Now its the Republicans that just dont get it

[maineman]

Wow... and not a single word to back your claim from any of them! Amazing!

Go read the transcript of the debate in congress over the use of force resolution and see what all those folks had to say.... and, for that matter, see what folks like John Kerry - who voted FOR the resolution - had to say about the President and their understanding that he would use this force as a last resort only after the inspectors had completed their work... and only in concert with the UN and only after all diplomatic measures had failed.....


I have no need to "back my claim" for a slanderous lying racist redneck FUCK like you.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Barak Hussein Obama: (From the same speech...)
"Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.....I don't oppose all wars. After September 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again."


Al Gore: (From the same speech...)
"Nevertheless, all Americans should acknowledge that Iraq does, indeed, pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf region, and we should be about the business of organizing an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."


Nancy Pelosi: (From the same speech...)
"I want to call to the attention of my colleagues to a letter that was just declassified about Saddam’s use of chemical and biological weapons. The letter refers to a question asked by a Senator to George Tenet, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. The question was: 'If we initiate an attack and Saddam thought he was threatened, what is the likelihood that in response to our attack that Saddam Hussein would use chemical and biological weapons?' The response was: 'Pretty high,' if we initiate the attack."

*sigh* this is getting old....

Russ Feingold: (ahem...From the same statement)
"And I agree, therefore, Mr. President, we cannot do nothing with regard to Saddam Hussein and Iraq. We must act. We must act with serious purpose and stop the weapons of mass destruction and stop Saddam Hussein."

Howard Dean: (Different speech)
Yeeeahhhhhaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now..... where are the statements from Democrat leaders, telling us that Saddam had no WMD's and posed no threat with them? Where are the Democrats who tried to tell us everything was fine in Iraq, and we shouldn't be concerned about Saddam? That was what you were supposed to produce, but all you seem to be able to find, is the typical speeches and statements from liberals talking out of both sides of their mouths, as usual.

NO ONE was telling us that Saddam didn't have WMD's. That IS a fact.

 

[maineman]

No one is saying that elected democrats were claiming Saddam definitely did NOT have any WMD's.... I am saying that democrats were urging restraint...were urging Bush to let the inspectors continue to inspect...were urging the president to do anything in concert with the UN...to let diplomacy work.... to use force as a LAST resort. If Bush had listened to them, we would not have made the terrible mistake that the war in Iraq has turned out to be.

And I wonder why Senator Obama is the only one in the list above that you felt inclined to include the middle name for?

bigot

slanderous shit

worthless gadfly

 

[Cypress]

I thought you put me on ignore? Another lie?


No one in congress ever said saddam definetly DIDN'T have biological or chemical weapons.

Given his track record, it was prudent to assume he did. But, where was the PROOF? If were going in invade, we shouldn't do it on circumstantial evidence, or the heresay of a few dubious defectors.


And, the issue of nuclear weapons, collaborative ties to al qaeda, and imminent threats was always under a cloud of suspicion.

Where was the REASON to invade? That's what many people, mostly democrats, were saying.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No one is saying that elected democrats were claiming Saddam definitely did NOT have any WMD's....

Really?

I am talking about the democrats who urged Bush to not rush into war with Iraq...to allow the inspectors time to find out what we now all know to be true: that the mission of disarming Saddam was done before a shot was fired.

Sounds exactly like what you are saying, to me. Bush should have listened to all those democrats who were telling him Saddam was harmless and posed no threat. Every one of those Democrats were saying the same thing Bush and the rest of the world was saying about Saddam's WMD's, they were dangerous and a cause for concern, and something had to be done. Not a single one of them was suggesting Saddam didn't have WMD's, or that Bush was lying about the WMD's we thought he had. That didn't ever happen, although you want to rewrite history, and make that the case now.

 

[Cypress]

fixed

No one is saying that elected democrats were claiming Saddam definitely did NOT have any WMD's....

Really?

I am talking about the democrats who urged Bush to not rush into war with Iraq...to allow the inspectors time to find out what we now all know to be true: that the mission of disarming Saddam was done before a shot was fired.

