Howdy boys, I'm bburditt, the new intruder in these parts.

I have colours, jealous?

 

"Your colors are weak, old man."

//mechanical breathing

 

Your abject cluesness on all matters political makes me weep for humanity. My only comfort is that you are ineligible to vote in the US.

AYBABTU

 

Haha, you've been dying to get that out haven't you?

Should we argue our sides?

 

I've been reading your posts in the JCC, and I've seen what you call "arguing." Making emotional pleas that disregard fact, history, rudimentary economics, and international security isn't "arguing." It's subversive rhetoric.

But feel free to make whatever case you'd like against Bush. If you maintain the shotgun approach you've been using you might eventually even stumble upon a valid gripe. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

AYBABTU

 

Your new colors have made you vain...he's obviously slamming me.

dammit...too slow

 

Hmm, how about, you tell me why Bush is good?

I realize you are friends with Ignant, but please, leave my personal character out of it.

 

Where did I say anything about your personal character? You're already going to the tactic of calling out personal attacks that only exist in your imagination? You seem to have quite a complex. This has been your go-to tactic in almost every discussion I've watched you. As soon as any point is made against you, rather that make a valid response or make a fact-based assertion, you declare that you have been attacked. This time you didn't even wait until I bothered to make a point. We haven't even started a discussion on the issues and you're already crying.

It seems also that you might have a bit of an obsession with Ignant. I don't even seem him around anywhere, do you?

AYBABTU

 

Actually you made an attack on the way I argue, when I in fact think I have some good points against Bush.

The fact is that everytime I did prove something with a fact, all the Bush supporters were the ones to drive something off-topic.

The reason I brought up Ignant is because I know you two are friends, and I assume you've been reading our conversations.

So, like I said, I'd appreciate if you didn't make any stupid false claims about me, and answered my questions of why is Bush actually good.

 

I haven't made any "stupid false claims" against you at all. I have only referenced your style of "debate," which is actually an utter disregard for fact, history, etc. I have read your posts regarding the Iraq war where you claim that Bush lied and Saddam was never a threat. You seem to ignore the fact that the UN Security Council, France, Russia, Britain, the Clinton Administration, and John Kerry also have stated repeatedly that Saddam is a threat to global security and US security. He has a proven record of using WMD. It is undeniable that he did not meet the requirements of 17 UN Security Council resolutions. (Have you read those, by the way?) It has been cited by mulitple intelligence agencies that Saddam maintained ties to terror. You ignore all these facts as you whine and cry about how Bush is evil and has made the world a more dangerous place. How are US, and indeed the world's, interests not being served by eliminating terroists on the sands of Iraq rather than in cities in Eurpoe, Asia, or N America?

And on another subject, what negative impact have Bush policies had on the economy? The debt is higher, but it is not as great a percentage of GDP as many times prior in US history. And how exactly is high national debt bad? What effect does that have? You can't cite interest rates, because they are still near their all-time lowest levels. Please... tell me the evils of the Bush economy.

AYBABTU[/b]

 

I really want to reply right now, but I have to head to a client at this second. So, when I get home, or if I get back to the office today, I will reply.

Please don't think I am running or anything, but I really desperately have to leave right now.

 

Hahahaha! Chicken! Loser!

Victory!

AYBABTU

 

Rhett is really the expert on people that don't know how to debate. He knows from personal experience. So if he says it about bburditt, it is probably true.

-Seldon

 

Seldon just earned my vote.

AYBABTU

 

What no witty come back? No distraction? No talk of politics in the 1970s or 80s? What have you done with the real Rhett?

-Seldon

 

He's busy laughing about the Gallup poll that shows Bush up 8.

AYBABTU

 

I'm laughing that it is a bit soon to get arrogant. The thing is not over yet.

 

Good point, especially not with all the Democrat voter fraud, what with them paying out crack for voter registrations and signing up Mary Poppins.

AYBABTU

 

Rhett stuff happens on both sides. It is not like Kerry was walking down the street giving away the stuff.

 

Can you link me to a story where the GOP has engaged in such tactics? I'll give you three links to Dems for every one you can dredge up.

AYBABTU

 

^ I cant believe this idiot is still around.

 

I have read your posts regarding the Iraq war where you claim that Bush lied and Saddam was never a threat. You seem to ignore the fact that the UN Security Council, France, Russia, Britain, the Clinton Administration, and John Kerry also have stated repeatedly that Saddam is a threat to global security and US security. He has a proven record of using WMD. It is undeniable that he did not meet the requirements of 17 UN Security Council resolutions. (Have you read those, by the way?) It has been cited by mulitple intelligence agencies that Saddam maintained ties to terror. You ignore all these facts as you whine and cry about how Bush is evil and has made the world a more dangerous place. How are US, and indeed the world's, interests not being served by eliminating terroists on the sands of Iraq rather than in cities in Eurpoe, Asia, or N America?

