Italian44
Registered
Hey Bush fans, read this: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm..._on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq_weapons&cid=540&ncid=716
-
Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
-
Check Out IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex
hey Bush fans, read this:
- Thread starter Italian44
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2003
- Messages
- 3,388
- Reaction score
- 19
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 45
I wonder if anyone told him that Bush was given bad information from various sources and based his decision on the bad information.
ROFLMAO @ Prem
ROFLMAO @ Prem
Read this: he doesn't care. Why let a trival matter like evidence get in the way?
I'd attack Iraq all over again: Bush
http://sify.com/news/international/fullstory.php?id=13585154
I'd attack Iraq all over again: Bush
http://sify.com/news/international/fullstory.php?id=13585154
Happy birthday Pre.
So we knew all along what he hoped we did not know and whised we would not find out but now has admidited too and is tryin to spin into another lie.
WMD's = bullshit
Terrorist links to 9/11 = bullshit
What is left?
Peak oil. Spit it out you Bush lovers ... we are only there for our oil. It's ours. They can sit on it but we will remove it by force because we will need it soon. We want it before Japan gets it, before China gets it, before Iraq sells it to France or Germany. We will spend the next four years sucking as much of it out of the ground as we can.
Costs? 1000 dead Americans per year. Not bad right?
Iraq War Launched to Protect Israel - Bush Adviser
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0329-11.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0329-11.htm
That's the strategy, import everyone elses oil till it's spent and then we can sell our reserves at the highest possible prices. Of course while we're running around the globe slurping up oil all of these others countries are making huge advances in alternative energy so that by the time we use everyone elses will be stuck 25 years behind, using our own supply and importing renewable technologies from France, Germany and Japan.BoneCrusher said:
Those are some hot shades, I need to replace the third pair I broke this year.
Italian44
Registered
Premier.......im NOT canadian. I just have been living here for 4 weeks for college so far. I lived in Virginia for 18 years, i already did my absentee voting.
Your laugh at Prem? Dude you really believe that Bush did not know what was up? The head of the free world ... the guy with THE most powerful satellite technology on the planet ... that can look down your girl's shirt from space ... could not look at every square inch of that little pisshole? You really believe Bush did not have sat recon of Iraq? Bush knew, Cheney knew, Ashcroft knew, Rumsfeld knew ... we the average Americans were the ones that did not know and could be led down this path.camarosuper6 said:I wonder if anyone told him that Bush was given bad information from various sources and based his decision on the bad information.
ROFLMAO @ Prem
Don't allow yourself to continue getting sucked in by these people Camaro or risk making your self laughable in the process.
pmech
Registered
I think he was laughing at Premier sayin "Hey Canadians, read this 
"
Slow down BC. Troublemaker.
"Slow down BC. Troublemaker.
I didn't miss it bro I just don't believe that was THE key factor. It is all abot the oil Redspy. We need Israel, but they have enough nuts to have squashed Iraq with no help from us. Iran would have made noise but not much. Factor in that Saddam had no resources to attack anyone and the issue becomes a decoy.redspy said:
Sorry man ... but that didn't read that way to me at first. Now I see that he was launching his skud at Italy up there. Shoulda know cuz Prem is a Bush fan too.
pmech
Registered
Lol... 
I am a pissed off Republican that hates to have to vote for Kerry.
I ve decided I'm voting for Bush. He's such a trustworthy fella with no ties to the Bin Laden family during his Arbusto Oil day's and he appoints such nice folks who have no connection to Big Oil, I mean it's only coincidence that Chevron named an Oil Tanker after Condoleeza Rice, that's such a common name it's like finding a ship named after Mary Smith. And Halliburton is such a large company that even if Cheney weren't a former employee they would have won a no-bid contract in Iraq, since that is Government policy to not fish for contractors 
Plus we have to feel sorry for the poor fella since he was lied to about WMD's in Iraq by non-experts and decided to ignore CIA reports warning of increased hostility toward the U.S if we tried to liberate Iraq.
He's so cute with his beady little eyes, his cowboy swagger, his deer in the headlight stare and his elementary grammar mistakes like using is in place of are.
Plus we have to feel sorry for the poor fella since he was lied to about WMD's in Iraq by non-experts and decided to ignore CIA reports warning of increased hostility toward the U.S if we tried to liberate Iraq.
He's so cute with his beady little eyes, his cowboy swagger, his deer in the headlight stare and his elementary grammar mistakes like using is in place of are.
I will vote Kerry, but the Diebold machines are going to change it to Bush before I get outta the damn box.
It will be interesting how Busy and Snafu spin this debate. The economy is in a shambles ... Bush has to lie to make it look other wise. This will be interesting. Pepper will be blind to anything Kerry has to say and dismiss it as rubish. Stick will post long wordy statements that are from hard core Bush sites and 
. Milliman will go an a rant on how the economics are very hard to read but actually make sense when you look at the long range sustained growth of new housing starts vs those of 2001 . Dg will just let us know that Kerry sucks.
. Milliman will go an a rant on how the economics are very hard to read but actually make sense when you look at the long range sustained growth of new housing starts vs those of 2001 . Dg will just let us know that Kerry sucks.
BoneCrusher said:
Who says I can't spin it before the debate???
"The media and Democrats keep repeating it over and over: "2.3 million jobs lost" since President Bush took office. His could be the worst job record since before World War II, they claim.
