President Bush must have failed math

Noir has asked me about China, so here's the cartoon version just for him

[Electrophil]

Originally Posted by lhopp77

I think you need to again refresh your memory and reread a couple responses on here. You are so far left that you are out of touch with reality and the truth.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real.
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seizing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

And my personal favorite:
"In the four years since the inspectors left, Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

Lee

Freedom is NOT Free

Oh Lhopp, doing a copy and paste of some right wing propagation machine's sound bites only show the limited knowledge base you use for your argument. We are in this situation entirely due to the Administrations awareness that the majority will follow blindly...such as you continue to do.

So lets break down your little quotes with fact's shall we? One at a time, so it doesn't overwhelm you.

The first one:

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real.
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

This came from John F. Kerry's speech entitled.... wow! Entitled: “Mr. President, do not rush to war."

Here's a copy of the entire speech. Your soundbite is in paragraph 16. I highly suggest you read it yourself in it's entirety. If you allow the people who have control of your leash to do it, they will once again mis-lead you.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/0125...ry.no.rush.htm

I'll leave the 2nd for the next post. I don't want to overwhelm one of their faithful minions.

[Electrophil]

Ok Lhopp... The lessons to bring you out of your brainwash continues:.

The second quote:

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

This surgically removed statement came from his speech on 09 Oct 2002. The full text of the speech is here:

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/...erry-iraq.html

Yes, this came from a "for Kerry" org site. I am quickly grabbing the first full text items I find. The bottom line is it is "THE FULL TEXT" of what he said.

Once you read the entirety of the speech, you will see his main goal was in this paragraph here:

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

Once again, please do not allow your leaders to read it for you.

By the way, Kerry was one of the first to speak out.

[Electrophil]

Moving on to the third quote your masters have placed before you:

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.


Here's the full text.. yawn.. of the speech given as "Gore Assails Bush's Iraq Policy"

Once you read it, you will find his focus wasn't on the paragraph your "handlers" quoted, but was focused on these two paragraphs:

Quote:
Nevertheless, President Bush is telling us that America's most urgent requirement of the moment right now is not to redouble our efforts against Al Qaida, not to stabilize the nation of Afghanistan after driving his host government from power, even as Al Qaida members slip back across the border to set up in Afghanistan again.

Rather, he is telling us that our most urgent task right now is to shift our focus and concentrate on immediately launching a new war against Saddam Hussein. And the president is proclaiming a new uniquely American right to preemptively attack whomsoever he may deem represents a potential future threat.

I'll give you a break for a while. Give you time to read and observe. I appologize if I seem to be coming off a little harsh, but it seems sometimes people need a cold splash of water to wake up. I have no idea your education background. It may be quite solid. You may be some PhD running around working on nanotechnology. I don't know. But I do perceive that special interests are feeding you your information and you are blindly swallowing it without any personal research. I think this, because I keep needing to show you what really happened.

[Electrophil]

oops! Left out the text of the entire speech for the above:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...ext092302.html

[Electrophil]

Originally Posted by lhopp77

As usual you use loose facts to misrepresent the true picture. It is probably true in a pure mathmatical sense that the larger share of the tax cut went to the wealthy, but you need to reread the analogy below and also consider that the wealthy pay over 80 percent of the taxes. The super wealthy like the Kerrys and Kennedys actually pay very little because they keep there money in overseas trusts. The Kennedy only paid $130,000 inheritance tax on an over $500M dollar estate. Yet he wants to severely tax people like say a prosperous but not wealthy farmer who is rich in land and equipment (not money) when he tries to pass his estate on to his children. Most of the Heinz (Kerry wife) fortune is in overseas companies and investments.

And speaking of criminal associations--what about the Clinton last day in office pardon of a very wealthy crook that has even since been revealed as being involved in the Food for Oil program.
"Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

the first four men, the poorest, would pay nothing;
the fifth would pay $1;
the sixth would pay $3;
the seventh would pay $7;
the eighth pays $12;
the ninth would pay $18;
and the tenth man, the richest, would pay $59.
"That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement --- until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language a tax cut).

