS NOT the answer. So cliche, I know. There are just causes, and then there are excuses. You go right ahead and listen to Jayson babble about invading Iraq soon after 9/11, but if you are at all current-event-literate you KNOW that that was not the case. Go ahead and agree with all the arguments he based on that. But you should be old enough to know better.
And by the way, MOST teachers are liberals. And that's a good thing.
allison balloni - You are right. You and I come from completely different generations. I come from a time when Americans stood proud of their country, and, in time of war, they united with each other to back the President in spite of their political differences and in spite of which political party the president was a member of. Until Vietnam, our entire history has been that way.
And I have to admit I long for Amercan's to be united and stand behind the United States again. I recognize people's rights to protest, I really do. I also feel a responsibility toward all soldiers, from the beginning of the Revolutionary war until now, because it's because of them we have the right to free speech. So maybe you think I hold my views because I am a senior citizen (don't feel like one. I'm still very athletic and in much better physical shape than most people my age, thank's to God's good grace) and therefor am old fashioned. That's probably true, but it cannot be said of either bushcheney08 or Cody or the young man who ran the blog "Right is Often Right."
I have to tell bushcheney08 that allison balloni is right about not starting sentences with "I think" or "I feel." At least I know that creative writing courses teach that. So that was a well-intended tip, bushcheney08, and not a judgement. However, saying you presented a weak arguement was his opinion and not mine, and indeed, a statement based on his political beliefs and not mine.
I think, Allison Balloni, that as a person I would probably like you, as I do many younger liberals I know in person. Politics does not interfere with my friendships.
I hope, in your personal friendships on an everyday basis, you don't choose your friends based on their politics either.
Just one more thing: You said, in effect, that today there is neither passion nor justification associated with this cause. I know many people personally who feel it is justified and are passionate about it. I know many people who do not. Just because the liberal left does not feel justified or passionate about it does not mean that all Americans feel that way. We feel this country is in grave danger from many sources: from the Terrorists who, if we pull out of Iraq where we are fighting them now, will be in our midst; from the anti-Christians who are attempting to take away the rights of Christians; to the people who are weakening family values, which includes Planned Parenthood. I'm not attempting to convince you because I don't think that's possible; just as you know that nothing you say will convince me. However, you write well. It's a beautiful day in Central Texas and I'm going to go enjoy that gift.
Take care...
hmm debate class you say?
I suppose you failed.
But this is the internet, you could always lie
I suppose lying is very non-christian..
but that's never stopped you before.
You think you know so much that focusing on the detail you seem to have amazing skill for ignoring the entire picture: Iraq didn't pose a threat, there were no weapons of mass destructions and the Iraqi people are experience death and destruction everyday on a similar scale to when Saddam was in power.
"there is NOTHING more honorable than that"
yes it may be honorable but does it mean we should forget ever life lost?
and come on: "dishonoring every soldier that ever stepped up to the plate and fought in Iraq".
I like that argument espcially, you are almost saying she/we can't have a debate about it nor bring up the issue because somehow she/we are doing injustice to the heroes who fought and still fight in Iraq. YOU are dishonoring the soldiers killed in Iraq by denying any talk about the reason they died. You say they are heroes, then should these heroes died in vein? Should we forget about them and not question why they died?
Honor seems to be a great way for you to critise anyone trying to sensibly debate the war in Iraq. But lets examine your rhetoric...
"I think he made a deal with al quid" How you can you think that? What are your sources? Are they reliable? What is there viewpoint?
you CANNOT use guesswork and your own imagination to justify the unneccessary deaths of US soldiers.
"Saddam Hussein had the 4th most powerful army before we went to war with him"
How did you make that up? They didn't stand up for long did they? Hmmm top four you say, so you are saying Either China, US, UK, France or Germany has an army smaller than that of Iraq?
Your logic is flawed. Your argument are based on myths and interpretted through the eyes of a child. You may think you know the facts but when you start thinking any respect I had for your so called debate goes out the window.
As usual I am safe in the knowledge that the world is getting progressively more liberal in terms of policy, law, and equality. Thank the lord for a more transparent press and media where the facts can be seen rather than censored and where the government has less and less control of us.
