PDA

View Full Version : Anti-war protestors come out of Iraq Pro-war



PhinPhan1227
03-21-2003, 04:33 PM
UPI:

A group of American anti-war demonstrators who came to Iraq with Japanese human shield volunteers made it across the border today with 14 hours of uncensored video, all shot without Iraqi government minders present. Kenneth Joseph, a young American pastor with the Assyrian Church of the East, told UPI the trip "had shocked me back to reality." Some of the Iraqis he interviewed on camera "told me they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start. They were willing to see their homes demolished to gain their freedom from Saddam's bloody tyranny. They convinced me that Saddam was a monster the likes of which the world had not seen since Stalin and Hitler. He and his sons are sick sadists. Their tales of slow torture and killing made me ill, such as people put in a huge shredder for plastic products, feet first so they could hear their screams as bodies got chewed up from foot to head."


http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030321-023627-5923r

LeftCoastPhin
03-21-2003, 04:34 PM
That says it all

t2thejz
03-21-2003, 04:36 PM
imagine that

Barbarian
03-21-2003, 11:00 PM
Phin... thanks for posting that... I need to save this for a certain somebody that I know whom I have been debating for a while now about the war.

Miafan
03-21-2003, 11:57 PM
During my lunch break at work today, we had the news on and there was this part where you see a few marines in a truck passing through a town and the Iraqis are waving to them. The image only lasted a few seconds, but it is a clear example that many of these people are glad to see our soldiers out there fighting for there freedom. Saddam is a sick person, and he was a danger to his people and the world if he remained in power.

Muck
03-22-2003, 01:37 AM
The "Anti-War" movement is losing steam and credence every day. The more these kinds of stories come out....the more Iraqis we see on TV welcoming the troops....the more former Iraqi soldiers we see on TV supporting the US.....the less credibility these ingorants have.

Wildbill3
01-13-2005, 04:43 AM
Interesting post, I thought I should bring it back from the dead, we seem to have a few posters here who think the Iraqi war was ONLY about WMD.

Pagan
01-13-2005, 08:36 AM
I wonder why a certain poster who shall renmain nameless, but keeps posting EVERY article he can find to slam Bush and the war, hasn't brought this up?

Things that make you go "hmmmmmm...."

Wildbill3
01-13-2005, 09:34 AM
well, you know the liberal media, can't post anything good about somebody they don't like I guess.

Nzone
01-13-2005, 02:32 PM
Oh yes, we know the beheadings and torture the Saudi's do is so much better. But thats different, Bush loves and protects them even though they are the very people that have funded hatred for Americans through the madrassas (Wahhabis). Where do you think Binnie got his education?


Here is a PBS link.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/interviews/ahmed.html

Pagan
01-13-2005, 02:33 PM
You don't get it, do you?

finataxia24
01-13-2005, 02:37 PM
UPI:

A group of American anti-war demonstrators who came to Iraq with Japanese human shield volunteers made it across the border today with 14 hours of uncensored video, all shot without Iraqi government minders present. Kenneth Joseph, a young American pastor with the Assyrian Church of the East, told UPI the trip "had shocked me back to reality." Some of the Iraqis he interviewed on camera "told me they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start. They were willing to see their homes demolished to gain their freedom from Saddam's bloody tyranny. They convinced me that Saddam was a monster the likes of which the world had not seen since Stalin and Hitler. He and his sons are sick sadists. Their tales of slow torture and killing made me ill, such as people put in a huge shredder for plastic products, feet first so they could hear their screams as bodies got chewed up from foot to head."


http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030321-023627-5923r


speechless

Jwcolour
01-13-2005, 04:02 PM
You don't get it, do you?

Some people never will

MDFINFAN
01-13-2005, 04:19 PM
This is a good post, but freeing the Iraqis ppl were not the reason we went to war, it is a noble cause, but there's a number of other countries we should do this for as well. We went to war because 1. WMD, remember Powell's presentation to the UN. 2. Sadam interaction or relationship with Bin Ladin's group. 3. Put in a democratic gov't. Only when the first 2 didn't materialize was 4. Free the ppl added. Be honest about the sequence. Anyone would want to be free of a tyrant, but this article doesn't change the reasons for this war, nor does it set the US up as a good samaritian when we won't and can't do it for every country like a Iraq. So I don't think this article qualifies anyone to get on a high and mighty ego thing here. Again freeing ppl is a noble act, but it wasn't the first reason we went to war, it's a byproduct of that war. Don't get confused. I'll take the heat for this post now..lol

FinsNYanksFan13
01-13-2005, 04:21 PM
We'll see during Bush's inaguartion just how much the anti-war movement has slowed down lmao!

Nzone
01-13-2005, 06:41 PM
You don't get it, do you?No I don't!

I know it's not because of humanitarian reasons because Bush just cut every dime going to feed people starving to death in Africa.

I know it's not to bringing down oil prices because prices have gone up and our fearless leader has not spoken a single word about it.

I know it's not because Iraq was a imminent threat because Iraq had NO WMD and Iran, Syria, North Korea does.

I know it's not because of ties to bad guys because Bush's beloved Saudi's were giving just as much money to suicider's as Saddam was.

So please tell me why the repubs are going to spend $400 billion of taxpayer dollars on a war in Iraq, leave it in a bigger mess than they started with, then cut Social Security benefits for future American seniors? :confused:

FinsNYanksFan13
01-13-2005, 07:25 PM
Repubs are owned!

BigFinFan
01-13-2005, 07:43 PM
I know it's not because Iraq was a imminent threat because Iraq had NO WMD and Iran, Syria, North Korea does.


Are they violating UN Sanctions too?

Nzone
01-13-2005, 07:55 PM
Are they violating UN Sanctions too?But I thought Bush didn't care what the UN thought? Do they just use the UN when it suits them? Is Israel violating UN resolutions?

??? to win
01-13-2005, 08:00 PM
I know it's not because Iraq was a imminent threat because Iraq had NO WMD.
No one ever said Iraq was an imminent threat. Do you spew crap like this because you're fishing, in denial, or brainwashed?

??? to win
01-13-2005, 08:01 PM
We went to war because
2. Sadam interaction or relationship with Bin Ladin's group.

Only when the first 2 didn't materialize was 4. Free the ppl added.
You're still in denial about the findings of the 9/11 Commission.

Nzone
01-13-2005, 08:02 PM
No one ever said Iraq was an imminent threat. Do you spew crap like this because you're fishing, in denial, or brainwashed?
Then why the h*ll are we spending billions of dollars on a war in Iraq?

