Bush is sabre rattling yet again........

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: hawk16
We are having no trouble over in iraq, the liberal news likes to make it out to be that. We are winning the war and the iraqies are loving us for it, the only places were people are getting killed is in the hostile zones, which are few.

Hmmmmmmmm, what happened over the last couple of days?

 

[TNM93]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: hawk16
We are having no trouble over in iraq, the liberal news likes to make it out to be that. We are winning the war and the iraqies are loving us for it, the only places were people are getting killed is in the hostile zones, which are few.

Hmmmmmmmm, what happened over the last couple of days?

It's the liberal media at it again is what he probably thinks of such a story. Iraq is paradise, people are cheering in the streets and giving troops flowers, yada yada yada...........Might as well be watching Fox News.

 

[Tab]

What liberals in this forum want a "shelf-life" on some corporations? Could I see some quotes? Yes, there are some really dumb threads out there that are made by crazy liberals, you might notice that I don't post in them at all.

They do? They didn't nearly have as much money as George W. Bush Campaign, if you think moveon.org is the centerpeice of the Democrats, you're sadly mistaken.

I know you well enough.

Okay? It's a presidental pardon? I don't know who he pardoned or why, nor how it's revalent to this discussion. The Monica Lewnsky stuff went out of control. I remeamber watching tv and seeing Ads with 1-800 numbers to call if the president sexsually harassed you, it's utter bullsh1t. Same with him smuggling drugs and what not. Whitewater was a complete fabrication. David Brock, the guy who organized the smear campagin on Bill Clinton admits it was all fake.

Bill Clinton is one of the better presidents, he should have had a better value system. Espically, if you're the president of the United States.

What the hell are you talking about? Iraq invaded Kuwait, we invaded Iraq after they attacked another country. We have a right to protect our allies. The Oil-For-Food Program allowed Iraq to sell oil for food, it wasn't a probation program.

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: Tab
What liberals in this forum want a "shelf-life" on some corporations? Could I see some quotes? Yes, there are some really dumb threads out there that are made by crazy liberals, you might notice that I don't post in them at all.

You aren't as bad as most, but on most other forums I frequent (and these aren't www.rightwing.org types of BS forums I mean real forums) you would be further from center than 90% of the people there.

Yet you are a moderate on P&N which is freakin strange.

They do? They didn't nearly have as much money as George W. Bush Campaign, if you think moveon.org is the centerpeice of the Democrats, you're sadly mistaken.

MoveOn.org Moves Big $
7/28/2005 10:19 AM

MoveOn.org Political Action, the federal PAC, reported raising $4,590,613 and spending $5,576,029 in the first six months of 2005, leaving cash on hand of $1,098,364. The PAC raised $2,357,515 in small unitemized contributions. The PAC gave $250,000 to Americans United to Protect Social Security. They also sent $834,212 in earmarked contributions to Friends of Robert C. Byrd Committee; $160,780 to Bob Casey for Pennsylvania; $156,884 to Lampson for Congress; $151,342 to Bill Nelson For Senate (FL); and $12,251 to Sanders for Senate. The PAC spent $2,160,2523 on media production and advertising.

Political Money Line

Fact is the RNC is taking in more money than the DNC, but not in the way that you'd think. The Democrats are taking in the same amount of money as the Republicans. But more and more Democrats are giving their money to moveon.org instead of the DNC where as the RNC is still taking in the majority of the money that goes to Republicans.

Thus, they are becoming the mouthpiece of their party.

Okay? It's a presidental pardon? I don't know who he pardoned or why, nor how it's revalent to this discussion. The Monica Lewnsky stuff went out of control. I remeamber watching tv and seeing Ads with 1-800 numbers to call if the president sexsually harassed you, it's utter bullsh1t. Same with him smuggling drugs and what not. Whitewater was a complete fabrication. David Brock, the guy who organized the smear campagin on Bill Clinton admits it was all fake.

If that helps you sleep at night, then go ahead and think that.

He was a sleazy guy and sugar coating his sleaziness is near impossible.

 

[Tab]

I don't consider myself a moderate, I consider my self left leaning.

Okay? What's your point? That doesn't have anything to do with what I said, the Republicans had about 100 million more dollars that they spent on campagining.

Bill Clinton is one of the best presidents ever, he gets way too much flak for the Monica ordeal.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Tab
Bill Clinton is one of the best presidents ever

:Q

😕

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Tab
Bill Clinton is one of the best presidents ever

:Q

😕

🙂

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Tab
I don't consider myself a moderate, I consider my self left leaning.

Okay? What's your point? That doesn't have anything to do with what I said, the Republicans had about 100 million more dollars that they spent on campagining.

Bill Clinton is one of the best presidents ever, he gets way too much flak for the Monica ordeal.

Let me clarify, the Republican party spent more than the Democratic party. Republican groups (including the RNC) and Democratic groups (including moveon.org) ended up spending almost the same amount of money during the 04 campaign.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Tab
I don't consider myself a moderate, I consider my self left leaning.

