There were WMD's in Iraq .. Proof found ..

[f.sciarrillo]

I wonder if you will see MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, And CNN admit that they were wrong? Probably not. In fact, CBS is already trying to spin it to be false. Typical seeing as they are in bed with the Left as much as MSNBC is .. Anyway, wikileaks released photo's of troops finding wmd's. So, yes folks, Bush was right..

I kinda find this funny because wikileaks is trying to harm the government, but yet in this case helped the Bush admin. I guess we can say thank you to them?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer ... -wmds-iraq

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/internatio ... 7AZ3RO9qnM

[Hawk]

Let's get some history first.

The Reagan Administration helped Saddam Husain develop chemical weapons for the Iraqi's was against Iran. And Iraq did use those weapons.
http://www.counterpunch.org/dixon06172004.html
There are hundreds of links available to document what Reagan did.

Small stockpiles were expected. Everyone knew they once had them.

G W Bush claimed that they had programs to build WMD such as nuclear weapons. GW claimed they were BUILDING WMD! A lie.

Remember the reports of "specialized tubes for rockets and other reports of Iraq's ONGOING building of WDA, which was going to be used against the USA. Your documents prove that is false.

Then we had inspectors on Iraq who found NO evidence of building programs. Further pointed out in wiki documents.

W also told us Saddam was partially responsible of 9/11.

The Wiki documents also point out that Saddam needed to let Iran think that Iraq still had chemical weapons in order to protect themselves.

Do you think if GW told the truth - We believe Iraq has some small stockpiles of chemical weapons that Ronald Reagan helped them create in order to protect themselves from Iran - we would have went to war ?

Bush claimed that the war was about sanctions NOT working and that Iraq continued to build WMD. You link proves the opposite, the sanctions were working.

Bush claimed Saddam had a hand in 9/11. False again.

So are you saying that the trillions of dollars spent (adding GREATLY to our deficit and the thousands of dead Americans and thousands of innocent dead Iraqi civilians was worth it based on the data that some small stockpiles were found ? ANSWER THE gOD DAMN QUESTION FRANK, not some bull shit about, "There goes Hawk on his liberal soap box".

[f.sciarrillo]

The point is that Bush was right, Bill. It doesn't matter what happen before or after him. HE WAS RIGHT. Can any of the liberal admit that?

I do have to give the New York credit for standing up to it. That is good to see ...

[Hawk]

The point is that Bush was right, Bill. It doesn't matter what happen before or after him. HE WAS RIGHT. Can any of the liberal admit that?

I do have to give the New York credit for standing up to it. That is good to see ...

Bush was WRONG ! Bush said Iraq was building WMD and the sanctions were not working ! The wiki documents prove Bush WRONG.

There was no building going on. NONE ! That's what the wiki proves ! The sanctions were working ! Wiki documents prove that !

Did you even read what you posted ? I got my info from your link.

You are a sick man if you think those small stockpiles were worth the DEATH of thousands of Americans and the thousands more disabled.

BTW I knew you couldn't answer my question. Because it illustrates your inability to think things through to a logical conclusion.

[f.sciarrillo]

My point is proven, you can't admit it because if you did you would have to go against your own beliefs. Typical. Kudos ...

Your long winded reply at first took no plausibly to it. The simple question was whether a liberal can admit he was right. You instead tried to give a history lesson of things you believe happen.

And lets not start about the deficit, especially seeing that your boy obama caused the biggest one in history. People are pissed about it, don't believe me? wait till next Tuesday when there isn't a dem in congress...

[Hawk]

My point is proven, you can't admit it because if you did you would have to go against your own beliefs. Typical. Kudos ...

Your long winded reply at first took no plausibly to it. The simple question was whether a liberal can admit he was right. You instead tried to give a history lesson of things you believe happen.

"Small stockpiles were expected. Everyone knew they once had them."

Seems to me I did admit it. I would have / could have predicted that they were there. It's a no brainer. not worth a damn war though.

So Frank, was it worth all the deaths a destruction ?

[Hawk]

My point is proven, you can't admit it because if you did you would have to go against your own beliefs. Typical. Kudos ...

Your long winded reply at first took no plausibly to it. The simple question was whether a liberal can admit he was right. You instead tried to give a history lesson of things you believe happen.

And lets not start about the deficit, especially seeing that your boy obama caused the biggest one in history. People are pissed about it, don't believe me? wait till next Tuesday when there isn't a dem in congress...

