Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
brainlessone >>>Only finding the things you believe to be wrong does not present the actuality of the matter.<<<
I'm not interested in what is right or wrong or what is good or bad. I'm interested in whether Bush told us and the rest of the world the truth with respect to why we went to war. I listed the items I did for a reason - they were all alleged violations of UN resolution 1441 which if proven would have legitimized the war. Instead, they were all proven false and we went to war anyway. I'm elated that Saddam Hussein has been removed and perhaps killed and that the Iraqi people have been liberated, but that was not the official reason for the war, nor would it have been a reason for war that conformed with international law.
ergo sum....Bush carried 21 (75%) of the 28 welfare states in the last election. So much for D being the welfare party.
http://www.nemw.org/taxburd.htm
>>>seabass i find this very disturbing. I do not think GW "lied" as to his reasons for the Iraqi war<<<
Call it what you wish. He told us Iraq would have nuclear weapons within six months and referred to an IAEA report for evidence. The IAEA quickly issued a statement saying no such report has ever been written.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0927-08.htm
Then he told the world and a live UN audience that Iraq had tried to buy aluminum tubes that only had one possible application: nuclear weapons manufacturing. Also false.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2003%2F01%2F24%2FMN163516.DTL
Next came the sales slips to prove that Iraq had contracted to purchase huge amounts of uranium from an African country. The paperwork turned out to be forgeries.
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0314/schanberg.php
In addition, 9/11 was mentioned relentlessly whenever Iraq was discussed, resulting in 75% of Americans believing Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for the attack. GW Bush is the leader of the world's only superpower. With that privilege comes responsibilities, such as being absolutely truthful with the American people on why he is sending citizens to fight a war.
>>>how is it we all got brainwashed into believing all that malarky about the "heartland"?<<<
How is it that Clinton's lie about his love life created a national and international crisis, but GW Bush lying about reasons for going to war earns him instant sainthood? Because the GOP propaganda apparatus has flown circles around the democrat's version for the past decade - at least. Credit where credit is due.
>>>now that's a juicy tidbit... you wouldn't happen to know where those numbers could be found?<<<
Here's a piece on the subject:
"Over all, blue America subsidizes red America to the tune of $90 billion or so each year."
"When you do the numbers for red states without major cities, you find that they look like Montana, which in 1999 received $1.75 in federal spending for every dollar it paid in federal taxes."
New York Times, May 7, 2002/ Portland Oregonian, May 8, 2002
True Blue Americans
By PAUL KRUGMAN
New York Times
Remember how hard New York's elected representatives had to fight to get $20 billion in aid for the stricken city — aid that had already been promised? Well, recently Congress agreed to give farmers $180 billion in subsidies over the next decade. By the way, the population of New York City is about twice as large as America's total farm population.
I've been a stern critic of the Bush administration, but this is one case where Democrats in the Senate were the lead villains. To its credit, the administration initially opposed an increase in farm subsidies, though as in the case of steel protection, it didn't take long before political calculation trumped the administration's alleged principles. But politics aside, maybe the farm bill debacle will help us, finally, to free ourselves from a damaging national myth: that the "heartland," consisting of the central, relatively rural states, is morally superior to the rest of the country.
You've heard the story many times: the denizens of the heartland, we're told, are rugged, self-reliant, committed to family; the inhabitants of the coast are whining yuppies. Indeed, George W. Bush has declared that he visits his stage set — er, ranch — in Crawford to "stay in touch with real Americans." (And what are those of us who live in New Jersey — chopped liver?)
But neither the praise heaped on the heartland nor the denigration of the coasts has any basis in reality.
I've done some statistical comparisons using one popular definition of the heartland: the "red states" that — in an election that pitted both coasts against the middle — voted for Mr. Bush. How do they compare with the "blue states" that voted for Al Gore?
Certainly the heartland has no claim to superiority when it comes to family values. If anything, the red states do a bit worse than the blue states when you look at indicators of individual responsibility and commitment to family. Children in red states are more likely to be born to teenagers or unmarried mothers — in 1999, 33.7 percent of babies in red states were born out of wedlock, versus 32.5 percent in blue states. National divorce statistics are spotty, but per capita there were 60 percent more divorces in Montana than in New Jersey.
And the red states have special trouble with the Sixth Commandment: the murder rate was 7.4 per 100,000 inhabitants in the red states, compared with 6.1 in the blue states, and 4.1 in New Jersey.
