FRB and housing market

114 replies [Last post]
executivejock's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-29

Is the FRB messing up with these rate hikes?
Is their a bubble? Local bubbles? 
WOW the dems are not only skum they lie about everything. They could not stress how terrible the economy was until a few months ago. Well damn it looks pretty good. Home ownership is higher then ever. No inflation, little unemployment and great corp profits. One must be a moron to listen to their leaders (Michael Moore and Howard Dean).
 

inquisitive's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-04-10

executivejock wrote:Is the FRB messing up with these rate hikes?

No.

executivejock wrote:

Is their a bubble? Local bubbles? 

Housing prices have almost tripled in some areas in the last 10 years.  If that isn't a bubble I don't know what is.

executivejock wrote:
WOW the dems are not only skum they lie about everything.

You better believe it!  Democratic voters are the dumbest of the
dumb.  Do you think all those parasites in the public housing
projects are going to investigate anything for themselves?

(Bonus:  what ethnic group consitently votes 80%-90% for
Democrats?  What is their average IQ?  Bonus #2:  why
are Democrats so eager to restore voting rights to convicted felons?)

executivejock wrote:
They could not stress how terrible the economy was until a few months ago.
No, they still stress how bad it is.  In the local paper this week
there were two letters to the editor saying how great the Clinton
economy was and how bad the Bush economy is.

Clinton did NOT have surpluses--only 1 TINY one factoring out the
Social Security revenue which shouldn't be included in the general
budget to begin with.  The INTERNET drove the economy of the
mid-to-late 1990s...NOT BILL CLINTON!!!

executivejock wrote:
Well damn it looks pretty good. Home ownership is higher then ever.

Not always a good thing.  Some trash (like those that get
government grants to infest the suburbs) don't belong in houses because
they'll only ruin them.

Have you ever seen pictures of Detroit???

executivejock wrote:

 No inflation, little unemployment and great corp profits. One
must be a moron to listen to their leaders (Michael Moore and Howard
Dean).

Yes, they are morons.  All of them. 

"The economy is in shambles," John Kerry said all during the 2004 campaign.

You know what's funny?  Markets all over the world rallied when
it was certain that Bush was re-elected.  As Kerry's poll numbers
went up, the stock market went down!

You know what else is funny?  Air America, the liberal radio network, has terrible ratings!  More liberal failure!!!

inquisitive's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-04-10

By the way, here's one of my favorite political cartoonists.  He's got a bit of a conservative bent...

http://www.ucomics.com/glennmccoy/

Absolutely brilliant!

executivejock's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-29

The IQ correlation must be an interesting statistic. The George Bush map is interesting when 98% (counties) of the county voted for Bush.
What concerns me is this BS that educational institutions are teaching our youth! Our armed forces recruiters are being harassed by idiot professors as then enter the school.
Could you imagine that happending during WWII. People would have kicked the hell out of an idiot professor. Most have never served a day.
Could you imagine two lawyers running this country. That is what would have happend is Edwards and Kerry won. Could you imagine each day before the election these skum were cheering for troops to die the econemy to struggle so they could say I told you so.
Thank god we have someone with the knowledge to surround himself with smart people. GO BUSH!!

executivejock's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-29

You have to love the amazing foreign policy Clinton had. According to all the skum he was so close in Palastine. Close what the hell does that mean? Was he an idiot thinking Saddam paying marters and Arafat stealing billions was going to work. THEY HATED ISREAL AND WOULD NEVER COME TO A DEAL!
The wonderful fake economy. As Janet Reno was flapping her gums to save slick willie the SEC and nation defense was going to hell. Where was the change to be proactive against coruption. Where was the enforcement for those executives who stole billions of dollars.
The most important duty of the president is to protect the country. At best Clinton did a pathetic job. After 30 days on the job the twin towers were attacked. What did he do nothing! After Kobar Towers what was done? After USS Cole what was done? After the embassy attacks around the world what was done? After the threats what was done? After the training camps? After 12 broken UN resolutions what was done? After Saddam was paying the marters what was done? Absolutly nothing!! President Clinton failed!
So now we have a man who says "your either with us or against us." Well in 3 years we have democracy running wild in Afganistan, IRAQ, Lebannon, Lybia, Saudi, Pakistan and Yugoslavia. On top of this our President stated "Social Security is flawed." Bush sticks his neck out for the good of the country not some pole that is conducted by the liberal times!!

justaguy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-07-28

You are kidding, right?
There was a guy in the office that said "there goes half of you income"
when Bill Clinton got elected, it didn't work out that way.
Republicans don't lie? Where are thoes WMDs? Oh yeah our partner Pakistan was selling nuke technology.
The terrorist connect to Iraq? Well there is one now.
Democracy in 3 years? Kinda like things will settle down when we get
rid of the dead enders, who have been in their last throws for how long
now?
And now we have that gem of a diplomat John Bolton.
Ones opinion is not the only view: whether you, me, or Bush.
Ask the American Indians how good is was to have democracy brought to them.

babbling looney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

And this has to do with the Rookies and Trainees forum how??

executivejock's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-29

Well the dems like to hear professional BS's. Example Kennedy, Dean and Kerry who change their view daily.
I love how dems say one liners like WMD.. Well two DC snipers had 50 million americans freaking out. If Saddam was left his sons would have taken over. His only goal in life was to attack America.
The UN needs reform so send someone who is supported by the president not Kerry, Reid, Peluci and Kennedy. The UN is good, but corrupt. If the dems were so great then why are they loseing every election. The house, senete and local governments are ruled by everything but democrats. So maybe you are right they are the answer, but few agree with you here.

Cruiser's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-29

 
  If you think that the economy is better off with Bush as opposed to clinton, how the heck did you ever pass the series seven. I will put it in easy terms. Surplus good and deficit bad.

Juiced6's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-25

Come to Illinois - Republicans are a complete joke in this state all the way up the ladder.
Alan Keyes anyone - cmon even republicans would not have voted for this guy
As for one liners - you have Arnold as governor of california and if that is not enough listen to any of Bush's speeches.  WMD, terrorists, freedom, etc.
 
Saddam hated America but his biggest concern was Iran - attacking the US was never really an option for Saddam but Iran was.

inquisitive's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-04-10

executivejock wrote:The IQ correlation must be an interesting
statistic. The George Bush map is interesting when 98%
(counties) of the county voted for Bush.

The people who WORK and pay taxes vote Republican. 