The only reason people are pissed about it is because the right wing media told you to be pissed. YOU FRANK, were NOT PISSED about it while Reagan Bush and Bush took it to $10 trllion . Why weren't you pissed then Frank ? Another question you can't answer !

I dare you to tell me why you never complianed about GW taking it to $10 Trillion ?

The history I taught you is fact.

[KeithReynolds]

You guys should have a political tv show together!!
Id watch it everyday, and I hate politics.

[f.sciarrillo]

I never agreed with Iraq fully. I do believe Hussein had to be taken out. But, I also believe it should have been done a different way.

The main reason why Bush went to Iraq was to finish what his dad did. There was no end to the Gulf War, it was a cease fire that went bust because of all the stupid things that Hussein was doing.

Something else, I do not believe that the sanctions were working. If they were, Hussein was doing a great job covering it up. It is the same thing with Iran, don't be surprised if we take military action against them soon ...

[f.sciarrillo]

My point is proven, you can't admit it because if you did you would have to go against your own beliefs. Typical. Kudos ...

Your long winded reply at first took no plausibly to it. The simple question was whether a liberal can admit he was right. You instead tried to give a history lesson of things you believe happen.

And lets not start about the deficit, especially seeing that your boy obama caused the biggest one in history. People are pissed about it, don't believe me? wait till next Tuesday when there isn't a dem in congress...

The only reason people are pissed about it is because the right wing media told you to be pissed. YOU FRANK, were NOT PISSED about it while Reagan Bush and Bush took it to $10 trillion . Why weren't you pissed then Frank ? Another question you can't answer !

I dare you to tell me why you never complained about GW taking it to $10 Trillion ?

The history I taught you is fact.

So you aren't pissed that our grand kids grand kids are going to be in debt to china? You don't look at the fact that 70% of the country did not want what congress was spoon feeding us. Even they didn't know what it was, mainly because none of them read the flipping bill! We are not a prosperous country, we are a lapsed country.

[f.sciarrillo]

You guys should have a political tv show together!!
Id watch it everyday, and I hate politics.

I would gladly go on a political tv show with Bill. It would make for some great debates.

Oh and Bill, I was six when Reagan was elected

[Hawk]

I don't like the deficit any more than you do. I do believe that the money spent to keep the banks, wall street, GM and Chrysler was well spent. I do believe a depression (as do most financial annalists) was prevented. And our unemployment would be at least twice what it is now if GM and Chrysler closed. While bankruptcy (without any government bailout) was possible, it would have been the final nail in the coffin. People were willing to by their cars because the government backed the companies.

I'm also for the tax cuts to everyone but the top 2%, which I think should go back to where it was before GW made the cuts.

GW's tax cuts added about one trillion to the deficit. Why weren't you up in arms about that ? The current tax cuts to the top 2% is still adding billions to the deficit.

I'm also for taking away all the tax cut to all of the companies who outsourced our labor to China.

[Hawk]

You guys should have a political tv show together!!
Id watch it everyday, and I hate politics.

Don't ever let anyone know you would encourage us. That could get you banned from RP. Never do that again.

[Hawk]

Oh and Bill, I was six when Reagan was elected

That's why I needed to give you a history lesson.

Someone find that picture of Frank and I so that they know we really don't hate each other. Frank is a good man. I just have trouble seeing his eyes.













Oh, why ? Because of the wool pulled over them.

[f.sciarrillo]

I don't like the deficit any more than you do. I do believe that the money spent to keep the banks, wall street, GM and Chrysler was well spent. I do believe a depression (as do most financial annalists) was prevented. And our unemployment would be at least twice what it is now if GM and Chrysler closed. While bankruptcy (without any government bailout) was possible, it would have been the final nail in the coffin. People were willing to by their cars because the government backed the companies.

I'm also for the tax cuts to everyone but the top 2%, which I think should go back to where it was before GW made the cuts.

GW's tax cuts added about one trillion to the deficit. Why weren't you up in arms about that ? The current tax cuts to the top 2% is still adding billions to the deficit.

I'm also for taking away all the tax cut to all of the companies who outsourced our labor to China.

Obama guaranteed that Unemployment wouldn't go above 8% if that passed, it is almost 10% now - Then if you include the people who quit looking, it is probably twice that. I also think there should be tax cuts across the board. It is the wealthy who start businesses and give jobs. The more they are taxed, the less likely they are to hire..