Nzone
01-13-2005, 08:03 PM
You're still in denial about the findings of the 9/11 Commission.
What, that the Saudi's funded 911?

Wildbill3
01-13-2005, 09:19 PM
This is a good post, but freeing the Iraqis ppl were not the reason we went to war, it is a noble cause, but there's a number of other countries we should do this for as well. We went to war because 1. WMD, remember Powell's presentation to the UN. 2. Sadam interaction or relationship with Bin Ladin's group. 3. Put in a democratic gov't. Only when the first 2 didn't materialize was 4. Free the ppl added. Be honest about the sequence. Anyone would want to be free of a tyrant, but this article doesn't change the reasons for this war, nor does it set the US up as a good samaritian when we won't and can't do it for every country like a Iraq. So I don't think this article qualifies anyone to get on a high and mighty ego thing here. Again freeing ppl is a noble act, but it wasn't the first reason we went to war, it's a byproduct of that war. Don't get confused. I'll take the heat for this post now..lol

Okay, and how much support can the Reps expect to get from the pacifist Liberal elite if we were to attemp to liberate some more countrys?:confused:

Wildbill3
01-13-2005, 09:21 PM
No I don't!

I know it's not because of humanitarian reasons because Bush just cut every dime going to feed people starving to death in Africa.

I know it's not to bringing down oil prices because prices have gone up and our fearless leader has not spoken a single word about it.

I know it's not because Iraq was a imminent threat because Iraq had NO WMD and Iran, Syria, North Korea does.

I know it's not because of ties to bad guys because Bush's beloved Saudi's were giving just as much money to suicider's as Saddam was.

So please tell me why the repubs are going to spend $400 billion of taxpayer dollars on a war in Iraq, leave it in a bigger mess than they started with, then cut Social Security benefits for future American seniors? :confused:

Where is the US going to get the money to feed these people in Africa? we can't even afford the problems we already have, and you already ***** about our deficit, and now you would suggest adding to it? Good thinking. :shakeno:

Nzone
01-13-2005, 09:26 PM
Where is the US going to get the money to feed these people in Africa? we can't even afford the problems we already have, and you already ***** about our deficit, and now you would suggest adding to it? Good thinking. :shakeno:
$150 million to feed the starving... $200 billion for lies about WMD... hmmmm... thats a tough one...:confused:

Wildbill3
01-13-2005, 09:29 PM
how much do you think it cost us to enforce the farce of Un santions against Iraq for 12 years?

Nzone
01-13-2005, 09:34 PM
how much do you think it cost us to enforce the farce of Un santions against Iraq for 12 years?
Flying combat air patrols is good training..

We should have supported a over throw of Saddam. "It would have cost PENNIES and zero American lives"

Wildbill3
01-13-2005, 09:37 PM
They weren't just patrols, they were real life, real ammunition missions. Our pilots were shot at everyday, thier lives were in real danger. But I'm happy you think any form of military use is just fun and games. How typical.

Nzone
01-13-2005, 09:44 PM
They weren't just patrols, they were real life, real ammunition missions. Our pilots were shot at everyday, thier lives were in real danger. But I'm happy you think any form of military use is just fun and games. How typical.
Did we loose any American lives? NO

typical? I have more time in the Service than you willy! Out rank you too!!!:lol:

Wildbill3
01-13-2005, 09:54 PM
Did we loose any American lives? NO

typical? I have more time in the Service than you willy! Out rank you too!!!:lol:

Do you have proof we didn't? Really? Green peace doesn't count Neo.

MDFINFAN
01-14-2005, 04:43 PM
You're still in denial about the findings of the 9/11 Commission.

The 9/11 commission reaffirm that there were no connections between Saddam and Bin Laden concerning 9/11. They asserted that in the info on WMD's was faulty and should have been chanllege. Denial, my friend is not remembering the truth.

ohall
01-14-2005, 04:45 PM
The 9/11 commission reaffirm that there were no connections between Saddam and Bin Laden concerning 9/11. They asserted that in the info on WMD's was faulty and should have been chanllege. Denial, my friend is not remembering the truth.

That's not true. They confirmed they were talking to each other but they were unable to verify what they were talking about. I suppose UBL was giving Saddam cooking tips. He's like a Martha Stewart you know!

Nzone
01-14-2005, 04:47 PM
The 9/11 commission reaffirm that there were no connections between Saddam and Bin Laden concerning 9/11. They asserted that in the info on WMD's was faulty and should have been chanllege. Denial, my friend is not remembering the truth.
Carefull... The spelling police is lurking about.....:couch:

MDFINFAN
01-14-2005, 04:50 PM
Carefull... The spelling police is lurking about.....:couch:

I didn't major in journalism, and I write these posts between doing things here at work, so it's not the best writing I admit, but it generally gets my point across. :D

MDFINFAN
01-14-2005, 04:52 PM
That's not true. They confirmed they were talking to each other but they were unable to verify what they were talking about. I suppose UBL was giving Saddam cooking tips. He's like a Martha Stewart you know!


Duh,,so they couldn't say that Saddam was a part of 9/11, no proof of that Ohall, even in your rebuttal, you can't say otherwise, but you've correctly stated they don't know. They only said that a Al Quida person talked to a Iraqi official.

ohall
01-14-2005, 04:56 PM
Duh,,so they couldn't say that Saddam was a part of 9/11, no proof of that Ohall, even in your rebuttal, you can't say otherwise, but you've correctly stated they don't know. They only said that a Al Quida person talked to a Iraqi official.

No one ever implied Saddam was a part of 9/11. It was obvious however he was funding world wide terrorism. Ignore that reality as long as you like.

Tell me what were they talking about, cooking tips?

That's right there was also no WMD's in Iraq pre-invasion. That Saddam was such a humanitarian! You guys crack me up. You all actually don't see how you are constantly defending a madman in the same order of Hitler. It's GREAT!

MDFINFAN
01-14-2005, 06:40 PM
No one ever implied Saddam was a part of 9/11.
Just your President when he talked to the nation on why we were going to war with Iraq, don't tell me you don't remember that.



It was obvious however he was funding world wide terrorism. Ignore that reality as long as you like.

Exactly what documentation or film or money trail made this so obvious?




Tell me what were they talking about, cooking tips?

That's right there was also no WMD's in Iraq pre-invasion. That Saddam was such a humanitarian! You guys crack me up. You all actually don't see how you are constantly defending a madman in the same order of Hitler. It's GREAT!