But what's really outrageous is the claim that the heartland is self-reliant. That grotesque farm bill, by itself, should put an end to all such assertions; but it only adds to the immense subsidies the heartland already receives from the rest of the country. As a group, red states pay considerably less in taxes than the federal government spends within their borders; blue states pay considerably more. Over all, blue America subsidizes red America to the tune of $90 billion or so each year.
And within the red states, it's the metropolitan areas that pay the taxes, while the rural regions get the subsidies. When you do the numbers for red states without major cities, you find that they look like Montana, which in 1999 received $1.75 in federal spending for every dollar it paid in federal taxes. The numbers for my home state of New Jersey were almost the opposite. Add in the hidden subsidies, like below-cost provision of water for irrigation, nearly free use of federal land for grazing and so on, and it becomes clear that in economic terms America's rural heartland is our version of southern Italy: a region whose inhabitants are largely supported by aid from their more productive compatriots.
There's no mystery about why the heartland gets such special treatment: it's a result of our electoral system, which gives states with small populations — mainly, though not entirely, red states — disproportionate representation in the Senate, and to a lesser extent in the Electoral College. In fact, half the Senate is elected by just 16 percent of the population.
But while this raw political clout is a fact of life, at least we can demand an end to the hypocrisy. The heartland has no special claim to represent the "real America." And the blue states have a right to ask why, at a time when the federal government has plunged back into deficit, when essential domestic programs are under assault, a small minority of heavily subsidized Americans should feel that they are entitled to even more aid.
http://www.vanitysite.net/front.htm
>>>What a stupid post.....No basis in reality what ever...<<<
No basis in who's reality? Bush carried 9 out of the 10 poorest states in the last election.
http://tigerx.com/trivia/uspoor.htm
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/election/map.htm
>>>Because headstart is for poor kids and you know how conservatives hate the poor.<<<
I suppose they see no reason to mess with a winning hand. The more they hate and screw the poor the more the poor vote republican. The poorest states in the union also represent the GOP voter base.
>>>Seabass/Sarai -- The war is being waged & won!!<<<
It sure is. I have a brother-in-law in Kuwait whom I support along with the rest of the troops so I'm happy the war is being won. I still reserve the right to ask questions about why the war is being waged and would be even happier if it turned out to be legitimate. The nagging question I keep returning to is this; if the case for war was as strong as Bush had the country believe, then why sell it like a used car? No evidence would have looked better than this grab-bag of fabrications consisting of bogus sales slips, bogus nuclear/WMD scares and outright lies. Explain to me why I shouldn't be bothered by the president of the United States acting in this fashion. At least they are asking these questions outside our borders and have been all along actually.
http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/margolis_apr20.html
>>>However, 56 per cent were in favour only if the United Nations supported it, while just 12 per cent of Australians supported unilateral action by the United States and its allies.<<<
You call 12 % a majority? I'm through with this discussion.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/02/04/1044318597799.html
>>>Even if there was a Majority of people against the war it does not validate the statement which is totally false by any definition:
"opposed by the public of every country in the world except Israel."<<<
Since you wish to continue, the US was omitted for obvious reasons. What other country's population (population - not government) supported the war by a meaningful majority?
>>>I am not a conservative and do not appreciate the label<<<
>>This statement simply is not true... The public of every Country in the world except Israel is not against the war...
People protesting on television does not mean all of the public of a Country is against the war.<<<
I apologize if I labeled you incorrectly. As for the opposition to war, the statistics were not based on pictures of protesting crowds but on reports gathered from both domestic and international news sources. The link you provided only added the US population to Israel's in support of the war so the omission of America is what made the argument false in the first place? Hardly matters anymore. Point is.....the war was opposed by a crushing majority of the world's population and the easy victory seems to have swayed few.
>>>Have the US media been so wrapped in the flag of late that they have lost objectivity and are undercutting the informed nature of its citizenry?<<<
Bob Simon from 60-minutes was on Larry King two weeks ago suggesting the same thing. Back from covering the war, he said he sat in "stunned silence" while watching the US coverage here at home thinking it was like watching a different war. For instance, it now appears that the rescue effort of Private Jessica was at least partially staged just like the collapse of the Saddam Hussein statue.