How many republicans do you think you'll find in the public housing projects?

executivejock wrote:

What concerns me is this BS that educational institutions are
teaching our youth! Our armed forces recruiters are being harassed by
idiot professors as then enter the school.

What bothers me even more is when a *&^%%$# Senator says that we
are Nazis because we shut off the air conditioning for a terrorist--WHO
LIVES IN THE DESERT!!!  Idiots.

executivejock wrote:
Could you imagine that happending during WWII. People would have kicked
the hell out of an idiot professor. Most have never served a day.

During WWII people--rich, poor, famous celebrities even, VOLUNTEERED to
fight.  Jimmy Stewart, remember him?  He was a bomber pilot
who flew high risk missions and enlisted after he was already a famous
actor.

It's like night and day now.  We have one group of people who do nothing but whine and cry about everything.

Democrats:  The military supported BUSH by a huge margin. 
You do not represent the views of the military.  So stop using the
soldiers to further your anti-American opposition to everything America
does.

executivejock wrote:

Could you imagine two lawyers running this country. That is what
would have happend is Edwards and Kerry won. Could you imagine each day
before the election these skum were cheering for troops to die the
econemy to struggle so they could say I told you so.

John Kerry was a two-faced liar.  He lied about everything. 
He played both sides of every issue thinking that we voters were too
stupid to realize how full of crap he was.

John Edwards was an ambulance chaser who made MILLIONS suing good,
honest, hard-working doctors with bogus claims that their incompetence
caused babies to have cerebral palsy.  Oh yeah, and Edwards tried
to say that he "fought for the people".  Bullsh*t.  He fights
for the people by charging them 40% of the settlement???

Both were typical, yet disgusting examples of the elitist,
you-need-me-to-help-you attitude that permeates the modern Democratic
party.

executivejock wrote:

Thank god we have someone with the knowledge to surround himself with smart people. GO BUSH!!

Remember that all during the 2001 and 2002 economic downturn Democrats
fought to RAISE taxes.  I always like to ask Democrats how raising
taxes helps the economy and helps create jobs.  But they never
answer!

inquisitive's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-04-10

executivejock wrote:The most important duty of the president is to
protect the country. At best Clinton did a pathetic job. After 30 days
on the job the twin towers were attacked. What did he do nothing! After
Kobar Towers what was done? After USS Cole what was done? After the
embassy attacks around the world what was done? After the threats what
was done? After the training camps? After 12 broken UN resolutions what
was done? After Saddam was paying the marters what was done? Absolutly
nothing!! President Clinton failed!
So now we have a man who says "your either with us or against us."
Well in 3 years we have democracy running wild in Afganistan,
IRAQ, Lebannon, Lybia, Saudi, Pakistan and Yugoslavia. On top of this
our President stated "Social Security is flawed." Bush sticks his neck
out for the good of the country not some pole that is conducted by the
liberal times!!

Bill Clinton was SLIME.  Nothing more.  He lies, he cheats,
he pretends to be somethine he's not.  He says whatever he has to
say to appeal to his particular audience.

Clinon was a typical-lawyer type (have you ever noticed that the
Democratic party is chock full of lawyers???).  The Clinton
administration insisted that acts of terrorism be prosecuted as simple
crimes, akin to shoplifting, instead of acts of war that they are.

The first World Trade Center attack in 1993 was designed to take the
building down.  Had that happened, 10,000 people could have been
killed, according to what I read.

Be nice to those terrorists!  The Democrats insist that they be treated well!!!

inquisitive's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-04-10

justaguy wrote:You are kidding, right?
There was a guy in the office that said "there goes half of you income"
when Bill Clinton got elected, it didn't work out that way.

If you look at historical economic activity, you'll see plenty of peaks
and valleys.  Without coincidence, these peaks tend to occur after
the advent of new technology.

The railroad, automobile, etc.  Now, what major innovation
occurred during the 1990s?  What major technical innovation--that
Clinton had NOTHING to do with--drove major investment in new equipment
and support staff creating thousands, if not millions, of new jobs?

HOW DOES RAISING TAXES HELP STIMULATE THE ECONOMY AND CREATE JOBS? 

(Honestly.  What do you Democrats say to your clients?  "I
think this is a good strategy that will help you have consistent income
with enough growth to stay ahead of inflation, but it won't matter
because I'm supporting the candidate who plans to raise your taxes and
steal it all away from you"?)

The fact that the advent of the INTERNET offset Clinton's tax increases
and other economic incompetence does not mean what you think it
means.  (Who fought hard against Welfare Reform?  Clinton and
the Democrats.  They need to give out free cash to buy votes,
don't you know???)

justaguy wrote:
Republicans don't lie? Where are thoes WMDs?

Let's ask Bill Clinton:

(remove spaces put in link by message board)

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcri pts/clinton.html

Bill Clinton:

"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike
military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by
British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear,
chemical and biological weapons programs and its military
capacity to threaten its neighbors."

Where are those WMDs, Bill?  Why did you lie, Bill?  Why did
you CON the Bush administration into believing Iraq had WMDs and was
working to obtain nukes???

Perhaps, just perhaps, BOTH presidents, Democrat AND Republican had probable reason to believe that Iraq had WMDs?

justaguy wrote:
Oh yeah our partner Pakistan was selling nuke technology.

I thought it was just a rouge nuclear scientist and not the government itself...

justaguy wrote:
The terrorist connect to Iraq? Well there is one now.
Democracy in 3 years? Kinda like things will settle down when we get
rid of the dead enders, who have been in their last throws for how long
now?
And now we have that gem of a diplomat John Bolton.
Ones opinion is not the only view: whether you, me, or Bush.
Ask the American Indians how good is was to have democracy brought to them.

John Bolton--he bullies his subordinates.  Hahahaha.  I'm
sorry.  But the UN is CORRUPT.  Kofi Annan's own SON has been
implicating in the oil-for-food scandal.  That last thing we need
to do is send an ambassador to the UN who's going to follow the status
quo.

inquisitive's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-04-10

Cruiser wrote:  If you think that the economy is better off with
Bush as opposed to clinton, how the heck did you ever pass the series
seven. I will put it in easy terms. Surplus good and deficit bad.

Easy.  The economy today is REAL.

The economy of the 1990s was pumped up by FRAUD.  Accounting fraud
by corporations and fraud by senior executives in this very industry!