You still haven't produced evidence to show there were WMD's have you?
You ever heard of people who go over the deep end, they get so wrapped up in the details they miss the big picture. You know, like if someone says there martians here and the detail guy goes running through the street yelling this fact, in a panic, over reacting, never thought to go check himself to make sure that what he's yelling is factual. Then when it's prove that it wasn't true, he spends the rest of his time saying, well it could've been this or that, if we didn't act we may have this or that. No matter how logical someone present the information to refluke him, he stays in denial by saying the martians were there, they were, I know it, but he can never show the proof. It's the same with this situation, no WMD's, no proof, pre GW2 investigation says no, war investigation says no, post war investigation says no, bottom line Bush= Lied.

ohall
01-14-2005, 07:00 PM
Just your President when he talked to the nation on why we were going to war with Iraq, don't tell me you don't remember that.



Exactly what documentation or film or money trail made this so obvious?




You still haven't produced evidence to show there were WMD's have you?
You ever heard of people who go over the deep end, they get so wrapped up in the details they miss the big picture. You know, like if someone says there martians here and the detail guy goes running through the street yelling this fact, in a panic, over reacting, never thought to go check himself to make sure that what he's yelling is factual. Then when it's prove that it wasn't true, he spends the rest of his time saying, well it could've been this or that, if we didn't act we may have this or that. No matter how logical someone present the information to refluke him, he stays in denial by saying the martians were there, they were, I know it, but he can never show the proof. It's the same with this situation, no WMD's, no proof, pre GW2 investigation says no, war investigation says no, post war investigation says no, bottom line Bush= Lied.

He never implied such a thing once we all knew better. After 9/11 there were all kinds of opinions floating around. If you want to play that stupid game go right ahead. Why am I not surprised!

Yes Bush went into Iraq just to make REP's rich and to kill as many American soldiers as possible. You caught him.

MDFINFAN
01-14-2005, 07:16 PM
He never implied such a thing once we all knew better. After 9/11 there were all kinds of opinions floating around. If you want to play that stupid game go right ahead. Why am I not surprised!

Yes Bush went into Iraq just to make REP's rich and to kill as many American soldiers as possible. You caught him.

Ohal go back and look at or read the speech he gave on the red carpet that night he announced our intentions, the night he told saddam they had something like 48 hours to get out of dodge. If I can find it, I'll post it.

ohall
01-14-2005, 07:26 PM
Ohal go back and look at or read the speech he gave on the red carpet that night he announced our intentions, the night he told saddam they had something like 48 hours to get out of dodge. If I can find it, I'll post it.

It's Ohall, not Ohal. Grow the F up would you.

MDFINFAN
01-14-2005, 07:27 PM
It's Ohall, not Ohal. Grow the F up would you.

When you show maturity, I'll deal with you in that way, I apologized about your name..I thought it was ohal..I stand corrected, it's ohall...

ohall
01-14-2005, 07:37 PM
When you show maturity, I'll deal with you in that way, I apologized about your name..I thought it was ohal..I stand corrected, it's ohall...

I have shown you nothing but repsect and maturity. I tell you what I see as the truth, and that includes how you treat others here, and how you change the meaning of ppl's posts a lot of the time. I'm sorry you cannot deal with it.

MDFINFAN
01-14-2005, 07:45 PM
I have shown you nothing but repsect and maturity. I tell you what I see as the truth, and that includes how you treat others here, and how you change the meaning of ppl's posts a lot of the time. I'm sorry you cannot deal with it.

Know you haven't, you've questioned my common sense, my thoughts on Bush, I'm an indep, you tried to label me a lib, if I was a lib, I'd say I'm a dem, since that what's on the ballots. Lib is not a party. By the fact that I keep posting and asking you point blank questions and never call you stupid, or anything, I do call you a blind follower, because I never see you question anything bush does. I do enjoy engaging you, I respect you, I don't always understand how you come up with your answers. I do try to pinpoint you on your answers so that I can understand more. Like WMD's, I don't see your logic of continuing to state they're there, when no one's found them. Things like that makes me think you're in denial.

ohall
01-14-2005, 07:46 PM
Know you haven't, you've questioned my common sense, my thoughts on Bush, I'm an indep, you tried to label me a lib, if I was a lib, I'd say I'm a dem, since that what's on the ballots. Lib is not a party. By the fact that I keep posting and asking you point blank questions and never call you stupid, or anything, I do call you a blind follower, because I never see you question anything bush does. I do enjoy engaging you, I respect you, I don't always understand how you come up with your answers. I do try to pinpoint you on your answers so that I can understand more. Like WMD's, I don't see your logic of continuing to state they're there, when no one's found them. Things like that makes me think you're in denial.

Sorry I will disrespect you now. I do not think you are a LIB.

MDFINFAN
01-14-2005, 07:50 PM
Sorry I will disrespect you now. I do not think you are a LIB.

:roflmao: :roflmao: good one, and I don't think you are a dirt bag..

ohall
01-14-2005, 08:05 PM
:roflmao: :roflmao: good one, and I don't think you are a dirt bag..

Well there you go. How classy of you.

PhinPhan1227
01-15-2005, 04:57 PM
No I don't!

I know it's not because of humanitarian reasons because Bush just cut every dime going to feed people starving to death in Africa.

I know it's not to bringing down oil prices because prices have gone up and our fearless leader has not spoken a single word about it.

I know it's not because Iraq was a imminent threat because Iraq had NO WMD and Iran, Syria, North Korea does.

I know it's not because of ties to bad guys because Bush's beloved Saudi's were giving just as much money to suicider's as Saddam was.

So please tell me why the repubs are going to spend $400 billion of taxpayer dollars on a war in Iraq, leave it in a bigger mess than they started with, then cut Social Security benefits for future American seniors? :confused:


Ahem...Bush is NOT trying to cut benefits for future Seniors...he is trying to insure they will be available. Are you aware that just a simple savings account would give you more SS benefit on retirememtn than your current SS money does?

Nzone
01-15-2005, 05:16 PM
Ahem...Bush is NOT trying to cut benefits for future Seniors...he is trying to insure they will be available. Are you aware that just a simple savings account would give you more SS benefit on retirememtn than your current SS money does?

"Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan said her party is waiting for a detailed proposal from Bush. But she said one White House memo suggests he wants to cut benefits for future workers by up to 45 percent."

Thats on top of adding 2 trillion to the national debt.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&e=2&u=/ap/bush_social_security

PhinPhan1227
01-16-2005, 05:03 PM
"Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan said her party is waiting for a detailed proposal from Bush. But she said one White House memo suggests he wants to cut benefits for future workers by up to 45 percent."