"Your logic is flawed. Your argument are based on myths"
Lets see you back up your end of the argument then. Or can you even do that? Of course not! All you can do is disagree, add a some flaming, and leave.
alyosha mcbain: your writing would be great comedy if it didnt originate from your longing to feel independant and intellectual.
drew: Ive heard this before. dont bring up that old worn out argument of "why dont you go out and enlist?" Im tired of it.
dan trabue: no, your comment is refreshing compared to the others.
dfkz: It went quite well. those who werent smiling and nodding their heads at me, had blank faces. I earned respect.
gayle: Im actually not sure what he is. I had to read my essay in front of the class, as everyone did, and when it was over he had a smirk/smile on his face? I couldnt interpret his response.
allisoni balloni: your right, Ill need to change that.
peregrin: well, we have to pick and choose.
anonymous: do you know me? because if you did you would know that everything I say here is the truth. just keep on saying that saddam wasnt a threat, maybe itll magically come true. these are facts that I have gathered. You can think that I made them up, and then again you can also think that the sky is green and you can think that it rains cats and dogs.
It went quite well. those who werent smiling and nodding their heads at me, had blank faces. I earned respect.
You said it was a debate class -- didn't anyone get to present a rebuttal. I'm not good at public speaking, but you couldn't keep me away from the podium in this case.
"Your logic is flawed. Your argument are based on myths"
Lets see you back up your end of the argument then. Or can you even do that? Of course not! All you can do is disagree, add some flaming, and leave.
Jayson, and I would guess you too, are not interested in hearing it. I responded in the last thread with lots of links to back up my facts. Jayson called my post propaganda -- get this -- JUST because of the number of links I included (700 was his exaggerated number). I know he didn't read any (or little) of what I wrote. Most of the links were to reputable news sources -- not, as you would call them, liberal propaganda sites.
There will be a price to pay for the choices you are making. There is time to change your mind -- to wake up and see just how self serving this administration is. Frankly I don't care. You will be the one who will have to live with the consequences.
Cody, If you really are interested in answering questions here is ONE to start: Why did Bush suspend minimum wage in the states affected by Katrina?
Why? Because saving lives is more important than getting paid at this point. Agree or disagree?
Why do I need to know you to know you that you lie?
It's obvious that Iraq is not the 4th Strongest army in the world considering the speed at which America and Great Britain swamped it's meager defenses. I'm sure if it was the 4th strongest army in the world it would have put up a bit more of a fight. I have no doubt that had you actually been in a debate class the rebuttal would have mention or picked up on this.
I would like to use this site as a place for decent political arguments but it is has become clear to me:
1. You deny whenever anyone attempts to provide sources as propaganda. Will you allow this?
2. Whenever attempting a discussion about the political movements that control this country you seem to have to resort to calling left-leaning commenters as hippies, crazy liberals or make an awful jibe about koom-bah-yay. Will you stop being so offensive and listen?
3. You exaggerate, "700". Will you stop being so childish?
4. You don't answer questions asked of you, rather take a pendantic manner by refering to the weakest parts of arguments in a way that does not make anyone want to post again. Will you actually write a proper response to people's questions?
5. You use Christianity when you feel like it in an ad-hoc manner as Saint has fully described. Will you stop using your own brand of Christianity (eg Death is ok in some circumstances)?
6. You attack people's right to express themselves and cite motives you don't have seem to have the intellect to fully comprehend: "your longing to feel independant and intellectual". I suppose you would consider yourself independant (I presume at home) and intellectual (having not yet reached a level of education anywhere near a degree). Will you stop being offensive and start being positive?
7. You say things like "Im tired of it." when you don't want to reinforce an argument that in my opinion is failing. Will you please re-inforce your argument, when you say little I'm inclined to think you don't care?
8. You think and don't provide enough sources. You don't have access to enough un-bias information to make guesswork about Al-Quadia links to any other states. If you do have access or have read it somewhere, state it, then I might believe you. Will you be realistic and actually use sources not your own opinion of events?
9.You blame the media whenever any anti-right wing story comes, or whenever the truth about the latest disaster unfolds. Will you respect news organisations who obviously have political motivations but not neccessarily influencing every fact presented?
10. You don't have the persuasive skills nor sources nor real life experience to offer a proper analysis of an event (as I can tell by your narrow minded views on abortion, assasination and war).
11. You can't get enough readers for your blog and don't seem to feel important so seem to need to spam reputable blogs with lies just to make people read your
You critise, attack, denounce and find fault with anyone's argument but your own. There is no point continuing any sort of argument with you. I will be removing my link to your site (which I have no doubt has given you traffic) and will move to commenting on political site where although they may not be of the same political slant as me:
You can have a reasonable reason with them, and they don't act like a child.
