Did Republicans Break the Millennials?

Truth Detector said:
A blunder all of the Democratic leadership voted FOR.
Click to expand...

There was never a vote about whether or not to start a war on Iraq. There was a vote about whether or not to entrust Bush with the authority to use force in Iraq if he thought it necessary. It's fair to criticize those Democrats who were foolish enough to trust Bush with such discretion, but let's be honest about what the resolution said. Let's also be honest about how the parties voted. 96% of the Republicans in the House voted for it. Just 39% of the Democrats did. In the Senate, it was 98% of the Republicans, and 58% of the Democrats. And the only Republican who opposed it in the Senate left, afterwards, for the Democratic Party. The Democratic opponents included a number of leading Democrats (Boxer, Durbin, Feingold, Kennedy, Sarbanes, and Wellstone).

Were they all wrong
Click to expand...

Yes, of course. Any time a sentence starts with "should we trust George Bush to exercise discretion with regard to....," it's wrong to answer with "yes."

Saddam had not invaded a peaceful member nation of the UN.
Click to expand...

A great many nations have invaded peaceful member nations of the UN (us included), and yet that doesn't give license to invade them in turn, many years after they have withdrawn.
 
Truth Detector said:
That's a lie as well.
Click to expand...

Reread you own post #88, where you directly quoted me saying "Instead, the issue was very poor revenue growth." As you can see, I was referring to poor revenue growth, rather than falling revenue. If you're going to quote something, shouldn't you read it first?
 
Last edited:
Oneuli said:
There was never a vote about whether or not to start a war on Iraq. There was a vote about whether or not to entrust Bush with the authority to use force in Iraq if he thought it necessary. It's fair to criticize those Democrats who were foolish enough to trust Bush with such discretion, but let's be honest about what the resolution said. Let's also be honest about how the parties voted. 96% of the Republicans in the House voted for it. Just 39% of the Democrats did. In the Senate, it was 98% of the Republicans, and 58% of the Democrats. And the only Republican who opposed it in the Senate left, afterwards, for the Democratic Party. The Democratic opponents included a number of leading Democrats (Boxer, Durbin, Feingold, Kennedy, Sarbanes, and Wellstone).
Click to expand...

Why do you always type "let's be honest here" while lying like a pathological loser?

Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
-- President Bill Clinton (State of the Union Address), Jan. 27, 1998

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators.""Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. 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."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"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."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."
-- Sen. John Edwards (D, NC) Feb. 24, 2002

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." "
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed. We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Edward Kennedy (D, MA) Sep. 27, 2002

"Now let me be clear -- I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him."
-- State Senator Barack Obama (Democrat, Illinois) Oct. 2, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
-- Senator John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002

"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."
-- Sen. Harry Reid (D. NV) Oct. 9, 2002


"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."
-- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D. CA) Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
-- Ex President Bill Clinton, Jul. 22, 2003 (Interview with CNN Larry King)

I asked very direct questions of the top people in the CIA and people who'd served in the Clinton administration. And they said they believed that Saddam Hussein either had weapons or had the components of weapons or the ability to quickly make weapons of mass destruction. What we're worried about is an A-bomb in a Ryder truck in New York, in Washington and St. Louis. It cannot happen. We have to prevent it from happening.
-- Rep. Richard Gephardt (D, MT) Nov. 2, 2003
 
Oneuli said:
Yes, of course. Any time a sentence starts with "should we trust George Bush to exercise discretion with regard to....," it's wrong to answer with "yes."
Click to expand...

Absurdity; the last refuge for liars, fools and the ignorant. Of course, losers like you swallowed Obama's lies like gleeful little lemmings.

Oneuli said:
A great many nations have invaded peaceful member nations of the UN (us included), and yet that doesn't give license to invade them in turn, many years after they have withdrawn.
Click to expand...

How does that matter you dishonest dunce. The UN voted to eject the tyrant and you sit here acting like it is no biggie? Should we have done nothing when Saddam invaded Kuwait threatening our allies and member states to the UN? STFU, seriously.
 
Oneuli said:
Reread you own post #88, where you directly quoted me saying "Instead, the issue was very poor revenue growth." As you can see, I referring to poor revenue growth, rather than falling revenue. If you're going to quote something, shouldn't you read it first?
Click to expand...

I am quite certain you have lost track of the false claims you were trying to make in the first place. As I stated, the data does not support the asinine claim that tax reductions lead to lower revenue, or, the more asinine claim that higher taxation leads to higher revenue growth.

It's almost as moronic as claiming that if we are taxed more, that Government growth and spending leads to greater prosperity. But alas, I am arguing with a willful and deceitful idiot on steroids who has been indoctrinated with Marxist ideals. History is littered with the failures of morons like you who had identical beliefs.

I am still waiting for your proof about the multiplier affect on Government spending. You probably gave up on that moronic idea when you found out you were full of shit. :laugh:
 
Oneuli said:
Yes. Are you questioning the fact the IMF said that, or simply dismissing the work of the IMF because they're saying something that disagrees with what your gut tells you?
Click to expand...

