Why United States is going to lose the War on Terror

[Zhukov]

Well, I'm not sure what you mean when you say take advantage of it,

Sure you do, don't play coy. You know what I'm talking about.

but i do want to get our country back

Don't we all?

I want to help reclaim our God given rights in the constitution. If we continue to let this government do what its doing, we will be slaves, we will have a cage for our minds, and the scary part is that alot of people wont even realize that they are enslaved.

That's just it. It's too late to do anything, so you need to make a descision: would you rather be a slave or a slave-master? Not really too difficult of a descision is it?

Don't worry yourself about the Constitution or your rights. They're gone. Forget them.

What you have to do now is join the team and get on board for the Big Win.

The Brave New World needs you Dan! Don't let us down!

http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/theme_home7.jsp

http://www.fema.gov/career/index.jsp

http://www.usafreedomcorps.gov/

 

[DKSuddeth]

What you have to do now is join the team and get on board for the Big Win.

The Brave New World needs you Dan! Don't let us down!

http://www.dksuddethforemporeroftheworld.com

come join us Dan.
:firing: :2guns:

 

[JIHADTHIS]

come join us Dan.
:firing: :2guns:

I am sooooooo thinking "Luke, Come with me to the dark side" as only Vader can say it :dev1:

 

[Said1]

I am sooooooo thinking "Luke, Come with me to the dark side" as only Vader can say it :dev1:

I HAD something serious to say, but cleaning coke that I sprayed all over my monitor from laughing has made me forget my point.

 

[DKSuddeth]

I am sooooooo thinking "Luke, Come with me to the dark side" as only Vader can say it :dev1:

but don't forget the destination JIHAD!!!!

http://www.dksuddethforemporeroftheworld.com

 

[JIHADTHIS]

I HAD something serious to say, but cleaning coke that I sprayed all over my monitor from laughing has made me forget my point.

Sorry Said! (hope that was coke as in cola........DOH!)

 

[JIHADTHIS]

but don't forget the destination JIHAD!!!!

http://www.dksuddethforemporeroftheworld.com

Only if I get to live forever!
:funnyface

 

[Annie]

but don't forget the destination JIHAD!!!!

http://www.dksuddethforemporeroftheworld.com

Where is KL to remind you that you are a legend in your own mind? I thought the game was dying out!

 

[wade]

Wade, you are an idiot.

Better than being a fool.

the economy started tanking in 1998 when the Asian currencies took a dive after George Soros shorted the Thai Baht.

So you are saying our economy is depenadant on Asian currency? You prove my first assertion.

Kim Jong Il was NOT abiding by the agreement. That is why Bush backed out.

Ummm.. since there was no agreement, how could Kim not be abiding by it? It was on the table, but Bush chose not to initiate it. Again you prove my assertion.

I do business in Korea and I travel there often. The Korean people agree with Bush's stance. They will tell you that we cannot trust Kim Jong Il.

Just because there is bad blood between N. and S. Korea does not mean we should never negotiate with N. Korea. S. Korea loves the American dollars that flow into it to defend it against the North. Again, you prove my assertion.

Once you know what you are talking about, I will reply. Until then, I am done as you obviously have no clue what you are talking about.

Run away when you are wrong. You're not only a fool, you're a moron.


Wade.

 

[wade]

Clinton turned a blind eye to terrorism for 8 years, and I didn't hear the Democrats warning us about terrorism.

Nor the republicans... what's your point?

As freeandfun pointed out and as anyone who doesn't try to rewrite history to make Bush look bad will tell you, the economy really was not that good in 2000. But don't let facts get in the way of your argument.

There is a huge difference between "not that good" and "bad". The fact is under the Bush adminstration we have gone into heavy deficity spending, and the economy has gotten increasingly bad. They have done everything they can to hide this from the electorate, but no matter who wins, things are going to get very bad after the election. By this time next year, unemployment will be twice what it is today.

