hey democrats ! is Americas capitalistic system a form of white supremacy ?

[candycorn]

no

then you need to take a close look at the people you support .

REALLY?? I’m amazed that anyone who supports Donald J. Trump thinks that intone could be worse for the country.

I'm continually amazed that you think you have something to say about what's "best for the country" when the country in question isn't yours.

As a country we seem to think we should be able to tell other countries what is best for them even up to making lies to invade them.

We don't make up lies to invade them.

I don't think we tell other countries what to do. We might give them advice on what we think is best for them, but that's no different than any of them.

You do realize the other countries give Americans advice on how our government should work, and what we should.... CONSTANTLY...? All the time. Go read some of the articles on the BBC. They are constantly saying we should have gun control, we should have this, we should have government funded health care so no one can find a dentist like them.

All the time, they comment on what they think we should do.

Why is it when we comment, that's bad, and but when they comment, you don't complain?

Comment is one thing. Violence like we constantly undertake is another.

So... give me an example? With the invasion of Iraq, Saddam had violated the ceasefire agreement for over a decade, and the Rockefeller investigation proved conclusively that Bush did not lie about anything.

So where would you like to point to, in the last.... 50 years... where we just randomly without cause attacked and killed people.

Bush Lied. Saddam had no weapons. Obama lied to invade Syria also.

No, but you lied. Again, Rockefeller did a congressional investigations of every single statement made by Bush leading into the war with Iraq. Every single statement was accurate to the information we had at the time.

Bush (and the rest) knew Saddam had no weapons even "at the time".

What Saddam did, or did not have, is irrelevant. Completely and totally irrelevant.

In order to claim Bush lied, you have to prove he had information that Saddam did not have any of the things Bush said.

We looked at the information, and everything Bush said was accurate to the information he had at that time.

You are the liar between, between you now, and Bush then. You are the liar.

Inspection after inspection after inspection showed there were no weapons.

Despite there being no weapons and Saddam gone for years we are still there which shows it wasn't about either.

Then prove it.

Put your money where your mouth is, and prove conclusively that Bush knew Saddam didn't have weapons prior to the invasion.

And with that in mind, the Democrats ran a congressional investigation, that concluded that everything Bush said, was backed by the information he had at the time.

By all means, round up all the Democrats and throw all of them in prison for lying in a congressional investigation.

Or.... you are full of crap, and need to shut up, because you are lying trash.
Put up, or shut up. Prove it, or can your crap.

Clinton said the same thing about WMDs and Iraq having them.

Making the decision to invade was a war of choice.

That's *MY* point. Everyone believed Saddam had WMDs, including the Democrats and the Clintons.

So nothing else you say matters. In order for you to claim that Bush lied, and that we went to war on lies, you have to prove that they knew at that time, that Saddam didn't have WMDs.

Can you prove that? No you can not. And if you could, you would have to convict half the democrats in government, because they did a congressional investigation that proved Bush's statements for why we were going to war, were backed by the intelligence information we had at that time.

So either put up, or shut up.

Wow, I don't recall making the claim that Bush lied about the WMDs.

I think that one can make the case that he overstated the threat that Saddam would use the WMDs--what was it Condi Rice said; "We don't want a mushroom cloud to be the smoking gun" or something like that? He also downplayed the UN inspectors finding nothing.

This discussion was based on the claim that Bush lied. The original complaint was that the US randomly make up lies to attack countries, and they cited Iraq as being an example.

That is what I'm arguing about. If you are not making that claim, then you are not part of what I was responding to.

Randomly? Nope. It was orchestrated and repeated overstatement of the threat the supposed WMDs proposed to the US.

So as I posted numerous times, directly from the official Senate investigation into the statements made by the administration for reasons we were going to war with Iraq, were in fact supported by the intelligence information we had at the time.

It was not overstated. It was not lies. It was exactly what the intelligence data suggested.

If you want to blame anyone, you should blame the Clinton administration for cutting and putting bad regulations in place over the CIA, which made collecting accurate data difficult or impossible.

But, there was no "orchestrated and repeated overstatement". It was exactly what the intelligence we had at that time, said.

Sorry, you are wrong. Facts over opinion.

Really?

“We Don’t Want The Smoking Gun To Be A Mushroom Cloud.” wasn't overstated? You're dreaming. Iraq had no nuke program:

"By 1991 Iraq had a robust covert program that included a complete nuclear weapon design and roughly 36.3 kilograms of weapons-useable HEU in the form of research reactor fuel. [8] Following Iraq's defeat in the 1991 Gulf War, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) undertook intrusive inspections and concluded by 1997 that Iraqi WMD weapons programs had been incapacitated. [9] IAEA inspectors left Iraq in 1998. Inspectors returned for a follow-up visit in November 2002, but were evacuated in March 2003 preceding Operation Iraqi Freedom. [10] In its comprehensive September 30, 2004 report following the U.S-led invasion, the Iraq Survey Group concluded that Saddam Hussein had ended Iraq's nuclear weapons program after the first Gulf War in 1991, and had not directed a coordinated effort to restart the program thereafter. [11] "

Could they have married their chemical and biological weapons with their ballistic missiles? Maybe...perhaps. Nuke? No way.

