O/U: how many times

[Scav]

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

Just for the record, I don't think that lie about everything. I just think it is very corrupt and that they are lying to us. Am I so wrong to question what our government is doing? Didn't you just say in a few posts back or in a different thread that our government was corrupt as well?

You are out of your mind. The government can do whatever they want and they shouldn't have to deal with people bitching and moaning all the time. They aint ****ing with me so I can care less what they do in other countries, unless they start killing people that don't deserve to get popped. And don't give me this crap about being in a war and this and that. EVERY SINGLE one of those people over in Iraq had the choice to sign up for the armed forces or go to college, or to get a job out of high school.

I absolutely, 100%, respect what they are doing, I could never do it, but people like you saying you want peace and this and that, who are you to speak for them? I have a couple friends that are in the armed forces and trust me, they knew EXACTLY what they could be getting into when they signed the dotted line and got their heads shaved.

Say what you want about this government, but this f'n country is DAMN GOOD, there isn't another country I would rather live in, and there are people daily trying to GET to this country because of how we operate. There are many flaws, but if their were no flaws, we would need no government.

As far as lying to me, I would rather not know about all the crap they have to deal with. I have enough BS in my own life to cope with

BRING BACK PINNACLE SPORTS and OFFSHORE WAGERING!!!

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by pdrift1

By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL – Jan 22, 2008

WASHINGTON (AP) — A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel did not comment on the merits of the study Tuesday night but reiterated the administration's position that the world community viewed Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, as a threat.

"The actions taken in 2003 were based on the collective judgment of intelligence agencies around the world," Stanzel said.

The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.

Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida.

The center said the study was based on a database created with public statements over the two years beginning on Sept. 11, 2001, and information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches and interviews.

"The cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war," the study concluded.

"Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, 'independent' validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq," it said

They had bad information. This Administration is not the only one who had bad information. Let me quote Speaker of the House Pelosi back in 1998. This was when Clinton was President. In 1998 Pelosi said, "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Let me quote Bill Clinton in 1998. In 1998 President Clinton said, "We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

Here is a letter from John Kerry to President Clinton back in 1998. "We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

There are a ton of other quotes like this from both Democrats and Republicans dating back to the 1990s. I don't think they were intentionally lying. I think they really believed that Iraq had WMDs. I think they had bad information.

Anyway, that's my final two cents in this thread.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The world is in trouble when our college students are extensively quoting and using as a basis of fact youtube videos and Wikipedia. You do understand that Youtube and Wikipedia are not exactly credibile sources of information and are full of hidden agendas? I understand that you obviously are a typical university liberal who simply see what you want to see and is enamored into thinking that your intellect is so far superior to "mainstream" America that you have disdain for it. So Bin Laden's version is the "truth" and a Japanese politician who doesnt even understand puts and calls is credibile but our govt is corrupt? The reason that David Frost didnt respond to Bhutto's assertions that Bin Laden was murdered wasnt some vast western coverup but engaging her on it reduces her credibility and makes her look like a fool. Kind of like you.

i was trying to get that point across...you did a better job than i did.

kyrim, i really think that for whatever reason (perhaps liberal teachings from liberal profs?) that you have latched onto one topic (a supposed potential war with iran) and have gone to every site to find any and all postings to bolster your argument. then you latch onto a kook as your savior in all things political, at the same time conceding he has zero chance to get in office, thus saving you from yourself. after all, there is no worry of repercussions from such a horrid choice.
this election is about far more than just one topic. the economy, the already existing wars (and mccain took a lot of heat for supporting the surge, and has been vindicated by its successes--and besides that, i somehow doubt that a man who was a POW for six years woul be in awful hurry to take us into a war on a third front) social security, recession, china, taxes, budgets, the overal bloated federal govt-due to states abrogating their responsibilities.
the 'war' test should not be the only reason to vote or not vote for someone, just like abortion shouldn't be the only reason. or youth.
you take the issues, you look at the candidates, and you pick the best overall choice.
or stick your head in the sand while chanting no war and vote for ron paul...lol ron paul, gimme a break.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

They had bad information. This Administration is not the only one who had bad information. Let me quote Speaker of the House Pelosi back in 1998. This was when Clinton was President. In 1998 Pelosi said, "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Let me quote Bill Clinton in 1998. In 1998 President Clinton said, "We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

Here is a letter from John Kerry to President Clinton back in 1998. "We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

There are a ton of other quotes like this from both Democrats and Republicans dating back to the 1990s. I don't think they were intentionally lying. I think they really believed that Iraq had WMDs. I think they had bad information.