Also, a lot of the numbers like unemployment and other economic statistics are not much different than they were under Clinton. That's pretty good considering 9/11, corporate corruption, and the constant threat of terrorism (if a Democrat was in office, the biased media would be saying the same thing).

Do you understand how unemployment "numbers" are calculated? Lots of people who were considered unemployed under Clinton are now off the lists entirely. They are not counted as unemployed, but they still do not have a job. After one year, if you don't get a job, under most circumstance you are removed from the labor force and thus no longer count as unemployed.

Also, consider all the poeple who have been called up into the military, opening jobs for those who would otherwise be employed. This also hides the true unemployment numbers.

A lot of the so-called rich really are not that rich and many of them are small business owners.

LOL - the rich are not really rich? I suppose the rich are really just middle class? So what if they are small business owners? The fact is, as I've shown on this board (I think in this thread?), between 1946-79 (where we had a democrate congress) all sectors of the population shared fairly equally in income growth levels, generally all sectors about doubled their incomes over this time period. However, from 1980-present, where we've had mostly republican adminstrations and republican run congresses, the lowest 1/5th of the population has suffered a reduction in income, the next 60% has about held their position, the next 15% has more than doubled their incomes, and the richest 5% have enjoyed an 850% increase in their incomes. And these people need tax relief?

What are these "generally bad economic policies" you speak of?

Hmmm... Tax breaks for the rich. Rampant deficit spending. An increase in corporate subidies. etc...

How exactly has he raped the environment? Give me specific examples.

1) huge reductions in the "Superfund" program which is now bankrupt make toxic waste cleanups a thing of the past.

2) EPA no longer bans the sale of PCB contaminated land.

3) The "Health forests" program - which opens forests to nearly unregulated logging.

4) Failure to maintain our national parks, the $ that are allocated are mostly being used to build roads into unspoilt wilderness areas, clearly the intent is that in the future these will be opened to logging and mining.

5) Slashing of Conservation funding by almost $2 billion. This money is mostly used to remove invasive species, reduce stream and river bank erosion, and generally improve critical environmental habitats.

6) "Clean Skies" initative and "Clean Air Interstate" rule - allows more pollution than existing law and does nothing to curb CO2 pollution. Basically these replace the Clean Air Act with much less effective policies. Under the Bush/republican policy, we expect a 19% increase in CO2 emmisions by 2012.

7) Legislation to effective classify mercury as a non-hazardous material.

8) Failure to enact tax incentives for renuable and energy efficient technologies, cutting of R&D funding for such technologies, and pushing Congress to pass an energy bill that gives billions in tax subsidies to some of the worst polluters.

9) Cuts to the climate sciences program and stalling on any programs to reduce US contribution to global warming.

10) Reductions in the Clean Water Act. A reduction of 3/4 of a billion dollars in sewage and other clean water funding dealing with pollution problems in the Great Lakes.

11) Repeated attempts to open some of the most sensitive envrionmental areas to oil and natural gas companies.

As far as health care issues go, what do you propose? What about how the Democrats said they would do something about it but didn't from 92-00?

Ummm... the Democrats were making progress towards a basic national health care system in 92 and 93. In 2004, the Repblicans gained control of Congress and shot it down.

What "general freedoms" are you talking about? I always hear people mention this, but they usually can't give examples.

The freedom to assemble has been smashed. Freedom of speech has been severely limited (you cannot excercise free speech except where it is allowed). The Fed. gov't now can listen in on your phone conversations w/o a specific warrant. They can also hold you in jail without filing charges for however long they choose. The FBI has been harrassing protest groups with no history of violence. These are just a few examples.


Wade.

 

[wade]

And you're right. Federal expenditures in the Dept. of Education have (unfortunately) gone up every single year Pres. Bush has been in office.

FY2001= 73.9 B
FY2002= 86.4 B
FY2003= 96.5 B
FY2004P= 105.2 B
FY2005E= 111.0 B (a 50.1% increase in spending since 2001)

Dept. of Ed. Budget

Of course there is the possibility that what he meant by "raping....education" was 'giving them more money'....