Enron--should not have had thousands of employees because they never
had the money to fund them.  Enron, Worldcom, and others made
acquisition after acquisition based on fradulent financials.

Same goes for numerous other companies.

By the way, do you really think that a company with NO profitability,
little revenue, and little probability for profitability should be
worth $5 billion?  Honestly?

Fraud by Wall Street is responsible for much of the economic activity
of the 1990s.  They pumped junk.  They encouraged clients to
invest in crap.  A lot of companies went belly up and they never
should have went public.  That's a lot of employees losing their
jobs--jobs they never should have had in the first place.

Of the tech companies that survived the bubble (Yahoo, Amazon and others), most are still down 60-80% off their bubble highs.

Speaking of passing the S7, what happens to all the capital gains tax
revenue when the market tanks?  What happens to future tax
revenues because of all the tax loss carryforwards?

The capital gains tax cuts caused the market to rally.  Bush's tax
cuts caused a huge jump in economic growth immediately following. 
You cannot argue that.

Also, I think you should look up the "natural rate of
unemployment".  A 4.3% unemployment rate is not natural and
unsustainable in the long run.  Take a look at the historical
unemployment rate of the United States and you'll find that it is
normally 5% - 6%--right where it is now.  Right where it should be.

One more thing:  Bill Clinton NEVER had surplusses!!!  This
is just more lies that the gullible believe when spoon-fed from their
Democrat leaders.

Factoring out social security revenues, Clinton had ONE surplus of $87
billion (or so).  That's factoring in many billions of capital
gains tax revenues that disappeared after the bubble burst.  Not
surplusses like you people consistently lie about!!!

Let us not forget that all that "buy Amazon it's going to $400" bs generated a lot of capital gains tax revenue.

You want to cut the deficit.  Easy:  cut welfare.  Watch
all those Democrat voters whine and cry because they have to get
jobs. 

inquisitive's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-04-10

Juiced6 wrote:Come to Illinois - Republicans are a complete joke in this state all the way up the ladder.

Yeah, let's go to Illinois.  Home of rampant corruption.  Ahhh, you've got to love those Daly fellows, don't you?

Mile after mile of public housing projects were built by the
Democrats that did nothing but attract trash from out of state. 
Trash that just happens to be loyally Democratic-voting.  All part
of the plan, wasn't it?

Look at how the IL counties voted.  Almost the entire state
leaned Republican, except for a few areas.  Look at
welfare-dependent Chicago.  70% Democrat.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/IL/P/0 0/index.html

What's the crime like in Chicago?

http://www.chicagocrime.org/

Must be nice on a pleasant summer evening to sit by an open window and listen to the sound of gunfire every night.

Juiced6's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-25

ah yes someone telling me how this state is who probably hasnt visited it
see unions also vote democrat and well there is a lot of manufacturing that goes on as well - probably more people employed at these jobs then on welfare
yes i have seen the map but Princton actually revised that map based on the number of voters and well most of illinois was purple not red.
Purple being the mix of democrats and republicans
 
Im not saying democrats are perfect here in fact they are just as bad as republicans however, it is the democrats who run this state and it is run from chicago - the rest of the state is screwed.
All a politician has to do is promise jobs for Rockford, Aurora, Naperville, and East St Louis promote corn and coal for the rest of the state, and the rest is Chicago and they will win.

Juiced6's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-25

And another thing - when half of the country does not vote in the first place - does that mean that Bush was elected by 25% of the people?
 
Now that is a sad sad case right there.

Juiced6's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-25

WW2 - lets see Germany, Italy, and Japan united and going to war with the world.
Japan bombs us as it plans to invade us.
US finally enters war after years of neutrality. 
Iraq and Afghanistan war - no ties to any attacks on US soil.
US goes to war on what seems to be lies right now.
In one case - we needed to defend this country.  The other is well shaded and truth is now starting to peak through.
Makes you rethink Vietnam now too.

Juiced6's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-25

Quote:Where are those WMDs, Bill?  Why did you lie, Bill?  Why did you CON the Bush administration into believing Iraq had WMDs and was working to obtain nukes???
Good question both Colin Powell and Condi Rice both said Iraq did not have WMDs from July 01
Then what a year later he had them? 
So let me get this straight - Bill said he had them and he didnt - okay he lied.   Then in 01 under Bush - two of his top advisors are on the news saying Iraq did not have WMDs - they are correct.  Then magically after all this tough terror talk he has them - now Bush lied.
And in the end those weapons never did turn up.  See Bill might have lied but he never acted on it because he was going to let inpsectors do their job - Bush wanted in Iraq whether for oil, revenge whatever.
There is no two ways around that.
And no Im not a Liberal democrat either.