Anyway, that's my final two cents in this thread.

i think you're right. altho i don't care for bush, and am anxious for him to be gone, i think it's a shame that so many point fingers at bush while completely forgetting those on the other side of the aisle who said the same things-that saddam had wmds, that he was a danger, that we should and ought to go back to iraq and finish the job.
but the dems (aided by the republican controlled press?!?! what a hoot!) continue to make the attempt to make the reps the bad guy, while whitewashing their reputations. i wonder why tho? the war has made a turn in our favor for sure.
hell, saddam himself made the claims repeatedly to any and everyone that he had them. he'd had them in the past, he'd used them...it would be like ignoring a convicted bank robber, who shows up at a bank, and claims he's going to rob it...but then the cops show up, and he says no, i really wasn't. what, the cops are at fault for thinking he was going to repeat himself??

and scavs is correct, our govt is the one who ultimately decides to vote for war. not just the president (remember, the congress voted as well) can send us there. we elected those people to lead. they must do so. and they should have every thing they need at their disposal to make an informed decision, and once made, we should back them...altho all the finger pointing and second guessing from some in govt won't help to get full support.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The world is in trouble when our college students are extensively quoting and using as a basis of fact youtube videos and Wikipedia. You do understand that Youtube and Wikipedia are not exactly credibile sources of information and are full of hidden agendas? I understand that you obviously are a typical university liberal who simply see what you want to see and is enamored into thinking that your intellect is so far superior to "mainstream" America that you have disdain for it. So Bin Laden's version is the "truth" and a Japanese politician who doesnt even understand puts and calls is credibile but our govt is corrupt? The reason that David Frost didnt respond to Bhutto's assertions that Bin Laden was murdered wasnt some vast western coverup but engaging her on it reduces her credibility and makes her look like a fool. Kind of like you.

This has been going on in Universities for a long time even before the internet. I find it refreshing that they are starting to flap their wings and think critically. Its just when you are surrounded by the world of Academia, idealism is easy and practical solutions are very often mundane.

Older folks that have jobs in which they are held accountable tend to be more conservative and pragmatic. If C. Simon does not take care of his horses, get them into the right races, transport them safely, know when they are and are not ready to run... oh **** the hay is bad, on and on... C. Simon is held responsible. No blame game readily available. And then of course various outside influences (States, Tracks, Owners, etc...) intervene that have a skewed idea about C. Simon's business end (or dont really care) and start making new rules without foresight. One adjusts, tries to change the rules, or just quits. Its this way for a lot of us.

Academia is a much more comfortable world.
I remember it fondly. Unfortunately I got older
and am held accountable for things I cannot
even control in some cases. Tough luck.
But its fun navigating through problems
and its fun actually producing something.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

This has been going on in Universities for a long time even before the internet. I find it refreshing that they are starting to flap their wings and think critically. Its just when you are surrounded by the world of Academia, idealism is easy and practical solutions are very often mundane.

Older folks that have jobs in which they are held accountable tend to be more conservative and pragmatic. If C. Simon does not take care of his horses, get them into the right races, transport them safely, know when they are and are not ready to run... oh **** the hay is bad, on and on... C. Simon is held responsible. No blame game readily available. And then of course various outside influences (States, Tracks, Owners, etc...) intervene that have a skewed idea about C. Simon's business end (or dont really care) and start making new rules without foresight. One adjusts, tries to change the rules, or just quits. Its this way for a lot of us.

Academia is a much more comfortable world.
I remember it fondly. Unfortunately I got older
and am held accountable for things I cannot
even control in some cases. Tough luck.
But its fun navigating through problems
and its fun actually producing something.

Everybodys a liberal when they are in college. Then they get out, make a few dollars and see the error of their ways. Personally I find it hard to believe that any sane person that makes a decent enough living that they dont qualify for any social programs would ever vote for someone that would raise your taxes. Abortion, the war, stem cells, religion, etc. and all the usual hot topics rarely effect the day to day lives of the typical american like a tax hike does.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Everybodys a liberal when they are in college. Then they get out, make a few dollars and see the error of their ways. Personally I find it hard to believe that any sane person that makes a decent enough living that they dont qualify for any social programs would ever vote for someone that would raise your taxes. Abortion, the war, stem cells, religion, etc. and all the usual hot topics rarely effect the day to day lives of the typical american like a tax hike does.

Not to mention socialized medicine.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Everybodys a liberal when they are in college. Then they get out, make a few dollars and see the error of their ways. Personally I find it hard to believe that any sane person that makes a decent enough living that they dont qualify for any social programs would ever vote for someone that would raise your taxes. Abortion, the war, stem cells, religion, etc. and all the usual hot topics rarely effect the day to day lives of the typical american like a tax hike does.