And no, I'm not revealing my username because you'd only complain and insult me. I've had enough of your narrow minded politics which do not help progress any politcal movement in this country.
Why? Because saving lives is more important than getting paid at this point. Agree or disagree?
Did you really think it was going to be that easy? Either I agree with you or I am not interested in saving lives?!
We are talking about poor people who desperately need this money. Being paid a decent wage could save their lives.
Please explain how paying people less than minimum wage is going to save lives. Is Haliburton, who received a Katrina contract, going to pass that savings along to the US government -- supposedly so they can stretch that money farter and help more people -- or is Haliburton pocketing the extra money? What about the executives? Are they taking a cut in pay as well?
If the government is going to be spending money helping Katrina victims why can't they do that by making sure they are paid a decent wage? I thought Republicans wanted to get people off the Government dole? I don't see how this is helping.
Look at it this way -- maybe the government could provide less in handouts if they made sure the lowly laborers received a decent wage. Either way the people who need help would get it. So why did Bush suspend minimum wage? Maybe because he sees this as yet another opportunity to enrich his supporters?
anonymous: thats pretty sad. well, goodbye then.
P.S. I only attack people who attacked me first. If theyre going to be nasty, Im going to be nasty right back. Proof? Just look at dan trabue. He even said if we knew what he was I would label him as extremist - he has been civilized on this blog and I talk to him in a respectful manner. the rest of you start doing that and then I will talk the same way with you. But if you come out shouting, Im just going to get angry.
One more question: you linked to my blog? if you are so angry then why did you link me in the first place?
But if I had to guess, Id say you were saint. the only thing wrong with that though is that saint isnt this hostile.
Gayle, I would like to clarify that I know many people do feel the war is justified, and my point was just that the American people are lacking unity because of the disagreement on that. I am certainly not ignoring the fact that plenty of people feel differently than I do.
I would also like to say that my very best friend is a crazy Republican. Not crazy in the sense of being mentally unstable, but crazy in the sense of feeling the same way about his beliefs as I feel about mine. Unless I feel passionately compelled to speak up about something specific, I do not discuss politics or religion in a biased manner with any of my friends or family. I tend to have deep conversations about religion, but other than that it is just much easier to avoid and keep it as a personal issue. I know who it is safe to talk about but other than that my political views have no reflection on who my friends are.
alisoni balloni: good. that would be very bad otherwise.
This is good stuff!
It gets far to tiring to continually respond, point out the flaws while citing credible sources only to have an argument reduced to name calling.
If I was in your debate calls the hounds of hell wouldn't have held me back.
One hopes someone in your class has common sense but the realm of public education these days I doubt it. So your proproganda probably will be seen as "fact" and that is really sad.
Allison Balloni: Good to hear it: That your political views have no reflection on who your friends are. I'm glad of that.
Anonymous: You did a tremendous job of clarifying your position on my blog. I am quite happy with your thoughtful responses to the questions posted there. But here (on this blog) you seem to be way more hostile and I can't figure out why. We are talking here to a high school student who, regardless of whether one agrees with his views or not, should be highly commended for taking an interest in anything other than what most boys his age tend to be interested in... if you get my drift! I would be proud of him were he of a liberal mind, simply because he is 15 and is more involved than most of his peers.
anonymous: you are really sad.
BC08,
These libs don't know what facts are. Their entire lives revolve around listening to talking heads who make up lies to cover for not knowing what's really going on.
Drew keeps proving himself the essence of idiocy.
You're doing a fine job, keep it up!
you stupid idiot
BC'08,
I just read some of Hanchett's crap about Bush and Katrina. Those liberals are truly wacked out. The fact is that Bush's response was quicker than Clinton's to the OKC bombing by a full day. Of course you never heard the liberal media bashing him for being late then did you? See my post on it... (D)isaster Hypocrisy
Bush has taken responsibility for it even though none of it was his fault because the state and locan governments who shoud be repsonsible are DEMOCRATS!
Democrats never take responsibility for ANYTHING! But they do take credit when they don't deserve it.
Liberals are going to be killed in 2006, and I can't wait!
BC'08,
Do me a favor and tell Hanchett that Clinton is the Antichrist who "once was, is not and yet is."
