1
   

Hillary Clinton - Antichrist?

 
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 12:31 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Are you saying that the entire Federal budget is a result of Bush spending?!

What are you talking about Craven?


Which post. If you are talking about the one that preceeded yours it is a response to Foxfyre's absurd claim.

She claims that without the war on terror we would have a balanced budget.

That is a blatant falsehood that 10 seconds of addition and subtraction would reveal to her.

She's off by several hundred billion.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 12:37 pm
Man, I don't even know! I think it was both. I read hers as "the budget wouldn't be as unbalanced" to which you replied in reference to my statement in reference of Nimh's reference about 50%...

Back ti Iraq and 9/11...

i am uncorfortable with your implication of a divorce between the war in Iraq and 9/11. I believe them to be completely intertwined. I believe that without 9/11, Saddam would still be in power.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 12:40 pm
Me too. But I believe this is so not because the Iraq question was inherently related to 9/11 but because it a circumstantial relation was forged.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 12:49 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
Of course I don't consider the war in Iraq to be related to 9/11. The main reason is because the war in Iraq has precious little to do with 9/11 and was being considered prior to 9/11.


This statement doesn't correlate with your last statement.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 12:54 pm
Yes it does, and I explained why.

I think the invasion of Iraq has precious little to do with 9/11 inherently.

But circumstantially I think people have forged a relation, and due to these people a relation exists, if only in their minds.

The relation I recognize is merely that many people are ignorant enough to have accepted a cicrcumstantial relation of mere subsequence. They themselves are the relation.

In other words, Iraq and 9/11 are related only in that the fact that ignorant people saw a connection created a relation.

The relation is in the minds of people, said minds in a democracy translated into political capital.

Without such political capital said war would probably not hev been prosecuted.

The relation is not inherent, but circumstantial.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 01:06 pm
Let me see if I can get these thoughts down coherently...

9/11 was perpetrated by Al Qaeda terrorists who hid and centered themselves in Afghanistan. They attacked the US and the US declared a war on terrorism vowing to never be attacked by surprise again. Taliban did not want to cooperate so we removed them from power. Intelligence from around the world showed that another terrorist strike could occur agin but this time using chemical/biological/nuclear weapons obtained from a rogue state. Who has those weapons and has a beef with the US? Well the Middle East. Who has them, is known to support terrorism, and has been obstructing WMD inspections for over a decade? Saddam.

While no direct connection with 9/11 has been proven yet... the circumstantial evidence does suggest that Saddam could have had a direct influence on the attack. But, regardless, the liberation of Iraq is a direct result of america's war on international terrorism which stems from Al Qaeda attacking on 9/11
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 01:11 pm
Where did Sadaam get some of his chemical weapons from? The U.S.

By your logic, we are guilty as well. After all, we supplied chemical weapons to sadaam, who is going to give them to terrorists, who are going to use them against us.

Your logic is so full of holes...

Quote:
While no direct connection with 9/11 has been proven yet... the circumstantial evidence does suggest that Saddam could have had a direct influence on the attack. But, regardless, the liberation of Iraq is a direct result of america's war on international terrorism which stems from Al Qaeda attacking on 9/11


This is an assertion, not a fact. In fact, the vast majority of evidence says that this is NOT true....

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 01:16 pm
That makes for a circumstantial relation. The criteria for such a relation is such that it can be forged.

I agree with you in that without 9/11 the invasion of Iraq would not have taken place.

But that isn't causative.

Many people will allege a causative link when subsequence merely enables something.

The president's popularity rating is something that can be said to have enabled the war. But it's not causative.

Example:

I want to buy a goat. This is caused by deep desire.

I win the lottery, I now have the means to buy a goat.

The goat purchase was enabled by the lottery but caused by deeply seated desire.

Similarly I allege that the invasion of Iraq was enabled by 9/11 but that there is not a causative link.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 01:18 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Back ti Iraq and 9/11...

i am uncorfortable with your implication of a divorce between the war in Iraq and 9/11. I believe them to be completely intertwined. I believe that without 9/11, Saddam would still be in power.


Probably, yeah. If 9/11 hadn't happened, the Bush government probably wouldn't have been able to push the Iraq war through.

That doesn't mean that the Bush administration wanted to go to war with Iraq because of 9/11. It would have wanted the Iraq war in any case. 9/11 just provided the necessary political cover - namely, the erroneous popular belief, encouraged by the administration, that Saddam was somehow responsible for 9/11. He wasn't. Ergo, 9/11 didn't make the Iraq war necessary - it just made it possible. (Lucky Bush.)