I am aware of all of these facts, but some of my questions to Bush supporters is why did the UN not side with Bush when he said he wanted to go to war. I was under the impression that they didn't support Bush because of his reasoning, which was to disarm Saddam of WMD's.

When was the last time Saddam used WMD's, and who has he used them on besides his own people. I believe that the only people that Bush helped with his war, are the people who mine oil, and the Iraqi citizens who didn't either die, or lose family members in the war.

Do you have any factual reason to believe that Saddam was ever a harm to the United States? If Bush was so concerned with terrorism, and national security, why the sudden abandonment of Afghanistan? You say that Saddam had ties with Al-Qeida (sp?), but I remember Bush's daddy giving the Al-Qeida millions of dollars when he was in office.

Another thing that makes this war smell fishy to me is the fact that Bush changed his reasonings for going to war with Iraq twice! First it was to go get WMD's, then it was WMD related activitiy, and then it was to impose freedom and democracy on Iraq. Logic says that he had to have been lying at least two of those times, if not all three reasons.

Anyways, it's not that I ignore the facts, AYBABTU, that he has used them like 10 years ago, but I focus on things like was he really a threat to the US, and another questions that most Bush supporters have no answers to.

---

[i]And on another subject, what negative impact have Bush policies had on the economy? The debt is higher, but it is not as great a percentage of GDP as many times prior in US history. And how exactly is high national debt bad? What effect does that have? You can't cite interest rates, because they are still near their all-time lowest levels. Please... tell me the evils of the Bush economy.[/i]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I've ever made a huge argument about Bush's economy. I am an accounting major, not an economics major.

One thing I do know is that Bush, early in his term, tried to stimulate the economy, as we all know it was in a slump. It wasn't Bush's fault that it was in a slump, his daddy started it, and Clinton secured it. However, he did, like any normal president would do, try to get it moving again.

If I remember correctly from introductory micro-economics you have to increase consumer spending in order to stimulate the economy, not government spending, which is where Bush went wrong, and why your country has an enormous debt. Yes, the GDP did increase, but there are ways to get it to increase without putting your country in a huge debt. How to increase consumer spending is beyond me, but there are ways, and increasing government spending [i]is[/i] one, but there are better ways, like I said, to avoid a huge debt.

What effect does this huge debt have? None for you or the rest of your generation. But, it will eventually have to be paid off. I guess if you only care about what happens to your lifetime, and not your kids/grandkids, then Bush's economy would be just fine for you.

My biggest concern with Bush, is the fact that he made an awful lot more enemies then he did get rid of enemie

 

"I am aware of all of these facts, but some of my questions to Bush supporters is why did the UN not side with Bush when he said he wanted to go to war."

There was a unanimous vote by the Security Council, including Syria, that declared Saddam in direct violation of many resolutions, and indicated that millitary force was an option if he did not comply. When it came time to use that force, as Saddam repeatedly scammed the inspectors and failed to account for his WMD, the UN failed to adhere to even their own standards. But if you've been following the Oil-for-Food scandal, you will see that France and Russia were the prime benefactors of the mismanaged program. Bribes were paid to high ranking French officials, all under the "watchful" eye of the UN. China, France, Russia, and N Korea were selling weapons to Iraq in direct contravention of the UN embargo. With friends like these...

And three of five permanent Security Council members opposed the war. They are not the UN, though they each have veto power over a resolution. Had even only France sought to cover their oil-for-food misdeeds and the other 4 agreed, the UN still would have been unable to act. Meanwhile, 30+ other countries did act: Britain, Netherlands, S Korea, Japan, Australia, El Salvador, Italy, Spain, etc. Three opposing nations do not the UN make.

"When was the last time Saddam used WMD's, and who has he used them on besides his own people. I believe that the only people that Bush helped with his war, are the people who mine oil, and the Iraqi citizens who didn't either die, or lose family members in the war."

But for that assertion to make sense at all you have to be prepared to show substantively how any oil companies benefitted specifically from the war in Iraq. How has the flow of oil from Iraq been altered? Who is getting rich? Where is the money from Iraqi oil going? Isn't it going to Iraq? If so, who among Bush's pals get wealthy?

As you state earlier, you are aware that numerous intelligence agencies cited evidence that Iraq qas a threat to national and global security. Clinton said so. Kerry said so. Gore said so. Russia said so. Britain said so. The Czechs said so. So is Bush not doing the right thing in heeding the advice of all these people and nations?

You say that the Iraqi people are among those helped. I find it striking that you call that out in a negative context.

