Am I blind? Is this the only State of the Union thread?

wow this is amazing, thankyou for not calling me "a 12 year old inbreed with downs"    
but my opinion(for which i use direct quotes to back up)  is still that Saddam had WMD'S and would use them with no regret, on the US and our allies..............................  and if this was just a big "Bush" conspiracy why are there so many prominent democrats agreeing with him?  

to the person that called me  "a 12 year old with downs"  why dont YOU  learn to read the thread before you make such demeaning posts and retort to name calling.   I have voiced my opinion at least 2 times in this thread that i think Bush had screwed up big time, in his time period in office.


 

Peace out,
Justin




"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

"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

why would you listen to that shit?

because they're not complacent? Just because you don't like Bush or what he has to say doesn't mean it doesn't effect you.

I did, I think that a president should know how to speak

ok thanks I will make sure to tell my sister's friend WHO HAS DOWNS!!@!  how you feel..........................................................................................

  do you even realize what you sound like?    im going to stop now because if i typed what is really going through my mind it would get me banned! 

all i can say is that you have to be the lowest kind of scum known to man, to call someone that based on what?  that they disagree with you on politics...................the only moderately clean thing i  can say is wow  you must live a pathetic life .

^ u sound so samrt.

NO

Iran and Saddam's Iraq were MORTAL ENEMIES and despise eachother even more than they did us.

"Saddam gave his weapons of mass destruction to Iran...."

That is the DUMBEST fucking thing I have ever heard.

Another bullshit rationalization. Face it. YOU GOT PLAYED! (by the POTUS)

ok fine what about  Syria?  

plus i bet Saddam hated us more than he hated Iran so whats to say he didnt send them there when he realized there was no hope. 

haha, people believe some fucked up shit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/25/AR2005042501554.html

Syria has one of the best Intelligence agencies in the Middle East, and are a strong ally. This claim has been investigated and refuted.

You can name any damn country and claim that Iraq hid their "WMDs", but the fact of the matter is that there is 0 evidence to support any of those claims.

Maybe you could make it a tenant of some fucked up religion you choose to adhere to for god knows what reason?

Some people just can't admit they were wrong...lol.

too bad politicians are bastards or i could take solice in that

ha ha ha Hilary just said in the debates,  that Saddam had and was seeking WMD'S 

sorry i dont have the direct quote, but i didnt have a pen and paper to write down her exact words, and i know everyone would tear me limb from limb if i missed one word...............................

but she really did say it a couple of times:)   

so, we discoveed a fun new game to play with the state of the union, everytime the crowd claps, take a drink, everytime the democrats clap, take another, evertime it shows condelosa rice's gap in her teeth take another

Of course he had WMD in the past. The American government sold them to him.

Of course Hillary would say Saddam was seeking WMD. She voted to support the war, and the fact that Saddam didn't have any makes her look dumb sitting next to Obama.

Except that its a proven fact that your average american wont take the money they've been given and invest it in products that benefit our economy. See, you make the assumption that the average american knows what will actually do good for the country, rather than just buy whatevers cheapest. Bad assumption.

Our economy will benefit from that money because it helps relieve financial strains and makes consumers more confident.

We need the consumers to take out big loans and get in debt up to their eyeballs and that doesn't happen quite as much if they currently feel financially insecure.

Then the bank sells these loans in securities markets and shuffles them around, skimming value off the top as they go, propping up the economy on the back of interest payments and financial alchemy that relies on future debt levels being even higher.

Note: I never said it was really a good thing.

No, it doesnt.

You give an average American $1000, and what will they spend it on? An IRA that will earn them a 4% gain over the next few years? Or a widescreen TV that will keep their kids distracted while they go take the wife for a 'wham bam thank you mam' around the local casino's and motels? Yes, interest rate cuts and tax rebates would work to stimulate the economy for the long term if Americans actually knew how to invest. But sadly, we dont. Hoooray consumers.

Wtf, read what I wrote.

I never said they would take the money and invest it.

In effect, what I said is that many will spend it as a downpayment on a loan.

Dude, I did, and I disagreed.

People dont take out loans if you give them a lump sum. They just go and spend that lump sum on something stupid because they see it as a bonus meant for their personal happiness. Yes, a scant handful will put it towards that car they've been wanting, but the vast majority will spend their 'relief' on a vacation or (if they share the same values as I do) a new ski setup. Few, if any, will actually invest it in something that can be taxed over time and go directly to the government.

Money that ends up going directly to the government doesn't have as much positive benefit on the economy anyways. I'm saying that more money will end up in the banking industry (and on the losing side of the interest equation, sure as hell not as an investment).

You may disagree, but I think you underestimate the stupidity of the American consumer.

I see what you're saying, and I think we both agree that the idea that the average american consumer is intelligent enough to know what to do with a refund check is outright hilarious.

However, you seem to think that the stupid american will eventually end up in debt or loan money ontop of what he gets in order to purchase something, which will eventually help the government (despite the pathetically low interest rates the feds are charging, which really benefits the consumer/loaner in the long run).

I seem to think that the stupid american will not want to go into debt (though i may be placing too much faith in the financial aptitude of the average person, which I concede is a real possibility considering those who have ended up running the country) and spend it on something material within the limits of that fund, which may or may not (depending on the product and if its priced cheaper than its foreign competitors) help our countries economy.

Both situations are... depressing.

I'll agree and say that both scenarios are probably likely for many people, but Americans really are the most efficient debt creaters in the world (and do not understand compound interest/exponential functions), and that consumer debt = market profits.

I do want to point out that while the FED is charging lower interest on the discount rate to member banks, those savings are not really being passed onto the consumer. Instead, the banks have less risk in making loans, and it just helps them recover their lost profits from their sub-prime accounting fraud (while at the same time driving up inflation for consumers).