Thats on top of adding 2 trillion to the national debt.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&e=2&u=/ap/bush_social_security


That's saying a 45% decrease in government payouts in the future. That's balanced by the money people would have from their own investments. What boggles my mind is that people have developed such a welfare mentality that they would rather give the government their money when even a basic savings account would better protect their retirment and future. For the love of God, how did we allow so much of our populace to become incapable of WANTING to take care of THEMSELVES?

MDFINFAN
01-17-2005, 12:19 AM
That's saying a 45% decrease in government payouts in the future. That's balanced by the money people would have from their own investments. What boggles my mind is that people have developed such a welfare mentality that they would rather give the government their money when even a basic savings account would better protect their retirment and future. For the love of God, how did we allow so much of our populace to become incapable of WANTING to take care of THEMSELVES?

For ppl in their 40's, this is not good..they won't have time to grow a lot of money from investments, plus who's going to keep up with all these investments, most ppl are not savvy enough to invest properly and may loose everything, investments aren't quaranteed. You must be in your 20's and feel you have all the time in the world...This thing has to be thoughtout more. ppl over 40 have given a lot of their income to this fund, for them to all of a sudden do a 180 and say those ppl can't get their full benefits as promise when ppl started giving is not fair...A gov't promise in this case should be just like gov't bonds. I'm a little pissed about this situation and not really in the mood for this type of post which shows no thoughts of ppl almost ready to recieved SSN.

Blitz
01-17-2005, 12:38 AM
Ahem...Bush is NOT trying to cut benefits for future Seniors...he is trying to insure they will be available. Are you aware that just a simple savings account would give you more SS benefit on retirememtn than your current SS money does?

Bush is going to gut Medicare in order to privatize Social Security. America's seniors were not born yesterday. They're not going to let Bush cut their benefits.

Blitz
01-17-2005, 12:41 AM
"Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan said her party is waiting for a detailed proposal from Bush. But she said one White House memo suggests he wants to cut benefits for future workers by up to 45 percent."

Thats on top of adding 2 trillion to the national debt.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&e=2&u=/ap/bush_social_security

They're not going to be able to add 2 trillion to the national debt. That adds too much of a burden to the deficit. They'll have to gut Medicare or raise taxes in order to make the changes to Social Security that they want. Do you think Republicans are more likely to raise taxes or gut Medicare? I think we both know the answer to that.

ohall
01-17-2005, 12:42 AM
Bush is going to gut Medicare in order to privatize Social Security. America's seniors were not born yesterday. They're not going to let Bush cut their benefits.

No ones benfits will be cuts but ours when we are of age. Social security is a mess and it needs to be fixed. The current system is about to fall in on itself. What is so frustrating is you and other DEM's know this, but it is the only playing card you have left so you will play it even when you know it will hurt our country in the long run.

Blitz
01-17-2005, 12:45 AM
That's saying a 45% decrease in government payouts in the future. That's balanced by the money people would have from their own investments. What boggles my mind is that people have developed such a welfare mentality that they would rather give the government their money when even a basic savings account would better protect their retirment and future. For the love of God, how did we allow so much of our populace to become incapable of WANTING to take care of THEMSELVES?

You know, there was a time in the nation's history before the creation of Social Security. Poverty among seniors was significantly higher back in those days than it is today. Saying Social Security is a problem is like claiming that the tylenol you took to get rid of your headache is responsible for the headache in the first place. Social Security has guaranteed the Golden Years for millions of Americans for over 70 years. The system does not need to be privatized.

Blitz
01-17-2005, 12:46 AM
No ones benfits will be cuts but ours when we are of age. Social security is a mess and it needs to be fixed. The current system is about to fall in on itself. What is so frustrating is you and other DEM's know this, but it is the only playing card you have left so you will play it even when you know it will hurt our country in the long run.

If we can afford to send a man to the moon and destroy the entire planet with nuclear weapons, surely we can all work together and guarantee the Golden Years for all future generations of Americans. The Republicans are trying to hoodwink the American public. SS is not in a crisis, and we're not going to let Republicans gut Medicare in order to privatize Social Security. The Wall Street Republicans are not going to fool America's seniors.

ohall
01-17-2005, 12:50 AM
If we can afford to send a man to the moon and destroy the entire planet with nuclear weapons, surely we can all work together and guarantee the Golden Years for all future generations of Americans.

Fine, so get to work on that, but don't expect me to continue to pay into a failing system.

Stop knocking it down without answers to fix it. In case you didn't know that startegy has been failing the DEM Party since 1997. People want answers. They don't need to be told what is wrong. Contrary to what most DEM's think most have a brain and can figure out all by themselves what is wrong or broken in their very own country.

Blitz
01-17-2005, 12:56 AM
Fine, so get to work on that, but don't expect me to continue to pay into a failing system.

Stop knocking it down without answers to fix it. In case you didn't know that startegy has been failing the DEM Party since 1997. People want answers. They don't need to be told what is wrong. Contrary to what most DEM's think most have a brain and can figure out all by themselves what is wrong or broken in their very own country.

There's nothing wrong with Social Security. The poverty rate among seniors is at an all-time low. We're going to have to raise taxes at some point in future in order to pay for the baby-boomers, but that's the price we're going to have to pay in order to keep America's seniors off the streets. Privatizing Social Security will help Wall Street, but it will hurt many good, hard workers from all across the country (Hate to break it to you, but hundreds of thousands will lose on their investments if we privatize the system for future generations).

We're going to have to gut Medicare or else raise taxes in order to keep the current system running OR to privatize Social Security (The transition cost is expected to be between 1 and 2 trillion). If you'd rather gut Medicare than pay a bit more in taxes, you damn well better be an atheist or else you're wasting your time by going to church. Would Jesus gut Medicare in order to give Wall Street a boost? I don't think so...

ohall
01-17-2005, 01:15 AM
There's nothing wrong with Social Security. The poverty rate among seniors is at an all-time low. We're going to have to raise taxes at some point in future in order to pay for the baby-boomers, but that's the price we're going to have to pay in order to keep America's seniors off the streets. Privatizing Social Security will help Wall Street, but it will hurt many good, hard workers from all across the country (Hate to break it to you, but hundreds of thousands will lose on their investments if we privatize the system for future generations).