Now you're going to argue that the "mushroom cloud" hysteria could have been about chem and bio. Really?

Again... I posted directly from the Senate Congressional investigation into the claims made by the administration about all aspects of their programs including nuclear.

The conclusion of the investigation in the governments statements about Iraqs WMD programs including nuclear programs, headed by the Democrats... Page 132, first section, Conclusion 1: statements "...were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates"

This is not up for debate, it is fact. FACT: statements about Iraq's nuclear program were generally substantiated by the intelligence information we had at that time.

If you want to say otherwise, by all means alert that government to your brilliant new data that apparently no one in the last 18 years knows about, and prove they all lied, and round up all the democrats who lied in a congressional investigation, and have them all sent to prison.

OTHERWISE.... you are wrong. Period. End of story. Either prove it... or stuff it sister.

You also left off part of the report:

"Statements ... regarding a possible Iraqi nuclear weapons program were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates, but did not convey the substantial disagreements that existed in the intelligence community. … "

They were nowhere near building a nuke missile much less testing it (as NK has done) much less having any guidance involved that would be necessary to hit the US.

There is always disagreements within the community. Always. There are always conflicting views about everything. Just like on this forum, there is hardly any topic anywhere on the forum, or the nation, or the world, that there are not conflicting views on.

That doesn't change the fact that Bush's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates".

Again... end of story. Period. Game over. You lost. You lost this argument. At least you had the guts to post the fact you lost, by quoting the fact you lost.

You lose this. You can keep arguing, but that just makes you a liar. If you want to be a liar, and keep lying, that's fine.

But remember this, I know your name, and every single post I see where you claim Trump is a liar, I'll remind you of this here now.

If you continue to lie about this topic, when you posted the truth yourself... I'm going to remind you of this in every post I find of yours.

Because now you have posted the fact you are wrong, and you are going to keep lying about it... aren't you? We'll see. Maybe I'm wrong, but I bet I'm not. Left-wingers never admit the truth, even when they themselves post it.

LOL...

A trump supporter shouting about others not telling the truth is hilarious.

As far as the nuke program....they were nowhere near being able to put a nuke on the US. That was the case; that is the case; and the language used by Condi Rice and others was directly intended to play up the threat that wasn't there.

 

[pknopp]

no

then you need to take a close look at the people you support .

REALLY?? I’m amazed that anyone who supports Donald J. Trump thinks that intone could be worse for the country.

I'm continually amazed that you think you have something to say about what's "best for the country" when the country in question isn't yours.

As a country we seem to think we should be able to tell other countries what is best for them even up to making lies to invade them.

We don't make up lies to invade them.

I don't think we tell other countries what to do. We might give them advice on what we think is best for them, but that's no different than any of them.

You do realize the other countries give Americans advice on how our government should work, and what we should.... CONSTANTLY...? All the time. Go read some of the articles on the BBC. They are constantly saying we should have gun control, we should have this, we should have government funded health care so no one can find a dentist like them.

All the time, they comment on what they think we should do.

Why is it when we comment, that's bad, and but when they comment, you don't complain?

Comment is one thing. Violence like we constantly undertake is another.

So... give me an example? With the invasion of Iraq, Saddam had violated the ceasefire agreement for over a decade, and the Rockefeller investigation proved conclusively that Bush did not lie about anything.

So where would you like to point to, in the last.... 50 years... where we just randomly without cause attacked and killed people.

Bush Lied. Saddam had no weapons. Obama lied to invade Syria also.

No, but you lied. Again, Rockefeller did a congressional investigations of every single statement made by Bush leading into the war with Iraq. Every single statement was accurate to the information we had at the time.

Bush (and the rest) knew Saddam had no weapons even "at the time".

What Saddam did, or did not have, is irrelevant. Completely and totally irrelevant.

In order to claim Bush lied, you have to prove he had information that Saddam did not have any of the things Bush said.

We looked at the information, and everything Bush said was accurate to the information he had at that time.

You are the liar between, between you now, and Bush then. You are the liar.

Inspection after inspection after inspection showed there were no weapons.

Despite there being no weapons and Saddam gone for years we are still there which shows it wasn't about either.

Then prove it.

Put your money where your mouth is, and prove conclusively that Bush knew Saddam didn't have weapons prior to the invasion.

And with that in mind, the Democrats ran a congressional investigation, that concluded that everything Bush said, was backed by the information he had at the time.

By all means, round up all the Democrats and throw all of them in prison for lying in a congressional investigation.

Or.... you are full of crap, and need to shut up, because you are lying trash.
Put up, or shut up. Prove it, or can your crap.

Clinton said the same thing about WMDs and Iraq having them.

Making the decision to invade was a war of choice.

That's *MY* point. Everyone believed Saddam had WMDs, including the Democrats and the Clintons.

No everyone didn't. There were inspectors there and we were told to hold off, they are finding nothing. Now were we getting frustrated that the weapons we gave Saddam weren't being found? Yeah but they were gone.

We were going to invade regardless so an excuse had to be made.