Here's the proof... Bill Clinton Launching Global Summit
Of course the libs will say this great, but they are blind.
Thanks!
No, Jayson, I would not post anonymously - if I have a good argument I'd like to take the credit :)
I have recently been promoted at work and have had little in the way of free time to post anything. All of the division continues to be disheartening.
Stephen Hanchett, by the way, is not representative of Liberals in general, anymore than I would consider you or Gayle to be representative of conservatives in general - Most of the conservative or liberal people I know in daily life are actually able to have dialogue on these kinds of subjects, rather than the kind of logic-deprived monologue that extremists (of both varieties) seem to prefer.
I do want to reiterate that I do think that you are due credit for not resorting to blanket bans of people who don't agree with you. That may be the one saving grace of what you are doing here. At the very least, unlike Hanchett, you see on some level interested in hearing other people's viewpoints, even if you would be hard-pressed to ever admit that (to yourself?).
saint: my mistake. I was just thinking of any possible candidate that would fit this person, and none did. the only person who was remotely like this anonymous guy is you - but you dont go out and acuse me of lying about everything. But anyway, congradulations with the promotion!
Ottmann: Your right, Bush decided to be the better man and take the blame for something he did not do. that is something very mature and respectful to do, but the libs will never recognize it. I dont think he should have, however, because itll only convince the democrats that theyre right.
I agree that drew has weak arguments - he comes to my blog and posts very long messages that I smack down, but then he just dissapears.
If I find a computer with a new ip aderess that I can post on his site, then I will.
Ottman called Clinton the antichrist and offered as proof:
"An initiative led by former President Clinton to tackle poverty, climate change and other worldwide issues is launching with a gathering of political leaders and activists who are promising to pitch in"
THIS is anti-Christ?
How about that other guy who said that he had come to tell good news to the poor, to proclaim liberty to the captive, healthcare to the sick and the day of common-sharing for all, is he anti-Christ, as well?
(What was his name?....oh, yeah. Jesus.)
Your right, Bush decided to be the better man and take the blame for something he did not do.
"He didn't do"? You are saying that he did NOTHING wrong?! If so, why did "Brownie" resign? -- I thought he was "doing a heck of a job"?
Bush has had a policy in place since he took office that his administration would NEVER admit mistakes. The only reason he did this time was because the fallout for his not accepting some of the blame would have been worse. People were truly outraged, and rightly so. Now Republicans can spout off nonsense like "Bush is the better man".
Bush would definately not done this if his advisors hadn't decided it would helped squelch the negative press. This is political manuvering, nothing more.
BTW: There will be no independant investigation into what went wrong. The Republicans all voted against it, with one senator from LA abstaining from the vote. My guess is that the majority of the posters here don't see anything wrong with the Republican Congress investigating how the Bush administration screwed up.
They will probably pin most of the blame on the Governor and the Mayor -- making Bush's "taking responsibility" statement that much more meaningless.
BTW: didn't anyone else read about the Mayor actually being a Republican? He switched parties shortly before the election because he knew it was the only way he could win. The reason he didn't order a mandatory evacuation sooner was because he was worried about lawsuits (from businesses due to lost income and looting) if the hurricane missed NO. Sounds like a Republican to me.
Ottman said: Do me a favor and tell Hanchett that Clinton is the Antichrist who "once was, is not and yet is".
If I hadn't read your prior posts -- the ones you made over at Stephen's blog -- and those on your own blog, I might think you were actually a Democrat trying to make Republicans look bad by posting something so completely inane.
From Ottman's Blog: ...he [Clinton] still didn't do anything about it for the rest of his presidency leading up to the WTC attacks on 9/11 that occurred just after he was booted out of office!
I don't know what you are talking about. Clinton wasn't "booted" out of office -- he served two terms, which is the maximum. The Republican impeachment was unsuccessful.
