|
|
|
|
|
| Are the U.S. misunderstood?
Posted: 1/6/2005 11:20:16 AM | Loukus: YOU are the point. You don't know anything you're talking about. You're only pretending to...
You should find out what you're talking about.... | |
|
| Are the U.S. misunderstood?
Posted: 1/6/2005 11:23:24 AM | 1 Bush Lie:
"You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons....They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two.* And we'll find more weapons as time goes on, But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them." (italics ours) --WP, "Bush: 'We Found' Banned Weapons. President Cites Trailers in Iraq as Proof, " May 31, 2003
*At the time of this statement, no such weapons were found, and no such weapons have been found to this day. On this point as well as the use of the captured trailers as biolabs, the WP said this in the above article: "U.S. authorities have to date made no claim of a confirmed finding of an actual nuclear, biological or chemical weapon. In the interview, Bush said weapons had been found, but in elaborating, he mentioned only the trailers, which the CIA has concluded were likely used for production of biological weapons." There was no statement of fact, there was no smoking gun. The CIA's finding was advanced as an opinion based on its own particular process of elimination, and it was immediately challenged by both U.S. and U.K. intelligence analysts who had seen the trailers. --Politex, 08.09.03 (italics ours)
Now comes this..."Engineering experts from the Defense Intelligence Agency have come to believe that the most likely use for two mysterious trailers found in Iraq was to produce hydrogen for weather balloons rather than to make biological weapons, government officials say.
The classified findings by a majority of the engineering experts differ from the view put forward in a white paper made public on May 28 by the C.I.A. and the Defense Intelligence Agency, which said that the trailers were ["likely used"] for making biological weapons....
The State Department's intelligence branch, which was not invited to take part in the initial review, disputed the findings in a memorandum on June 2. The fact that American and British intelligence analysts with direct access to the evidence were disputing the claims included in the C.I.A. white paper was first reported in June, along with the analysts' concern that the evaluation of the mobile units had been marred by a rush to judgment." --NYT, 08.09.03 | |
|
| Another Bush Lie
Posted: 1/6/2005 11:25:50 AM | "45 percent of all of the dividend income goes to people with $50,000-or-less incomes, family incomes. Nearly three-quarters of it goes to families with $100,000 or less family income."
—White House senior adviser Karl Rove, discussing the Bush tax proposal in a meeting with reporters, as reported by Dana Milbank in the Jan. 28 Washington Post.
"Not exactly. It is true that 43.8 percent of tax returns with dividend income are from households with less than $50,000 in income and 73.8 percent of such returns are from households with less than $100,000. But that doesn't mean the little guy earning less than $50,000 gets '45 percent of all the income' or that the Main Street earners below $100,000 get 'three-quarters' of dividend income.
"In fact, those earning less than $50,000 get 14.7 percent of dividend income, and those earning less than $100,000 get 32.7 percent, according to a Brookings Institution/Urban Institute analysis. The former would get 6.8 percent of the benefit of Bush's dividend plan, while the latter would get 20.9 percent."
—Milbank, in the Jan. 28 Washington Post. | |
|
| Another Bush Lie
Posted: 1/6/2005 11:27:51 AM | Scowcroft Says Bush Incubator Untruth, Repeated Five Times, "Was Useful In Mobilizing Public Opinion" For First Iraq War
In the fall of 1990, members of Congress and the American public were swayed by the tearful testimony of a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl, known only as Nayirah.
In the girl's testimony before a congressional caucus, well-documented in MacArthur's book "Second Front" and elsewhere, she described how, as a volunteer in a Kuwait maternity ward, she had seen Iraqi troops storm her hospital, steal the incubators, and leave 312 babies "on the cold floor to die."
Seven US Senators later referred to the story during debate; the motion for war passed by just five votes. In the weeks after Nayirah spoke, President Bush senior invoked the incident five times, saying that such "ghastly atrocities" were like "Hitler revisited."
But just weeks before the US bombing campaign began in January, a few press reports began to raise questions about the validity of the incubator tale.