The main reason I am against the bank bailouts is because ceo's of those banks that were bailed out are in Obama's cabinet.

[beatlemaniac]

you guys are both right and both wrong on some issues. Just as i was for supporting obama and hoping he would change things like the discourse we have here and between friends all over this country. it is amazing how so much has changed so fast. never has the house flipped twice in 6 years. things are so messed up that obama looks like he is following bush's footsteps on so many issues. Guantanamo is not closed, the bushies were not brought up on charges, the bush tax cuts will be in large part kept by obama , our gay friends are still not allowed to serve, we still have thousands of soldiers in iraq? i guess obama thinks we need to be there or he would have pulled us out long ago. maybe he wanted to find the wmd's himself.let alone adding a surge to bush's war in Afghanistan. we want all votes to count but he didn't count fla and Michigan if he had Hilary would be president. the pres is afraid to say we can build a church where ever we want. no wonder everyone is confused . The liberal in me is mad and the conservative in me is mad. I enjoy the debate also it's like rooting for a sports team and not knowing when to root or complain. I feel badly for obama not matter what he does he is wrong. why exactly would anyone want to be president. please note tongue in cheek for this friends jerryc

[Hawk]

I don't like the deficit any more than you do. I do believe that the money spent to keep the banks, wall street, GM and Chrysler was well spent. I do believe a depression (as do most financial annalists) was prevented. And our unemployment would be at least twice what it is now if GM and Chrysler closed. While bankruptcy (without any government bailout) was possible, it would have been the final nail in the coffin. People were willing to by their cars because the government backed the companies.

I'm also for the tax cuts to everyone but the top 2%, which I think should go back to where it was before GW made the cuts.

GW's tax cuts added about one trillion to the deficit. Why weren't you up in arms about that ? The current tax cuts to the top 2% is still adding billions to the deficit.

I'm also for taking away all the tax cut to all of the companies who outsourced our labor to China.

Obama guaranteed that Unemployment wouldn't go above 8% if that passed, it is almost 10% now - Then if you include the people who quit looking, it is probably twice that. I also think there should be tax cuts across the board. It is the wealthy who start businesses and give jobs. The more they are taxed, the less likely they are to hire..

The main reason I am against the bank bailouts is because ceo's of those banks that were bailed out are in Obama's cabinet.

Show me where he ever "guranteed" 8%. He may have predicted it, but he never guranteed it.

The top 2% are currently hoarding their money when they could be contributing to the economy. They want Obama to fail so that their taxes don't get raised.

If the tax cuts work so well, where were all the jobs Bush created ?

Unemployment is high because the jobs were outsourced. How can a president bring them back when the rich (who's tax cuts you want to protect) invest their money in American Companies that went to China.

[f.sciarrillo]

You also have to look at how the Military vote is being held up. The conservative in me calls that fishy ...

[f.sciarrillo]

I don't like the deficit any more than you do. I do believe that the money spent to keep the banks, wall street, GM and Chrysler was well spent. I do believe a depression (as do most financial annalists) was prevented. And our unemployment would be at least twice what it is now if GM and Chrysler closed. While bankruptcy (without any government bailout) was possible, it would have been the final nail in the coffin. People were willing to by their cars because the government backed the companies.

I'm also for the tax cuts to everyone but the top 2%, which I think should go back to where it was before GW made the cuts.

GW's tax cuts added about one trillion to the deficit. Why weren't you up in arms about that ? The current tax cuts to the top 2% is still adding billions to the deficit.

I'm also for taking away all the tax cut to all of the companies who outsourced our labor to China.

Obama guaranteed that Unemployment wouldn't go above 8% if that passed, it is almost 10% now - Then if you include the people who quit looking, it is probably twice that. I also think there should be tax cuts across the board. It is the wealthy who start businesses and give jobs. The more they are taxed, the less likely they are to hire..

The main reason I am against the bank bailouts is because ceo's of those banks that were bailed out are in Obama's cabinet.

Show me where he ever "guranteed" 8%. He may have predicted it, but he never guranteed it.

The top 2% are currently hoarding their money when they could be contributing to the economy. They want Obama to fail so that their taxes don't get raised.

If the tax cuts work so well, where were all the jobs Bush created ?

Unemployment is high because the jobs were outsourced. How can a president bring them back when the rich (who's tax cuts you want to protect) invest their money in American Companies that went to China.

If the government wasn't trying to tax the hell out of businesses, they wouldn't have went over seas.