"Doctors at al-Nasiriyah general hospital said that the airborne assault had met no resistance and was carried out a day after all the Iraqi forces and Baath leadership had fled the city."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5944-648517,00.html
>>>Yup, Its incorrect... You answered your own question.. I didn;t see all those "polls" you read, but who made them and how statistically accurate were they?<<<
And how do you know those polls were incorrect if you don't know "how statistically accurate they were"? Wouldn't Great Britain be a good yardstick for how accurate those polls might have been, being our strongest ally and one of only two other nations supplying troops? Surely you didn't miss daily reports on how Tony Blair's job might be at stake with 60-70% of the British opposing his pro-war stance? Or maybe I'm just wasting my time here since any poll not in support of the conservative case can't be trusted....
>>>and steered the U.S. into a Middle Eastern war unrelated to any plausible threat to the U.S. and opposed by the public of every country in the world except Israel."<<<
Are you saying this is false? If so, then what other country except Israel had the public supporting this war? Actually, I think Poland might have had a tiny majority in favor also, but other than that, every poll I saw from a foreign country had the opposition outdoing those in favor by 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 margins.
>>>Why would they be upset with Bush for "making decisions based on US interests"?<<<
>>>Are you suggesting that those countries make decisions based on US interests ahead of their own?<<<
Not sure if you ignore the real issue or if you simply can't see it. Nobody expects the US to ignore its own interest in foreign policy matters, but whatever happened to diplomacy and compromise they say - historical cornerstones of foreign policy making? The entire civilized world stood behind the Kyoto treaty, the ABM treaty and the prospect of an international criminal court. Bush was unimpressed, refused to discuss the matters, smirked and flew to Crawford. I could go on, but why bother. Point is, his contempt for anyone and anything not American is not lost on the global audience which translates to difficult relations between the US and much of the rest of the world. Exactly what we DON'T need while fighting a global war on terrorism.
>>>Which western "allies" are they?<<<
"Results of a Multinational Poll in France, Germany, Great Britain and Italy
BUSH A VERY UNPOPULAR UNILATERALIST TO EUROPEANS"
"More than seven-in-ten of those in each country say Bush makes decisions based entirely on U.S. interests, and most think he understands less about Europe than other American presidents. In that regard, Bush’s foreign policy approval rating runs 40-60 percentage points below former President Bill Clinton’s, when judged in retrospect."
http://www.cfr.org/press/polls1.php
>>>I know GWB is so hard to understand -- he means what he says and does what he says<<<
You mean like "uniting the world with a humble foreign policy"? You seem to have every word GWB uttered in public archived so check the presidential debate files for this one. If there ever was a US president with a better knack for creating anti US sentiment than this one, I'd sure like to know who it was. Unbelievable worldwide disdain for GWB now, even among western European allies. Not necessarily because of his war policies but because of his insufferable arrogance and unprecedented ignorance for a world leader.
>>>its a war against all nation who aid and abet terrorism -- it was the risk that Iraq would furnish a terrorist with, say 'anthrax' that made immediate disarmament necessary<<<
Pakistan and North Korea could easily furnish terrorists with nuclear weapons according to the Bush administration. Why isn't immediate disarmament of those nations necessary? And if disarmament of Iraq was the reason for the operation, why was it named "Iraq freedom" instead of "Iraq disarmament"? Because disingenuous propaganda is what makes this White House tick?
>>>US should be "embarrassed" over failure to find WMDs:<<<
I said it before and I say it again: Does anyone really think some kind of WMD's will NOT be found, authentic or otherwise? Just consider the Bush administration's options here; vindication by means of presenting the evidence and the official justification for war in the first place, or admit they sent the mightiest military force in the history of mankind to blow a third-world country to smithereens based on hunches, fabricated evidence, paranoia and political ambition. This White House doesn't even tolerate criticism and surely won't set itself up for failure and embarrassment. Hard-right conservatives are NEVER wrong. Being wrong is not even a consideration in their train of thought.
>>>Almost all the moms had been married and were now divorced... not what they expected to happen.<<<
No, and I suspect many of them choose to lick their wounds as single parents rather than diving headlong into another potential failure. The republican argument is the same old formula they use for all the ills of society: "We need to encourage people to accept responsibility". As in "encouraging" a couple out of love to fall in love again, or to encourage the 55-year old who was just laid off to find a new job faster in a 6% unemployment environment, or to encourage a single parent to cough up $1,500/month for health insurance coverage his/her employer can't/won't provide. I don't think most conservatives believe in these arguments themselves, but so what? Mindless propaganda and cute slogans have worked wonders for the past three years so why bother with facts when there's fiction?
>>>Encouraging families rather than the "anything goes and every lifestyle is ok" liberalism, would be a very good start, imo.<<<
50% of all US marriages fail within 5 years and all the encouragement on earth couldn't save most of them in the long run. You think more single parent families result from this situation or from "liberalism and anything goes lifestyles"?