These increases still fall short of the need. More children than ever are being "left behind". Education was already far behind where it should have been because of 8 years of Republican budgets before Bush took office. He's made some progress but he has not done enough, and he has not upheld his commitment that no child would be left behind.

Wade.

 

[freeandfun1]

So you are saying our economy is depenadant on Asian currency? You prove my first assertion.

In the 90's yes. The economy of the 90's was driven by high-tech exports. Especially products for the wireless communications market. If you knew anything, you would know that. When the Asian economies tanked, we lost our largest customers. Again, go back and study economics 101.

Here is a decent article on the subject and it is from PBS so don't cry foul.

THE RIPPLE EFFECT

The interviews were made in early 1998 when the full impact of the crisis still had not had an impact. It was only a matter of time. Fewer exports equaled less income for corporation and therefore, it had a direct impact on the stock market and the economy.

Ummm.. since there was no agreement, how could Kim not be abiding by it? It was on the table, but Bush chose not to initiate it. Again you prove my assertion.

First you say Bush didn't abide by the agreement now you say there was no agreement. Which was it?

Since you obviously don't know, let me tell you. The agreement was violated by NK so we stopped shipping them oil and we stopped construction on the nuke plant we were paying for. If there was no agreement, how did we start construction in NK?

Here is a history lesson for you wittle boy:

1994 Framework Agreement

In October 2002, North Korean officials acknowledged the existence of a clandestine program to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons that is in violation of the Agreed Framework and other agreements.

The Agreed Framework signed by the United States and North Korea on October 21, 1994 in Geneva agreed that:

* North Korea would freeze its existing nuclear program and agree to enhanced International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards
* Both sides would cooperate to replace the D.P.R.K.'s graphite-moderated reactors for related facilities with light-water (LWR) power plants.
* Both countries would move toward full normalization of political and economic relations.
* Both sides will work together for peace and security on a nuclear-free Korean peninsula.
* And that both sides would work to strengthen the international nuclear non-proliferation regime.

AGREED FRAMEWORK BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF KOREA

As usual, you have shown your ignorance on subject you proclaim to know so much about.

What a fool YOU are.

 

[Zhukov]

These increases still fall short of the need.

In who's opinion? Yours?

And now it's "these increases still fall short of the need".....

Well...what happened to "he's raping...education"?

In any event, since we're giving out opinions, in my opinion $111 billion spent by the Federal Government on education is $111 billion it has neither the authority to spend nor the wherewithal to spend usefully and therefore $111 billion too much.

Each school district should have the right to fund, or not fund, it's public education system to whatever degree it wishes because it is after all their responsibility.

 

[wade]

In the 90's yes. The economy of the 90's was driven by high-tech exports. Especially products for the wireless communications market. If you knew anything, you would know that. When the Asian economies tanked, we lost our largest customers. Again, go back and study economics 101.

Here is a decent article on the subject and it is from PBS so don't cry foul.

THE RIPPLE EFFECT

The interviews were made in early 1998 when the full impact of the crisis still had not had an impact. It was only a matter of time. Fewer exports equaled less income for corporation and therefore, it had a direct impact on the stock market and the economy.

I know all about the economic downturn in Asia, particularly in Japan. However, the idea that this and this alone was the cause of the economic downturn is silly. Much of the economic downturn was the fact that the republicans deregulated so many things that protected us from false corporate reporting that the whole thing got blown out of proportion. Corporations started cheating on their accounting, and lying about their positions, and then the shit started hitting the fan when the bubble burst and it was found things were never really so good as people had thought they were. Had the "moral majority" not pushed their stupid "contract with america" thing through, we might have avoided much of the damage which occured when the bubble burst. Lots of $ went from the middle class to the rich during this period, which was probably the intent in the first place.

First you say Bush didn't abide by the agreement now you say there was no agreement. Which was it?

