"EMERGENCY" Stimulus Passes on Friday.... Obama signs it 4 days later????

[Modbert]

this is what gets me about you guys
you didnt believe a damned thing that Bush says, but you believe that



what you fail to understand is Bush knew the reporter was being an asshole just in the way it was asked

I never said I don't believe a damned thing that Bush says. I just don't believe most things that come out of his mouth.

Furthermore, why would Bush basically say he agrees with the reporter and then clarify further that the reporter was right?

Therefore, hurting not only his credibility in so called future statements but lowering himself supposedly to the reporter's level? The reporter wasn't being a asshole, the reporter was asking a little thing called questions. Which is what the media failed to do for most of Bush's time in office.

 

[DiveCon]

Bobby, Al Qaeda was leaving A-stan for Iraq when we started attacking them in A-stan, its only you believing the nonsense you read online that keeps you ignorant iof the facts

And furthermore:

Hussein's Prewar Ties To Al-Qaeda Discounted - washingtonpost.com

Captured Iraqi documents and intelligence interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two former aides "all confirmed" that Hussein's regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a declassified Defense Department report released yesterday

The CIA was not alone, the defense report emphasized. The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) had concluded that year that "available reporting is not firm enough to demonstrate an ongoing relationship" between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda, it said.

But hey, don't let a little thing called facts get in your way.

sorry, the post LIES
thats not what the report said
you are too fucking stupid to understand

 

[DiveCon]

Al Zarqawi was IN Iraq before we invaded

 

[DiveCon]

this is what gets me about you guys
you didnt believe a damned thing that Bush says, but you believe that



what you fail to understand is Bush knew the reporter was being an asshole just in the way it was asked

I never said I don't believe a damned thing that Bush says. I just don't believe most things that come out of his mouth.

Furthermore, why would Bush basically say he agrees with the reporter and then clarify further that the reporter was right?

Therefore, hurting not only his credibility in so called future statements but lowering himself supposedly to the reporter's level? The reporter wasn't being a asshole, the reporter was asking a little thing called questions. Which is what the media failed to do for most of Bush's time in office.

yeah, right

 

[Modbert]

sorry, the post LIES
thats not what the report said
you are too fucking stupid to understand

See Dive, it doesn't help when you just yell "LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE" but don't post WHY it's wrong. Then you go ahead and commit a character attack.

Well hey, I know the day that you admit I change your mind on anything is the day hell freezes over. So believe whatever you want. However, I would like to sell you this nice bridge cheap in Newport, Rhode Island.

 

[Modbert]

Al Zarqawi was IN Iraq before we invaded

That's great but he wasn't apart of Al-Qaeda until 2004.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi#Alleged_links_to_al-Qaeda

At least five times, in 2000 and 2001, bin Laden called al-Zarqawi to come to Kandahar and pay bayat — take an oath of allegiance—to him. Each time, al-Zarqawi refused. He did not believe that either bin Laden or the Taliban was serious enough about jihad. When the United States launched its air war inside Afghanistan, on October 7, 2001, al-Zarqawi joined forces with al-Qaeda and the Taliban for the first time. He and his Jund al-Sham fought in and around Herat and Kandahar.[59] When Zarqawi finally did take the oath in October 2004, it was after eight months of negotiations

Pretty sure the U.S. had invaded Iraq by October of 2004.

 

[DiveCon]

Al Zarqawi was IN Iraq before we invaded

That's great but he wasn't apart of Al-Qaeda until 2004.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At least five times, in 2000 and 2001, bin Laden called al-Zarqawi to come to Kandahar and pay bayat — take an oath of allegiance—to him. Each time, al-Zarqawi refused. He did not believe that either bin Laden or the Taliban was serious enough about jihad. When the United States launched its air war inside Afghanistan, on October 7, 2001, al-Zarqawi joined forces with al-Qaeda and the Taliban for the first time. He and his Jund al-Sham fought in and around Herat and Kandahar.[59] When Zarqawi finally did take the oath in October 2004, it was after eight months of negotiations

Pretty sure the U.S. had invaded Iraq by October of 2004.

yeah, really?
then why was he injured in A-stan before he went to Iraq?>


i'm just tired of having to explain all of this again
been doing it for too many years to have ignorant morons still believing the fucking lies the media told

grow the fuck up and stop believing everything you read on the fucking internet

 

[Modbert]

yeah, really?
then why was he injured in A-stan before he went to Iraq?>


i'm just tired of having to explain all of this again
been doing it for too many years to have ignorant morons still believing the fucking lies the media told

grow the fuck up and stop believing everything you read on the fucking internet

Because he was fighting America there? He wasn't apart of Al-Qaeda, but I don't expect you to read.