Soothsayer's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-02-24

Okay, now you've done it.  I can't take any more of this bleeding heart liberal logic that is so freaking flawed that I can't believe that the people who repeat what they've heard on TV actually believe what they are saying.  Let's take a little walk back through history.  Remember 1990 and 1991?  The first Gulf War?  Remember that little weasel Peter Arnett from CNN giving us his live broadcasts from the rooftops of Tel Aviv?  What was he wearing, Democrats?  A MOPP suit and a gas mask!  That's what he was wearing.  And, video tape doesn't lie! Why?  Because he, along with everyone else, including all of the "Where's the WMDs, You said there were WMDs, You have never found any WMDs" in the media, believed Saddam had WMDs.  If they didn't think he had them, then why wasn't brave little Peter standing out there with a polo shirt and baseball cap?  Because he was sh*tting his pants, that's why.  Everytime Saddam launched another SCUD missile towards Israel or Saudi Arabia, the biggest fear was that it would contain a chemical or biological agent.  
Okay, now Democrats, follow the bouncing ball.  We knew Saddam had SCUDs (delivery system or mechanism).  And, we knew he had gassed the Kurds. (Chemcial Weapons for those keeping score at home.)  Delivery system + chemical weapon = Weapon of Mass Destruction.  Questions, class?  Now, once again, this was all back in 1991.  So, therefore, is it reasonable to guess or speculate that Saddam had furthered his capabilities in the ensuing 13 years as he steadfastly refused to submit to the UN inspections that he had agreed to as a condition of surrender? 
The other empty argument I can't stand is: "Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11.  They were just minding their own business, and then George Bush decided to steal their oil."  Bullsh*t!  Again, most of the Democratic history buffs can't remember as far back as 1991.  Iraq was not minding their own business.  In fact, they invaded another sovereign nations solely for the purpose of stealing that country's oil and considerable wealth that was wisely invested throughtout the West (mostly in the UK and US).  For more than four months, Bush Senior cleverly assembled the largest military force possessing more firepower than had ever been known in the history of man.  Even more than on D-Day.  The request was simple.  Leave Kuwait or you will removed from Kuwait.  We even gave Hussein a final deadline or "drop dead" date.  He beat his chest and dared us and the rest of the world to take him on.  Everyone knows what happened after that.  He and his troops received a swift, thorough ass-kicking from US led forces.  (Remember how that experienced, battle-hardened Republican Guard was going to make quick work of our wet-behind-the-ears volunteer forces?  CNN analysis).  I was serving at the time, and we couldn't wait to unleash the power and technology of the US Army for all the idiots at CNN and the rest of the world to see.  Anyway, back on message.
History has remained constant in one area of warfare.  If you start a war, and then lose that war, the victor will determine the spoils of that war.  In the case of Iraq, the spoils were:  Agreeing to UN weapons inspections, and the enforcement of the "no-fly" zones.  I think it is important to point out here that only two countries provided the airmen, the aircraft, the jet fuel, and the logistical know-how to patrol the no-fly zones.  And, those two countries were the US and the UK.  Not Germany.  Not France.  Not Russia.  Not China.  Not Italy.  Not anybody else.  And what did we get for our efforts?  Shot at!  Repeatedly.  Over and over.  That, in and of itself, boys and girls, is a clear and deliberate act of war.  It is in direct defiance of the agreed spoils of the previous war when we so graciously called off the dogs and stopped short of a march to Bagdhad.  So, from my standpoint, I don't give a rat's ass if Saddam Hussein never possessed so much as a smokebomb.  His repeated engagement of our airmen and aircraft was reason enough for the US and UK to forcibly remove him from power--without asking for permission from Germany, France, Russia, China, or anybody else. 
You see, I served.  I don't measure the cost of war in the ongoing body count that the press seems to be obsessed with keeping track of.  I always view the losses as a very human cost.  Every soldier that dies is somebody's son, somebody's father, somebody's brother.  And those guys were being fired at by Iraqi forces without provocation.  Those were American airmen.  Our best and brightest who attended our military acadamies and finest colleges.  Guys who forewent the big money to serve their nation with honor.  So, don't tell me Iraq was minding their own business.  They started a war, they lost the war, they agreed to a cease fire with certain conditions, and then they repeatedly never met those conditions.  Not only did they fail to meet them, they very deliberately and brashly sabotaged and mocked those conditions.  It was time to enforce the conditions of surrender, and stand up for our airmen who were being fired at in such a cowardly way.  Think about it Democrats.  What if that was your brother, your Dad, your husband up their enforcing those no-fly zones and getting his ass shot off for it.  Would you need any more reason? 
  

VotedforKerry's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-08-03

Sooth,
Listen to yourself "we couldn't wait to unleash the power and technology of the U.S. Army ....."  Buddy I think you have a problem you seem to enjoy the thought of war way too much.  So you served, my family is full of serviceman and one is Mosul right now.  They served and they shut up about it. If you join just do your job. You serve and you want some kind of pat on the back.  Ranting for five paragraphs makes you sound like a war monger not someone who wants to deliver peace and democracy.
Just chill my friend, geez, with your attitude have you considere a career as a prison guard or in the post office.  Your FA must be shaking in her boots when you're upset.
 
 
 

Soothsayer's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-02-24

VotedforKerry wrote:
Sooth,
Listen to yourself "we couldn't wait to unleash the power and technology of the U.S. Army ....."  Buddy I think you have a problem you seem to enjoy the thought of war way too much.  So you served, my family is full of serviceman and one is Mosul right now.  They served and they shut up about it. If you join just do your job. You serve and you want some kind of pat on the back.  Ranting for five paragraphs makes you sound like a war monger not someone who wants to deliver peace and democracy.
Just chill my friend, geez, with your attitude have you considere a career as a prison guard or in the post office.  Your FA must be shaking in her boots when you're upset.
You're an idiot.  That doesn't even dignify a response.  Go ahead and feel free to refute any of the logical case I laid out. 
 
 
 

Juiced6's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-25

Quote:
You're an idiot.  That doesn't even dignify a response.  Go ahead and feel free to refute any of the logical case I laid out. 
 
Which was?
What is funny about the first Iraq war - Kuwait flooded the world with cheap oil.  Didn' Saddam ask the UN to do something.  In fact I am quite sure he even threatened war with Kuwait and nothing so Saddam loaded up his army and invaded.
Then daddy Bush got the world all in a hissy fit and invaded.  Atleast daddy Bush waited until he had an excuse.
 
Also quick history lesson - wasn't World War 2 started because of the victors of World War 1?
History is funny especially for those who actually know it.

BlahBlahBlah's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-03-06

Juiced6 wrote:
Iraq and Afghanistan war - no ties to any attacks on US soil.

Wow, I am still shaking my head!!! Afghanistan??? No ties to attacks on U.S. soil???
Where the hell do you think the Taliban were from???  Please stop making up facts as you go, you are embarassing yourself!!!!

Starka's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-30

"Also quick history lesson - wasn't World War 2 started because of the victors of World War 1?
History is funny especially for those who actually know it."
 
History isn't funny...ignorant people who claim to know history are funny.  WW II was started because of the victors of WW I?  Try this: Google the words "Pearl Harbor".