Now this is old stuff so the links are not the best but even the Pentagon said Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld lied.

Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda not linked, Pentagon says - CNN.com

So nothing else you say matters. In order for you to claim that Bush lied, and that we went to war on lies, you have to prove that they knew at that time, that Saddam didn't have WMDs.

Can you prove that? No you can not. And if you could, you would have to convict half the democrats in government, because they did a congressional investigation that proved Bush's statements for why we were going to war, were backed by the intelligence information we had at that time.

So either put up, or shut up.

They probably believed he still had some left over stuff that we had gave him previously but that is not what they were selling. That we are still there nearly 20 years later and not even Trump can get us out shows it was all a lie.

 

[yidnar]

no

then you need to take a close look at the people you support .

REALLY?? I’m amazed that anyone who supports Donald J. Trump thinks that intone could be worse for the country.

I'm continually amazed that you think you have something to say about what's "best for the country" when the country in question isn't yours.

As a country we seem to think we should be able to tell other countries what is best for them even up to making lies to invade them.

We don't make up lies to invade them.

I don't think we tell other countries what to do. We might give them advice on what we think is best for them, but that's no different than any of them.

You do realize the other countries give Americans advice on how our government should work, and what we should.... CONSTANTLY...? All the time. Go read some of the articles on the BBC. They are constantly saying we should have gun control, we should have this, we should have government funded health care so no one can find a dentist like them.

All the time, they comment on what they think we should do.

Why is it when we comment, that's bad, and but when they comment, you don't complain?

Comment is one thing. Violence like we constantly undertake is another.

So... give me an example? With the invasion of Iraq, Saddam had violated the ceasefire agreement for over a decade, and the Rockefeller investigation proved conclusively that Bush did not lie about anything.

So where would you like to point to, in the last.... 50 years... where we just randomly without cause attacked and killed people.

Bush Lied. Saddam had no weapons. Obama lied to invade Syria also.

No, but you lied. Again, Rockefeller did a congressional investigations of every single statement made by Bush leading into the war with Iraq. Every single statement was accurate to the information we had at the time.

Bush (and the rest) knew Saddam had no weapons even "at the time".

What Saddam did, or did not have, is irrelevant. Completely and totally irrelevant.

In order to claim Bush lied, you have to prove he had information that Saddam did not have any of the things Bush said.

We looked at the information, and everything Bush said was accurate to the information he had at that time.

You are the liar between, between you now, and Bush then. You are the liar.

Inspection after inspection after inspection showed there were no weapons.

Despite there being no weapons and Saddam gone for years we are still there which shows it wasn't about either.

Then prove it.

Put your money where your mouth is, and prove conclusively that Bush knew Saddam didn't have weapons prior to the invasion.

And with that in mind, the Democrats ran a congressional investigation, that concluded that everything Bush said, was backed by the information he had at the time.

By all means, round up all the Democrats and throw all of them in prison for lying in a congressional investigation.

Or.... you are full of crap, and need to shut up, because you are lying trash.
Put up, or shut up. Prove it, or can your crap.

20 years and we are still there. Saddam has been gone for years and there were no weapons. You can pretend that is what it was about if you wish.

Doesn't matter, unless you are too stupid to understand the definition of a lie.

At that time in 2003, the information we had at that time, backed what Bush said. The reasons we went to war, were not lies.

Nothing you say changes that. So either prove that Bush knew then that Saddam didn't have WMDs, or you are lying and wrong.

Still waiting for that proof.

i was in the military during that time the entire world thought Iraq had them and Saddam even threatened to use them against us if we invaded ! and that is the truth ! we practiced mopp 4 drills countless times to get prepared for that possibility !

 

[pknopp]

no

then you need to take a close look at the people you support .

REALLY?? I’m amazed that anyone who supports Donald J. Trump thinks that intone could be worse for the country.

I'm continually amazed that you think you have something to say about what's "best for the country" when the country in question isn't yours.

As a country we seem to think we should be able to tell other countries what is best for them even up to making lies to invade them.

We don't make up lies to invade them.

I don't think we tell other countries what to do. We might give them advice on what we think is best for them, but that's no different than any of them.

You do realize the other countries give Americans advice on how our government should work, and what we should.... CONSTANTLY...? All the time. Go read some of the articles on the BBC. They are constantly saying we should have gun control, we should have this, we should have government funded health care so no one can find a dentist like them.

All the time, they comment on what they think we should do.

Why is it when we comment, that's bad, and but when they comment, you don't complain?

Comment is one thing. Violence like we constantly undertake is another.

So... give me an example? With the invasion of Iraq, Saddam had violated the ceasefire agreement for over a decade, and the Rockefeller investigation proved conclusively that Bush did not lie about anything.

So where would you like to point to, in the last.... 50 years... where we just randomly without cause attacked and killed people.

Bush Lied. Saddam had no weapons. Obama lied to invade Syria also.

No, but you lied. Again, Rockefeller did a congressional investigations of every single statement made by Bush leading into the war with Iraq. Every single statement was accurate to the information we had at the time.

Bush (and the rest) knew Saddam had no weapons even "at the time".