Since you obviously don't know, let me tell you. The agreement was violated by NK so we stopped shipping them oil and we stopped construction on the nuke plant we were paying for. If there was no agreement, how did we start construction in NK?

I never said Bush didn't abide by the agreement, or that an agreement of any kind was reached. I said that an agreement was on the table and he chose not to conclude it. You are talking about the failed 94 agreement, I'm talking about the deal that was on the table when Bush took office in 2001.

Here is a history lesson for you wittle boy:

1994 Framework Agreement

AGREED FRAMEWORK BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF KOREA

As usual, you have shown your ignorance on subject you proclaim to know so much about.

What a fool YOU are.

You're memory and attention are slective. The earlier deal was scrapped when the Congress went republican in 1994 and the new Congress refused to ratify the deal.

And this has nothing to do with the 2000 deal which the Bush administation chose not to conclude, the 94 deal was already gone when the 2000 deal came about.

Lets face it, your an ultra-right winger who cannot see the forest because all the trees are in the way. At least learn to read both sides of an issue before commenting.

Wade

 

[wade]

In who's opinion? Yours?

And now it's "these increases still fall short of the need".....

Well...what happened to "he's raping...education"?

In any event, since we're giving out opinions, in my opinion $111 billion spent by the Federal Government on education is $111 billion it has neither the authority to spend nor the wherewithal to spend usefully and therefore $111 billion too much.

Each school district should have the right to fund, or not fund, it's public education system to whatever degree it wishes because it is after all their responsibility.

I can agree with that position. But Bush made a pledge that "no child shall be left behind", and he's failing on that pledge.

I agree, education should be a state issue, with only minimal federal involvement. The federal education budget should be about college level education, not earlier levels. But I didn't make the pledge.

Wade.

 

[Zhukov]

But Bush made a pledge that "no child shall be left behind", and he's failing on that pledge.

That's a far cry from "raping education" though now isn't it?

 

[wade]

Okay, I will concede that on education Bush is okay, at least $ wise.

But on every other issue I presented, he is terrible.

Wade.

 

[Annie]

Okay, I will concede that on education Bush is okay, at least $ wise.

But on every other issue I presented, he is terrible.

Wade.

On another thread, I just hit you on China. Face it junior, you need to do your homework. Perhaps before you have time for this? :huh:

 

[tim_duncan2000]

And these people need tax relief?

So I guess you think we should tax the hell out of small business owners (which does not help them)?

The freedom to assemble has been smashed. Freedom of speech has been severely limited (you cannot excercise free speech except where it is allowed). The Fed. gov't now can listen in on your phone conversations w/o a specific warrant. They can also hold you in jail without filing charges for however long they choose. The FBI has been harrassing protest groups with no history of violence. These are just a few examples.

You still didn't give specific examples. I don't see how speech is being limited. Newspapers, celebrities, average people, filmmakers (like that lying, fat asshole Moore), etc say what they want about Bush and nothing happens to them.

Ummm... the Democrats were making progress towards a basic national health care system in 92 and 93.

The hell they were!

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0194c.asp

 

[wade]

So I guess you think we should tax the hell out of small business owners (which does not help them)?

I think the top 5% do not need tax relief. They have enjoyed an over 8 fold increase in their income levels over the last 25 years when everyone else is treading water.

You still didn't give specific examples. I don't see how speech is being limited. Newspapers, celebrities, average people, filmmakers (like that lying, fat asshole Moore), etc say what they want about Bush and nothing happens to them.

But now you have to protest miles away from the location you wish to protest. This is a reduction in the freedom of speech. Now, FBI agents are harrasing political protest groups who have no history of violence (see the news - it's a current story). This is a reduction in freedom of speech. The wire tapping laws now allow wire taps w/o specific warrants. This is a big reduction in the right to privacy.

Are you denying these things are happening?

As for medical care, I suppose you think the current 43.6 million people w/o health coverage of any kind is acceptable? We are the only nation in the first world that allows so many of its people to go without primary medical care - that's a disgrace!

Wade.