"'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I am going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20. So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00.

"The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six--the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

"The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, Then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay:

as before, the first four men paid nothing;
now the fifth man also paid nothing;
the sixth man now paid $2;
the seventh paid $5;
the eighth man paid $9;
the ninth man paid $12;
leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59.
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.

"But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. 'I only got a dollar out of the $20 reduction,' declared the sixth man, but he, pointing to the tenth. 'But he got $7!'. 'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man, 'I only saved a dollar too; it's unfair that he got seven times more than me!'

'"That's true,' shouted the seventh man, 'why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!. 'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison, 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

"The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were now Fifty-Two Dollars short of paying the bill. Imagine that!

And that, boys and girls, journalists, and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.

"Where would that leave the rest? Unfortunately, most taxing authorities anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straightforward logic."
__________________

Lee

This "joke" has already been debunked either in this thread of the middle east thread. Once again, the poorest are not invited to dinner in the first place, and the wealthiest one owns the restaurant, with his own serving staff. We've been here on this exact verbatim topic.

[Royal Tiger]

Tired of being in the "poor middle class"? Change your place in life. The majority of the so called 1% made thier own way during the infancy of the United Sates. Harriman founded Union Pacific and people laughed at him when he said he wanted to build a railroad all the way west to the Ocean. He did it with his money, both owned and borrowed while people sat around and called him a fool. Then he built the largest non-government owned railway on the planet. Now people sit around and whine at the money UP pulls in. Seems Bill Gates did himself OK. I had options coming out of HS and put myself through a college, no big loans or scholarships here. I make around $60k or so and live a decent life with a nice house and family. There are pages of want ads in the local paper, even McDonalds pays $8 an hour, and people sit around on welfare and *****. I could never be a liberal, whinning doesn't solve anything. You are responsible for you, a concept the Dems lost in the Carter years. My mother was and to a point still is a Dem, but they lost the message and she even voted for Bush. I'm not saying Bush is one of the greatest of all time, because he isn't, but neither was Clinton.

[demonsvx]

Originally Posted by Electrophil

Moving on to the third quote your masters have placed before you:

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.


Here's the full text.. yawn.. of the speech given as "Gore Assails Bush's Iraq Policy"

Once you read it, you will find his focus wasn't on the paragraph your "handlers" quoted, but was focused on these two paragraphs:

Quote:
Nevertheless, President Bush is telling us that America's most urgent requirement of the moment right now is not to redouble our efforts against Al Qaida, not to stabilize the nation of Afghanistan after driving his host government from power, even as Al Qaida members slip back across the border to set up in Afghanistan again.

Rather, he is telling us that our most urgent task right now is to shift our focus and concentrate on immediately launching a new war against Saddam Hussein. And the president is proclaiming a new uniquely American right to preemptively attack whomsoever he may deem represents a potential future threat.

I'll give you a break for a while. Give you time to read and observe. I appologize if I seem to be coming off a little harsh, but it seems sometimes people need a cold splash of water to wake up. I have no idea your education background. It may be quite solid. You may be some PhD running around working on nanotechnology. I don't know. But I do perceive that special interests are feeding you your information and you are blindly swallowing it without any personal research. I think this, because I keep needing to show you what really happened.

Iraq is not the only threat to the U.S. China, North Korea, Iran, and others have or are currently developing WMDs. Some of these countries also have a dictatorship with poor human rights issues, why are we not doing anything about them? China for instance is retrofitting old Russian subs with new technology along with their Navy. Do you think Taiwan is going to be our next escapade? Iran and N.Korea do want nukes, Pakistan, India, and Israel already have them and dont need much of a reason to use them. All it takes is one bad judgement call and all hell will break loose.