I am laughing at you quoting the IMF and then not providing a single shred of coherent and factual evidence to support the inane assertion that Government spending has a multiplier effect on the velocity of money.

Do you have something better than "because you say so" you would like to add? Dunce.
 
Truth Detector said:
The UN voted to eject the tyrant
Click to expand...

Which vote are you referring to, specifically?

Should we have done nothing when Saddam invaded Kuwait threatening our allies and member states to the UN?
Click to expand...

No. We should have worked with a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait.... just as we did. But that doesn't justify an invasion of Iraq, many years later, to install a friendlier government.
 
Truth Detector said:
I am quite certain you have lost track of the false claims you were trying to make in the first place. As I stated, the data does not support the asinine claim that tax reductions lead to lower revenue
Click to expand...

You've lost track of the thread. Try rereading. My claim was that the tax reductions led to lower revenue growth. Try to keep up.

I am still waiting for your proof about the multiplier affect on Government spending.
Click to expand...

Are you looking for a link to the IMF report behind that claim? If so, I'm happy to provide it. Or are you looking for something that you, personally, would regard as proof of it? If so, then there's no point, because you and I both know there is no possible set of facts or mountain of evidence that could convince you of anything that ran afoul of your prejudices, because evidence is entirely beside the point for your faith-based approach to such things.
 
Truth Detector said:
I am laughing at you quoting the IMF and then not providing a single shred of coherent and factual evidence to support the inane assertion that Government spending has a multiplier effect on the velocity of money.

Do you have something better than "because you say so" you would like to add? Dunce.
Click to expand...

Are you questioning the fact the IMF said that, or simply dismissing the work of the IMF because they're saying something that disagrees with what your gut tells you?
 
Oneuli said:
You've lost track of the thread. Try rereading. My claim was that the tax reductions led to lower revenue growth. Try to keep up.
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure you've lost track of your lies and desperate flailing trying to argue that higher taxes are GREAT! :laugh: Dunce.

Oneuli said:
Are you looking for a link to the IMF report behind that claim? If so, I'm happy to provide it. Or are you looking for something that you, personally, would regard as proof of it? If so, then there's no point, because you and I both know there is no possible set of facts or mountain of evidence that could convince you of anything that ran afoul of your prejudices, because evidence is entirely beside the point for your faith-based approach to such things.
Click to expand...

I am not looking for anything dunce; I am waiting for you to PROVE with a credible source the velocity of money that goes to Government. Of course, in moron land where you wallow, it doesn't occur to you that for Government to spend ANYTHING, it must first extract it from those who create wealth. Thus, there is no velocity and in fact, much of it gets lost while paying the salaries of Government employees and regulatory red tape.
 
Oneuli said:
Are you questioning the fact the IMF said that, or simply dismissing the work of the IMF because they're saying something that disagrees with what your gut tells you?
Click to expand...

Again, I am waiting for YOU to PROVE you claims regarding the velocity of money that the Government forcefully extracts from the economy. I don't expect an answer because you're a dishonest dunce who is better at deflecting, flailing desperately and looking like a moron.
 
Truth Detector said:
Why are you so ignorant?
Click to expand...

How would I not be ignorant of which vote you are referring to, when you haven't told me? Now, little coward, don't run from the question. It makes you look even more pathetic than normal. Answer: Which vote are you referring to, specifically?

I see you still don't know why we went into Iraq. Get informed.
Click to expand...

Why do YOU imagine we went into Iraq?
 
Truth Detector said:
I am pretty sure you've lost track of your lies
Click to expand...
That would be impossible, since I've told no lies. What happened, as you're now aware thanks to my hand-holding, is that you lost track of the argument. I'd argued that tax cuts led to lower revenue growth, and thanks to your extremely poor reading skills, you read that as a claim that it led to falling revenues. Read more carefully if you want to lessen the frequency of these humiliations.

I am waiting for you to PROVE with a credible source the velocity of money that goes to Government.
Click to expand...

Do you imagine I made a claim about the velocity of money that goes to government? Instead, I pointed out what the IMF's conclusion was about the multiplier. If you'd like me to support that the IMF said that, just let me know. If, instead, what you're asking for is for me to convince you of something that your close-minded bigotry will never accept, we both know that's impossible, since evidence is entirely beside the point for you.
 
Oneuli said:
I know that none of them was a lie. Now, little coward, don't run from the question. It makes you look even more pathetic than normal. Answer: what statement do you imagine was a lie, specifically?
Click to expand...

Awwwww....now you have to name call. How cute. What statement do you imagine wasn't a lie you whiny dunce?
 
Oneuli said:
How would I not be ignorant of which vote you are referring to, when you haven't told me? Now, little coward, don't run from the question. It makes you look even more pathetic than normal. Answer: Which vote are you referring to, specifically?
Click to expand...

If you are this ignorant; I can't help you. But it is fun watching you flail like a dumbass constantly. I used to think your ignorance was an act; you are proving me wrong. It isn't an act at all.

Oneuli said:
Why do YOU imagine we went into Iraq?
Click to expand...

Why do you ask? You're not intelligent enough to comprehend anything that hasn't been spoon fed to you by the DNC snowflake.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top