>>>Still, it doesn't make sense. Rallying because msft & intc didn't do as badly as expected?. Wow, it seems to me like there is little to celebrate on the old earnings front!<<<
I'm not watching CNBC anymore so I haven't heard the spin on the louse earnings season so far. I assume it's the second half recovery being used again like the last three years...
>>>Futures still charging... Based on what?.<<<
INTC, MSFT and MOT all guiding lower, plus VXN at 52-week low. Very bullish.
>>>I'm sorry you were not emotionally moved by the Iraqis hammering on that statue after decades of oppression. Just because Bush made it happen you sound disappointed that it happened.<<<
Many republicans (yourself included) would benefit from a stout reality check. Between those who truly detest Bush and everything he stands for and those who will crawl for miles through broken glass to kiss his feet, a huge crowd of reasonable folks reside who has grown tired of political charades, lies, slogans and propaganda and would rather hear the truth for a change. The whole world knows we're not in Iraq to liberate the people so why insult their intelligence with another bogus PR campaign? A simple "we have removed a serious threat to the US and the world population and in the process, the Iraq people got a second chance" would suffice. Please accept that there is middle ground between hating Bush and worshipping him and remember that free speech, including criticism of the president was perfectly patriotic during the entire Clinton era and then some.
>>>No threat to us.
If they choose to butcher each other, what business of that is ours?<<<<
Apparently Iraq's butchering each other was a business of ours since the torture, oppression and human suffering under Saddam Hussein is all Bush has talked about for the past two weeks. I agree completely with you about the threat issue which should have been the reason for the war, but you wouldn't know it listening to post-war Bush.
>>>I had tears in my eyes, so happy to see the people free after years of domination.<<<
With the republican's sudden compassion for human suffering, someone please help me understand why they completely ignore human suffering of a magnitude not seen since World War 2.
"This is a humanitarian catastrophe of horrid and shocking proportions," said George Rupp, the IRC's president. "The worst mortality projections in the event of a lengthy war in Iraq, and the death toll from all the recent wars in the Balkans, don't even come close."
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-fg-congo9apr09,1,1926186.story
Now how'd you manage to get everything I said exactly backwards. Here goes again:
>>>What do you mean destroy a country and thousands of citizens based on paranoia, lies and deception?
Where did you get that from?<<<
If no weapons are found, the official reason for going to war will be questioned and all assurances about existing weapons may be perceived as lies and deception. Why is that difficult to understand?
>>>Do you actually believe the Iraqis were better off with Saddam in charge?<<<
Of course not. Why even ask?
>>>Do you honestly believe the coalition would plant WMD?<<<
I wish I could answer that with a resounding NO, but why should I put blind trust in an administration that on at least three occasions presented bogus evidence to support their reasons for war in the first place?
>>>Stay tuned ... they're there and will be found.<<<
Oh, there's no question they'll find something. They have to find something or they have invaded and destroyed a country and thousands of its citizens based on paranoia, lies and deception. And if they don't find the real thing and have to get "creative", they better make it look good since that's exactly how a cynical 2/3 of the world expects the evidence to show up.
>>>Fox News reports that U.S. officials are investigating a massive underground nuclear facility that was discovered below the Al-Tuwaitha complex of the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission in a suburban town south of Baghdad<<<
Once again it's Fox news and nobody else reporting a sensational WMD related discovery. First it was bogus drums of nerve agent, then unconfirmed drums of blister agent and now a nuclear facility that neither CNN, ABC, CBS or MSNBC has mentioned despite Fox playing the story all day. Fox has completely lost its credibility on the war coverage which even the late night talk shows hosts are mocking now.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/2020/Iraq_WhereareWMD030410.html
>>The message is we don't need French approval in order to defend our people.<<
Of course not. Who said we did? The French's behavior was disgusting, but all they did was exercising their right to vote as a UN member. We didn't like their vote so we tarred them, feathered them, blackballed their products and suggested they be taken off our list of current allies. They owe us big time, but does that mean they are obligated to join the US in every military adventure embarked on? They were unconvinced of the legitimacy of this war as was most of the rest of the world, that's all.
>>>Seems U.S. getting message out,you opposed us,no big contracts.<<<<
Hasn't that message always been out? The new message that's out following this war is that everyone in this solar system has an obligation to agree with the US no matter what the proposal. And if they don't, they should be considered a former or questionable ally at best - an enemy at worst.