[Electrophil]

Originally Posted by Tigershark

Tired of being in the "poor middle class"? Change your place in life. The majority of the so called 1% made thier own way during the infancy of the United Sates. Harriman founded Union Pacific and people laughed at him when he said he wanted to build a railroad all the way west to the Ocean. He did it with his money, both owned and borrowed while people sat around and called him a fool. Then he built the largest non-government owned railway on the planet. Now people sit around and whine at the money UP pulls in. Seems Bill Gates did himself OK. I had options coming out of HS and put myself through a college, no big loans or scholarships here. I make around $60k or so and live a decent life with a nice house and family. There are pages of want ads in the local paper, even McDonalds pays $8 an hour, and people sit around on welfare and *****. I could never be a liberal, whinning doesn't solve anything. You are responsible for you, a concept the Dems lost in the Carter years. My mother was and to a point still is a Dem, but they lost the message and she even voted for Bush. I'm not saying Bush is one of the greatest of all time, because he isn't, but neither was Clinton.

All of them suck... The argument is the degree of suckiness.
I vote Carter as "Most Suckiest", and Bush an extremely close 2nd.

I vote Reagan as "Least suckiest" and Clinton an extremely close 2nd.

[Electrophil]

Originally Posted by demonsvx

Iraq is not the only threat to the U.S. China, North Korea, Iran, and others have or are currently developing WMDs. Some of these countries also have a dictatorship with poor human rights issues, why are we not doing anything about them? China for instance is retrofitting old Russian subs with new technology along with their Navy. Do you think Taiwan is going to be our next escapade? Iran and N.Korea do want nukes, Pakistan, India, and Israel already have them and dont need much of a reason to use them. All it takes is one bad judgement call and all hell will break loose.

Excellent points!!

[Royal Tiger]

I'd keep Reagan up there, Clinton close to the bottom. Truman and Eisenhower are both far down on my list as well, but for different reasons. Ike was an average General who rode his rep to the top while others did the real fighting. His decision to stop at the Elbe river was one of the worst decisions in recent military history and shaped Europe for the worst for over 60 years. Truman did good with the Atomic bomb, especially being a Democrat and all, but not letting Puerto Rico have their independance in 1946 has killed those of us paying for all of them on welfare now. They get Social Security numbers and citizenship at birth, but don't pay anything in.

[Electrophil]

Continuing on with the quotes:

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seizing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.


This is from a speech back before the war from Edward himself. I never did care for Kennedy much. But anyway, here's where this soundbite came from.

The title of this article is "Kennedy: Bush 'Not Convincing' on War with Iraq. I picked this one because it is from that far right CNSNews.com.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics....20020927c.html

[Electrophil]

Next one:

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.


This is from a Donahue interview. I couldn't find the transcripts, but the title of the interview was: "Defying the war cry".

Here's the preview:

http://sf.indymedia.org/print.php?id=153022

[Phast SVX]

not to be a stickler, but arent you just serfing the internet, doing the same damn thing?

Can't everyone just hit up the ATT bloggers bits, im really not digging all this political talk on our friendly SVX network(rolls eyes) . Agree to disagree, or continue to be just like the politicians. There is no right answer to life, everyone chooses to live it as they please. If you are this website right now, blabbing and complaining either way, you (or your ancestors) have no doubt exploited someone somewhere to help you get where you are. and NO, i dont want to hear a long explanation showing your family tree and how you are clean!

bipa said it best. You can have a good thesis, you can have a good conclusion, but in the end, "all's fair in love and war"
phil

[Electrophil]

And the next one:

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,


This come from the text of his speech to congress on voting for the Lieberman/McCain resolution, and is probably the best of all of them. He had a very moderate viewpoint, and was one of the few that warned a war in Iraq won't be the same cakewalk the liberation of Kuwait turned out to be. It's long, but well worth reading. He had strong points for both going, and not going to war. It's a shame his "for" points were based on faulty intelligence.

http://rockefeller.senate.gov/news/2...mt0102002.html