What Saddam did, or did not have, is irrelevant. Completely and totally irrelevant.

In order to claim Bush lied, you have to prove he had information that Saddam did not have any of the things Bush said.

We looked at the information, and everything Bush said was accurate to the information he had at that time.

You are the liar between, between you now, and Bush then. You are the liar.

Inspection after inspection after inspection showed there were no weapons.

Despite there being no weapons and Saddam gone for years we are still there which shows it wasn't about either.

Then prove it.

Put your money where your mouth is, and prove conclusively that Bush knew Saddam didn't have weapons prior to the invasion.

And with that in mind, the Democrats ran a congressional investigation, that concluded that everything Bush said, was backed by the information he had at the time.

By all means, round up all the Democrats and throw all of them in prison for lying in a congressional investigation.

Or.... you are full of crap, and need to shut up, because you are lying trash.
Put up, or shut up. Prove it, or can your crap.

20 years and we are still there. Saddam has been gone for years and there were no weapons. You can pretend that is what it was about if you wish.

Doesn't matter, unless you are too stupid to understand the definition of a lie.

At that time in 2003, the information we had at that time, backed what Bush said. The reasons we went to war, were not lies.

Nothing you say changes that. So either prove that Bush knew then that Saddam didn't have WMDs, or you are lying and wrong.

Still waiting for that proof.

i was in the military during that time the entire world thought Iraq had them and Saddam even threatened to use them against us if we invaded ! and that is the truth ! we practiced mopp 4 drills countless times to get prepared for that possibility !

How does being used feel? All those dead and what did we accomplish?

 

[georgephillip]

If you receive dividends from your stocks, you did nothing to earn those rewards, and they came at the expense of productive labor

Not true. That stock ownership, represents and investment into the company, without which there would be no employees earning wages.

Only if you invested in an IPO.
Only one percent of Wall Street's total value of equity is actual investment in the sense of new money going into firms. The remaining 99% is pure speculation, and those rewards come at the expense of the productive employees whose labor produces the goods and services being marketed.

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

 

[Grumblenuts]

Everyone believed Saddam had WMDs, including the Democrats and the Clintons.

So nothing else you say matters. In order for you to claim that Bush lied, and that we went to war on lies, you have to prove that they knew at that time, that Saddam didn't have WMDs.

Again, obviously not "Everyone," but let's pretend for the moment you're 100% correct on that. How does that justify our going to war with Iraq? We knew plenty of others had WMD. Why Iraq? They didn't attack us, you moron. There was no real justification. Bush had daddy issues and the MIC demands constant excuses be manufactured for their ever more spending. That's all it ever has been since WWII.

 

[Dragonlady]

no

then you need to take a close look at the people you support .

REALLY?? I’m amazed that anyone who supports Donald J. Trump thinks that intone could be worse for the country.

I'm continually amazed that you think you have something to say about what's "best for the country" when the country in question isn't yours.

As a country we seem to think we should be able to tell other countries what is best for them even up to making lies to invade them.

We don't make up lies to invade them.

I don't think we tell other countries what to do. We might give them advice on what we think is best for them, but that's no different than any of them.

You do realize the other countries give Americans advice on how our government should work, and what we should.... CONSTANTLY...? All the time. Go read some of the articles on the BBC. They are constantly saying we should have gun control, we should have this, we should have government funded health care so no one can find a dentist like them.

All the time, they comment on what they think we should do.

Why is it when we comment, that's bad, and but when they comment, you don't complain?

Comment is one thing. Violence like we constantly undertake is another.

So... give me an example? With the invasion of Iraq, Saddam had violated the ceasefire agreement for over a decade, and the Rockefeller investigation proved conclusively that Bush did not lie about anything.

So where would you like to point to, in the last.... 50 years... where we just randomly without cause attacked and killed people.

Bush Lied. Saddam had no weapons. Obama lied to invade Syria also.

No, but you lied. Again, Rockefeller did a congressional investigations of every single statement made by Bush leading into the war with Iraq. Every single statement was accurate to the information we had at the time.

Bush (and the rest) knew Saddam had no weapons even "at the time".

What Saddam did, or did not have, is irrelevant. Completely and totally irrelevant.

In order to claim Bush lied, you have to prove he had information that Saddam did not have any of the things Bush said.

We looked at the information, and everything Bush said was accurate to the information he had at that time.

You are the liar between, between you now, and Bush then. You are the liar.

Inspection after inspection after inspection showed there were no weapons.

Despite there being no weapons and Saddam gone for years we are still there which shows it wasn't about either.

Then prove it.

Put your money where your mouth is, and prove conclusively that Bush knew Saddam didn't have weapons prior to the invasion.

And with that in mind, the Democrats ran a congressional investigation, that concluded that everything Bush said, was backed by the information he had at the time.

By all means, round up all the Democrats and throw all of them in prison for lying in a congressional investigation.

Or.... you are full of crap, and need to shut up, because you are lying trash.
Put up, or shut up. Prove it, or can your crap.

Clinton said the same thing about WMDs and Iraq having them.

Making the decision to invade was a war of choice.

That's *MY* point. Everyone believed Saddam had WMDs, including the Democrats and the Clintons.