Soothsayer's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-02-24

Let me see if I have some of this right.  Iraq had every reason and justification necessary to invade and literally loot Kuwait because they were engaging in unfair trade practices? 
Voted for Kerry implies that his family member's service is higher and better than mine because he went to Mosul and then shut up about it.  I'm not bragging or asking for a "pat on the back", I'm just expressing how it feels from the standpoint of someone who served in Gulf War I.  Why is it that so many in the press can't remember what happened a decade ago?  Did they sleep through it.  Oh, and I'm also a war monger, and a peace hater (name calling).  I'm all for peace on fair and reasonable terms.  Not, peace at all costs.  As far as unleashing the power of US forces, do you have any idea how frustrating it is to be the guy whos ass is on the line, and Judy Woodruff from CNN is putting on "military expert" talking head after talking head who is predicting that you are about to get carved up like a fat ham on a Christmas buffet by that battle hardened Republican Guard.  These idiots had no idea of the true firepower of our arsenal, and were openly disrespectful of the most professional, well-equipped, and well-trained army in our country's history. 
Juiced6 wants to know what some of the "facts" were.  Did Peter Arnett wear a gas mask back in 1991?  Did Iraq invade Kuwait?  Was the only condition of averting war to simply leave?  Start with those 3.
For the most part, Germany started WWI.  They lost.  France and Britain dictated monetary reparations as punishment against the wishes of the United States.  Those reparations literally bankrupted Germany causing widespread abject poverty and human misery, and set the stage for a country being highjacked by a mad dictator.  Then, Germany (along with their Axis partners) started WWII.  The victors divided their country into four parts which became two parts.  Remember East and West Germany?  I know it preceded the first Gulf War.  Clearly an outcome that exemplified the spoils of war.
I'm with BlahBlahBlah on the whole Afghanistan thing.  You know, Ann Coulter always says that liberals don't know how to argue.  You lay out facts and logic, they bring back name-calling and diversion of the argument.  Come on, guys and gals.  Bring back some real argument.  Don't make your most hated and despised conservative icon right again.

Juiced6's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-25

 
Who was from afghanistan?  I thought they were Saudis?
In 91 yes Saddam did have SCUDs I did not deny that but I obviously did so sorry.  Hell he may even had them all through the Clinton years I even said that However, over 3 years ago two of Bush's top aids said he did not have them and they had proof then!  So how did this poor country go about getting them after?  That is all I want to know.
Answer to my history question - Germany had to pay reperations - Japan and Italy also helped the Allies in WW1 and they were screwed over and got little if anything - this planted the seeds for them to align with Hitler!
Im not making up facts - I just read the back pages of the newspapers with the little font - you know where the article was about Iraq had no weapons and the search was being called off.
What is funny now is that more Americans are starting to think like me now - have you seen a latest approval rating of Bush - lowest he has ever had and it is all because of this war.
and Ann Coulter is the biggest moron to ever get into media - hell she even wanted to cut off relations to Canada because they did not back this war.  Yeah to quote Ann Coulter - wow talk about embarassing yourself.

Juiced6's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-25

Quote:Did Peter Arnett wear a gas mask back in 1991?  Did Iraq invade Kuwait?  Was the only condition of averting war to simply leave?
all three are correct - i never challenged that
Quote:Let me see if I have some of this right.  Iraq had every reason and justification necessary to invade and literally loot Kuwait because they were engaging in unfair trade practices?
So what was the reason Iraq invaded?  You never really do hear about it.  Or lets spin it this way - Lets say the US has only one export and it is cars.  We can make more cars than anyone however, if another country comes in and undercuts us we will be hurting for money.
Mexico decides to do that.  Now what do we do as country - stand by and go hungry, plead to the world for help, or go in and teach them a lesson.
 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

I think Ann Coulter is kinda hot, but not as hawt as Becky Quick from CNBC. 

Visigoth's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-01

Note: Part of this post was copied from a post in one of the previous
incarnations of this site.

After the end of the Cold War, the Dems (and some Reps) forgot about
history and human nature and decided there would be no more major
wars (kinda like Rumsfeld and Bush are doing as of this week by claiming
there is no need foor heavy divsions in the Army). See, they politizied the
PEACE DIVIDEND and the media failed to let the public know what it really
meant.(Cutting the size of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines in HALF
from 1980's levels)

Then Clinton (folowing Mrs. Albrights, bright advice) decide to deploy the
military to more small Peacekeeping, advisory and just plain police
actions than ever before. Meanwhile the American public slept (The
downside of a good economy, nobody cares).

Then 9-11 happened and the American public thought the military of the
'80s, and Desert Storm would respond. (it could'nt, it's HALF AS BIG)
Our professional figthers are the BEST in the world, but there's HALF as
many as most people think.

Why my fixation on the size of the military? It was the Clinton
administrations bright idea that the National Guard and Reserves could
do what the Professional Army can (forgetting that these people signed
on to pull through in case of a National Emergency, NOT as PERMANENT
SOLDIERS)

During the 60's, 70's and 80's you could sign up for the National Guard
and or Reserves, get great benefits, honorably serve your country in a
limited capacity (a few weekends a year) and not reasonably expect to go
to WAR.

CAN YOU NAME THIS COUNTRY?

709,000 REGULAR (ACTIVE DUTY) PERSONNEL.293,000 RESERVE TROOPS.

EIGHT STANDING ARMY DIVISIONS.

20 AIR FORCE AND NAVY AIR WINGS WITH 2,000 COMBAT AIRCRAFT.

232 STRATEGIC BOMBERS.

19 STRATEGIC BALLISTIC MISSILE SUBMARINES WITH 3,114
NUCLEAR*************WARHEADS ON 232 MISSILES.

500 ICBMs WITH 1,950 WARHEADS.

FOUR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS AND 121 SURFACE COMBAT SHIPS AND
SUBMARINES PLUS ALL THE SUPPORT BASES, SHIPYARDS, AND LOGISTICAL
ASSETS NEEDED TO SUSTAIN SUCH A NAVAL FORCE.

IS THIS COUNTRY:

RUSSIA? NO

CHINA? NO

GREAT BRITAIN? NO

FRANCE? WRONG AGAIN (What a Laugh!)

MUST BE THE USA? STILL WRONG (Sort of.)

GIVE UP?

THESE ARE THE AMERICAN MILITARY FORCES THAT WERE ELIMINATED
DURING THE ADMINISTRATION OF BILL CLINTON AND AL GORE. AND
THEIR ELIMINATION WAS SUPPORTED 100% BY JOHN KERRY! (THESE HE
DID VOTE ON!)

SLEEP WELL!This is not a new message, but a reminder of why we now
have over-deployment of our National Guard and Reserve Units!

BUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DONT KNOW THIS.

Dont get me wrong, Democrats, Republicans and the Media could've
brought this up before 9-11. They didn't. Kerry even voted repeatedly for
less and less resources for the military and Intelligence services.

But now nobody talks about this, everyone conveniently says: LET'S GET
ON WITH IT. Same as during the 20's, same as during the 90's.

I really see us loosing in Irak and Afganistan. NOT because of our military,
but because of lack of effective leadership from both parties and lack of
interest and knowledge from a population fat on McDonalds and Oprah

I hate to say this, but without an effective leader, only a nuke going off in
a major city will wake people up in this country.

Thought you'd find this interesting.