We're going to have to gut Medicare or else raise taxes in order to keep the current system running OR to privatize Social Security (The transition cost is expected to be between 1 and 2 trillion). If you'd rather gut Medicare than pay a bit more in taxes, you damn well better be an atheist or else you're wasting your time by going to church. Would Jesus gut Medicare in order to give Wall Street a boost? I don't think so...

In a matter of years there is going to be a 1:-1 ratio as far as paying out for social security. That means there will be 1 person getting $ from the fund and -1 person paying into the fund!

Please tell me you can understand this math, and why that would be a HUGE PROBLEM!

So please get right on that and fix it.

PhinPhan1227
01-18-2005, 05:41 PM
For ppl in their 40's, this is not good..they won't have time to grow a lot of money from investments, plus who's going to keep up with all these investments, most ppl are not savvy enough to invest properly and may loose everything, investments aren't quaranteed. You must be in your 20's and feel you have all the time in the world...This thing has to be thoughtout more. ppl over 40 have given a lot of their income to this fund, for them to all of a sudden do a 180 and say those ppl can't get their full benefits as promise when ppl started giving is not fair...A gov't promise in this case should be just like gov't bonds. I'm a little pissed about this situation and not really in the mood for this type of post which shows no thoughts of ppl almost ready to recieved SSN.



Sigh...READ something before you comment MD. The benefits are being SCALED back. Those who are older will recieve a higher percentage of their SS benefits. They won't have to rely on as much personal investment, but even THAT personal investment will probably still give them a net gain. As for keeping track of the investments, the Fed will only allow investment in stable areas. Fly by night dotcoms won't be on the list. There are literally dozens of investments which are incredibly stable. The return isn't as great as more risky investments, but even with that, it is still FAR better than SS.

PhinPhan1227
01-18-2005, 05:43 PM
Bush is going to gut Medicare in order to privatize Social Security. America's seniors were not born yesterday. They're not going to let Bush cut their benefits.


The only person here born yesterday is you Blitz. That's why you continue to surprise me when you have these "senior moments".

??? to win
01-18-2005, 05:44 PM
Sigh...READ something before you comment MD.
How can you be so cold and unfeeling PhinPhan! Everyone knows that his head might explode if he learned that reality differs from his perception!

PhinPhan1227
01-18-2005, 05:47 PM
How can you be so cold and unfeeling PhinPhan! Everyone knows that his head might explode if he learned that reality differs from his perception!



Grasping "Reality" has never been one of MD's vices. Lets not forget that he put forth the theory that Congressional Dems passed on the chance to roast Bush out of "politeness".

MDFINFAN
01-18-2005, 06:19 PM
Sigh...READ something before you comment MD. The benefits are being SCALED back. Those who are older will recieve a higher percentage of their SS benefits. They won't have to rely on as much personal investment, but even THAT personal investment will probably still give them a net gain. As for keeping track of the investments, the Fed will only allow investment in stable areas. Fly by night dotcoms won't be on the list. There are literally dozens of investments which are incredibly stable. The return isn't as great as more risky investments, but even with that, it is still FAR better than SS.


That's not how it was explained to me..if you're correct, and only time will tell, I won't be as angry, but listening to Lou Dobbs, I don't get the same read as what you've written here.

MDFINFAN
01-18-2005, 06:20 PM
How can you be so cold and unfeeling PhinPhan! Everyone knows that his head might explode if he learned that reality differs from his perception!

so only your reality is real and everyone else should follow suite..I don't think so...But you do know something about being cold don't you.. :evil:

MDFINFAN
01-18-2005, 06:21 PM
Grasping "Reality" has never been one of MD's vices. Lets not forget that he put forth the theory that Congressional Dems passed on the chance to roast Bush out of "politeness".

No it's you guys who say WMD's in Iraq :lol: , so far I think I have a better grasp of reality until proven otherwise.

I did what? Dems roast Bush out of what? What are you talking about?

ohall
01-18-2005, 07:07 PM
No it's you guys who say WMD's in Iraq :lol: , so far I think I have a better grasp of reality until proven otherwise.

I did what? Dems roast Bush out of what? What are you talking about?

So you're saying it is unlikely that if Saddam had WMD he didn't move them? If so where did they go? That's right we destroyed them. Then why can't we find evidence of that destruction. The proof would still be there, but it has not been found.

So tell me where did the WMD go?

MDFINFAN
01-18-2005, 07:41 PM
So you're saying it is unlikely that if Saddam had WMD he didn't move them? If so where did they go? That's right we destroyed them. Then why can't we find evidence of that destruction. The proof would still be there, but it has not been found.

So tell me where did the WMD go?

I'm saying right now, there's no discovered WMD's in Iraq, I'm waiting for the breaking news that they were moved to Syria, until then, I stick by there's no WMD's in Iraq, which is what I've been saying all along. The evidence of destruction was documented by the inspectors. They are the ones who were destroying his stockpile. Are you telling me you don't remember the news reports on this. They even showed video tapes of the weapons being destroyed. I still think we over estimated the number of WMD's he had. That's all I'm saying. You find it so hard to believe that there could have been an over estimate of his weapons. No one knew for sure what he had if I remember correctly...As I've always stated, everyone CYA's just in case by saying he had some. So far our intel has been on the hotseat for supposively giving Bush bad info..remember that? If our intel was so bad, and it's suppose to be some of the best in the world, how bad do you think other countries info was. I think they were going by what we said, and it turned out bad for us in terms of credibility. We're lucky in the fact that they said the same and can't blame us along.

ohall
01-18-2005, 07:45 PM
I'm saying right now, there's no discovered WMD's in Iraq, I'm waiting for the breaking news that they were moved to Syria, until then, I stick by there's no WMD's in Iraq, which is what I've been saying all along. The evidence of destruction was documented by the inspectors. They are the ones who were destroying his stockpile. Are you telling me you don't remember the news reports on this. They even showed video tapes of the weapons being destroyed. I still think we over estimated the number of WMD's he had. That's all I'm saying. You find it so hard to believe that there could have been an over estimate of his weapons. No one knew for sure what he had if I remember correctly...As I've always stated, everyone CYA's just in case by saying he had some. So far our intel has been on the hotseat for supposively giving Bush bad info..remember that? If our intel was so bad, and it's suppose to be some of the best in the world, how bad do you think other countries info was. I think they were going by what we said, and it turned out bad for us in terms of credibility. We're lucky in the fact that they said the same and can't blame us along.

MD just so you know the inspectors, every last one of them all agree there are tons of WMD compounds missing and have never been accounted for.

I give up. It's much easier to beleive Saddam was not insane he was a rational guy and he used all his WMD when he bombed the Kurds. He faked that he WMD after that because he was bored and wanted to find a way to spend his time.