Yeah, but you left out the pesky items like totally runaway spending and the resultant deficit as well as generally lousy fiscal policy that's left the dollar in the gutter and resulted in seeing U.S. gain market share in just 5 of the 100+ major industries since 2000.

And the war (which a lessening minority of people support), does affect people. How can you say that it doesn't?

Everything I've seen about Dem proposed tax hikes is limited to the top 1%/ famlies with inomes > $200,000. Are those people really typical?

And the meaningless "hot topics" are the standard fodder of all primary campaigns. Dem primaries feature the candidates going back and forth between the left and near left. GOP primaries are the same on the other end of the spectrum.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Everybodys a liberal when they are in college. Then they get out, make a few dollars and see the error of their ways. Personally I find it hard to believe that any sane person that makes a decent enough living that they dont qualify for any social programs would ever vote for someone that would raise your taxes. Abortion, the war, stem cells, religion, etc. and all the usual hot topics rarely effect the day to day lives of the typical american like a tax hike does.

Obviously the 49.6% (or whatever it was) of us who voted for Gore and Kerry the last two elections don't think A=B above.


Abortion, the war, stem cells, religion, etc. and all the usual hot topics rarely effect the day to day lives of the typical american like a tax hike does.

What??? You can't be serious..although I know you are

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

Yeah, but you left out the pesky items like totally runaway spending and the resultant deficit as well as generally lousy fiscal policy that's left the dollar in the gutter and resulted in seeing U.S. gain market share in just 5 of the 100+ major industries since 2000.

And the war (which a lessening minority of people support), does affect people. How can you say that it doesn't?

Everything I've seen about Dem proposed tax hikes is limited to the top 1%/ famlies with inomes > $200,000. Are those people really typical?

And the meaningless "hot topics" are the standard fodder of all primary campaigns. Dem primaries feature the candidates going back and forth between the left and near left. GOP primaries are the same on the other end of the spectrum.

So if taxes were raised, all the financial issues would be solved? Wouldn't runaway spending be more apt to continue with more money in the govts hands?

And the war does not effect the vast majority of people on a day to day basis. How can you say it does?

Why should our most successful people be penalized for being sucessful? That's not equality, it is class envy. And families that make over $200000 in many urban area are far from wealthy or rich and surely dont need to pay more taxes than anyone else.

And I realize why the topics are "hot" but that doesnt make them any more pertinent to everyday life. Taking more money away is.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by GBBob

Obviously the 49.6% (or whatever it was) of us who voted for Gore and Kerry the last two elections don't think A=B above.


Abortion, the war, stem cells, religion, etc. and all the usual hot topics rarely effect the day to day lives of the typical american like a tax hike does.

What??? You can't be serious..although I know you are

Taking more of my money away from me effects me in far greater ways than any of the above topics.

Pro choice/pro life? how does that effect a persons ability to govern?
Stem cells? How does that effect me directly? Is it that big of a deal that I should make that a major factor in my decision?
I should or shouldnt vote for a canadate based upon his religion? When you do business with someone do you ask their religous beliefs? Of course not so what difference should it make in a politician unless they are a violent extremist?
Health care? Does anybody really believe that any canidate on either side will be able to solve this issue? Has anything been proposed that has a realistic chance of working?

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Taking more of my money away from me effects me in far greater ways than any of the above topics.

and that's usually where the line is drawn in the sand

I've felt the same way since I had zippo after college to where I'm ok now...As long doing better..aka..making more money doesn't change whatever side of the line you are on, then I have to respect that opinion

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by GBBob

and that's usually where the line is drawn in the sand

I've felt the same way since I had zippo after college to where I'm ok now...As long doing better..aka..making more money doesn't change whatever side of the line you are on, then I have to respect that opinion

I never said i was on either side, just that I thought it odd that anyone who made a decent living would vote for a person who takes more of their money away, typically not for their benefit. I would say that 80%+ of US college students would classify themselves as liberals. That obviously changes as they grow older.

[Mortimer]

^^^ Played role of Mr. Honeycutt in Cool Hand Luke.

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Originally Posted by Scav

I really don't want to get involved in this conversation, but this is by far one of the most ridiculous things I have ever seen on a message board.

Do you realize that the US is dependent on other countries for alot of their goods/supplies/equipment? And that some of these goods/supplies/equipment CAN NOT be found in the US or is too EXPENSIVE to make in the US?

I am assuming that everything you purchase is MADE IN THE USA and you use E-85 for your car.

In this global world, EVERY country matters, regardless how big or small they are, because they are involved in something that the US needs, wants, or wants to protect

So to my point, you very much should care what is going on in other countries, because it will end up affecting you in some way or matter.