Later, it was learned that Nayirah was in fact the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to Washington and had no connection to the Kuwait hospital.
She had been coached – along with the handful of others who would "corroborate" the story – by senior executives of Hill and Knowlton in Washington, the biggest global PR firm at the time, which had a contract worth more than $10 million with the Kuwaitis to make the case for war.
"We didn't know it wasn't true at the time," Brent Scowcroft, Bush's national security adviser, said of the incubator story in a 1995 interview with the London-based Guardian newspaper. He acknowledged "it was useful in mobilizing public opinion." --CSM, Sept. 6, 2002 | |
|
| Another Bush Lie
Posted: 1/6/2005 11:28:48 AM | Cheney Lied About Iraq Photos
– When George H. W. Bush ordered American forces to the Persian Gulf – to reverse Iraq's August 1990 invasion of Kuwait – part of the administration case was that an Iraqi juggernaut was also threatening to roll into Saudi Arabia.
Citing top-secret satellite images, Pentagon officials estimated in mid–September that up to 250,000 Iraqi troops and 1,500 tanks stood on the border, threatening the key US oil supplier.
But when the St. Petersburg Times in Florida acquired two commercial Soviet satellite images of the same area, taken at the same time, no Iraqi troops were visible near the Saudi border – just empty desert.
"It was a pretty serious fib," says Jean Heller, the Times journalist who broke the story.
The White House is now making its case. to Congress and the public for another invasion of Iraq; President George W. Bush is expected to present specific evidence of the threat posed by Iraq during a speech to the United Nations next week.
But past cases of bad intelligence or outright disinformation used to justify war are making experts wary. The questions they are raising, some based on examples from the 1991 Persian Gulf War, highlight the importance of accurate information when a democracy considers military action....
That [Iraqi buildup] was the whole justification for Bush sending troops in there, and it just didn't exist," says Heller. Three times Heller contacted the office of Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney (now vice president) for evidence refuting the Times photos or analysis – offering to hold the story if proven wrong. The official response: "Trust us." To this day, the Pentagon's photographs of the Iraqi troop buildup remain classified....
"My concern in these situations, always, is that the intelligence that you get is driven by the policy, rather than the policy being driven by the intelligence," says former US Rep. Lee Hamilton (D) of Indiana, a 34-year veteran lawmaker until 1999, who served on numerous foreign affairs and intelligence committees, and is now director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington. The Bush team "understands it has not yet carried the burden of persuasion [about an imminent Iraqi threat], so they will look for any kind of evidence to support their premise," Mr. Hamilton says. "I think we have to be skeptical about it." --CSM, Sept. 6, 2002 | |
|
| Are the U.S. misunderstood?
Posted: 1/6/2005 11:35:56 AM |
Now, I'm not even argueing about the merit of providing goverment reconized marraige for homosexuals, but My GOD, put this in perspective, the goverment falt-out, is not obligated to extend benefits to *anyone*. .
Well, I'm not going to say definitely for the U.S...
But if you are in Canada, that statement is 100% wrong.
The government is legally and constitutionally obligated to treat its citizens according to a charter of rights and freedoms. The government has not got the right to treat one group differently than another and same sex couples have fought for a legal recognition of their right to marry BECAUSE there are differences in how they are treated in the eyes of the law.
The above point is constitutional rights 101. The below point is limits of democratic rule 101.
Majority beliefs are not, by themselves, enough to enact as law. Should the majority of individuals in a state/province wish to secede, for example, this alone does not give them legal right to do so...or if a majority of the electorate was for bringing back slavery, or wished that women were no longer given equal rights to men...The government is bound by law to ignore the majority view on those issues and side with the minority and constitutional/charter rights. This is where the moral majority and democratic rule of law are at odds, and why any number of votes on the issue are/should be largely pointless.
