Conquer Club

Joe McCarthy wrote:So boring. See this is what Im getting at. You, and when I say you I mean those of your retarded ilk, are spouting the same horseshit that you must have known was a lie years ago when you started with it, it's all been proven horseshit leftist propaganda, and yet you keep it up without embarrasment. It's fucking boring man, and the exclamation points at the end of each post dont spruce it up.

Another thing, whats with mocking my language like that? Have you seen me type anything like that? Nope, but thats the fair game of the second-stringer leftist, to pretend that his conservative opponent in a debate is bumpkin. Notice it's the guy that agrees with you, hendy, that actually types like that.

Anyways just go to hell, you've put me to sleep with your tired old shit.

HA HA HA ROFL
Man you are sensitive for such a tough guy.
As if a guy of your intelect needs me to break it down for him. But I was not implying anything about you or your speech patterns. I was using said dialect to illustrate my Own ignorance as you pointed it out for all to see. I just thought I would amplify it just for you. Just proving your point of how dumb i am.
And i have yet to see a debate happen between you and I. You just submit a tame insult at me and thats all you got... You make boistrous claims but back it up with nothing but your little put downs.
Thats not a debate thats a playground spat.

"weeps at stupidity of reviving two-year old thread"

Still, at least you make the very valid point of how different it was here in the Old Days.

johnnyrotten wrote:

ptlowe wrote:Yes, Iraq was a tough situation but Bush did what he had to to take care of countries who are the problem in this world. I just hope he has the guts to take out the rest of the middle east

We don't actually care any more.

bullshit if the title was what bush did was wrong u would be all over it!

jonesthecurl wrote:"weeps at stupidity of reviving two-year old thread"

Still, at least you make the very valid point of how different it was here in the Old Days.

Damn, lots of stupid people back then.

2 years ago - I said that Bush couldn't tie his own shoelaces.
24 months later, he's still wearing slip ons.
I was/am right

Bush should have never been President and until the last year or so his management of the war has been terrible. Despite this removing Saddam Hussein, a man who is personally guilty of orchestrating genocide, was a course of action that was long overdue.

I don't like the idea that if you live in a certain part of the world and the greater world powers leave you alone for a long enough time that there is a statute of limitations for crimes against humanity...

Bush still has a chance to accomplish something that would establish both a legitimate and honorable legacy for him.

There are still areas of segregation in this country. For one example, the segregation of the rich from the poor in schools.

If we follow our Constitution, we are trying to make a more perfect union. So let's keep striving, and desegregate the schools. Just put the money into the system enough and legislate the distribution of taxes to a point where everyone gets a shot at a GREAT education.

And if this is done, in 20 years, the USA will be back on top of a global economy. We need to train, develop and retain talent in this nation. Education is the best investment an individual can make, and I fail to see how a nation of, by and for the people (who are individuals) wouldn't demonstrably benefit from a nation wide investment in Education. The government built the highways, power grid and infrastructure to aid in defense and commerce. Well education leads to the same kinds of goals.

Of course, this is all just a pipe dream, that maybe we really could all be equal here. It's not going to happen.

pimpdave wrote:If we follow our Constitution,

Considering Bush's trackrecord on that, I say you have a better chance of winning the Tour de France while running.

Snorri1234 wrote:

pimpdave wrote:If we follow our Constitution,

Considering Bush's trackrecord on that, I say you have a better chance of winning the Tour de France while running.

When and how do you allege that Bush violated the constitution?

When he lied to Congress about WMDs?

D.IsleRealBrown wrote:When he lied to Congress about WMDs?

First off everyone in Washington lies to everyone else and it has nothing to do with the Constitution. It's called politics and it isn't illegal in most circumstances.

Second there is a difference between bad intelligence and knowingly misleading. In all likeliness it was the former.

Third, although the quantities of weapons which were projected to be found were not we did find WMDS in the form of chemical weapon delivery systems. In addition we recently removed 250 tons of Uranium from Iraq which Saddam had left over from his reactor which was destroyed in the 80's.

Fourth, just because we didn't find large numbers of weapons of mass destruction doesn't mean they weren't there. He had a year to prepare while Washington was still discussing whether or not it was going to invade during which time he could easily have smuggled any weapons he had to his allies in Syria.


Regardless, none of this translates into a violation of the Constitution.

GabonX wrote:
Second there is a difference between bad intelligence and knowingly misleading. In all likeliness it was the former.

No, not in all likeliness. How can you even make that statement? On what grounds? It has been substantiated in several publications that experts came forward and told Rumsfeld and Cheney etc that the Intelligence wasn't telling them what they wanted it to.

Stop reading the FOX news ticker, dude.

GabonX wrote:

D.IsleRealBrown wrote:When he lied to Congress about WMDs?

First off everyone in Washington lies to everyone else and it has nothing to do with the Constitution. It's called politics and it isn't illegal in most circumstances.