At about the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution, in
the year 1787, Alexander Tyler (a Scottish history professor at The
University of Edinborough) had this to say about "The Fall of The Athenian
Republic" some 2,000 years prior.

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a
permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up
until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous
gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always
votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public
treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to
loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning
of history, has been about 200 years. During those
200 years, these nations always progressed through the following
sequence:

From Bondage to spiritual faith;

From spiritual faith to great courage;

From courage to liberty;

From liberty to abundance;

From abundance to complacency;

From complacency to apathy;

From apathy to dependence;

From dependence back into bondage."

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul,
Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the most recent

Presidential election:

Population of counties won by:

Gore=127 million

Bush=143 million

Square miles of land won by:

Gore=580,000

Bush=2,2427,000

States won by:

Gore=19

Bush=29

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties
won by:

Gore=13.2

Bush=2.1

Professor Olson adds:

"In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land
owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great country.
Gore's territory encompassed those citizens living in government-owned
tenements and living off government welfare..." Olson believes the U.S. is
now somewhere between the "apathy" and “complacency" phase of
Professor Tyler's definition of democracy; with some 40 percent of the
nation's population already having reached the "governmental
dependency" phase.

This country (Dems and Republicans) needs a wake up call, 9-11
apparently was not enough.   

Cruiser's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-29

 
  Visigoth
I hope you build your own roads. use only your own form of transportation. and homeschool your children. After all you would not want to be a hypocrite and become part of that  40 percent of the nation's population that has entered the "governmental dependency" phase.

Juiced6's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-25

For the most part though I do agree with Visigoths post
Half of the country does not care - compare that to what was it Russia or one of those countries over there earlier this year they had election fraud and the whole country basically came out in protest.
That would not happen in America - like he said a wake up call is needed.
 

VotedforKerry's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-08-03

Soothsayer wrote:VotedforKerry wrote:
Sooth,
Listen to yourself "we couldn't wait to unleash the power and technology of the U.S. Army ....."  Buddy I think you have a problem you seem to enjoy the thought of war way too much.  So you served, my family is full of serviceman and one is Mosul right now.  They served and they shut up about it. If you join just do your job. You serve and you want some kind of pat on the back.  Ranting for five paragraphs makes you sound like a war monger not someone who wants to deliver peace and democracy.
Just chill my friend, geez, with your attitude have you considere a career as a prison guard or in the post office.  Your FA must be shaking in her boots when you're upset.
You're an idiot.  That doesn't even dignify a response.  Go ahead and feel free to refute any of the logical case I laid out. 
Sooth, I must apologize, I just realized that you must be still suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.  You must still have nightmares of all the latrines your Capt. made you clean during the Gulf War while the real soldiers were chasing the Republican Guard while they were dropping their rifles and running away.  Lighten the f*&* up.  One more word "Prozac."  Have a good one.
 

Starka's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-30

I'm curious, VfK.
Why would you think that cleaning latrines (or "heads" in the Navy and Marine Corps) is somehow a dishonorable duty?  (On that subject, those duties are assigned by NCOs, not officers.)  Why is pride in one's service a negative in your eyes?  Why is it perfectly acceptable to vote for the candidate of your choice, yet citizens voting for other candidates are not worthy of the same right, yet seem to be fair game for personal, ad hominem attacks?  Is there no room in your political philosophy for dissent?  Doesn't that seem narrow-minded and smack of totalitarianism to you?
If you want to make a case for your point of view, fine!  I'll listen.  Respectfully, so far your case doesn't hold water.

inquisitive's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-04-10

Juiced6 wrote:And another thing - when half of the country does
not vote in the first place - does that mean that Bush was elected by
25% of the people?

Now that is a sad sad case right there.

Yeah, you better go canvas those public housing project for more
Democratic-voting losers and welfare parasites so maybe you can win an
election.

Better hit the prisons, too.  Those ex-cons don't like republicans.  Too tough on crime, ya know.

inquisitive's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-04-10

Juiced6 wrote:WW2 - lets see Germany, Italy, and Japan united and going to war with the world.

You are wrong.  Japan was at war long before they allied with Germany.  See China for details.

Juiced6 wrote:
Japan bombs us as it plans to invade us.
US finally enters war after years of neutrality.

There was no alliance of support between Japan and Germany.  Their only commonality was their desire for power.

Germany NEVER attacked the United States.  Or did anything else
against the United States.  In fact, one thing Germany didn't want
in the first place was a war on two fronts.  They didn't want
Britain entering the war, and they certainly didn't want the US to
enter the war.
Further, Japan was a weak enemy from the start.  90% (from what
I've read) of our war effort in WWII was focused on the European
theater--against an enemy that didn't do a thing to us. 
Juiced6 wrote:

Iraq and Afghanistan war - no ties to any attacks on US soil.

Afghanistan was controlled by the Taliban.  A group that was harboring Bin Laden.

Iraq...didn't you READ those Clinton quotes I provided? 
Sorry.  I know how you left-wingers like to revise history for
your benefit.  But Saddam was not a nice guy.  Further,
everyone believed Saddam had WMDs.  Everyone.

Juiced6 wrote:

US goes to war on what seems to be lies right now.

READ THE CLINTON QUOTES!!!

You (*&^% ^%$$$#!  Sorry.  I hate to resort to name
calling but some people are so damn stupid they need a ratchet against
the side of the head!!!

Juiced6 wrote:
In one case - we needed to defend this country.  The other is well shaded and truth is now starting to peak through.

READ THE CLINTON QUOTES!  You can read, right?  What does
Clinton say?  What does Clinton say that Bush didn't repeat?

Juiced6 wrote:

Makes you rethink Vietnam now too.
No.  What it makes me rethink is how the hell people like you can graduate from high school in the first place.

READ THE CLINTON QUOTES FROM 1998!!!

Juiced6's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-25

College too.

inquisitive's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-04-10

Juiced6 wrote:Quote:Where are those WMDs, Bill?  Why did
you lie, Bill?  Why did you CON the Bush administration into
believing Iraq had WMDs and was working to obtain nukes???
Good question both Colin Powell and Condi Rice both said Iraq did not have WMDs from July 01

LIAR!  Neither of them said that.  Some idiot around here
provided video of some quotes OUT OF CONTEXT.  You don't know what
they said because only a few seconds of it was provided by your liberal
idiots.

Juiced6 wrote:
Then what a year later he had them?

You have no clue (as with everything) about what they said. 
BECAUSE YOUR LEFTIST HEROES DID NOT PROVIDE THE ENTIRE QUOTES TO YOU!!!