Finally, in terms of the Christian Right, generally speaking...it is too often forgotten that the leaders of this movement are no more able to speak on behalf of Christian values than Clinton is able to talk about the sanctity of marriage. Jesus was a leftie...it's fairly obvious to anyone who examines what the guy 'taught' in terms of turning the other cheek, looking after the less fortunate and the doctrine of peace amongst men at all costs...that he wouldn't have been nominated for the Republican ticket. His dad on the other hand...the guy who'll smite your a$$ if you don't watch yourself...now THAT was a republican. | |
|
Loukus
|
Joined: 2/15/2004
Msg: 132 | |
| Are the U.S. misunderstood?
Posted: 1/6/2005 11:42:46 AM |
Loukus: YOU are the point.
Why, thank you.
You don't know anything you're talking about. You're only pretending to...
You should find out what you're talking about....
Don't be petty. It makes you look like an idiot. Not that I think you are. I'm not sure yet. But it's what you look like.
W/r to your crap.
Fact: Three intelligence agencies believed that Saddam had weapons.
Fact: Saddam has had weapons in the past, which have been removed, repeatedly, over the past decade. Remember, weapons inspections? It's all that was on the news pre-war.
Fact: We are waging a war against terror. Saddam is a terrorist, even your man Kerry has said so. Saddam has a history of attacking his nieghboring countries.
Fact: Weapons inspections were breaking down in Iraq. We did find materials for building wmd's. (which we also stopped trafficing in, btw). He was definately slowly manuvering himself
Fact: The vote to go to war was Bipartisan.
Fact: Bill Clinton's impeachment day bombing was justified with Iraq's weapons.
I didn't hear liberals complaining.
Fact: From Bush's prewar address: "All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end... no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near."
Fact: Saddam is not in power.
Sure, there was talk about wmd's, but that was never the only reason to go, like you liberals like to pretend. | |
|
Loukus
|
Joined: 2/15/2004
Msg: 133 | |
| Are the U.S. misunderstood?
Posted: 1/6/2005 11:47:14 AM |
The government has not got the right to treat one group differently than another and same sex couples have fought for a legal recognition of their right to marry BECAUSE there are differences in how they are treated in the eyes of the law.
The goverment treats different groups differently everyday. The law protects rights, not benefits.
Plus, a homosexual man has the same right to marry as a Heterosexual man. There's no difference in the legal restrictions on marraige for either or them. | |
|
| Are the U.S. misunderstood?
Posted: 1/6/2005 11:48:10 AM | OH yes.. tell it, my "Christian" friend...
You're just a shill for neocons... like many others who pretend to be "Christian" and "virtuous" and all that... yet you stand for what you do...
Hypocrite. | |
|
| Are the U.S. misunderstood?
Posted: 1/6/2005 11:50:38 AM |
The sins of homosexuality and adultery are forms of "fornication." Several passages condemn "fornication" irrespective of the form in which it appears (Jude 7; Matthew 5:32; 19:9; 1 Corinthians 5:9; Galatians 5:19-21).
Well, yes...true enough. I can't remember, were these points before or after the bible's affirmation of the right to keep slaves, forbidding women to associate with men while menstrual, and suggestion for cutting off the hands of thieves?
A few other real quick points...
1. Sodomy is not gender specific. It is not equated to homosexuality for that reason. The rationale for it being against god's (non-caps intended) will is because the sin was fornication for some reason other than procreation (you need the kind of super sperm best left to some of the more 'adult' comics to achieve procreation through that particular route...) I'm pretty sure you don't buy into the 'f*ck only for babies theory, and never only for pleasure itself doctrine, so I'm calling you a hypocrite on this. That whole masturbation thing, by the way...that would be in the same "fornication for the purposes other than procreation"...so no more pulling your putz, if you please.
2. The second point is suggesting that if you lie 'with mankind' you need to be put to death. I'm guessing you're flexible on this point? Perhaps we can just insist they watch Rocky movies until they recant and beg forgiveness?