Doesn't make it less wrong. Especially lying to Congress about such an important thing.

Second there is a difference between bad intelligence and knowingly misleading. In all likeliness it was the former.

No. It was most likely the latter. Bush didn't give a flying f*ck about whether there were any WMD's, he just wanted to attack Iraq. He completely ignored any report that said there was no reason to believe Saddam had WMD's.

So illegal wiretapping of U.S. citizens without a warrant doesn't violate the Constitution? Then what the hell does? Do you just interpret the Constitution to say what you wanna hear and f*ck anyone else's opinion?

pimpdave wrote:Bush still has a chance to accomplish something that would establish both a legitimate and honorable legacy for him.

There are still areas of segregation in this country. For one example, the segregation of the rich from the poor in schools.

If we follow our Constitution, we are trying to make a more perfect union. So let's keep striving, and desegregate the schools. Just put the money into the system enough and legislate the distribution of taxes to a point where everyone gets a shot at a GREAT education.

And if this is done, in 20 years, the USA will be back on top of a global economy. We need to train, develop and retain talent in this nation. Education is the best investment an individual can make, and I fail to see how a nation of, by and for the people (who are individuals) wouldn't demonstrably benefit from a nation wide investment in Education. The government built the highways, power grid and infrastructure to aid in defense and commerce. Well education leads to the same kinds of goals.

Of course, this is all just a pipe dream, that maybe we really could all be equal here. It's not going to happen.

I still don't see how people can honestly believe that the bureaucracy that is the public schooling system is a better choice than having a voucher system. However, even if most of the country wanted a voucher system it wouldn't change anything, as the teacher's union would fight it at every turn.

Frigidus wrote:

pimpdave wrote:Bush still has a chance to accomplish something that would establish both a legitimate and honorable legacy for him.

There are still areas of segregation in this country. For one example, the segregation of the rich from the poor in schools.

If we follow our Constitution, we are trying to make a more perfect union. So let's keep striving, and desegregate the schools. Just put the money into the system enough and legislate the distribution of taxes to a point where everyone gets a shot at a GREAT education.

And if this is done, in 20 years, the USA will be back on top of a global economy. We need to train, develop and retain talent in this nation. Education is the best investment an individual can make, and I fail to see how a nation of, by and for the people (who are individuals) wouldn't demonstrably benefit from a nation wide investment in Education. The government built the highways, power grid and infrastructure to aid in defense and commerce. Well education leads to the same kinds of goals.

Of course, this is all just a pipe dream, that maybe we really could all be equal here. It's not going to happen.

I still don't see how people can honestly believe that the bureaucracy that is the public schooling system is a better choice than having a voucher system. However, even if most of the country wanted a voucher system it wouldn't change anything, as the teacher's union would fight it at every turn.

Wow, way to think up a solution aside from the bumper sticker talking points on talk radio.

well done contributing nothing and airing a vapid opinion.

Please try again, without sounding like a prick.

pimpdave wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

pimpdave wrote:Bush still has a chance to accomplish something that would establish both a legitimate and honorable legacy for him.

There are still areas of segregation in this country. For one example, the segregation of the rich from the poor in schools.

If we follow our Constitution, we are trying to make a more perfect union. So let's keep striving, and desegregate the schools. Just put the money into the system enough and legislate the distribution of taxes to a point where everyone gets a shot at a GREAT education.

And if this is done, in 20 years, the USA will be back on top of a global economy. We need to train, develop and retain talent in this nation. Education is the best investment an individual can make, and I fail to see how a nation of, by and for the people (who are individuals) wouldn't demonstrably benefit from a nation wide investment in Education. The government built the highways, power grid and infrastructure to aid in defense and commerce. Well education leads to the same kinds of goals.

Of course, this is all just a pipe dream, that maybe we really could all be equal here. It's not going to happen.

I still don't see how people can honestly believe that the bureaucracy that is the public schooling system is a better choice than having a voucher system. However, even if most of the country wanted a voucher system it wouldn't change anything, as the teacher's union would fight it at every turn.

Wow, way to think up a solution aside from the bumper sticker talking points on talk radio.

well done contributing nothing and airing a vapid opinion.

Please try again, without sounding like a prick.

OK, Ms. Sensitive, I wasn't trying to hurt your feelings there. I'll try again.

The problem with our education system isn't money. We could throw as much money at a school as we want, it won't matter. You can buy things with money, sure. It would, indeed, be nice if students could get all of the materials necessary for a good education. But even if you have all the tools, an unqualified teacher can't properly teach. In the US “56% of high school students taking physical science were being taught by ‘out of field’ instructors”. Over half. The teacher's are the issue right now, and adding competition to a field with virtually none would be a good way to ensure that kids get the best education they can. With vouchers parents can choose to not send their kids to bad schools.

To me, our current method of education is about on par with our government. More concerned with keeping up appearances than actually making progress. The idea that there is one method of teaching that can be universally applied to the extremely varied students in our country is laughable.