"If Bush was so concerned with terrorism, and national security, why the sudden abandonment of Afghanistan? You say that Saddam had ties with Al-Qeida (sp?), but I remember Bush's daddy giving the Al-Qeida millions of dollars when he was in office."

How was Afghanistan neglected? Did they not just have their very first election in the hisory of the nation? Has the Taliban not been expelled? What are you even talking about when you say that Afghanistan was neglected?

And when did Bush 41 ever give anything to al Queda? The very premise is absurd, and I promise that you will be unable to identify a single verifiable source for such an assertion.

"It wasn't Bush's fault that it was in a slump, his daddy started it, and Clinton secured it."

All economic evidence available suggests that there was a slight recession during the first part of 1992 under Bush 41, but we were well on the way to recovery by autumn. Clinton's largest tax increase in the history of the nation in 1993 halted that recovery, and the GOP's balanced budget of 1995 pulled us out again. By the end of Clinton's term, we were again heading toward recession.

"If I remember correctly from introductory micro-economics you have to increase consumer spending in order to stimulate the economy, not government spending, which is where Bush went wrong, and why your country has an enormous debt."

That's an economically sound argument, but you seem to be calling a tax cut "government spending." It isn't. Under Bush, government spending has advanced at levels only slightly ahead of the pace of inflation, with much of that

 

There was a unanimous vote by the Security Council, including Syria, that declared Saddam in direct violation of many resolutions, and indicated that millitary force was on option if he did not comply. When it came time to use that force, as Saddam repeatedly scammed the inspectors and failed to account for his WMD, the UN failed to adhere to even their own standards. But if you've been following the Oil-for-Fodd scandal, you will see that France and Russia were the prime benefactors of the mismanaged program. Bribes were paid to high ranking French officials, all under the "watchful" eye of the UN. China, France, Russia, and N Korea were selling weapons to Iraq in direct contravention of the UN embargo. With friends like these...

I do see your point that Saddam didn't comply with the weapons inspector. You're thinking, "why would he care if they came in, if he really didn't have any?"

I'm thinking, "OK, I see his point, but the fact remains that they still didn't find any."

I could make the argument that if Saddam even did have them, why are they a threat to the US security. You could make the counter-argument that Saddam doesn't need to sound a big horn before he shoots one off at us, and then I'd make a counter-argument that if someone really wants to fire a nuke at your country, they will, and Bush nor any other president in the future will stop that, but they sure can piss enough people off to act as a catalyst towards it.

As to the Iraqi friends, I think N.Korea is much more of a danger to our side of the world than Iraq ever was. They are out parading their nuclear weapons in the streets. I just really don't understand why Iraq was the target that Bush picked. It really hasn't been that much of a secret that the Bush family has hated Iraq for a long time.

And three of five permanent Security Council members opposed the war. They are not the UN, though they each have veto power over a resolution. Had even only France sought to cover their oil-for-food misdeeds and the other 4 agreed, the UN still would have been unable to act. Meanwhile, 30+ other countries did act: Britain, Netherlands, S Korea, Japan, Australia, El Salvador, Italy, Spain, etc. Three opposing nations do not the UN make.

But for that assertion to make sense at all you have to be prepared to show substantively how any oil companies benefitted specifically from the war in Iraq. How has the flow of oil from Iraq been altered? Who is getting rich? Where is the money from Iraqi oil going? Isn't it going to Iraq? If so, who among Bush's pals get wealthy?

Question: What exactly do you mean by "act?"

As for your oil questions, I'm sure you read that thread titled "Why did we go to war?" about a month ago in the JC. I think that's the time I read a comment from you in the "messages to the outside world thread." I remember saying in that thread that obviously I can't substantively prove that Bush's bank account increased since the war has started, because if I could, it'd be a real short election wouldn't? All it is is a claim based on what I consider to be solid questions about Bush's motives to even go to war. I can't prove it, that's just an idea. He even says himself he didn't go for WMD's, and US foreign policy has used the freedom and democracy excuse since the end of WWII, so there had to be some motive, and it remains unknown, so I figure I'll throw one out there.

As you state earlier, you are aware that numerous intelligence agencies cited evidence that Iraq qas a threat to national and global security. Clinton said so. Kerry said so. Gore said so. Russia said so. Britain said so. The Czechs said so. So is Bush not doing the right thing in heeding the advice of all these people and nations?

These people all said this ten years ago, when daddy Bush was in office putting Saddam in the news. My rebuttal to this is why do these people say it? Is it because he never once threatened or killed an American soldier? Is it because he had WMD's? There are a few countries who have WMD's, what's stopping them

 

Both of you are wrong so why even argue?