Okay? What's your point? That doesn't have anything to do with what I said, the Republicans had about 100 million more dollars that they spent on campagining.

Bill Clinton is one of the best presidents ever, he gets way too much flak for the Monica ordeal.

Let me clarify, the Republican party spent more than the Democratic party. Republican groups (including the RNC) and Democratic groups (including moveon.org) ended up spending almost the same amount of money during the 04 campaign.

That's pretty much what he said.

 

[Tab]

Okay.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Tab
I don't consider myself a moderate, I consider my self left leaning.

Okay? What's your point? That doesn't have anything to do with what I said, the Republicans had about 100 million more dollars that they spent on campagining.

Bill Clinton is one of the best presidents ever, he gets way too much flak for the Monica ordeal.

Let me clarify, the Republican party spent more than the Democratic party. Republican groups (including the RNC) and Democratic groups (including moveon.org) ended up spending almost the same amount of money during the 04 campaign.

That's pretty much what he said.

No, he said Republicans spent $100 mil more, which is false. Democrats and Republicans spent nearly the same amount.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Tab
I don't consider myself a moderate, I consider my self left leaning.

Okay? What's your point? That doesn't have anything to do with what I said, the Republicans had about 100 million more dollars that they spent on campagining.

Bill Clinton is one of the best presidents ever, he gets way too much flak for the Monica ordeal.

Let me clarify, the Republican party spent more than the Democratic party. Republican groups (including the RNC) and Democratic groups (including moveon.org) ended up spending almost the same amount of money during the 04 campaign.

That's pretty much what he said.

No, he said Republicans spent $100 mil more, which is false. Democrats and Republicans spent nearly the same amount.

Sorry, my bad...

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://
<b">CNN Election Results">http://...special/president/fec/total.spent.html</a>

George - 256,077,640
Kerry - 204,376,377

George Bush had spent 51,701,263 more onthe 2004 Campagin, I don't consider this to be nearly the same amount, do you?

 

[Deudalus]

George Bush had spent 51,701,263 more onthe 2004 Campagin, I don't consider this to be nearly the same amount, do you?

Are we going to keep sifting through figures until we find something that suits your agenda?

If Kerry would have spent all that he raised, which he didn't which pissed off the DNC, he would have spent 6.5 million less than Bush did. That sounds like alot, until you realize that when you are dealing in the 260 million dollar range 6.5 million is nothing.

So are you trying to say that Republicans are evil money grubbing whores because Democrats refuse to spend the money they took in?

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

George Bush had spent 51,701,263 more onthe 2004 Campagin, I don't consider this to be nearly the same amount, do you?

Are we going to keep sifting through figures until we find something that suits your agenda?

If Kerry would have spent all that he raised, which he didn't which pissed off the DNC, he would have spent 6.5 million less than Bush did. That sounds like alot, until you realize that when you are dealing in the 260 million dollar range 6.5 million is nothing.

So are you trying to say that Republicans are evil money grubbing whores because Democrats refuse to spend the money they took in?

Kerry didn't spend all the money that he raised, that's moot point. I didn't sift through any figures, I simply typed in google "2004 election results CNN".

Your last statement is a strawman.

 

[Deudalus]

Kerry didn't spend all the money that he raised, that's moot point. I didn't sift through any figures, I simply typed in google "2004 election results CNN".

So you are seriously arguing that if both had the opportunity to spend an equal amount of money and one did not, that the other guy was far richer and thus the odds were tipped in his favor?

There is a difference between lack of ability to compete and refusing to compete.

Please don't let your blinders get in the way of simple common sense.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Kerry didn't spend all the money that he raised, that's moot point. I didn't sift through any figures, I simply typed in google "2004 election results CNN".

So you are seriously arguing that if both had the opportunity to spend an equal amount of money and one did not, that the other guy was far richer and thus the odds were tipped in his favor?

There is a difference between lack of ability to compete and refusing to compete.

Please don't let your blinders get in the way of simple common sense.

Where did I ever imply that?

It doesn't matter which party raised how much, it matters how much they spent. Apparently, the democrats didn't spend all of it for whatever reasons. The republicans had a moderate monetary advatange.

 

[shilala]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Taggart
If Iran actually develops nuclear weapons, we would be CRAZY not to take military action. Hopefully Israel will take care of the situation like they did with Saddam before this is necessary, though.

So you support military action against North Korea, China, India, and Pakistan then?

I mean, we'd be CRAZY not to take military action since these countries have developed nuclear weapons.

I support microwaving anything that isn't the USA (although toasting West Virginia probably wouldn't be so bad).
I kinda like those wacky Jamaicans and I'd be sad to see their flesh bubbling, but I'd get over it.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Well someone needs to get Iran's attention. I do hope that we don't have to send troops and fully expect we will not have to. However to ignore Iran's nuclear goals is essentially the same as putting your neck in the noose.