One little problem: It's not true.
Not only has there been no net loss of jobs during the Bush administration, there has been a net gain, even with the devastation of 9/11. At least 2.4 million jobs have been created since the president took office, 2 million of those in 2003. The gains more than offset the losses.
While Democrats continue to beat their election-year drums about outsourcing, manufacturing losses, unemployment and slow growth in employment, America???s economy has been steadily creating jobs.
At least 366,000 jobs have been created in the last five months, over 100,000 of those in January, White House press secretary Scott McClellan has noted. And though the eight-month recession ???officially??? ended in November, economic indicators are surprising economists and pointing toward a take-off in the recovery. "
Busy you are missing one minor number in your math ...
Jobs fall behind growth in working-age population
The U.S. economy would have generated 7.1 million more payroll jobs if job gains had kept pace with the growth in the working-age population since the recession began in March 2001. The shortfall in job creation has two parts: 1) the 2.4 million job decline since the last peak in employment in March 2001 and 2) the 4.7 million jobs needed to keep up with the growth in the working-age population since that point.
The working-age population is growing by 1.2% a year. That reflects both the large numbers of young people who are reaching working age and the continuing net immigration. Had payroll jobs kept up with working-age population growth since March 2001, the economy would be adding 137,000 new jobs each month. Every month that payroll jobs grow by fewer than 137,000, the jobs gap widens. In the past six months, job growth has averaged only 61,000, with February 2004 showing a gain of just 21,000 new jobs (see JobWatch.org for a complete analysis of the February employment numbers). As a result, the jobs gap keeps widening.
Some have tried to rationalize the current low levels of job creation by arguing that there were too many jobs in March 2001. However, that argument does not make economic sense because March 2001 was a time of both low inflation and strong productivity. The bottom line is that, as the growth in the working-age population outpaces job growth, there are fewer employment opportunities for the growing number of people expected in the job market.
The number of payroll jobs reached a low point six months ago, in August 2003. Job growth has averaged only 61,000 a month in the last six months???far less than the 137,000 jobs a month now required to keep the jobs gap from widening. As a result, despite positive job gains, the jobs gap has grown from 6.6 million last August to 7.1 million in February 2004.
Source: EPI analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data.
Jobs fall behind growth in working-age population
The U.S. economy would have generated 7.1 million more payroll jobs if job gains had kept pace with the growth in the working-age population since the recession began in March 2001. The shortfall in job creation has two parts: 1) the 2.4 million job decline since the last peak in employment in March 2001 and 2) the 4.7 million jobs needed to keep up with the growth in the working-age population since that point.
The working-age population is growing by 1.2% a year. That reflects both the large numbers of young people who are reaching working age and the continuing net immigration. Had payroll jobs kept up with working-age population growth since March 2001, the economy would be adding 137,000 new jobs each month. Every month that payroll jobs grow by fewer than 137,000, the jobs gap widens. In the past six months, job growth has averaged only 61,000, with February 2004 showing a gain of just 21,000 new jobs (see JobWatch.org for a complete analysis of the February employment numbers). As a result, the jobs gap keeps widening.
Some have tried to rationalize the current low levels of job creation by arguing that there were too many jobs in March 2001. However, that argument does not make economic sense because March 2001 was a time of both low inflation and strong productivity. The bottom line is that, as the growth in the working-age population outpaces job growth, there are fewer employment opportunities for the growing number of people expected in the job market.
The number of payroll jobs reached a low point six months ago, in August 2003. Job growth has averaged only 61,000 a month in the last six months???far less than the 137,000 jobs a month now required to keep the jobs gap from widening. As a result, despite positive job gains, the jobs gap has grown from 6.6 million last August to 7.1 million in February 2004.
Source: EPI analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data.
All you have is "spin" Busy. Your boy is killing us ..
ahh, BC..
I believe the economic problems were inherited from Clinton.. but I'm not going into that. We'll just get sucked down another debate that doesn't matter anyway.
Thing is, even if we hadn't gone into Iraq.. take this scenario: Maybe Iraq launches (or supplies) a nuclear weapon at us. Oh, watch out..the libs would be up in arms.. "We should have taken Saddam out when we could" , "That Bush, he's a weak president, Al Gore would have taken him out..."
Another situation, the economy does great during Bush's term... "He inherited the great economy from Clinton...."
If you deny either of those scenarios, you are kidding yourself.
It's politics. The parties spin EVERYTHING to make it fit for them. This isn't new territory we're walking on here! I don't think Bush is infallable, but John Kerry is a terrible alternative.
I believe the economic problems were inherited from Clinton.. but I'm not going into that. We'll just get sucked down another debate that doesn't matter anyway.
Thing is, even if we hadn't gone into Iraq.. take this scenario: Maybe Iraq launches (or supplies) a nuclear weapon at us. Oh, watch out..the libs would be up in arms.. "We should have taken Saddam out when we could" , "That Bush, he's a weak president, Al Gore would have taken him out..."
Another situation, the economy does great during Bush's term... "He inherited the great economy from Clinton...."
If you deny either of those scenarios, you are kidding yourself.
It's politics. The parties spin EVERYTHING to make it fit for them. This isn't new territory we're walking on here! I don't think Bush is infallable, but John Kerry is a terrible alternative.
