Topic: Paul O'Neill (Read 6827 times)

Xeno Ghost · « **on:** January 28, 2004, 04:13:29 PM »

Plans For Invasion

So, I didn't notice if this has been brought up here or not, but what do you guys think of this tidbit of news?

It'll probably be overshadowed until the Primaries are over, but I think that the Democratic canidate would be wise to try and make as much light on this as possible.

I, obviously, find it as another link to prove that Bush lied to America and even possibly the UK.

I personally don't support what happened, and this really kind of rocks my boat some, but I know that others see it as something that's been talked about since the end of the First Gulf War and this administration just brought it up in paperwork.

Anonymous · « **Reply #1 on:** January 28, 2004, 04:42:23 PM »

Looking back on it now, it seems a little odd for Bush to make those claims, yet the UN Weapons Inspectors were never able to check to see whether he really had them or not.

It certainly cannot be good for Bush's re-election endeavor. The fact that he lied to the UN, the UK, and most importantly, all of America is just sickening.

The only reason why I backed up the war was the fact that he most likely had the weapons Bush said he had. This just goes to show me that you can NEVER trust politicians. If a politician was not a liar, they would not be a politician.

TerrorDronze · « **Reply #2 on:** January 28, 2004, 08:29:23 PM »

it's a vendetta, plain and simple. Little Dubya is tryin to make daddy proud, plain and simple.

BizB · « **Reply #3 on:** January 28, 2004, 08:40:45 PM »

Yea, that's it.

And what was it about when Clinton bombed them, Lewinski-gate?

I wish life really were Rush-Limbaugh-Simple.

Anonymous · « **Reply #4 on:** January 28, 2004, 10:11:26 PM »

Quote from: TerrorDronze

it's a vendetta, plain and simple. Little Dubya is tryin to make daddy proud, plain and simple.

I don't know about proud, but there defiantly has to be some influence from George Bush Sr. It's too ironic that his father tried to finish Sadam 10 years before, and then later his son finished the job. It's almost as if his father told him to do it, providing he really did have plans prior to his term of office.

One thing is for sure, Al Sharpton has a better chance at getting elected than Bush has getting re-elected.

Xeno Ghost · « **Reply #5 on:** January 28, 2004, 11:08:02 PM »

I don't know, I've seen some of the approval ratings vs. the Democratic canidates, most people still prefer Bush.

I should find a link before I say that though. But, I really am tired and kind of lazy. lol Sorry.

Binoboy · « **Reply #6 on:** January 29, 2004, 12:16:15 AM »

Quote from: Chris

Looking back on it now, it seems a little odd for Bush to make those claims, yet the UN Weapons Inspectors were never able to check to see whether he really had them or not.

It certainly cannot be good for Bush's re-election endeavor. The fact that he lied to the UN, the UK, and most importantly, all of America is just sickening.

The only reason why I backed up the war was the fact that he most likely had the weapons Bush said he had. This just goes to show me that you can NEVER trust politicians. If a politician was not a liar, they would not be a politician.

But we ousted an evil blahblahblah. It was just a little white lie; it can be glossed over.

JohnnyFive · « **Reply #7 on:** January 29, 2004, 12:44:32 AM »

I really don't think there is anyone on this forum that will disagree with that article.

And if there is, I will use my powers of n00bness to smite you.

But either, way, i'm not surprised the proof has finally surfaced

porcuswine · « **Reply #8 on:** February 27, 2004, 09:52:49 PM »

Proof of what? All you have is a disgruntled jackass that was fired for malfeasance.

Xeno Ghost · « **Reply #9 on:** February 27, 2004, 11:10:40 PM »

I'm not sure what that word means and I don't feel like looking it up.

BUT, he was fired for not agreeing with Bush's plans for giving that tax surplus back to everyone.

And, as we see now, it was a mistake.

MISTER MASSACRE · « **Reply #10 on:** February 27, 2004, 11:33:28 PM »

Quote from: porcuswine

Proof of what? All you have is a disgruntled jackass that was fired for malfeasance.

Yes, obviously once someone is fired their entire life becomes about revenge and anything they could have contributed as a valid source of information is thereafter suspect.

porcuswine · « **Reply #11 on:** February 27, 2004, 11:35:04 PM »

You need to get this through your head. That money doesn't belong to the government. It belongs to the taxpayers. Returning overtaxed funds to the taxpayer is never a mistake, it belongs to us. This crap about the government knowing what's best is a pile of bovine feces. If Al Gore had been president we'd be in a full fledged depression right now. And just remember this. You don't deserve to be president if you can't win your own home state.

MISTER MASSACRE · « **Reply #12 on:** February 27, 2004, 11:36:35 PM »

Quote from: porcuswine

You need to get this through your head. That money doesn't belong to the government. It belongs to the taxpayers. Returning overtaxed funds to the taxpayer is never a mistake, it belongs to us. This crap about the government knowing what's best is a pile of bovine feces.

Agreed.

Xeno Ghost · « **Reply #13 on:** February 28, 2004, 12:12:05 AM »

Yes, because all that overtaxed money that was supposed to go back our pockets really did the trick in helping the economy.

Oh wait, no it didn't.

But then, what did it do? Line rich people's pocket? In more ways then one? How could that be? By them getting more money back and then the money poorer people get they go out and buy something from a company that those rich people own?

You know, there's a difference between supporting your political affiliation and just blatantly ignoring facts. Somehow you're managing to do both.

MISTER MASSACRE · « **Reply #14 on:** February 28, 2004, 12:58:43 AM »

Hey, maybe he's rich, hm? Did you ever stop and think of that?

Poor guy. Just wants his money back.

biggyfred · « **Reply #15 on:** February 28, 2004, 01:22:17 AM »

porcuswine, could you elaborate a little for me? Exactly what did Paul O'Neill do in office that you find so offensive?

And how exactly would Al Gore being in office have put us into a full fledged recession?

porcuswine · « **Reply #16 on:** February 28, 2004, 10:49:23 PM »

I won't try to reason with someone who believes in the theory that "wealth is distributed".
And by the way that post was supposed to have been registered in another subject forum.

porcuswine · « **Reply #17 on:** February 28, 2004, 10:51:36 PM »

For some reason my posts are being sent to different boards than the one I was reading and clicked on the reply button at.

biggyfred · « **Reply #18 on:** February 29, 2004, 11:16:01 PM »

These little sound bytes. Little blurbs. It's like, there may be an argument somewhere in there, but it just kinda fades away..

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: Paul O'Neill (Read 6827 times)

Anonymous

Anonymous

porcuswine

porcuswine

porcuswine

porcuswine