But really, if the lies of the media are what is corrupting me, where are you learning your information? You on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq yourself?

I'm pretty sure you're not, so therefore; you're learning from the "lying media".

And I don't believe in everything I read on the internet; you're a prime example of that.

 

[DiveCon]

yeah, really?
then why was he injured in A-stan before he went to Iraq?>


i'm just tired of having to explain all of this again
been doing it for too many years to have ignorant morons still believing the fucking lies the media told

grow the fuck up and stop believing everything you read on the fucking internet

Because he was fighting America there? He wasn't apart of Al-Qaeda, but I don't expect you to read.

But really, if the lies of the media are what is corrupting me, where are you learning your information? You on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq yourself?

I'm pretty sure you're not, so therefore; you're learning from the "lying media".

And I don't believe in everything I read on the internet; you're a prime example of that.

you do believe the bullshit
you dont the truth
and i'm proof of that


btw, if you actually read your own quote and gave up your bolded part you would see he FOUGHT with them
you are just too fucking simple for words

just because he didnt take a fucking oath didnt mean he wasnt al qaeda
you really are fucking stupid

 

[Modbert]

you do believe the bullshit
you dont the truth
and i'm proof of that


btw, if you actually read your own quote and gave up your bolded part you would see he FOUGHT with them
you are just too fucking simple for words

I believe the truth thanks.

Yes, he fought with them; but that doesn't mean he was a PART OF THEM.

BIG DIFFERENCE.

Saddam fought for us, doesn't make him an American.

We fought with the USSR in WWII, doesn't make us Soviets or them Americans.

Fighting with someone does not make you a part of their group. They might of had agreement/alliance but that's totally different then what you originally said.

 

[DiveCon]

you do believe the bullshit
you dont the truth
and i'm proof of that


btw, if you actually read your own quote and gave up your bolded part you would see he FOUGHT with them
you are just too fucking simple for words

I believe the truth thanks.

Yes, he fought with them; but that doesn't mean he was a PART OF THEM.

BIG DIFFERENCE.

Saddam fought for us, doesn't make him an American.

We fought with the USSR in WWII, doesn't make us Soviets or them Americans.

Fighting with someone does not make you a part of their group. They might of had agreement/alliance but that's totally different then what you originally said.

more bullshit
Saddam NEVER fought for us

 

[Modbert]

more bullshit
Saddam NEVER fought for us

I see you don't attack the rest of my post because you know it's right beyond no doubt.

Saddam did fight for us. We gave him weapons to go kill Iranians, I'm pretty sure that qualifies as doing our dirty work and therefore fighting for us.

But I can't blame him for getting pissed when we turned around and gave the Iranians weapons to do our dirty work and go kill Saddam.

 

[DiveCon]

more bullshit
Saddam NEVER fought for us

I see you don't attack the rest of my post because you know it's right beyond no doubt.

Saddam did fight for us. We gave him weapons to go kill Iranians, I'm pretty sure that qualifies as doing our dirty work and therefore fighting for us.

But I can't blame him for getting pissed when we turned around and gave the Iranians weapons to do our dirty work and go kill Saddam.

more ignorant bullshit

 

[Modbert]

more ignorant bullshit

Now we're just going in circles on shit we've been through a million times before.

Why don't we stop the cycle and just agree to disagree?

We're both Americans Dive, and we both want to see this country succeed; that I have no doubt. We just disagree on the way to go about certain issues.

 

[KittenKoder]

I agree with PR, he wanted to rush this through so that it could not be read and debated on. This is a scam that will cost a great deal of national treasure.

THAT is to be determined. Obama however is risking much of his political capital on this.

If he fails, he essentially knows he has a horrible shot at 2012.

If he succeeds, he'll be seen as a political genius and mastermind and seen as one of the best presidents in the past 100 years. Not only that, but this country will be well on it's way to being highly successful again.

its almost the same crap that Bush pushed through
so, if what Bush did was bad, how is this better?

That's what I don't get, and why I am too ashamed to call myself a Democrat supporter these days.

 

[KittenKoder]

more ignorant bullshit

Now we're just going in circles on shit we've been through a million times before.