Quote from "Worse than Watergate" by John W. Dean (page 108-109):
During the transition period, Bush and Cheney learned more about the terrorism problem. Bill Clinton told Bush, when he visited the White House as president-elect on December 19, 2000, that his "biggest [national] security problem" would be "Osama bin Laden" and terrorism [Source: Ronald Kessler, The CIA at War -- New York: St. Martin's Press, 2003 p. 195]. Clinton's national security advisor, Sandy Berger, set up ten briefings for his successor, Condoleezza Rice, and her top deputy, Stephen Hadley, with Berger personally attending the session on terrorism, which was presented by "terrorism czar" Richard Clarke (who would remain on Bush's National Security Council Staff). Berger attended the terrorism session to underscore the importance of the subject. Berger told Rice, "I believe that the Bush Administration will spend more time on terrorism generally, and on al Qaeda specifically, than any other subject" [Source: Michael Elliot, "They had a Plan", Time -- August 12, 2002 p. 28]. Bush and Cheney also learned that after the 1998 bombings incidents at US embassies in Africa, CIA director George Tenet had "declared war" (at least for the CIA) on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda [Source: George Tenet, testimony, "Written Statement for the Record of the Director of Central Intelligence before the Joint Inquiry Committee", October 17, 2002, at www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2002/dci_testimony_10172002.html].
In January 2001, after their inauguration, Bush and Cheney received the report of a multiyear study of national security problems likely to confront the United States during the next quarter. Clinton's secretary of defense, William Cohen (a Republican), initiated this blue ribbon, bipartisan study by experts, co-chaired by two Washington insiders familiar with military and foreign policy, former senator Warren Rudman (R-NH) and former senator Gary Hart (D-CO). The fourteen-member commission and its professional staff, with a $10 million budget, sought answers and found them [Source: The Washington Post, Feb. 1, 2001]. The final report was issued on January 31, 2001, and the highest recommendation and first priority urged the president to focus on terrorism: "A direct attack against American citizens on American soil is likely over the next quarter century", and "even excellent intelligence will not prevent all surprises" [Source: "Road Map for National Security: Imperative for Change", The Phase III Report of the US Commission on National Security/21st Century -- Feb. 15, 2001, viii].
Cheney, however decided to put terrorism on a back burner and closed down the Rudman-Hart commission [Source: Joseph Perkins, "Those Who Would lay the Blame on America Are Wrong", San Diego Union-Tribune, Sept. 14, 2001, B-9]. Rather than relying on the bipartisan judgment of this uniquely qualified group, Cheney told Bush to turn the matter over to him (since he was already looking at everything else). Accordingly, on May 8, 2001, Bush issued a statement: "Some non-state terrorist groups have... demonstrated an interest in acquiring weapons of mass destruction... It is clear that the threat of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons being used against the United States -- while not immediate -- is very real". He said that he asked Cheney "to oversee the development of a coordinated national effort so that we ma do the very best possible job of protecting our people from catastrophic harm". In addition, Bush would "create an office of National Preparedness" in the Federal Emergency Management Agency to implement Cheney's recommendations [Source: George W. Bush, "Domestic Preparedness Against Weapons of Mass Destruction", Statement by the President, May 8, 2001]. This announcement killed the Rudman-Hart commission proposal to create a homeland security department with cabinet rank (a plan the White House would soon claim as its own). Later that morning (May 8), Secretary of State Colin Powell all but conceded that terrorism was a problem without solution. After explaining what the State Department was (and had been) doing, which was not insubstantial, Powell rhetorically asked, "Does that mean we are going to thwart or successfully defend against every terrorist act possible? Of course not" [Source: Secretary of State Colin Powell, testimony, Senate Appropriations Committee: Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Stated, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies, Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony -- May 8, 2001].
Only days before the 9/11 attack, on September 4, 2001, plans for dealing with al Qaeda arrived in the Vice President's office. Why had it taken so long to address what Cheney had to know was a very serious threat? To a great extent, the delay was due to Bush and Cheney's blanket rejection of any idea -- however good -- that had come out of the Clinton administration. Indeed, Richard Clarke -- who had served in high-level positions for three Republican presidents as well as Clinton -- would soon resign in frustration regarding Bush and Cheney's discarding of numerous antiterror programs.
And you're saying that Clinton dropped the Ball?!
"BTW: didn't anyone else read about the Mayor actually being a Republican?"
Although I don't even know if that's true, does it matter? He is the one that screwed up, Republican or not. I think you're calling him a Republican just because you don't like disagreeing with Democrats. That's really sad.
Cody,
Mayor Nagin is not a Republican. Neither is the Governor. Louisiana is a Democratic state, and is run totally by Democrats. Don't let yourself be bamboozled here! But, all is not silver and gold... Mayor Nagin was a Republican and a supporter of President Bush. Only days before the election for Mayor of the City of New Orleans,he switched parties. He was vice president and general Manager at Cox Communcations. He was a staunch Bush supporter and generously contributed to President Bush's election campaign.