So

what part of "what we NOW know not to be true, don't you understand?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Given his track record, it was prudent to assume he did. But, where was the PROOF? If were going in invade, we shouldn't do it on circumstantial evidence, or the heresay of a few dubious defectors.

Exactly, it was prudent to assume he had WMD's because every indication from every source, said that this was a fact of the matter. The proof was in the form of CIA intelligence, as well as intelligence gathered from numerous other foreign sources. Most of this information was accurate, but some of it was not, and you have merely focused intensity on the things that weren't accurate, or couldn't be substantiated after the fact, or were found to be inconclusive. You continue to demand proof that Saddam had WMD's when we invaded, but you are unable to provide any proof he didn't have WMD's, or that WMD's are not still somewhere within Iraq, you simply don't know for certain. You hang on some inconclusive report, that never states anything empirically, and leaves the question completely open, as to where the WMD's are now, or what happened to them. You are too intellectually vacant to understand this, and even if you were smart enough, you still would refuse to understand the truth, it contradicts your agenda.

The President, the Administration, and the Congress, has to take action based on the information they have at hand, and on matters such as this, the information comes predominately from one source, the Central Intelligence Agency. There is no crystal ball in the White House, and the president has no other more reliable source of intelligence information. He was given the information, and told the issue of WMD's were a "slam dunk" by the director of the CIA. He also had the telephone conversation with Vladimir Putin, where he was specifically warned that Saddam was planning to attack US interests. So, given this information the president had, what does your profoundly retarded pinhead brain say was the most prudent thing to do? Pretend he didn't know this information? Pretend it wasn't really true? Ignore it, and get a blow job from his intern? What the hell should our president have assumed, if not what was assumed?

 

[Cypress]

from the obamaism thread


Dixie: Either have the balls to admit you flagrantly lied about this, or that your hearing is seriously impaired.

Again, just fastforward to 9:45 on the video at the link I gave you - he pronounced it perfectly.



http://www.barackobama.com/tv/

 

[maineman]

No one is saying that elected democrats were claiming Saddam definitely did NOT have any WMD's....

Really?

I am talking about the democrats who urged Bush to not rush into war with Iraq...to allow the inspectors time to find out what we now all know to be true: that the mission of disarming Saddam was done before a shot was fired.

Sounds exactly like what you are saying, to me. Bush should have listened to all those democrats who were telling him Saddam was harmless and posed no threat. Every one of those Democrats were saying the same thing Bush and the rest of the world was saying about Saddam's WMD's, they were dangerous and a cause for concern, and something had to be done. Not a single one of them was suggesting Saddam didn't have WMD's, or that Bush was lying about the WMD's we thought he had. That didn't ever happen, although you want to rewrite history, and make that the case now.

I said that democrats were urging him to let the inspectors do their jobs...and if we HAD let them do their jobs as democrats were urging Bush to do, we would have discovered what we now know: that the mission of disarming Saddam had been accomplished without a shot being fired and if Bush HAD listened to democrats and waited for the inspectors to do their jobs, we would have saved a trillion dollars and not suffered 26K dead and wounded and we would NOT have set off a sectarian conflagration that threatens to engulf the region.

moron.

 

[Damocles]

A way which routes tax dollars to the private sector.

I support people getting back all school taxes THEY pay a year back for a "voucher" system. I just dont want them getting someone elses school taxes to route to the private sector.

So, it isn't about the best education for the child? It is only about some sort of weird "fairness" doctrine where we must spend taxes in the worst possible way or it is in some way wrong to spend them there? I don't get your objection here. If it is the best education the child can get, then please, if I must pay them, spend them there! Do not force my dollars to go to an overloaded with Chiefs, lost in politics, system of education if they can go to a better place and because they can go there the child can get a better education.

In short, if it is the best that they can get, then that is where I prefer my taxes to go, regardless of whether it is private sector, or even public, just that it serves the child to the best of the parent's determination.

 

[klaatu]

So, it isn't about the best education for the child? It is only about some sort of weird "fairness" doctrine where we must spend taxes in the worst possible way or it is in some way wrong to spend them there? I don't get your objection here. If it is the best education the child can get, then please, if I must pay them, spend them there! Do not force my dollars to go to an overloaded with Chiefs, lost in politics, system of education if they can go to a better place and because they can go there the child can get a better education.