PhinPhan1227
01-18-2005, 07:47 PM
No it's you guys who say WMD's in Iraq :lol: , so far I think I have a better grasp of reality until proven otherwise.

I did what? Dems roast Bush out of what? What are you talking about?


When the Bi-Partisan committee on the Iraq War declared that Bush had NOT lied about WMD's, but had instead made honest declarations based on the intel he was given, your response was that the Dems involved knew Bush had in fact lied, but refrained from saying so out of politeness, and an unwillingness to say something bad about the PResident. Or did you forget that whole ream of pre election posts?

PhinPhan1227
01-18-2005, 07:49 PM
That's not how it was explained to me..if you're correct, and only time will tell, I won't be as angry, but listening to Lou Dobbs, I don't get the same read as what you've written here.



Look at the proposal again. The plan has ALWAYS been to step back benefits, and the President said just last week that only "safe" investments would be allowed. Again, read before you speak.

MDFINFAN
01-18-2005, 07:54 PM
MD just so you know the inspectors, every last one of them all agree there are tons of WMD compounds missing and have never been accounted for.

I give up. It's much easier to beleive Saddam was not insane he was a rational guy and he used all his WMD when he bombed the Kurds. He faked that he WMD after that because he was bored and wanted to find a way to spend his time.

Based on a inventory sheet they had with what he was suppose to have. Ohall if that sheet is wrong, then what they're after will also be wrong. Saddam was never, imho, a rational guy, he did things in a way like a little kid. Remember GW1, he did the human shield thing, thinking that would stop us and the coalition. When world opinion went against him, he backed down. He's a wimp when it comes to the world stage, and that's why he's gone. He tried playing big boy games with a little boys mentality and backing. All his moves have backfired on him. He only had power within his country and he did that by scaring the living hell out of his people. I've never had respect, nor believed a man like that. All his weapons were a lie. He did that for respect in the middle east, keeping other countries there from attacking him. He simply didn't have what we thought, and if he did move them to syria, he defintely wasn't going to get them back, he had no army to go take them. We saw that much in this war with him. That country in terms of military was a shell of what it was in GW1.

muscle979
01-18-2005, 09:04 PM
That's not true. They confirmed they were talking to each other but they were unable to verify what they were talking about. I suppose UBL was giving Saddam cooking tips. He's like a Martha Stewart you know!
Actually the commission confirmed contact between alquaeda(not sure how that's spelled with english letters) and Iraqi intel agents and also confirmed that nothing at all came of it. The conclusion was that there were no ties between alquaeda and the iraqi govt. Remember also that this commission was bipartisan.

MDFINFAN
01-19-2005, 01:12 PM
When the Bi-Partisan committee on the Iraq War declared that Bush had NOT lied about WMD's, but had instead made honest declarations based on the intel he was given, your response was that the Dems involved knew Bush had in fact lied, but refrained from saying so out of politeness, and an unwillingness to say something bad about the PResident. Or did you forget that whole ream of pre election posts?g

I said it again, it was CYA, nobody and you can't find anybody, that really knew what Saddam had. So everybody said he has some. There were a lot of Dem's who questioned this. Remember back then, the smear campaign was going on, if you questioned the admin, you're unamerican, remember the atmosphere in this country. So everyone gave in to this admin. and it's wrongful call on WMD's.

??? to win
01-19-2005, 01:42 PM
I said it again, it was CYA, nobody and you can't find anybody, that really knew what Saddam had. So everybody said he has some.
You say it... but you don't seem to get it.


There were a lot of Dem's who questioned this.
Can you please give us some specific examples WITH dates? [/QUOTE]


The Dems and Bush-haters are coming across as classic "know-it-alls". They're with "us" all along until things get a bit out of whack, and THEN they say, "I knew all along it wasn't going to work."

MDFINFAN
01-19-2005, 01:59 PM
You say it... but you don't seem to get it.

What I got, and wish some of you would get too, is common sense. The first GW1, we destroy most of his military, we own the north and south borders, sanctions, even with the lawbreakers of it, our intel, the inspectors and the destruction program they were carrying out, the willingness of Saddam to allow anything while we were massing on the border before this war, inspectors asking for more time, while not finding anything else, the WMD's they destroyed were documented and video taped so that we could see, the fact that after the war started no WMD's. The man let his country be overtaken because he refuse to shoot one weapon at us., the occupation, no WMD's, the inspections afterwards, no WMD's, the stoppage of search, no WMD's. Could any you agree, that he may not have had WMD's. And even if he have them to Syria, he left himself wide open for attack. And that something Saddam would do? Remember in GW1 he sent his planes to another country and never got those back, would he really risk sending his WMD's to another country? If he did, he's more stupider than I thought, and I do think he's stupid. After all this ppl on this board still says WMD's were in Iraq just prior to us going in. :shakeno:

ohall
01-19-2005, 04:00 PM
Actually the commission confirmed contact between alquaeda(not sure how that's spelled with english letters) and Iraqi intel agents and also confirmed that nothing at all came of it. The conclusion was that there were no ties between alquaeda and the iraqi govt. Remember also that this commission was bipartisan.

That's simply not true. The commission said it could not say what type of contact they had. All they could confirm was they did have contact over several years.

I refuse to believe they were talking about the weather.

muscle979
01-19-2005, 04:01 PM
That's simply not true. The commission said it could not say what type of contact they had. All they could confirm was they did have contact over several years.

I refuse to believe they were talking about the weather.
You can call it whatever type of contact you want but the conclusion was that nothing came of it.

ohall
01-19-2005, 04:26 PM
You can call it whatever type of contact you want but the conclusion was that nothing came of it.

No that's what you do not understand. They cannot say that with any certainty. They do not know what was talked about. Logic then has to tell you that no one knows but them what was being talked about. You simply cannot make the statement you just made. You can however use common sense and deduct they were not talking about baking tips. They were more than likely talking about their common enemies America and Israel and how to hurt them, not help them.

Nzone
01-19-2005, 04:38 PM
You can call it whatever type of contact you want but the conclusion was that nothing came of it........................:yeahthat:

PhinPhan1227
01-19-2005, 05:07 PM
g

I said it again, it was CYA, nobody and you can't find anybody, that really knew what Saddam had. So everybody said he has some. There were a lot of Dem's who questioned this. Remember back then, the smear campaign was going on, if you questioned the admin, you're unamerican, remember the atmosphere in this country. So everyone gave in to this admin. and it's wrongful call on WMD's.