Juiced6 wrote:

So let me get this straight - Bill said he had them and he didnt - okay he lied.  

What in the heck is wrong with you?  "Duh, I can't argue my way
out of this one...so instead of back-tracking and admitting that Bush
didn't lie and relied on the best information he had at the
time--information he believed to be accurate and true, I'll just say
Clinton, a well-known liar, must have lied, too."

Guess what...if we wanted the OIL we could have just gotten rid of
the embargo and bought it a LOT CHEAPER THAN IT WOULD COST TO INVADE
THE F*CKING COUNTRY IN THE FIRST PLACE!  GET A BRAIN!

Juiced6 wrote:

Then in 01 under Bush - two of his top advisors are on the news saying Iraq did not have WMDs - they are correct. 

They NEVER SAID ANY SUCH THING!  The only thing you've seen is a few seconds of quotes TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT.

Juiced6 wrote:

Then magically after all this tough terror talk he has them - now Bush lied.

The Democratic party is chock full of the ignorant and stupid...

Juiced6 wrote:

And in the end those weapons never did turn up. 

Since those weapons never turned up, the Kurds must have gassed
themselves, right?  I suppose the Kuwaitis invaded themselves,
too, huh?

Juiced6 wrote:

See Bill might have lied but he never acted on it because he was going to let inpsectors do their job

No, Clinton never acted on it--wait, he did bomb an aspirin
factory...Clinton didn't act on ANYTHING.  All Clinton did was
talk bullsh*t because some chumps believe bullsh*t and lies. 

What did Clinton do about the 1993 WTC attack?  Nothing.  Clinton did nothing about everything.

Juiced6 wrote:

- Bush wanted in Iraq whether for oil, revenge whatever.

So clueless...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/

Clinton defends successor's push for war
Former President Clinton has revealed
that he continues to support President Bush's decision to go to war in
Iraq but chastised the administration over the abuses at Abu Ghraib
prison.
"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against
the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the
U.N. inspections were over,"

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that
Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of
a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction
remained unaccounted for.
Noting that Bush had to be "reeling" in
the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Clinton said Bush's
first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from
obtaining "chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile
material."
"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a
lot of stuff unaccounted for," Clinton said in reference to Iraq and
the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998.

Juiced6 wrote:

There is no two ways around that.

See the above.

Juiced6 wrote:

And no Im not a Liberal democrat either.
Whatever you are, you exhibit the cognitive deficiencies of a liberal democrat.

Juiced6's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-25

Well your dead on about WW2 - but you twisted it to make it look like I am the idiot.  Japan and Germany were never allied?  Hmm then why did they share?  Why did Germany declare war on the US after the US declared on Japan?  But yeah they did not ally.
So 50% of this country is either on welfare or in prison?  I didnt know half this country was that poor and pathetic.  Or is because even honest working class folks, wealthy folks, and poor just do not care about politics?
I know what Clinton said however, I never brought up Clinton - once again you are rehashing typical republican nonsense - it is fun to mess with you guys because it is the same answer out of all of your mouths - you have yet to deny any of what I said but are quick to point out my faults of history that I never mentioned.

inquisitive's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-04-10

Juiced6 wrote:Also quick history lesson - wasn't World War 2 started because of the victors of World War 1?

No.  WWII got started because of a power-mad dictator who did not
hesitate to send MILLIONS of his own people to their deaths so he could
enslave the Slavs (that the Nazis considered inferior) and have more
land for the expansion of the "fatherland".

What we should learn from WWII is what can happen when you FAIL TO TAKE ACTION to a potential threat.

Britain and France knew Germany was rebuilding its military during the
1930s--in clear violation of Versailles.  Britain and France did
nothing.  They appeased Germany.  Germany took the
Rhineland.  Annexed Austria...Britain and France did nothing but
watch.  Then Prussia, Poland...by the time France and Britain
decided to actually do something it WAS TOO LATE.  Germany had
achieved critical mass and could not be stopped.

In the early days of WWII 1939 - 1940, even after declaring war,
Britain and France did little more than drop propaganda leaflets on
Germany.

In fact, French soldiers used to watch the Germans on the other side of the river amassing troops and did NOTHING.

France fell quickly.  Why?  Because they failed to act when they had the chance.

With each little victory Hitler grew more brazen because he saw how
easy it was to take what he wanted.  That emboldened him. 
Much like how the liberal cowards embolden the Terrorists by giving in
to their demands.

Juiced6 wrote:

History is funny especially for those who actually know it.
Or those who don't, apparently.

inquisitive's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-04-10

Juiced6 wrote:I know what Clinton said however, I never brought up
Clinton - once again you are rehashing typical republican nonsense - it
is fun to mess with you guys because it is the same answer out of all
of your mouths - you have yet to deny any of what I said but are quick
to point out my faults of history that I never mentioned.

What did you say?  Ah yes:  BUSH LIED.  The same old, tired, worn-out tripe.

It is not non-sense in the least.  What it is is a shared view
held by two different presidents from two different political parties.

You lie by saying that Bush lied.  Then, to cover up YOUR lies,
you say "well Clinton must have lied, too."  The odds of two
presidents from opposing parties conspiring together to spread the same
lie--for whatever reason your delusional mind wishes to invent--is
highly unlikely.

Could it be that YOU are the liar?  Could it be that both Clinton
and Bush Jr. relied on intelligence gathered by the US, UN, and other
international intelligence agenicies and formulated opinions on Iraq's
WMDs based on that intelligence?

Bush did not lie.  Bush took the view--an appropriate view--that was held by his predecessor.

EVERYONE believed Saddam had WMDs.  I suggest you read the ENTIRE
text of UN Resolution 1441.  You act as if the United States acted
alone with respect to Iraq.  Nothing could be further from the
truth.  Just ask Britain, Australia, Japan, and plenty of others
if they believed Iraq had WMDs.

The ball is in your court.

inquisitive's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-04-10

Juiced6 wrote:Quote:Did Peter Arnett wear a gas mask back in
1991?  Did Iraq invade Kuwait?  Was the only condition of
averting war to simply leave?
all three are correct - i never challenged that

Ahhhhhhhh, Peter Arnett lied, TOO.  Ahhh, I see.  So Bush Jr,
Clinton, and Peter Arnet all got together and said, "let's make up some
lies about Iraq having WMDs just for the hell of it.  Then well
place trade restrictions on Iraq's oil and instead of lowering those
trade restrictions to get that oil, we'll invade instead.  Because
we don't buy oil cheaply on the world market when we can spend billions
and billions and risk lives to take it."