So nothing else you say matters. In order for you to claim that Bush lied, and that we went to war on lies, you have to prove that they knew at that time, that Saddam didn't have WMDs.

Can you prove that? No you can not. And if you could, you would have to convict half the democrats in government, because they did a congressional investigation that proved Bush's statements for why we were going to war, were backed by the intelligence information we had at that time.

So either put up, or shut up.

Wow, I don't recall making the claim that Bush lied about the WMDs.

I think that one can make the case that he overstated the threat that Saddam would use the WMDs--what was it Condi Rice said; "We don't want a mushroom cloud to be the smoking gun" or something like that? He also downplayed the UN inspectors finding nothing.

This discussion was based on the claim that Bush lied. The original complaint was that the US randomly make up lies to attack countries, and they cited Iraq as being an example.

That is what I'm arguing about. If you are not making that claim, then you are not part of what I was responding to.

Randomly? Nope. It was orchestrated and repeated overstatement of the threat the supposed WMDs proposed to the US.

So as I posted numerous times, directly from the official Senate investigation into the statements made by the administration for reasons we were going to war with Iraq, were in fact supported by the intelligence information we had at the time.

It was not overstated. It was not lies. It was exactly what the intelligence data suggested.

If you want to blame anyone, you should blame the Clinton administration for cutting and putting bad regulations in place over the CIA, which made collecting accurate data difficult or impossible.

But, there was no "orchestrated and repeated overstatement". It was exactly what the intelligence we had at that time, said.

Sorry, you are wrong. Facts over opinion.

Really?

“We Don’t Want The Smoking Gun To Be A Mushroom Cloud.” wasn't overstated? You're dreaming. Iraq had no nuke program:

"By 1991 Iraq had a robust covert program that included a complete nuclear weapon design and roughly 36.3 kilograms of weapons-useable HEU in the form of research reactor fuel. [8] Following Iraq's defeat in the 1991 Gulf War, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) undertook intrusive inspections and concluded by 1997 that Iraqi WMD weapons programs had been incapacitated. [9] IAEA inspectors left Iraq in 1998. Inspectors returned for a follow-up visit in November 2002, but were evacuated in March 2003 preceding Operation Iraqi Freedom. [10] In its comprehensive September 30, 2004 report following the U.S-led invasion, the Iraq Survey Group concluded that Saddam Hussein had ended Iraq's nuclear weapons program after the first Gulf War in 1991, and had not directed a coordinated effort to restart the program thereafter. [11] "

Could they have married their chemical and biological weapons with their ballistic missiles? Maybe...perhaps. Nuke? No way.

Now you're going to argue that the "mushroom cloud" hysteria could have been about chem and bio. Really?

Again... I posted directly from the Senate Congressional investigation into the claims made by the administration about all aspects of their programs including nuclear.

The conclusion of the investigation in the governments statements about Iraqs WMD programs including nuclear programs, headed by the Democrats... Page 132, first section, Conclusion 1: statements "...were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates"

This is not up for debate, it is fact. FACT: statements about Iraq's nuclear program were generally substantiated by the intelligence information we had at that time.

If you want to say otherwise, by all means alert that government to your brilliant new data that apparently no one in the last 18 years knows about, and prove they all lied, and round up all the democrats who lied in a congressional investigation, and have them all sent to prison.

OTHERWISE.... you are wrong. Period. End of story. Either prove it... or stuff it sister.

You also left off part of the report:

"Statements ... regarding a possible Iraqi nuclear weapons program were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates, but did not convey the substantial disagreements that existed in the intelligence community. … "

They were nowhere near building a nuke missile much less testing it (as NK has done) much less having any guidance involved that would be necessary to hit the US.

There is always disagreements within the community. Always. There are always conflicting views about everything. Just like on this forum, there is hardly any topic anywhere on the forum, or the nation, or the world, that there are not conflicting views on.

That doesn't change the fact that Bush's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates".

Again... end of story. Period. Game over. You lost. You lost this argument. At least you had the guts to post the fact you lost, by quoting the fact you lost.

You lose this. You can keep arguing, but that just makes you a liar. If you want to be a liar, and keep lying, that's fine.

But remember this, I know your name, and every single post I see where you claim Trump is a liar, I'll remind you of this here now.

If you continue to lie about this topic, when you posted the truth yourself... I'm going to remind you of this in every post I find of yours.

Because now you have posted the fact you are wrong, and you are going to keep lying about it... aren't you? We'll see. Maybe I'm wrong, but I bet I'm not. Left-wingers never admit the truth, even when they themselves post it.

There was no "disagreement within the community". There were the lies of the Bush Administration, and the rest of the world. The American security institutions were placed in the position of having to justify the Administration's lies, and they did it.

With the except of Great Britain, none of your NATO allies fell for this horseshit. The French, Canadians, Germans, Dutch, and other NATO nations refused to participate in this attack, and the United Nations condemned it.

I realize you don't give a rat's ass about the UN, but I post this to point out the despite's the world's sympathy over the 9/11 attacks, nobody but fools like you believe W's lies.