If you would like to learn more go to: http://kwww.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/10/1579/98503
If this link doesn't work for you by copying and pasting it, then just type into your web browser:
Mayor Nagin - Democrat or Republican?
Hope this helps.
Also, go to www.myrepublicanblog.com if your interested in my latest post on the Pledge of Allegiance debacle.
Forgot to add the "blogspot" in the link. Sorry!
I wasn't trying to "bamboozle" anyone. I read a little about this, and was only asking if anyone here knew more. I say it matters not what party he is "officially" registered with if his conversion wasn't sincere. It does not sound to me like it was.
Although I don't even know if that's true, does it matter? He is the one that screwed up, Republican or not. I think you're calling him a Republican just because you don't like disagreeing with Democrats. That's really sad.
It matters. He wouldn't have been elected if he hadn't switched parties. A genuine Democrat would probably have done a better job than this fraud.
I think you are selectively choosing portions of my posts to respond to because you can't answer the hard questions I pose. I think that is really sad.
Then give me a hard question, everything you've said has been easy to disprove. Give me a tough one, I need a challenge
You haven't disproved a single thing I have posted. Why should I bother conversing with someone as delusional as you?
OK, I'll ask a new one since all of my previous question were obviously too hard for you: Why is Bush still insisting that he will not raise taxes. The cost of Katrina recovery could top 200 billion... where is this money going to come from?
Explain to me how you can support the lunacy known as "Supply Side Economics".
The Bush Budget Deficit Death Spiral
by Robert Freeman
Lenders talk about a "debtor's death spiral". It occurs when borrowers get so far in over their heads they begin borrowing money just to cover the interest payments on past borrowings. The borrowers have to do this to keep the lending flowing but they can no longer plausibly pay down the principal. As new debt compounds on old, bankruptcy becomes imminent. Further lending is foolhardy. Foreclosure is only a matter of time.
The U.S. is starting to look like it is entering just such a death spiral. It is foretold not simply by the large and growing deficits, nor by the fact that their carrying costs will rise quickly as interest rates rise. Rather, it is the fact that these trends are becoming irreversible, a structural part of the U.S. economy.
Within ten years, the government will owe more than $15 trillion. And this, at precisely the time the government needs fiscal solvency to begin paying the Baby Boomers their Social Security.
This run-up in debt represents the most rapid, predatory looting of public wealth in the history of the world. The interest costs alone will consume the government and, soon, the entire economy. In fiscal 2004, interest costs came to $321 billion against a deficit of $415 billion. So three quarters of all the current year borrowing is spent paying interest on past borrowing. This is the most immediate symptom of the deficit death spiral.
Supply side economics rests on the repeatedly disproved faith that investment and prosperity are caused by giving ever more of the nation's wealth to the already wealthy. As long as this lunacy continues to drive tax policy, the government will keep expanding federal deficits. Eventually, possibly soon, this will cause a collapse of the dollar that can only be reversed by raising interest rates. But that will explode the carrying costs on the by-then mammoth debts, vitiating private sector investment. And that will kill all future prospects of meaningful growth.
This is the essence of the Bush budget deficit death spiral. To be sure, the debts are an unequalled bonanza for those few who lend the money, for they get to do so at ever-higher rates of interest. But it is a death sentence for all the rest of the economy.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1022-26.htm
I'm serously with you on that one. Just because I'm a Conservative doesn't mean I automaticly agree with everything he does. Throwing money at the problem won't help much. The "victims" over there are spending their free money on nice bracelets and booze. Taking all the free stuff they can get, won't even say thank you, and have no desire to get a job. Now that tells me that money isn't helping. These people first need to stop mocking the government, and then asking for more money. We need a better solution.
I guess I'm not the dumb Republican you think I am.
I was asking you to defend Bush's economic policies, not declare that hurrican victims are lazy freeloaders.
Either you didn't understand the question -- or you did but realized you couldn't answer it -- so you gave a BS answer instead.
"Supply side economics", "Reganomics", or the "Trickle-down theory" -- whatever you want to call it -- if you don't agree with it then you shouldn't be supporting George W. Bush. Tax breaks for wealthy individuals and corporations are how you implement Supply Side Economics!
You can't cut taxes for the richest, hike military spending, slash regulations and enforcement on corporate crime, drive down wage and employment then expect a strong economy. It never worked that way before, and it's not working now. The GOP has never figured out how to repeal the laws of economics.