What color is the sky in your world?

inquisitive's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-04-10

Juiced6 wrote:
 
Who was from afghanistan?  I thought they were Saudis?

Were they?  Hmmm.  And Al-Zarqawi, the terrorist ring-leader
in Iraq, is Jordanian...Hmmm.  Let's see, foreign fighters
entering a land without being invited and they must then represent the
official views of that land?

Juiced6 wrote:

In 91 yes Saddam did have SCUDs I did not deny that but I obviously
did so sorry.  Hell he may even had them all through the Clinton
years I even said that However, over 3 years ago two of Bush's top aids
said he did not have them

Nope.  They never said any such thing.  And besided, advisors are advisors and not the president. 

Juiced6 wrote:

and they had proof then!  So how did this poor country go about getting them after?  That is all I want to know.

I think you already know:  Peter Arnett, George Bush, and Bill
Clinton made up LIES about Iraq having WMDs so they could erect oil
embargos and, instead of buying the oil cheaply on the world market,
invade to steal that oil.  BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!  Them evil
presidents!

Don't forget the Kurds were in on it to:  They gassed
themselves in the 1980s and framed innocent Saddam for it. 
Kuwaitis invaded themselves, too.

Juiced6 wrote:

Answer to my history question - Germany had to pay reperations -

Because they caused much harm and loss of life.

Juiced6 wrote:

 Japan and Italy also helped the Allies in WW1 and they were
screwed over and got little if anything - this planted the seeds for
them to align with Hitler!

Nope.  The only thing those nations shared was a desire for
power.  That and they were run by ruthless dictators.  You
know, dictators...like Saddam.  Or your buddy Kim Jong Ill (or
whatever his name is) in North Korea that Clinton GAVE a nuclear
reactor to.

Juiced6 wrote:

Im not making up facts - I just read the back pages of the
newspapers with the little font - you know where the article was about
Iraq had no weapons and the search was being called off.

You are very selective in your reading of world events.

Juiced6 wrote:

What is funny now is that more Americans are starting to think like
me now - have you seen a latest approval rating of Bush - lowest he has
ever had and it is all because of this war.

Uh huh.  And Bush's approval went up after the elections,
too.  You know why?  Because the media feeds mind-numbed
robots like you with lies and you go out and parrot those lies word for
word.

A smear campaign, and nothing more.

Oh, by the way, Dan Rather STILL insists that the fake military
records story CBS News did was legitimate.  And he still holds the
view that those forged documents have not been conclusively proven to
be forgeries!  Hahahaha.

Juiced6 wrote:

and Ann Coulter is the biggest moron to ever get into media - hell
she even wanted to cut off relations to Canada because they did not
back this war. 

Good.   Canada sucks.

Juiced6 wrote: 
Yeah to quote Ann Coulter - wow talk about embarassing yourself.

Soothsayer's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-02-24

You must still have nightmares of all the latrines your Capt. made you clean during the Gulf War while the real soldiers were chasing the Republican Guard while they were dropping their rifles and running away.
Served in a line infantry unit.  Please don't mock my service, or anyone else's for that matter.  I was there, you weren't, enough said.
Germany NEVER attacked the United States.  Or did anything else against the United States. 
Germans U-Boats were attacking US merchant ships off the Atlantic coast as early as 1940.  Their attacks were passive, must like the radical Arab world's attacks against the US that started with the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1982. 
 90% (from what I've read) of our war effort in WWII was focused on the European theater
With all due respect, go read something else.  Check out the dead and wounded numbers from the Pacific and European theaters.  Also, there is a reason two atomic bombs were dropped on Japan and not Germany.  The Germans were developing V-2 rockets near the end of the war that were reaching Great Britain and were working on their own atomic bomb.  The United States wanted nothing to do with invading the Japanese homeland.  The bombs were meant as a way of escalating the level of destruction and human cruelty to the Japanese masses to get them to surrender--on our terms. 

inquisitive's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-04-10

Visigoth wrote:"In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land
owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great country.
Gore's territory encompassed those citizens living in government-owned
tenements and living off government welfare..."

Nothing could be more true!

Looking at the election map:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/

One can clearly see that in most of the states won by Kerry, Kerry won
the welfare-dependent, crime-ridden inner cities and Bush won most of
the rest of the counties.

Kerry got 90% of the Washington DC vote.  Do you know how high the crime rate is in DC?

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

inquisitive wrote: Visigoth wrote:"In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off government welfare..." Nothing could be more true!Looking at the election map:http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/One can clearly see that in most of the states won by Kerry, Kerry won the welfare-dependent, crime-ridden inner cities and Bush won most of the rest of the counties.Kerry got 90% of the Washington DC vote.  Do you know how high the crime rate is in DC?
Exactly! 

Juiced6's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-25

http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/
there is a more accurate voter turnout - purple.
When only 5% of this country in unemployed that means 95% must be working.
So how is 50% of this lands population in jail and on welfare if they are working - your voter theory just died.
I get my media from all sorts of places - from CNN and Fox to Internet and indy news sources - say what you want about any of them but it goes from far right to far left and I make my own decisions.
Also the French put all their faith in the Maginot Line - however, Germany had scouts and bombers to easily get by it.  France never cared because they thought this defense system would keep the Germans at bay - must be that your history reading is selective.
 

Juiced6's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-25

Bush did lie -
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/
 
so what did we go to war for?

Juiced6's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-25

Also I never did mention Dan Rather - so where did that come from?
 
What is funny is have you cornered so you are throwing out typical Right wing responses to make me look like some die hard liberal.
The truth is I vote for more republicans than democrats however, I do not agree with Bush. 
You on the other hand cannot even comprehend what I am saying just tossing up your own drivel so you feel smarter or better?  So does it?  Do you feel much smarter or a better class person because I have looked into this and have made my own independent conclusions? Well if it does -
Well whatever - I had fun but this is not a political page - lets just bury this right now and get back to talking about our careers.

Juiced6's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-25

Quote:Canada sucks.
Yeah but Hockey is always fun and its a great place to snowmobile and fish.

Juiced6's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-25

Please or Register to post comments.

Industry Newsletters
Investment Category Sponsor Links

 

Careers Category Sponsor Links

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×