 

[Dragonlady]

Income for one group is declared good, and income for another group is declared bad

Depends on the perspective doesn't it? If you owned a store, and you spent say $2.5 Million to make that store, and you gave all your revenue to the employees, so that you barely earned $50 Thousands a year....

Would you be ok with that? Spending $2.5 Million to earn $50,000? Well guess what sparky... the average McDonald's costs $2.5 Million to build and startup.

You would never spend $2.5 Million to earn a middle class income. You would not.

Same is true of everyone in every business. As owner who spent that $2.5 Million, you want a large cut of the revenue, whether you work at that store or not, because otherwise you would have kept that $2.5 Million, and retired to a beach somewhere.

Now if that's how you would handle it.... and you are lying if you suggest otherwise.... then the same is true of the investors who purchased shares in Apple computer, who are part owners.

Penny wise, and pound foolish, Andy. I can tell you've never run a business.

McDonald's costs $2.5 million to build and start up because that's what the CEO, who makes $20 million+, says it costs. On top of that, you have to pay 4% of sales to McDonalds, plus "advertizing fees", and you must buy all of your food and supplies from the corporate head office, at whatever price they decide to charge you. Should they decide your store is "outdated", or if they just want to boost dividends, they can order you to renovate your store, buying new fixtures from Head Office.

McDonalds, and similar franchises, aren't set up for the store owner to make money. They're set up to funnel as much of your gross sales to Head Office as possible, and leave just enough for you to get by on, but only if your front line workers have second jobs, or generous government handouts. And you're not selling food. You're selling garbage which makes people sick.

For $500,000 you can buy and renovate a building, buy all new restaurant equipment, and start your own restaurant. For $150,000, you can rennovate and equip a rental space. Bank the rest for additional start up costs. Of course, you'll actually have to know how to run a restaurant. And you'll have to hire a real chef and cooking staff, and do all of the work of opening a restaurant, sourcing suppliers, advertizing and building a clientel. You won't be going to Hamburger University to learn how to run a McDonalds.

If you spent $2.5 million to make that store, you want well trained, qualified employees to make that store successful. Your staff are the ONLY people your customers are going to interact with. Get a bunch of minimum wage workers in there and see how well your store does. Those are the people who are going to be generating your income with their skills, their products knowledge, grooming and presentation, and their commitment to helping you succeed.

Walmart raised their wages because shoppers reported such a BAD experience in their stores, that they were losing business. Surly employees who looked miserable and unhappy, weren't particularly helpful or knowledgeable, added to the worst shopping experience ever. Costco, on the other hand, pays well, and it shows. The staff are knowledgeable, helpful, and always courteous. Guess who's sales are growing, and which company is in financial trouble today?

You still want a bunch of McWorkers, or people who have a vested interest in the success of your store?

 

[Andylusion]

no

then you need to take a close look at the people you support .

REALLY?? I’m amazed that anyone who supports Donald J. Trump thinks that intone could be worse for the country.

I'm continually amazed that you think you have something to say about what's "best for the country" when the country in question isn't yours.

As a country we seem to think we should be able to tell other countries what is best for them even up to making lies to invade them.

We don't make up lies to invade them.

I don't think we tell other countries what to do. We might give them advice on what we think is best for them, but that's no different than any of them.

You do realize the other countries give Americans advice on how our government should work, and what we should.... CONSTANTLY...? All the time. Go read some of the articles on the BBC. They are constantly saying we should have gun control, we should have this, we should have government funded health care so no one can find a dentist like them.

All the time, they comment on what they think we should do.

Why is it when we comment, that's bad, and but when they comment, you don't complain?

Comment is one thing. Violence like we constantly undertake is another.

So... give me an example? With the invasion of Iraq, Saddam had violated the ceasefire agreement for over a decade, and the Rockefeller investigation proved conclusively that Bush did not lie about anything.

So where would you like to point to, in the last.... 50 years... where we just randomly without cause attacked and killed people.

Bush Lied. Saddam had no weapons. Obama lied to invade Syria also.

No, but you lied. Again, Rockefeller did a congressional investigations of every single statement made by Bush leading into the war with Iraq. Every single statement was accurate to the information we had at the time.

Bush (and the rest) knew Saddam had no weapons even "at the time".

What Saddam did, or did not have, is irrelevant. Completely and totally irrelevant.

In order to claim Bush lied, you have to prove he had information that Saddam did not have any of the things Bush said.

We looked at the information, and everything Bush said was accurate to the information he had at that time.

You are the liar between, between you now, and Bush then. You are the liar.

Inspection after inspection after inspection showed there were no weapons.

Despite there being no weapons and Saddam gone for years we are still there which shows it wasn't about either.

Then prove it.

Put your money where your mouth is, and prove conclusively that Bush knew Saddam didn't have weapons prior to the invasion.

And with that in mind, the Democrats ran a congressional investigation, that concluded that everything Bush said, was backed by the information he had at the time.

By all means, round up all the Democrats and throw all of them in prison for lying in a congressional investigation.

Or.... you are full of crap, and need to shut up, because you are lying trash.
Put up, or shut up. Prove it, or can your crap.