Yes they will eventually get the bomb, it doesn't mean we need to let them get it soon or easily. Fortunately Europe will most likely be the first to pay for the lack of action. Each time it looks as if they will hold Iran accountable they back off.

 

[Hacp]

How does all this have to do with the story? IMO Iran should be able to produce nuclear energy, but not in Iran...... Put the Power plants in Isreal and have them wire it to Iran for free 🙂.

I don't think that Iran would officially bomb someone with nukes, but terrorists can always find ways to secure some nuclear material. Giving those terrorists more options is always a bad thing.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Hacp
How does all this have to do with the story? IMO Iran should be able to produce nuclear energy, but not in Iran...... Put the Power plants in Isreal and have them wire it to Iran for free 🙂.

and with Israel having the option of turning off half of Iran, sure I would think they would looove the power

 

[conjur]

Well, Israel is turning up the rhetoric.


Israel says Iran six months from having nuclear bomb
http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=c3b0254c2ad16396

Iran may be as little as six months away from completing the know-how to build a nuclear bomb, Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said Monday.

According to Haaretz newspaper, Shalom told a meeting of U.S. Jewish leaders in New York, "The question is not if they are going to hold that bomb in 2009 or 2010 or 2011, the question is when they will have the full knowledge."

"According to our people, security and intelligence, they are very, very close. It may be only six months before they will have that full knowledge," he said.

Israel has been pressing the United States to pressure Iran through ardent supporters Vice President Dick Cheney, U.S. Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, and former Defense Policy Board Chairman Richard Perle.

Gee...what a surprise. Israel pressing through the fvcking PNAC asshats that got us into trouble in Iraq. Maybe the lapdogs of the MSM will keep growing the teeth they have of late and nip this crap in the bud.


"It may be only six months"... :roll:

 

[maluckey]

After reading this thread I'm confused....

So it's a good thing when a thirld world nation with a recent history of terrorism has nukes right? It's also good to do nothing till someone forces your hand right?

On the other hand I see ALMOST nobody on the thread advocating violence at this juncture.

One side says the U.S. is evil and should let Iran have nukes and the other side says that they should not.

I feel that they abide by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (which they are a signatory nation). They signed the treaty, and now they wish to violate their own laws. Why should the rest of te World not be suspicious?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: maluckey
After reading this thread I'm confused....

So it's a good thing when a thirld world nation with a recent history of terrorism has nukes right? It's also good to do nothing till someone forces your hand right?

On the other hand I see ALMOST nobody on the thread advocating violence at this juncture.

One side says the U.S. is evil and should let Iran have nukes and the other side says that they should not.

I feel that they abide by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (which they are a signatory nation). They signed the treaty, and now they wish to violate their own laws. Why should the rest of te World not be suspicious?

Why shouldn't they? Appears others on the NPT are continuing nuclear weapon research...*cough*nuclear bunker busters*cough*. And, nukes are a deterrent and I would imagine some in Iran are rather worried of another US invasion of a Mideast nation. They could be posturing to prevent such an invasion or maybe they're really working on something.

 

[fornax]

Originally posted by: maluckey After reading this thread I'm confused..

I feel that they abide by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (which they are a signatory nation). They signed the treaty, and now they wish to violate their own laws. Why should the rest of te World not be suspicious?

I think you're very much confused, but not from reading this thread. Why don't you go to the UN's or IAEA web site and read the NP treaty. You'll find that under the treaty Iran has right to the full enrichment cycle, and to virtually any nuclear-related activities as long as they're not directed toward development of nuclear weapons and their proliferation. Not only that, but according to the treaty, nuclear-capable states (including the US) have an obligation to help Iran develop its nuclear energy capability. Of course, as is customary for us (and the "big" European states), we conveniently ignore some provisions of the treaty and selectively choose what to enforce and what not. After the comical performance of Colin Powel in the UN and the ridiculous statements and double standards we're notorious for, do you think anyone takes us seriously anymore?

 

[TNM93]

Originally posted by: maluckey
After reading this thread I'm confused....

So it's a good thing when a thirld world nation with a recent history of terrorism has nukes right? It's also good to do nothing till someone forces your hand right?

On the other hand I see ALMOST nobody on the thread advocating violence at this juncture.

One side says the U.S. is evil and should let Iran have nukes and the other side says that they should not.

I feel that they abide by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (which they are a signatory nation). They signed the treaty, and now they wish to violate their own laws. Why should the rest of te World not be suspicious?

It's of my OPINION (hard word for some of you) that you can't have double standards. On the one hand let Israel have nukes, but on the other, expect Middle Eastern countries who are enemies with Israel to just sit back. If you happened to be born in Iran, and witnessed all the hands off intervention that had been done to your countryin the 70's and 80's, and are now witnessing a war in your own backyard, would you not try to arm yourself? I'm sure you would.