Why don't we stop the cycle and just agree to disagree?

We're both Americans Dive, and we both want to see this country succeed; that I have no doubt. We just disagree on the way to go about certain issues.

When did Democrats and liberals enjoy being so willfully ignorant ... did I miss an important meeting or something in which everyone decided that questioning the government was no longer a good idea?

 

[editec]

Well clearly many somebodies (collectively) read the bill in its entirety since some somebody (ies) wrote it.

And as the bill had been the brainchild of various join committees of Congress, it is obviously those players (from both houses) must have read and debated various parts of it, too.

Now, as to every member of Congress having read every word of the bill, I think we can know that didn't and cannot happen either unless Congress person is given MONTHS to read it and ALSO learn enough about EACH aspect of the bill to determine if it makes sense.

All we can really hope for is that the members of Congresss who would have been conversant about those specific issues within this bill, have probably read and authored those parts.

Although I do not doubt some might have read the entire bill (it is after all only 800 pages) I suspect that every part of the bill has been read and understood by the Congressional experts of their specfic areas of interest.

In that sense this bill is no different than most complex bills which get passed by Congress.

The experts in that area read the bill and they recommend to the other members of Congress how to vote on it.


But it is appropriate to wonder if anybody is truly capable of having an cogent overview of the bill in its entirety?

Who can possibly know how those those divergent parts of the bill are going to meld, and with that meld, how those divergent parts will effect the economy as a whole?

Nobody... not even if they have read and understood each part of the bill like an expert of every section of it.

If we believe Congress, then we have to believe that this bill is a fourth down and goal to go, with seconds on the clock kind of desperate play.

That is, after all, what they are telling us, isn't it?

Failure to pass this bill, and to do so ASAP, will lead to disasterous consequences to the nation's economy is what we are being told.

Now most Republicans do NOT claim that that is not true.

After all the Republicans voted to save those early banks without having any time to really read that bill, either. And what's more, they gave money away without even knowing where it would GO!!!

What the Republicans are NOW claiming is that they do not believe that this bill (this would be the SAME bill everyone here believes nobody read, incidently) won't work.

How can they KNOW that if they haven't read it and understood each part like an expert in that issue?

So they cannot have it both ways.

They can either say:

Nobody could have read this bill so that's why it shouldn't be voted upon now..

...OR they can complain

The net effects of this bill will NOT help.

And by saying that they imply that they have read the bill in its entirety and have understood it WELL ENOUGH to KNOW that it won't help

You get my point here?

NOBODY can say that they can KNOW it won't work. (not even if they read and understood it ALL)

Nobody can say that they KNOW it WILL work, either.(not even if they read and understood it ALL)

We are sailing uncharter waters, folks.

That all we can really know for sure, I think.

And that is, I suspect what Congress really knows, too.

 

[KittenKoder]

Wasn't talking about the politicians ... who have their own reasons for wanting it which are normally less than beneficial to us.

 

[sparky]

lotta partisan banter here.

i guess that's about all powerless citizens are reduced to when they've two choices outta 1/2 a billion

and hey, it really does start at the top, and gain speed on down imho

ok, so may i ask, what is differs the main street 'bailout' from the wall street one?

you know, the one that so utterly fell flat on it's face that rumours of nationalizing banks are now making the rounds, because they're THAT insolvent?

isn't the premis still the same here? throw $$$ at it. and hope it gets better?

seems to me that everyone i know has been bitten by the outsourcing debacle, they've all become those government statistics that don't lie.....

seems to me i drive by factories and business's closing their doors everyday here

also seems, we like to throw lots of $$$$ at other countries, and while i'm sure the validity is debatable, how long can we put out for others if we're in trouble ourselves?

so here we are in the new millenium, i sometimes think we could easily copy/paste ourselves right over some of those past civilizations who went the same route, and just change the names and titles

but i digress

we're becoming bailoutistan here, led by the one repocrat party....

metaphorically, it's like screwing yourself out of work , and spending your kids colledge funds ....

great way to buy time, yet easy ways out are fraut with impending failures....

meanwhile as the god ship America's takes on water, all i hear is this partisan blame game

such a miserable way to go into the night people....

 

[sparky]

literacy a congressional requirement Editec?

that's why they have aids

and i suspect that many voted on the bill after their little fifedoms got a piece of the pork pie ....

that's how most bigger bills operate anyways