Clinton said the same thing about WMDs and Iraq having them.

Making the decision to invade was a war of choice.

That's *MY* point. Everyone believed Saddam had WMDs, including the Democrats and the Clintons.

So nothing else you say matters. In order for you to claim that Bush lied, and that we went to war on lies, you have to prove that they knew at that time, that Saddam didn't have WMDs.

Can you prove that? No you can not. And if you could, you would have to convict half the democrats in government, because they did a congressional investigation that proved Bush's statements for why we were going to war, were backed by the intelligence information we had at that time.

So either put up, or shut up.

Wow, I don't recall making the claim that Bush lied about the WMDs.

I think that one can make the case that he overstated the threat that Saddam would use the WMDs--what was it Condi Rice said; "We don't want a mushroom cloud to be the smoking gun" or something like that? He also downplayed the UN inspectors finding nothing.

This discussion was based on the claim that Bush lied. The original complaint was that the US randomly make up lies to attack countries, and they cited Iraq as being an example.

That is what I'm arguing about. If you are not making that claim, then you are not part of what I was responding to.

Randomly? Nope. It was orchestrated and repeated overstatement of the threat the supposed WMDs proposed to the US.

So as I posted numerous times, directly from the official Senate investigation into the statements made by the administration for reasons we were going to war with Iraq, were in fact supported by the intelligence information we had at the time.

It was not overstated. It was not lies. It was exactly what the intelligence data suggested.

If you want to blame anyone, you should blame the Clinton administration for cutting and putting bad regulations in place over the CIA, which made collecting accurate data difficult or impossible.

But, there was no "orchestrated and repeated overstatement". It was exactly what the intelligence we had at that time, said.

Sorry, you are wrong. Facts over opinion.

Really?

“We Don’t Want The Smoking Gun To Be A Mushroom Cloud.” wasn't overstated? You're dreaming. Iraq had no nuke program:

"By 1991 Iraq had a robust covert program that included a complete nuclear weapon design and roughly 36.3 kilograms of weapons-useable HEU in the form of research reactor fuel. [8] Following Iraq's defeat in the 1991 Gulf War, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) undertook intrusive inspections and concluded by 1997 that Iraqi WMD weapons programs had been incapacitated. [9] IAEA inspectors left Iraq in 1998. Inspectors returned for a follow-up visit in November 2002, but were evacuated in March 2003 preceding Operation Iraqi Freedom. [10] In its comprehensive September 30, 2004 report following the U.S-led invasion, the Iraq Survey Group concluded that Saddam Hussein had ended Iraq's nuclear weapons program after the first Gulf War in 1991, and had not directed a coordinated effort to restart the program thereafter. [11] "

Could they have married their chemical and biological weapons with their ballistic missiles? Maybe...perhaps. Nuke? No way.

Now you're going to argue that the "mushroom cloud" hysteria could have been about chem and bio. Really?

Again... I posted directly from the Senate Congressional investigation into the claims made by the administration about all aspects of their programs including nuclear.

The conclusion of the investigation in the governments statements about Iraqs WMD programs including nuclear programs, headed by the Democrats... Page 132, first section, Conclusion 1: statements "...were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates"

This is not up for debate, it is fact. FACT: statements about Iraq's nuclear program were generally substantiated by the intelligence information we had at that time.

If you want to say otherwise, by all means alert that government to your brilliant new data that apparently no one in the last 18 years knows about, and prove they all lied, and round up all the democrats who lied in a congressional investigation, and have them all sent to prison.

OTHERWISE.... you are wrong. Period. End of story. Either prove it... or stuff it sister.

You also left off part of the report:

"Statements ... regarding a possible Iraqi nuclear weapons program were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates, but did not convey the substantial disagreements that existed in the intelligence community. … "

They were nowhere near building a nuke missile much less testing it (as NK has done) much less having any guidance involved that would be necessary to hit the US.

There is always disagreements within the community. Always. There are always conflicting views about everything. Just like on this forum, there is hardly any topic anywhere on the forum, or the nation, or the world, that there are not conflicting views on.

That doesn't change the fact that Bush's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates".

Again... end of story. Period. Game over. You lost. You lost this argument. At least you had the guts to post the fact you lost, by quoting the fact you lost.

You lose this. You can keep arguing, but that just makes you a liar. If you want to be a liar, and keep lying, that's fine.

But remember this, I know your name, and every single post I see where you claim Trump is a liar, I'll remind you of this here now.

If you continue to lie about this topic, when you posted the truth yourself... I'm going to remind you of this in every post I find of yours.

Because now you have posted the fact you are wrong, and you are going to keep lying about it... aren't you? We'll see. Maybe I'm wrong, but I bet I'm not. Left-wingers never admit the truth, even when they themselves post it.

LOL...

A trump supporter shouting about others not telling the truth is hilarious.

As far as the nuke program....they were nowhere near being able to put a nuke on the US. That was the case; that is the case; and the language used by Condi Rice and others was directly intended to play up the threat that wasn't there.

I didn't support Trump stupid. I did not vote for Trump. But I will now! You lie MORE than Trump does.

