I agree that spending should be reined in. I am not sure what the limits should be, but I know things are out of hand right now.

Instead of using tax cuts to force the government to reduce spending there is another choice. Just don't let the budget grow. In ten years inflation will have significantly cut the value of the budget. This gives the government time to phase out programs rather than dumping another 50k people into the jobless market (which will not help).

-Don

 

Just to throw more fuel on the fire:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/08/spr...ort/index.html

"He [Powell] was responding to a study that found Iraq had ended its programs by the mid-1990s and did not pose an immediate threat to the United States before the 2003 war. Powell said he had not read the report but read news reports about it.

The study, released Thursday, was conducted by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a nonpartisan, respected group that opposed the war in Iraq."

-Don

 

on the same subject:

from Britain
http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...1118419,00.htm

from Australia:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/...37447020.htmll


cnn is liberal, you know, so I included a couple of international links from US allies.

 

Gentleman you need to read the entire article and what Powell has stated. Nothing has been concluded yet, sure you have some report by some “outside” organization that has no ability to know what our intelligent sources know. It’s there own little group going out and interviewing a few people that may perhaps have their own agenda, nothing new…

Saddam made it clear to the world he had WMD and he had the infrastructures for developing and building WMD’s. The whole free world, those included in the United Nations completely backs the United States on the merits that Iraq and Saddam did indeed have WMD’s and was a threat to the world…

The ONLY thing some of the countries of the free world did not agree on was for America with a coalition to actually go in and rid Iraq of Saddam and his WMD’s. Those that opposed the war where the countries such as France that had big money and oil involved, they wanted to stop the war for their own greed…

You have a report by one little organization that is meaningless because nobody in the free world, those involved with the United Nations agrees with the report, thus making the report irrelevant…

Games up gentleman, now move along, don’t matter what may have been or what may not have been we got one of the top terrorist and he is out of the picture. Because of it many things good are happening in the world today.

Libya has seen the light at the end of the tunnel and decided “games up”, India and Pakistan have decided its time to get together at the peace table when just a few short years ago they were close to nuclear conflict with one another, and North Korea is seeing the light and deciding its better to play nice with America or possible face getting their *** beat like Iraq did.

You can sight all the “arm chair quarterback” reports you want but the fact remains the entire free world, those involved with the United Nations, completely agreed with America’s assessment of Iraq and WMD’s and their danger to the free world…

We win and the terrorist and their supporters (those that write goofy reports) lose…

 

I noticed my laundry seemed brighter and whiter and minty fresh.

 

That statement is a good one. Anyone who knows anything about the Carnegie Endowment knows they are partisan.

 

That's not your laundry, it's your toothpaste. I'll bet the goats appreciate the minty freshness

 

especially after that last goat incident.

 

Ok people this thread is about National politics, not some rumor about me.

The goat is lying anyway.

 

those 70's acid flashbacks are becoming more of a problem for you every day, ay 01?

 

yeah... until it pulls out the blue dress

 

Never done any drugs nor will I ever, I know for you liberals the truth is hard to accept, but the facts are the facts and this little group that is “biased” does not have a factual report nor will they ever…

Also note in their little report they never state “there are “no” WMD’s there now or ever” they simple are reflecting on their bias that we did not have to go in “at this time” or had no reason too. It is all in the matter they wish to spin their propaganda…

If they were truly NON-bias they would never had made any mention if they were for the war or against the war, it is as simple as that…

They have absolutely no facts what so ever to back up their report. We have limited facts (at the moment) to back up are facts that Iraq and Saddam did indeed have WMD’s and let’s not forget, as I mentioned in my previous post, we also had the entire free world, those associated with the United Nations, backing are allegations against Iraq having WMD’s and being a grave and serious threat to the free world…

That means the entire free world, those associated with the United Nations, at least those with any creditability also reject this bias report issued by a political organization…

 

Your joke actually plays nicely into this thread.

Here is an article from five years ago.
It was three years before 9/11.
http://www.richardwarrenfield.com/essay003.htm

Here is the last sentence for those that don't want to read it.
"In the meantime, as complacency and cynicism dominate, epitomized by our focus on this melodrama, we will have only ourselves to blame when neglected issues suddenly explode onto our priority list in the form of crisis and catastrophe.

Boy, would that turn out to be a prophetic line.

 

01XLT,

If I may ask, how old are you? I'm just curious where you are coming from in this debate.

If I had to guess, I would say lates teens early twenties. Somehow I doubt that is correct though.

Now Frank S? Frank S strikes me as older and bitter If I had to guess, I would say late 40's. Again, I doubt I am even close.

-Don

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


ABC Movie of the week:

"I was a teenage Burt Reynolds"