3. Fornication...bad? Well, I disagree, but what the hell, let's say for arguments sake that it is. If, and I underline 'if', homosexuality is of this category then can we have a list of other forms of it so that we can make sure they aren't able to collect employment/retirement benefits when their partners die, or share the same tax benefits...etc...I mean, let's not let off all these OTHER fornicators, that wouldn't be fair to our most merciful god. Oh, and you're apparently assuming that fornication includes homosexuality, because at no point in the bible does it list homosexuality as such. Actually, it doesn't even mention that goat orgies qualify, but I'm going out on a limb with you on that one...those weirdos need to just settle down. | |
|
| Are the U.S. misunderstood?
Posted: 1/6/2005 11:51:46 AM | Oh please, "we don't want the evidence to be in the form of a mushroom cloud"
Talk about WMD's was all over in the months prior to the invasion. And how can you possibly justify saying that weapons inspections were breaking down when NO WEAPONS HAVE YET TO BE FOUND since the invasion!! That proves the weapons inspections were working.
Saddam's weapons from the past were not removed repeatedly. They were removed - plain and simple. The inspections and sanctions were to prevent Saddam from getting more.
Now, to be fair, there were some weapons that were never accounted for. This is why everyone, including Democrats and others in the UN, thought Saddam still possessed them. But it has become obvious now that the reason no inspectors could find these missing weapons was that they had already been destroyed.
The world had received testimony to this affect, most notably through the interrogation of defectors. Yet it was never given credit.
Stop with the WMD's already. Its enough Bush lied the world into war talking about them - I think we've heard enough. | |
|
Loukus
|
Joined: 2/15/2004
Msg: 137 | |
| Are the U.S. misunderstood?
Posted: 1/6/2005 11:53:42 AM | Don't be a cad.
In fact, I'm done with you.
Drop the petty bullcrap, and maybe we can talk. | |
|
| Are the U.S. misunderstood?
Posted: 1/6/2005 11:54:05 AM | Homosexuals do not have the right to marry the person they love. Pure and simple. This is a huge difference, and one takes the narrow view (as you do) at the cost of happiness for millions of decent, loving human beings who only wish to share a lifetime of happiness, love, sharing and partnership, and have it legally recognized, that you are seeking on this site.
Shame on you. | |
|
Loukus
|
Joined: 2/15/2004
Msg: 139 | |
| |
Loukus
|
Joined: 2/15/2004
Msg: 140 | |
| Are the U.S. misunderstood?
Posted: 1/6/2005 11:56:56 AM |
Homosexuals do not have the right to marry the person they love. Pure and simple. This is a huge difference, and one takes the narrow view (as you do) at the cost of happiness for millions of decent, loving human beings who only wish to share a lifetime of happiness, love, sharing and partnership, and have it legally recognized, that you are seeking on this site.
The question at hand is what the goverment is obliged to do.
And the fact is, the goverment is not obliged to extend equal benefits. The concept of "equal benefits" doesn't exist in our political philosophy.
Are you listening? Marraige isn't even a "right" for heterosexual couples. | |
|
| Are the U.S. misunderstood?
Posted: 1/6/2005 12:05:47 PM | varus - if you are going to start quoting the Bible...let's quote Christ, shall we?
"what you do to the least of my brothers, you do to me."
i am so tired of people slamming Christianity because people that proclaim to be christian display less than Christ-like initiatives...ie. caring for the poor, the prostitutes, the weak, the sick, children, etc. to be christian is to want to walk in the way of the light and truth - that is, in the footsteps of Jesus and emulate him as best as you can. we will never be perfect but that doesn't give us the right to throw stones...remember "he who is without sin shall cast the first stone"? Christ had a very simple message: love God and love others. if you do not, if you don't even try, then you are blaspheming his name in calling yourself a christian.
also, "for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son..." - whether you are christian, agnostic, buddhist, i believe that we are ALL God's children and he loves us so much that he would make sacrifices on our behalf that we cannot imagine. does that mean jews will all go to hell because they don't believe Christ is the son of God? or that homosexuals are doomed? or hindus better clean up their act or they will d*mned in the eternal fires? i can't believe that a God who loves us so much as to make the sacrifices he has, has forgiven us so many trespasses, would condemn his children. regardless, it's for him to judge, not us. no true christian would seek to act/play God on earth.
please return to the fundamental issues of the thread...don't bring Christ into this debate. | |
|
| Are the U.S. misunderstood?