The people who elected those Democrat Senators didn't have a problem with questioning Bush. MANY of them were already calling for impeachment. In fact, the Democrats on the Commission went against many of their party leaders who were foaming at the mouth for a corruption ruling. Those Democrats were desperate for a "Bush lied" ruling, and their fellow Dems couldn't give them one.

PhinPhan1227
01-19-2005, 05:09 PM
What I got, and wish some of you would get too, is common sense. The first GW1, we destroy most of his military, we own the north and south borders, sanctions, even with the lawbreakers of it, our intel, the inspectors and the destruction program they were carrying out, the willingness of Saddam to allow anything while we were massing on the border before this war, inspectors asking for more time, while not finding anything else, the WMD's they destroyed were documented and video taped so that we could see, the fact that after the war started no WMD's. The man let his country be overtaken because he refuse to shoot one weapon at us., the occupation, no WMD's, the inspections afterwards, no WMD's, the stoppage of search, no WMD's. Could any you agree, that he may not have had WMD's. And even if he have them to Syria, he left himself wide open for attack. And that something Saddam would do? Remember in GW1 he sent his planes to another country and never got those back, would he really risk sending his WMD's to another country? If he did, he's more stupider than I thought, and I do think he's stupid. After all this ppl on this board still says WMD's were in Iraq just prior to us going in. :shakeno:

Even with WMD's, Saddam still wasn't going to keep us from coming in and he knew it. He bluffed, we called...plain and simple. What matters is that he had the ability and money to produce those weapons once the sanctions were lifted. And the UN was leaning HEAVILY towards lifting those sanctions. -

muscle979
01-19-2005, 05:21 PM
No that's what you do not understand. They cannot say that with any certainty. They do not know what was talked about. Logic then has to tell you that no one knows but them what was being talked about. You simply cannot make the statement you just made. You can however use common sense and deduct they were not talking about baking tips. They were more than likely talking about their common enemies America and Israel and how to hurt them, not help them.
Since there is knowledge that they actually talked, logic also tells you that more is probably known as well. Reports of these nature have to be vague, you know classified stuff. The 9/11 commission in all likelihood has access to information that you do not while making their conclusions. They can tell you what they concluded but not exactly how they got there.

PhinPhan1227
01-19-2005, 05:47 PM
Since there is knowledge that they actually talked, logic also tells you that more is probably known as well. Reports of these nature have to be vague, you know classified stuff. The 9/11 commission in all likelihood has access to information that you do not while making their conclusions. They can tell you what they concluded but not exactly how they got there.


The most important find of the Iraq Invasion Commission was that Bush acted in good faith with the information at hand. They DID believe that Saddam had WMD's. Further, the Commission found that Saddam had WMD programs in place, and the only thing missing were the stockpiles of actual weapons. Lastly, they found that the Oil for Food program was funneling billions of dollars into Saddams pockets, all of which could and would have beeen used to build those stockpiles once the sanctions were lifted, which the UN was getting ready to do.

ohall
01-19-2005, 06:12 PM
Since there is knowledge that they actually talked, logic also tells you that more is probably known as well. Reports of these nature have to be vague, you know classified stuff. The 9/11 commission in all likelihood has access to information that you do not while making their conclusions. They can tell you what they concluded but not exactly how they got there.

Ah you hit the nail on the head. Good stuff.

MDFINFAN
01-20-2005, 12:36 AM
The most important find of the Iraq Invasion Commission was that Bush acted in good faith with the information at hand. They DID believe that Saddam had WMD's. Further, the Commission found that Saddam had WMD programs in place, and the only thing missing were the stockpiles of actual weapons. Lastly, they found that the Oil for Food program was funneling billions of dollars into Saddams pockets, all of which could and would have beeen used to build those stockpiles once the sanctions were lifted, which the UN was getting ready to do.

:roflmao: :roflmao: Bush acted in good faith, you guys want to believe that so bad you're look for anything to help. The commission did the usual political stuff and you guys know it..tell a little of the truth, cover up a little of the bad, and recommend ways to improve. It's the same ol, same ol, I've seen the whole time I was in the military and especially my military time in DC. Nothing new in your statement..

Wildbill3
01-20-2005, 12:43 AM
:roflmao: :roflmao: Bush acted in good faith, you guys want to believe that so bad you're look for anything to help. The commission did the usual political stuff and you guys know it..tell a little of the truth, cover up a little of the bad, and recommend ways to improve. It's the same ol, same ol, I've seen the whole time I was in the military and especially my military time in DC. Nothing new in your statement..
a bipartisan commission that wanted to do nothing but do thier job fairly is going to cover up for someone? I don't buy it. these guys have nothing to hide from us, in fact if they could have shown that bush had lied, they had much to gain. Sometimes the simple answer is the correct answer, and in this case, these guys did thier job, and some people just don't like the results.

MDFINFAN
01-20-2005, 12:48 AM
a bipartisan commission that wanted to do nothing but do thier job fairly is going to cover up for someone? I don't buy it. these guys have nothing to hide from us, in fact if they could have shown that bush had lied, they had much to gain. Sometimes the simple answer is the correct answer, and in this case, these guys did thier job, and some people just don't like the results.

:roflmao: :o :roflmao: this gets better by the post, that's the washington way, they are very friendly to each behind closed doors, you guys really don't know do you. Wild, I thought everyone knew how it works here in the district over in the congressional house. The bipartisans were ex house members remember..I guess you guys really don't know, my bag..

Wildbill3
01-20-2005, 12:51 AM
:roflmao: :o :roflmao: this gets better by the post, that's the washington way, they are very friendly to each behind closed doors, you guys really don't know do you. Wild, I thought everyone knew how it works here in the district over in the congressional house. The bipartisans were ex house members remember..I guess you guys really don't know, my bag..
Right, you seem to think that the whole liberal side of congress wouldn't raise a big stink about the findings if they thought the whole process was a joke? Who is really being naive about this?:shakeno:

MDFINFAN
01-20-2005, 12:58 AM
Right, you seem to think that the whole liberal side of congress wouldn't raise a big stink about the findings if they thought the whole process was a joke? Who is really being naive about this?:shakeno:

You did say it was a bipartism commission of ex-congress people didn't you. The Dems tried as much as they could to make a stink and still are. But in DC, the whole truth is never told to the public, and ppl have to work together so there's always compromise. I've seen it for myself in working on new weapons systems and in the briefs I've had here in DC. Behind close doors the meetings are casual, then they get out in front of the carmeras and boom, you think, what happen in that meeting for all this to be said. I'm not as naive as you want to think, but then again, if it helps you in your thoughts, okay, I'll be naive. :D