The problem is also finding people willing to teach. Teaching is a shit-job (except for the vacations being nice)that suffers from both low esteem ("I'm not gonna teach a bunch of annoying teenagers about stuff") and lousy pay.

Snorri1234 wrote:The problem is also finding people willing to teach. Teaching is a shit-job (except for the vacations being nice)that suffers from both low esteem ("I'm not gonna teach a bunch of annoying teenagers about stuff") and lousy pay.

Yup, but that problem is simply unsolvable. Anyone who could be a decent teacher could probably also a get a job in the field they'd be teaching. It's a tough situation.

GabonX wrote:

D.IsleRealBrown wrote:When he lied to Congress about WMDs?

First off everyone in Washington lies to everyone else and it has nothing to do with the Constitution. It's called politics and it isn't illegal in most circumstances.

Second there is a difference between bad intelligence and knowingly misleading. In all likeliness it was the former.

Third, although the quantities of weapons which were projected to be found were not we did find WMDS in the form of chemical weapon delivery systems. In addition we recently removed 250 tons of Uranium from Iraq which Saddam had left over from his reactor which was destroyed in the 80's.

Fourth, just because we didn't find large numbers of weapons of mass destruction doesn't mean they weren't there. He had a year to prepare while Washington was still discussing whether or not it was going to invade during which time he could easily have smuggled any weapons he had to his allies in Syria.

Regardless, none of this translates into a violation of the Constitution.

bolded for the part that seems fairly unlikely given that until we officially starting lumping them in rogue states, Syria was rather willing to provide intelligence and cooperate with us in order to gain some standing in our eyes. There have been elements of the Syrian gov. which has worked for a long time to try and ally with the us, but our relationship with Israel has effectively stopped it.

If anything, you could make something of a case that some poor israeli intelligence didnt hurt us going to war either.

Bush did not lie about WMD's. He received intelligence that lead him to believe there were WMD's there. Hell, Saddam even gassed his own people. He had his troops shoot at UN weapon's inspectors during the 90's when they got too close to them. If Bush lied then so did Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and other Democrats who repeatedly said they were there.

Bill Clinton said it in February 1998

Bill Clinton said so again in a speech to the nation in December 1998

Bill Clinton said it again at the State of the Union

John Kerry said so

Al Gore said there were WMD's in 1998

Other Democrats said he had them

Bad intelligence is not the same thing as lying.

silvanricky wrote:Bush did not lie about WMD's. He received intelligence that lead him to believe there were WMD's there. Hell, Saddam even gassed his own people. He had his troops shoot at UN weapon's inspectors during the 90's when they got too close to them. If Bush lied then so did Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and other Democrats who repeatedly said they were there.

Bill Clinton said it in February 1998

Bill Clinton said so again in a speech to the nation in December 1998

Bill Clinton said it again at the State of the Union

John Kerry said so

Al Gore said there were WMD's in 1998

Other Democrats said he had them

Bad intelligence is not the same thing as lying.

ROFL!

On the way home I heard a guy being interviewed, saying that he was misquoted by the Bush admin. That the Bush admin. knew before the Iraq war that THERE WAS NO LINK between Saddam and 9/11. That the Bush admin. forged evidence to make it look like there was a reason for invasion.



Then..............................................





I went to Foxnews.com and there is no mention of this! I mean come on. The radio show I was listening to was First Word with Alan Combs. (A fox station)


I will keep my eyes on the news.....I sense IMPEACHMENT could be in the air.

jay_a2j wrote:That the Bush admin. knew before the Iraq war that THERE WAS NO LINK between Saddam and 9/11. That the Bush admin. forged evidence to make it look like there was a reason for invasion.

This is why you make it so hard for people to not call you an idiot or make fun of you, Jay. The Bush administration itself said there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the September 11th attacks. It's the weirdos out there who say that he did and then argue against something he never claimed.

Do you really have that short of a memory?

Perhaps you're one of those people who took Condi Rice out of context when she said:

"Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11."

Instead of listening to her entire statement:

"Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It's not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York."

silvanricky wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:That the Bush admin. knew before the Iraq war that THERE WAS NO LINK between Saddam and 9/11. That the Bush admin. forged evidence to make it look like there was a reason for invasion.

This is why you make it so hard for people to not call you an idiot or make fun of you, Jay. The Bush administration itself said there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the September 11th attacks. It's the weirdos out there who say that he did and then argue against something he never claimed.

Do you really have that short of a memory?

Perhaps you're one of those people who took Condi Rice out of context when she said:

"Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11."

Instead of listening to her entire statement:

"Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It's not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York."

Maybe I phrased that wrong. The Bush admin. knew that Saddam had no WMD's before the invasion. According to this guy, the CIA made up intelligence so Bush could go to war. If any of this stuff I hear has any merit, the Bush admin. is in deep ca-ca.