As far as the nuke program....they were nowhere near being able to put a nuke on the US. That was the case; that is the case; and the language used by Condi Rice and others was directly intended to play up the threat that wasn't there.

Again.....
The conclusion of the investigation in the governments statements about Iraqs WMD programs including nuclear programs, headed by the Democrats... Page 132, first section, Conclusion 1: statements "...were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates"

Are you saying all the Democrats on the Senate investigation all lied? Then go prove it. Prove everyone lied, and round up all the lying Democrats in government, and toss them all in prison for lying during a Congressional investigation.

Or... you are full of crap, and you can stuff it, bigot.
I knew you wouldn't accept the truth even when you posted it. You are no better than Trump. You are the moral equivalent to Trump.

 

[Andylusion]

Everyone believed Saddam had WMDs, including the Democrats and the Clintons.

So nothing else you say matters. In order for you to claim that Bush lied, and that we went to war on lies, you have to prove that they knew at that time, that Saddam didn't have WMDs.

Again, obviously not "Everyone," but let's pretend for the moment you're 100% correct on that. How does that justify our going to war with Iraq? We knew plenty of others had WMD. Why Iraq? They didn't attack us, you moron. There was no real justification. Bush had daddy issues and the MIC demands constant excuses be manufactured for their ever more spending. That's all it ever has been since WWII.

Because we had a ceasefire agreement with Iraq. We could have rolled into Iraq in the 1990s, after their invasion of our ally Kuwait. We did not, because they agreed to a ceasefire deal, which involved them eliminating all WMDs, and proving it with the UN.

Instead they hid the stock piles they had, and refused to provide proof of their destruction, and kicked the UN inspectors out.

If Saddam had simply allowed unrestricted inspections throughout the 1990s, and proven to the UN in the 10 years after Feb 1991, none of this would have happened.

Instead they did everything in their power to hinder the inspections, which gave everyone cause to believe they were still hiding, and still creating, WMDs.

Additionally, as I proved from the Rockefeller report, the intelligence information we had, suggested that Saddam was actively involved in terrorist groups, had ties with Al-Qaeda members, and was seeking a working relationship with Al-Qaeda.

Again, whether they had a working relationship AT THAT TIME... was not important. Only that they were seeking a working relationship, in which Saddam could hand off a dirty bomb, or other weapons to a third party.

Bill Clinton 1998:

Saddam Hussein's Iraq reminds us of what we learned in the 20th century and warns us of what we must know about the 21st. In this century, we learned through harsh experience that the only answer to aggression and illegal behavior is firmness, determination, and when necessary action.​

​

In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.​

The difference between Bill Clinton, and Bush, is that Clinton was a coward who refused to do anything, even when he himself believed there was a threat to the United States.

Bush when confronted with the same information, was man enough to do something about it.

 

[basquebromance]

capitalism is like a streetcar. you ride it to the point you want, and then you get off

 

[Andylusion]

If you receive dividends from your stocks, you did nothing to earn those rewards, and they came at the expense of productive labor

Not true. That stock ownership, represents and investment into the company, without which there would be no employees earning wages.

Only if you invested in an IPO.
Only one percent of Wall Street's total value of equity is actual investment in the sense of new money going into firms. The remaining 99% is pure speculation, and those rewards come at the expense of the productive employees whose labor produces the goods and services being marketed.

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

No, every single share in a company represents an investment into the company.

Whether I buy the share directly from the company, or if I buy that share from YOU.... it still represents an investment into the company.

Here's why... If you bought the share from the company, I assume you are fine with that. You directly invested into the company, and I assume you are fine getting a return on your investment, when you directly invested in the company.... right? Can you at least agree with that? I'm going to assume you are ok with it.

Well... let me ask you... would you buy that stock, if you could not sell it, and get your money back?

No. You would not.

So me buying that stock from you, still represents an investment into the company. Because if I could not buy that stock from you, you would not have invested into the company in the first place.

Let me give you an example.

The cost of a share in Apple Computer, is $350.
The dividend payment for a share of Apple, is 81¢

It would take 430 years to get back your money, from the dividend payments.

Why would do this? Well without being able to sell that share later, you wouldn't.

The thing that makes investing in a company worth while, is not dividend payments alone. It is the ability to resell the stock later PLUS the dividends.

Without the ability to resell that stock.... no one would invest in the company. Apple computer would not exist, and their employees wouldn't have jobs, without the ability to sell those stocks.

So every single investment in a stock.... is directly reflecting an investment in the company, the created jobs, and products, and economic growth.

Because even if I buy the stock from you, instead of directly from the company... it represents an investment into the company that would not have happened otherwise.

By the way..... I should mention two things in passing.

There is such a thing as a Follow On Public Offer, where the company raises capital by selling more stocks, long after the IPO.

Second, I also would mention that most large public companies, have employee-stock programs. You trying to end resale of stock, would really harm employees. Walmart particularly has a generous program, where you can get Walmart stock at a discount, with a 15% match. Now I can't remember the exact numbers, but it was a pretty steep discount, with the 15% match, resulted in you getting stock in Walmart.

Of course if you are against stocks, because they are 'parasites', that would really harm employees.