I am school right now, so I can't look for obama saying about the uc not beign above 8% right now, but I will later ...

[Hawk]

Obama guaranteed that Unemployment wouldn't go above 8% if that passed, it is almost 10% now - Then if you include the people who quit looking, it is probably twice that. I also think there should be tax cuts across the board. It is the wealthy who start businesses and give jobs. The more they are taxed, the less likely they are to hire..

The main reason I am against the bank bailouts is because ceo's of those banks that were bailed out are in Obama's cabinet.

Show me where he ever "guranteed" 8%. He may have predicted it, but he never guranteed it.

The top 2% are currently hoarding their money when they could be contributing to the economy. They want Obama to fail so that their taxes don't get raised.

If the tax cuts work so well, where were all the jobs Bush created ?

Unemployment is high because the jobs were outsourced. How can a president bring them back when the rich (who's tax cuts you want to protect) invest their money in American Companies that went to China.

If the government wasn't trying to tax the hell out of businesses, they wouldn't have went over seas.

I am school right now, so I can't look for obama saying about the uc not beign above 8% right now, but I will later ...

The companies left for $3 a day (or less) labor.

[Hawk]

You also have to look at how the Military vote is being held up. The conservative in me calls that fishy ...

You mean when Bush was elected the second time ? I was pissed about that too.

[Hawk]

Think it through Franlk. The top 2% of the American people own 90% of the wealth. They are hoarding their money. (I got that info from Rush Limbaugh.) They have plenty to invest in American labor if they want to right now.

Their tax cuts did not add to the labor force or the economy during the GW Bush administration. Their tax cuts DID add BILLIONS to the deficit.

If we took these tax cuts and put them back where they were, it would help reduce the deficit. Isn't that what you want ?

[Hawk]

I got my % wrong.

Wolff: The top 5 percent own more than half of all wealth.

In 1998, they owned 59 percent of all wealth. Or to put it another way, the top 5 percent had more wealth than the remaining 95 percent of the population, collectively.

The top 20 percent owns over 80 percent of all wealth. In 1998, it owned 83 percent of all wealth.

This is a very concentrated distribution.

The bottom 20 percent basically have zero wealth. They either have no assets, or their debt equals or exceeds their assets. The bottom 20 percent has typically accumulated no savings.

A household in the middle — the median household — has wealth of about $62,000. $62,000 is not insignificant, but if you consider that the top 1 percent of households’ average wealth is $12.5 million, you can see what a difference there is in the distribution.

I say tax acording to wealth, not acording to labor income.

EDIT for MORE INFORMATION

Here are some dramatic facts that sum up how the wealth distribution became even more concentrated between 1983 and 2004, in good part due to the tax cuts for the wealthy and the defeat of labor unions: Of all the new financial wealth created by the American economy in that 21-year-period, fully 42% of it went to the top 1%. A whopping 94% went to the top 20%, which of course means that the bottom 80% received only 6% of all the new financial wealth generated in the United States.

Now tell me why the top % need more tax cuts ?

[Hawk]

A needed boost
Many economists and number-crunchers tend to agree with the Democrats' argument that the economy would be in more perilous straits had no stimulus been enacted.

The CBO said its economic models indicate the stimulus increased the number of jobs by as much as 3.3 million in the second quarter of 2010 and cut the unemployment rate by as much as 1.8 percentage points.

At a Senate Budget Committee hearing, University of Maryland economist Carmen Reinhart, an expert on the slumps that follow financial crises, said that without the stimulus, "We would be doing much worse."

The CBO is:

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is a federal agency within the legislative branch of the United States government. It is a government agency that provides economic data to Congress.[1] The CBO was created as an independent nonpartisan agency by the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

[f.sciarrillo]

Bill, I am starting to think that you are for the top 5% class supporting the lower 95% class.

This is a capitalist country, we get rich by working for it. There is no reason why some one who spent their whole life getting where they are should through it all to the people who are to lazy to get off their ass and look for a job.

Look at statics - There are more families on food stamps and welfare now with this admin than any other admin in history. They are truly the welfare admin ..

This admin is for nothing but spreading the wealth, Marxist, and having people depend on government for everything. I am not like that. I do not agree with it, I will not support it .. I work to support my family and myself, not some one who is too lazy to work. Mind you, I know there are people who do need to be on it. Those I don't have a problem, it is the lazy that I have a problem with ..