Money makes the world go 'round...

[Quad]

why the hell would you pretend you know what the 87 billion dollars were for when you don't? I don't get it?


Did you watch the senate debate and pass it?


Did you? I bet you haven't watched a day of c-span in your life.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Quad
nah. contractors rebuilding iraqi civilian structures.

further demonstrating your lack of knowledge about the 87 billion dollars and your succeptability to the punditry of chickenheaded yes-men.


the 87 billion dollars went to building iraqi physical therapy centers, garbage trucks, postal uniforms, etc. it was contractor payments for construction and funding to rebuild the iraqi infastructure.

stuff that bush said we wouldn't have to pay for when congress approved the war and stuff that we wouldn't have to pay for if we had given the weapons inspectors a little more time and agreed to let the UN govern reconstruction.

this is where you stop pretending like you know what the 87 billion dollars were for and move on to something else.

51 billion of the money was earmarked for ongoing military operations. You are completely clueless.

 

[Quad]

Fucking cheney is right, you people don't care about the "nuances."

You have no fucking clue about how our democracy works, you have no interest in finding out, you want to be told nice things that appeal to your primative little emotions and make you feel good, and that's why we have a president like george w bush in office.

You people are so stupid that if legislation has a pretty name and talk radio tells you the legislation is "pro conservative" or "pro liberal" or whatever moronic way you categorize yourself you don't even bother to look at it.

You people are so stupid that when george w bush's campaign marketing made gore "seem too smart" you people fell for it. You people are even dumber because you're letting him make a candidate that refuses to take populist stances as a "flip flopper."


is there any issue you people don't see as a "RIGHT VS LEFT DEBATE." don't you realize how fucking stupid it is to categorize yourself, especially since politicians for the most part work together, don't care about party affiliation, and only use those categorizations to win votes from people too stupid to do any real research.

 

[Quad]

No, about 26 billion dollars of it was designated for the military.

The only "troop support" argument that could be made is that "well see that means we had more money to pay for reconstruction so pentagon funds could be directed towards military spending only.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Quad
Fucking cheney

You have no fucking clue

You people are so stupid
You people are so stupid
You people are even dumber
fucking stupid
people too stupid to do any real research.

Just a friendly suggestion, you may want to chill out a bit with the constant namecalling.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Quad
No, about 26 billion dollars of it was designated for the military.

The only "troop support" argument that could be made is that "well see that means we had more money to pay for reconstruction so pentagon funds could be directed towards military spending only.

Wrong!

"During Monday’s congressional debate, Republicans defended the package as the best way to restore order in Iraq. The bill is dominated by $51 billion for U.S. military operations in Iraq and $18.6 billion to restore its oil industry, train police officers and otherwise rebuild the country’s economy and government."

http://www.msnbc.com/news/981452.asp?cp1=1

 

[Quad]

This is the board of fallacious arguments and misplaced hostility. There's no point in trying to communicate any other way!



you guys should go to this board - these people argue for the same stupid reasons as your morons but they are on the far left.

 

[jimnyc]

And again:

"Of that, $51 billion would be for supporting what the document called "a robust force in Iraq" of U.S. and multinational forces, and to repair and replace equipment. Currently there are about 140,000 U.S. troops in the country."

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/philly/news/local/6716874.htm?1c

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Quad
This is the board of fallacious arguments and misplaced hostility. There's no point in trying to communicate any other way!



you guys should go to this board - these people argue for the same stupid reasons as your morons but they are on the far left.

Looks like YOU were proven wrong and YOUR arguments are fallacious. I just provided facts, YOU didn't.

No links to other boards here either, thanks.

 

[insein]

Originally posted by Quad
This is the board of fallacious arguments and misplaced hostility. There's no point in trying to communicate any other way!



you guys should go to this board - these people argue for the same stupid reasons as your morons but they are on the far left.

Yep im sorry we're too intelligent for you, what with our proof and links and evidence to contradict your misguided lies and opinions. Perhaps you should goto said board of which the link has been surely deleted.

 

[Quad]

I don't really care what MSNBC says.

I saw it debated and saw it passed live on c-span, then i saw the rerun.

The comment "got most of what it sought" in that article is the most insulting because that bill, like all bush legislation, was presented as an "as-is, take it or leave it" total package that was non-debatable. If they even dropped the garbage truck funding like msnbc says I'll be suprised.


Show me a c-span website that talks about the 87 and i'll believe you, or better yet find a copy of the bill online!

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Quad
I don't really care what MSNBC says.

I saw it debated and saw it passed live on c-span, then i saw the rerun.

The comment "got most of what it sought" in that article is the most insulting because that bill, like all bush legislation, was presented as an "as-is, take it or leave it" total package that was non-debatable. If they even dropped the garbage truck funding like msnbc says I'll be suprised.


Show me a c-span website that talks about the 87 and i'll believe you, or better yet find a copy of the bill online!

We know where the money went. YOU are the one disputing that, so it's up to YOU to provide evidence to prove us wrong. I supplied data to backup my claims, YOU haven't.

 

[Quad]

I don't trust fox news, msnbc, or cnn - do you?





Why would you delete links to other boards anyways?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Quad
Why would you delete links to other boards anyways?

Read the rules at the top of the board.

 

[Quad]

You didn't supply data. You supplied an article that your original claim was based on.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Quad
You didn't supply data. You supplied an article that your original claim was based on.

Whatever. These are the facts, and they stand unless you can prove otherwise. Can you or can't you?

 

[insein]

Originally posted by Quad
I don't really care what MSNBC says.

I saw it debated and saw it passed live on c-span, then i saw the rerun.

The comment "got most of what it sought" in that article is the most insulting because that bill, like all bush legislation, was presented as an "as-is, take it or leave it" total package that was non-debatable. If they even dropped the garbage truck funding like msnbc says I'll be suprised.


Show me a c-span website that talks about the 87 and i'll believe you, or better yet find a copy of the bill online!

Beautiful. Saw it on CSPAN. then perhaps CSPAN.com has a link that can give you some credence. Ever think of that? No of course not. You just made it all up. Thank you, come again.

 

[jimnyc]

" The legislation I'm about to sign commits $87 billion to America's global offensive against terror. More than $65 billion of these new funds will pay for ongoing military operations."

Directly from the whitehouse:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031106-4.html

 

[insein]

Originally posted by jimnyc
" The legislation I'm about to sign commits $87 billion to America's global offensive against terror. More than $65 billion of these new funds will pay for ongoing military operations."

Directly from the whitehouse:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031106-4.html

Your missing the point. He cant provide a link to something he made up.

 

[Quad]

I think the idea that c-span analyzes everything congress does then reports it on their website is stupid since they have three channels.

I bet I can find sites all day that give different numbers for how the money was broken down.
Just found a PBS site that says 79 billion was for military spending and 6 billion was for infrastructure.
Another site that says 66 billion dollars was for military and 21 billion was for infrastructure.

Do you want me to paste you every link I find that gives a different number?