>>>Wicked, I mean wicked reversal stick on the SPX. I'm not sure I've seen one like that in a long long time. Wicked, wicked, wicked.<<<
40EMA capped it just like it did last fall.
http://stockcharts.com/def/servlet/SC.web?c=$spx,uu[h,a]wjclyyay[pc10!c20!c30!c40!d20,2!f][vc60][iut...
>>>a gun is made to kill some one. a car isnt.<<<
A gun is made to kill? That's not what the gun lobby keeps telling us. Guns are for self defense and recreation such as hunting and target practice they say. And above all they tell us that people kill people - not guns, just like people kill people with cars that are made for transportation. Point is, why should anyone, regardless of industry, be exempt from responsibility in selling products that are as safe as is practically possible, and why has one of the GOP's most reliable cash cows been selected? Not sure what irks me more - the arrogance or the lack of principle.
>>>guns are known to be unsafe<<<
And therefore the gun manufacturers should be exempt from any and all liability? Cars are known to be unsafe too but I don't see any exemptions being suggested for Ford, GM or Chrysler. Either exempt ALL industries or none and let the courts handle it like they always have. This reeks to high heaven of payback to one of the most generous republican campaign donors.
>>>Racicot said Kerry "crossed a grave line" by suggesting replacement of the commander in chief at a time of war.<<<
So what? Droves of high ranking republicans suggested replacement of the commander in chief from the day Bill Clinton took office until he left, through war and peace. Same old sob story from the GOP: "Please dont't treat Bush the way we treated Clinton".
Immunity for gun industry? Lots of interesting legislation taking place in the shadow of war:
"I can't imagine giving an exemption like this to one industry, especially this one. Toys are more heavily regulated than guns, and there's no immunity for the toy industry against litigation."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/04/politics/04GUNS.html?th
>>>It's not just the hatred in the ME. It's more the anti-Americanism coming out of Europe, Canada and other "ally" nations that bothers me. And you are right, it's not "new". I think much of it is rooted in envy, but the negative sentiment has been exacerbated post 9/11 when we could have used the event to build unity.<<<
I don't buy the "envy" part that everyone likes to use for an excuse. All of Europe have free elections and they all have conservative, pro-extreme capitalism parties they could vote for if they wanted our system. They may be fascinated by the obscene wealth creation that's possible here, but they also see the downside of it - like a violent crime rate unparalelled anywhere else on earth, 25% of our citizens without access to healthcare, seniors unable to afford medication, lousy education, and Enron type fiascos that rob regular folks of their retirement savings. I have two European business partners, and from what I hear, they have no interest in trading what they perceive as their civilized society for our borderline anarchy. I also sense that their intense contempt for GW Bush and much of his administration has more to do with their anti Iraq war attitude than anything else. Europe had no problem at all with America and Americans until Bush kicked off his post-9/11 mission from God crusade with a combination of arrogance and ignorance they are simply not used to among their leaders.
>>>Do you doubt that Saddam Hussein supports, finances and encourages terror?<<<
Not at all. I just haven't seen any credible evidence that ties him to 9/11 or to Al Qaeda for that matter. Both the FBI and the CIA stated publically that after a year and a half of trying to make the connection, they (and I quote) "just don't think it's there".
>>>To be sure, some war supporters are ignorant. According to a Knight-Ridder poll taken in early January, for example, half of Americans said that some of the 19 hijackers involved in the Sept. 11 attacks were Iraqis. It's fair to presume that most of the people who believe such nonsense also favor the war.<<<<
It gets worse. Recent polls show 65-75% of Americans convinced Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks. Of course, no such evidence has been presented - circumstancial or otherwise - BUT, the Bush administration has been relentless in the effort to always mention 9/11 whenever discussing the evils of Saddam Hussein. So for a population that stays on top of world events through news snippets during reality-show commercial breaks, the case was easily made.
>>>I was watching when he said that. It certainly says something about his character when he won't take responsibility for his actions. And it makes you wonder what other spins he's putting onto things he says.<<<<
What's pathetic about it is that we know full well what he would have said had the war been over in a week per his predictions. Frankly though, I don't know that I blame him. This is truly a teflon administration. What they get away with in terms of widely unpopular politics, bald faced lies, spin, deception and in-your-face arrogance boggles the mind. Somewhere down the line the rubber will hit the road, but it may be a while since they have the formula figured out: Terror, war & chaos = unconditional patriotism = no questions asked. Iraq, Iran and North Korea should cover the foreseeable future nicely.