History proves Republicans always cause high unemployment and high deficits, and usually high interest rates and / or inflation as well. The stock market does better with a Democrat in the White House. Republican Presidents always put more people in the poor house.
Here are the facts. We've had nine recessions since 1950, and all but one came with a Republican presiding over our economic policies. Bush's tax cuts blew up the surplus and put us back in deficit even before the 9/11 terror attacks.
Republican policies helped kill the Clinton expansion. Remember the eight great years you could count on a raise, good investments, and all the rest that the Republicans want to claim was a "binge" and a "bubble?" Seemed they burst our bubble pretty quickly and now they want to blame it all on Clinton!
President Clinton's small tax increase on the wealthiest few percent -- and his other pro-growth policies -- erased the $290 Billion deficit Bush's father left behind. Clinton took over for Bush I and found the biggest deficit ever -- at least until Junior came along -- and turned around and left the biggest surplus ever to the guy's kid. It's pretty obvious how much that helped the US economy.
Let's look at what happens when you do what Clinton and the Democrats always do: making the Federal Government set a good fiscal example of playing by the rules and living within its means. This versus what the Bushes and Republicans always do: cutting taxes on the idle rich until the country can't pay its bills much less invest in the future and encouraging cheating with lax enforcement.
Clintonomics policies gave us the strongest, longest expansion in US history. Republicans can call that a bubble, a binge or whatever they want. I call that a time when happy days were here again.
http://www.mikehersh.com/article_97.shtml
Instead of tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent (http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm), how about using this money pay down the national debt! No, instead Bush insists on accumulating more! It will be the death knell for our economy. Explain to me how you can support Bush given the fact that he is bankrupting America!
We are still paying off the interest -- not even the principle -- on the borrow-and-spend Reaganomics debt. Reagan -- not Tip O'Neill or Ted Kennedy anyone else -- proposed, lobbied for and signed into law eight straight out of balance budgets which tripled the national debt. Three dozen Presidents from George Washington to Jimmy Carter and all the Congresses all put together never managed to roll up even one trillion in national debt. Reagan left us burdened with THREE TRILLION in debt. Think about that. Yeah, Reaganomics failed. The crushing debt tells only part of the story. The slow real growth, declining real wages for most Americans, the loss of good paying jobs with benefits and more failure prove Reagan was the worst economic president since Hoover.
Reagan's policies failed in the 80s just like they failed when Hoover tried them in the 20s. These policies have always failed and always will fail. They're failing now under Bush II. Why are we letting Bush and the Republicans use these tried and false failures again in the 2000s?
http://www.mikehersh.com/article_97.shtml
I didn't come here to talk economy, I came here to talk politics. Because to be honest with you, I don't know much about economy. But jeez, I guess agreeing with you wasn't good enough for you, you're a real a**hole you know that.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
You didn't agree with me, you took the opportunity to insult poor people who just lost everything. To be honest with you, I didn't expect an answer.
Politics and economics aren't two seperate issues. Bush is running our economy into the ground -- it won't continue to stay afloat on foreign financed debt indefinitely.
I ask a question that CLEARLY points out how incompetent Bush is -- and that makes me the a$$hole?
Cody: How do you delete comments? I noticed you did it. Someone is posting on my blog and is refusing to get the point of the entire thing. I said "goodbye" to him, but he continues to return. I DON'T WANT HIM THERE! I would appreciate any help you offer with this. I'll check back here for your answer.
you click on the little trash can picture by the bottom of the post. Only admins can do so though.
Thank you, Cody.
BC08: I think it's time to post something new.
Don't listen to them. This is a brillaint and convinving arguement for the war from a true American who cares about America. Certainlly more so than the liberal garbage circulating.
alyosha mcbain said...
Man, you are truly unbelievable. Trotting out the same discredited reasoning about the same falsified issues...do you ever feel angry at your chosen heroes for making you look so damn bad?
Unless you are going to enlist to fight in the war in Iraq, you should really tone down your cheerleader rhetoric.
This is so damn stupid. Not everyones a soldier alyosha mcbain. Some of us at home can support the war effort by writing truth instead of fighting. If you dont support the war why aren't you out protesting? You know nothing about war or combat because you are sitting at home on a cushy chair!
Excactly. When they play the go and enlist card its also a way of just dodging the issue, aka the strawman.
Post a Comment
<< Home