In short, if it is the best that they can get, then that is where I prefer my taxes to go, regardless of whether it is private sector, or even public, just that it serves the child to the best of the parent's determination.

Totally agree... this entire public educational system we have places the interests of Child last with Teachers and Separation of Church and State at the head of the line.

 

[OrnotBitwise]

Totally agree... this entire public educational system we have places the interests of Child last with Teachers and Separation of Church and State at the head of the line.

Been rolling around in the dog doo out in right field this morning, Klaatu?

 

[Damocles]

Been rolling around in the dog doo out in right field this morning, Klaatu?

Oh noees! Klaatu likes the idea of sending the child wherever they can be best educated without regard of whether it be public or private! He must be rolling in dog doo!!!! OMGzZZors!11!!!!1Shift+1!

 

[uscitizen]

So, it isn't about the best education for the child? It is only about some sort of weird "fairness" doctrine where we must spend taxes in the worst possible way or it is in some way wrong to spend them there? I don't get your objection here. If it is the best education the child can get, then please, if I must pay them, spend them there! Do not force my dollars to go to an overloaded with Chiefs, lost in politics, system of education if they can go to a better place and because they can go there the child can get a better education.

In short, if it is the best that they can get, then that is where I prefer my taxes to go, regardless of whether it is private sector, or even public, just that it serves the child to the best of the parent's determination.

How can we afford to give many parents more than they paid in in school taxes
for a voucher ?

 

[Damocles]

How can we afford to give many parents more than they paid in in school taxes
for a voucher ?

Because more than they pay those taxes. Where do you think they come from? To secure the future we, all Americans even those without children, agree to pay for the education of America's children. The idea that because somebody is poor white apartment trash we cannot give them a voucher to go to a proper school when the only other choice is to take that same money and give it to the school that is failing them is simply a falsehood.

Plus, most voucher programs only give half the amount that would be spent in the public school system as a voucher to the child, the other half remains with the public system, thus actually INCREASING, not decreasing, the amount spent per capita in the public system. Thus benefitting both the child who gets a better education and the public system that has more money per student to provide a better education as well.

 

[uscitizen]

Damo, smaller schoold cost more per student than schools with more students.
In my area we have 2 smaller schools that are making the rest of the county schools lookk bad because of test scores. These two schools are being closed, the students bussed farther and merged into the schools with bad scores.
The two smaller schools cost about 30% more per student than the larger schools.

Voucher systems will make public schools have a smaller student base making them more expensive on a per student basis to operate. School funding is on a per student basis.

 

[Damocles]

Damo, smaller schoold cost more per student than schools with more students.
In my area we have 2 smaller schools that are making the rest of the county schools lookk bad because of test scores. These two schools are being closed, the students bussed farther and merged into the schools with bad scores.
The two smaller schools cost about 30% more per student than the larger schools.

Voucher systems will make public schools have a smaller student base making them more expensive on a per student basis to operate. School funding is on a per student basis.

30% more per student, 50% left behind when the voucher student leaves. Still more money per capita... Do the math. Plus, I want my tax dollars spent at the best possible education for the kid, not at the overgoverned, extra expensive, politicized and protected, public schools, unless they actually are the best option.

Since I must pay, I prefer my money to go wherever they are best educated regardless of the "private" or "public" status of the school.

Vouchers do not steal from public schools, there is more money left per student than before the voucher systems were implemented.

 

[uscitizen]

Actually here in KY the voucher thisg is for virtually the same amount as the public school gets for student...this is not a national standard thing, so it is all over the place.

 

[Damocles]

Actually here in KY the voucher thisg is for virtually the same amount as the public school gets for student...this is not a national standard thing, so it is all over the place.

I work off of the idea of most voucher systems. Even that way, I still prefer my tax dollars, or those in KY probably do as well, to go where the student gets the better education. I would feel gypped if my dollars, and I do as we do not have a voucher system here, were forced to go where it is clearly not the best option for a student. Also, those people who can least afford a private school, if that is the best option, only lose in such places.