I meant that I didn't care if the government's of other countries censored parts of their media for their citizens to view. I was simply talking about the media, not any of the other issues.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

I meant that I didn't care if the government's of other countries censored parts of their media for their citizens to view. I was simply talking about the media, not any of the other issues.

So censorship is ok in the very same foreign media from which many of your views and opinions are formed?

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The world is in trouble when our college students are extensively quoting and using as a basis of fact youtube videos and Wikipedia. You do understand that Youtube and Wikipedia are not exactly credibile sources of information and are full of hidden agendas? I understand that you obviously are a typical university liberal who simply see what you want to see and is enamored into thinking that your intellect is so far superior to "mainstream" America that you have disdain for it. So Bin Laden's version is the "truth" and a Japanese politician who doesnt even understand puts and calls is credibile but our govt is corrupt? The reason that David Frost didnt respond to Bhutto's assertions that Bin Laden was murdered wasnt some vast western coverup but engaging her on it reduces her credibility and makes her look like a fool. Kind of like you.

If you bothered to read IDs assessment of bin Laden, it was correct.

PNAC was created by our government before 9/11. In the document, states the need to secure valuable resources from the Middle East. You can find that document anywhere and read it. That is a factual document on our foreign policy. You can find it on Wikipedia, within the archives of our government...anywhere. It is just laid out in an easier format to read on Wikipedia, which I thought would be best.

Also, quit saying false statements just because they fit your argument. A single Japanese politician did not say those things about 9/11. Just about every member within that Parliament agreed with him that they needed to carry out an investigation starting from the beginning because there were too many holes. He just led the attack.

Nowhere did I say the Jap's version was the truth either. I just said that some of their accusations are a possibility. I threw the notions out there as a test to see how open-minded the people on this board were...well, I got my answer. I would be a lot happier if these accusations were proven to be false, despite you saying that I see what I want to see.

I am a scientist. I am a realist. Fantasy worlds are for the weak. As a scientist, I must be very open-minded. I look at problems from every possible angle with an unbiased perspective. If you choose to not acknowledge these things and ignore them, then continue to live in your fantasy world that they NEVER could have occurred. Continue to believe that the U.S. couldn't possibly torture people despite Canada putting us on their torture list, and despite the White House destroying tapes of interrogations against the Supreme Court's wishes. Continue to believe that our government couldn't possibly be negligent with 9/11. I will not, because a possibilty exists to the contrary. I will reserve judgment until the proper investigations are performed, but I will not sit there and stupidly think that it never could have happened.

It is the opposite. You see what you want to see.

And just for the record, I am very conservative and go to one of the top ranked universities in the world. The average entering freshman GPA is a 4.33.

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

So censorship is ok in the very same foreign media from which many of your views and opinions are formed?

How were the Japs censoring the information presented about the U.S. when it is available for all to see? I can't help that the Japs said what they said...

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

If you bothered to read IDs assessment of bin Laden, it was correct.

PNAC was created by our government before 9/11. In the document, states the need to secure valuable resources from the Middle East. You can find that document anywhere and read it. That is a factual document on our foreign policy. You can find it on Wikipedia, within the archives of our government...anywhere. It is just laid out in an easier format to read on Wikipedia, which I thought would be best.

Also, quit saying false statements just because they fit your argument. A single Japanese politician did not say those things about 9/11. Just about every member within that Parliament agreed with him that they needed to carry out an investigation starting from the beginning because there were too many holes. He just led the attack.

Nowhere did I say the Jap's version was the truth either. I just said that some of their accusations are a possibility. I threw the notions out there as a test to see how open-minded the people on this board were...well, I got my answer. I would be a lot happier if these accusations were proven to be false, despite you saying that I see what I want to see.

It is the opposite. You see what you want to see.

I am a scientist. I am a realist. Fantasy worlds are for the weak. As a scientist, I must be very open-minded. I look at problems from every possible angle with an unbiased perspective. If you choose to not acknowledge these things and ignore them, then continue to live in your fantasy world that they NEVER could have occurred. Continue to believe that the U.S. couldn't possibly torture people despite Canada putting us on their torture list, and despite the White House destroying tapes of interrogations against the Supreme Court's wishes. Continue to believe that our government wasn't negligent with 9/11. I will not, because a possibilty exists to the contrary. I will reserve judgment until the proper investigations are performed, but I will not sit there and stupidly think that it never could have happened.

It is the opposite. You see what you want to see.

And just for the record, I am very conservative and go to one of the top ranked universities in the world. The average entering freshman GPA is a 4.33.

I believe that you are in danger of being placed on the torture list

[Mortimer]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I believe that you are in danger of being placed on the torture list

^^^ Spent a night in the box after insisting he was the Cap'n.