Wildbill3
01-20-2005, 01:02 AM
You did say it was a bipartism commission of ex-congress people didn't you. The Dems tried as much as they could to make a stink and still are. But in DC, the whole truth is never told to the public, and ppl have to work together so there's always compromise. I've seen it for myself in working on new weapons systems and in the briefs I've had here in DC. Behind close doors the meetings are casual, then they get out in front of the carmeras and boom, you think, what happen in that meeting for all this to be said. I'm not as naive as you want to think, but then again, if it helps you in your thoughts, okay, I'll be naive. :D
Alright show me where they raised a big stink about the findings? You do realize that lying on this type of thing is like lying under oath right? lotsa jail time. Federal pillow biting ***-pounding prison time. And B.Boxer doesn't look like the type of woman to lay down and roll over...:eek:

MDFINFAN
01-20-2005, 01:12 AM
Alright show me where they raised a big stink about the findings? You do realize that lying on this type of thing is like lying under oath right? lotsa jail time. Federal pillow biting ***-pounding prison time. And B.Boxer doesn't look like the type of woman to lay down and roll over...:eek:

:roflmao: :roflmao: good one, so any time I say something ppl don't like, I'm lying. It's been a pattern on this board, anytime you give personal experience, and ya'll know I can't show you what I've seen, it's over already and I didn't take pictures or taped the sessions, so it has to be a lie.. :shakeno: Are you telling me you don't remember the Dem's questioning the president's WMD's as a danger to us when Powell presented that weak presentation to the UN before the war? The Dem's question the war without inspections not finished constantly, remember the admin didn't want to wait and the dems did. It was a show down, but the dems did one thing wrong, they voted on giving the president power to go to war before finding out all his plans and when he planned on using force and on what country, I think they were thinking Afgan, and Bush push the enevelope to Iraq. Any way I'll take the wrap of being naive..it's easier for everyone that I am. :tongue:

Nzone
01-20-2005, 01:17 AM
How ever we got to Iraq, we are there now. I think it's time to move on...

MDFINFAN
01-20-2005, 01:22 AM
How ever we got to Iraq, we are there now. I think it's time to move on...


Couldn't agree more,

Wildbill3
01-20-2005, 01:22 AM
:roflmao: :roflmao: good one, so any time I say something ppl don't like, I'm lying. It's been a pattern on this board, anytime you give personal experience, and ya'll know I can't show you what I've seen, it's over already and I didn't take pictures or taped the sessions, so it has to be a lie.. :shakeno: Are you telling me you don't remember the Dem's questioning the president's WMD's as a danger to us when Powell presented that weak presentation to the UN before the war? The Dem's question the war without inspections not finished constantly, remember the admin didn't want to wait and the dems did. It was a show down, but the dems did one thing wrong, they voted on giving the president power to go to war before finding out all his plans and when he planned on using force and on what country, I think they were thinking Afgan, and Bush push the enevelope to Iraq. Any way I'll take the wrap of being naive..it's easier for everyone that I am. :tongue:
Where did I call you a liar? I asked you to show me where they bitched about the findings? I haven't seen anything anywhere that questioned the findings. I think if there had been our buddy fintaxia would've posted it, or certainly Nzone would've grabbed it.

Nzone
01-20-2005, 01:23 AM
Where did I call you a liar? I asked you to show me where they bitched about the findings? I haven't seen anything anywhere that questioned the findings. I think if there had been our buddy fintaxia would've posted it, or certainly Nzone would've grabbed it.
:D

MDFINFAN
01-20-2005, 01:36 AM
Where did I call you a liar? I asked you to show me where they bitched about the findings? I haven't seen anything anywhere that questioned the findings. I think if there had been our buddy fintaxia would've posted it, or certainly Nzone would've grabbed it.

You didn't outright, just implied if I was..the findings of the commission were never fought over if I remember correctly, the only thing came out of that was the dems wanted the recommendations implement immediately and the repubs wanted to do it slower, those are the only arquments I remember. I neever questioned the arquments of the commission. I talked about the differences in going to war with Iraq, Dems wanted to way for inspectors to finish, admin wanted to go immediately before the final outcome of the WMD's was finished.

Wildbill3
01-20-2005, 01:42 AM
You didn't outright, just implied if I was..the findings of the commission were never fought over if I remember correctly, the only thing came out of that was the dems wanted the recommendations implement immediately and the repubs wanted to do it slower, those are the only arquments I remember. I neever questioned the arquments of the commission. I talked about the differences in going to war with Iraq, Dems wanted to way for inspectors to finish, admin wanted to go immediately before the final outcome of the WMD's was finished.

there is only about four or five posters on finheaven that I would ever use the word liar in regards to thier posts or information. You are not one of them. :D

PhinPhan1227
01-20-2005, 04:10 AM
:roflmao: :roflmao: Bush acted in good faith, you guys want to believe that so bad you're look for anything to help. The commission did the usual political stuff and you guys know it..tell a little of the truth, cover up a little of the bad, and recommend ways to improve. It's the same ol, same ol, I've seen the whole time I was in the military and especially my military time in DC. Nothing new in your statement..


RIIIIIGHT!!! That's why these "buddies" were going at each other tooth and nail over Clinton/Lewinsky? The Democrats have been PRAYING for something to go at Bush with, but they just "let this one go" so they wouldn't have to give each other dirty looks? You're a freaking joke MD.

PhinPhan1227
01-20-2005, 04:11 AM
You did say it was a bipartism commission of ex-congress people didn't you. The Dems tried as much as they could to make a stink and still are. But in DC, the whole truth is never told to the public, and ppl have to work together so there's always compromise. I've seen it for myself in working on new weapons systems and in the briefs I've had here in DC. Behind close doors the meetings are casual, then they get out in front of the carmeras and boom, you think, what happen in that meeting for all this to be said. I'm not as naive as you want to think, but then again, if it helps you in your thoughts, okay, I'll be naive. :D


ROFL...I would love to see a guy with your diction delivering a brief on a new weapons system.

??? to win
01-20-2005, 04:37 AM
You're a freaking joke MD.
Someone just had an epiphany!!!

Wildbill3
01-20-2005, 04:40 AM
Someone just had an epiphany!!!
come on man, honestly, we all know some things that we never say out loud on certain subjects. I think some of us just get a little to frisky and tired, and well words do come out...:D