Posted: 1/6/2005 12:06:26 PM | Listening just fine. Would you like the Canadian supreme court ruling on this matter? Based on the same principles as many U.S. state courts and the U.S. supreme courts decisions...
Marriage is a right. You have the right to be married, like you have the right to vote. You may have the right taken away if you do certain things, but arbitrarily taking away the rights of people on the basis of race, creed or colour is unlawful. The courts are now being told to include sexual orientation in this issue.
In fact, they already have included sexual orientation as sub-category for constitutional protection under equal rights laws. It is considered a hate crime if someone is assaulted because of their sexual orientation. So it is considered a class of individuals who are subjected to bigotry, and it is enshrined in law that (in the case of assaults) that it be protected.
How do we weigh in on that one, out of curiousity? Queer bashing okay? Not so okay? Kind of okay but not as unokay as say, sodomy? It is an abomination, after all... | |
|
| |
| Are the U.S. misunderstood?
Posted: 1/6/2005 12:11:12 PM |
i can't believe that a God who loves us so much as to make the sacrifices he has, has forgiven us so many trespasses, would condemn his children.
Perhaps you should read the verse that explains how sin separates us from the love of God that you speak about. If we knowingly continue a life full of sin, we will become removed from the love of God which would have otherwise saved us.
Let's not talk about all the love of God without bringing into the discussion our personal accountability for our actions. This is an issue that Christ preached about time and time again... | |
|
| Are the U.S. misunderstood?
Posted: 1/6/2005 12:13:31 PM | | watchman - personal accountability is just that - between individuals and God. did you not catch the part about God judging us all...that's his role, not ours. | |
|
| Are the U.S. misunderstood?
Posted: 1/6/2005 12:19:59 PM | Homosexuality is a sin, there is no gray area there. Sin separates us from the love of God and redemption. It's very simple really.
We don't have to judge others to know what sin is or is not, the Bible tells us what is acceptable and what isn't. We absolutely need to judge the acts people commit, we don't need to judge the people that commit those acts.
Love the sinner hate the sin, remember? How do you hate the sin if you don't make a judgment on what the sin is and what it isn't? | |
|
| Are the U.S. misunderstood?
Posted: 1/6/2005 12:22:13 PM |
pray for guidance to stand up to the evils of the world
Varus, what part of "turn the other cheek" don't you understand?
How bout "love thy neighbour"
No, how about "Vengence is mine sayeth the Lord."
What about a simple one - "Thou shall not kill."
I don't recall anything in the New Testament about Christ kicking butt and taking names.... | |
|
| |
DMT
|
Joined: 12/3/2004
Msg: 149 | |
| Are the U.S. misunderstood?
Posted: 1/6/2005 12:25:44 PM |
Homosexuality is a sin, there is no gray area there. Sin separates us from the love of God and redemption. It's very simple really. We don't have to judge others to know what sin is or is not, the Bible tells us what is acceptable and what isn't. We absolutely need to judge the acts people commit, we don't need to judge the people that commit those acts. Love the sinner hate the sin, remember? How do you hate the sin if you don't make a judgment on what the sin is and what it isn't?
Is that Watchman still going on about his fascination with homosexuality. Man, if you are that interested in it, why don't you just try it. You spend so much of your time talking about it, thinking about it, imagining it and getting other to talk to you about it...and god knows what else that you really should just find a nice guy to try ome stuff with. I'm sure you would find it easy to find a man who will let you be all soldiery with him
| |
|
| Are the U.S. misunderstood?
Posted: 1/6/2005 12:27:39 PM | watchman - you can condemn and hate the sin all you like...but in so doing you must be careful that you do not condemn and hate the sinner...the arguments in this thread related to homosexuality seem to cross that line.
you are entitled to believe what you will and i'm not telling or even asking you to believe as i do. i'm merely asking posters to keep Christ out of debate regarding a political question. that's all. | |
|
|
| Page 6 of 11
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 |
|
Home
login 