So yeah, the expenses of the Iraq war were not related to 9/11 - were not part of the necessary consequences of how 9/11 "changed the world"- except for how the Bush administration chose to use the cover of 9/11 to launch that war.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 01:21 pm
Well, I can see that we will not see eye-to-eye on this so I will let it drop.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 01:30 pm
Okay Craven. Show me the numbers but please factor in the 9/11 generated recession that over the next two years created a reduction in government revenues to their lowest level since the 1960's. We are pulling out of it now and we are seeing amazing results from Bush's reduction of tax rates--he did NOT cut taxes; he cut tax rates -- and I personally think we'll pull out of it within the next year or two.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm182.cfm

http://www.suntimes.com/output/savage/cst-fin-terry155.html

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/testimony/2004/20040225/default.htm

http://www.kowaldesign.com/budget/

http://www.federalbudget.com/
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 01:37 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Show me the numbers but please factor in the 9/11 generated recession...


1) Loaded question. You ask for me to assume that you are correct on 9/11 causing a recession. This is an arguable claim with which I do not agree and that you do not attempt to show (caveat: you can't but even if 9/11 did cause a recession you'd have a hard time so this is somewhat understandable.

2) You are, as per usual, moving the target again. Your initial claim was that without the spending on the war on terror we'd have a balanced budget. Now you are trying to obscure your blatant falsehood with more inclusive and ambiguous claims and trying to factor in a perceived recession that you claim was caused by 9/11.

I addressed a specific and demonstratably false claim of yours Foxfyre, and as per usual your response is not to retract your falsehood but to issue new and different claims.

I hope it is understandable that I will not take up these subsequent claims at the moment, I can only abide a certain amount of intellectual dishonesty in a day.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 01:40 pm
"
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 01:41 pm
What I said was, if 9/11 had not happened there would be no problem. Spending on the war on terror, including Iraq, is one aspect of it. Spending on the war while also increasing social spending (which I have criticized) is another aspect of it.

To think that the U.S. did not undergo a severe recession as the result of 9/11 is just plain naive or pure denial. You pick.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 01:47 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
What I said was, if 9/11 had not happened there would be no problem.


False. Yet another dishonesty.

What you said is:

Foxfyre wrote:
If we weren't spending billions to prosecute the war on terror, including Iraq, etc., the budget would not be unbalanced as revenues would be covering the expenditures.


This statement says that without the spending we'd have revenue sufficient to cover expenditure.

And like I said that's wrong to the tune of hundreds of billions.

Now you want to practice intellectual deceit and claim you were talking about revenue reduction and not spending. It's an odd lie to tell, given that your clearly worded post illustrates this falsehood. You very clearly state that the revenue would cover the expenses absent the spending. Now you are trying to revise it and pin revenue reduction on 9/11 so that you can issue a new more inclusive statement instead of having the intellectual honesty of retracting your false claim.

Quote:
Spending on the war on terror, including Iraq, is one aspect of it.


I disagree, but the thing is, when I said you were wrong to the tune of hundreds of billions I took this into account.

So even if this is correct, you were still wrong to the tune of hundreds of billions.

Quote:

To think that the U.S. did not undergo a severe recession as the result of 9/11 is just plain naive or pure denial. You pick.


I pick: I am in a discussion wherein my opposite does not demonstrate intellectual honesty and revises her statements in lieu of retracting demonstratable falsehoods.

Furthermore she creates loaded questions such as the above in what is one of the most simple debate fallacies there is.

I can but conclude that you are not interested in intellectual honesty in this discussion and prefer intellectual dishonesty to having to retract false claims you make.

I predict: Retractions apologies and whatnot might eventually come, as part of a "I'm not wrong, I'm a victim" exit that faults a nefarious "out to get" on the part of others instead of a recognition of intellectual dishonesty and revisionism in arguments.

Hell, pointing out the lies will probably even be called an "attack".
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 01:55 pm
revel wrote:
According to Bush and Cheney before they came into office they said we were showing signs of a recession then.


Conservatives do, indeed, claim that the recession was inhereted. Others claim it was 9/11.

Truth be told, even people who are not laymen with economics can't prove what causes it and can only offer indications in a sea of data.

But this will not stop those who will consider their preferred conclusion a self-evident truth.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 02:01 pm
Check back Craven. No proof texting allowed. The comment I made that started this entire discussion was "If 9/11 had not happened, there would be no problem." Everything else has been commentary on that. And now I have to get back to work.
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 02:06 pm
McGentrix wrote:


Now this is truly inspired. Laughing
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 02:07 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Check back Craven. No proof texting allowed. The comment I made that started this entire discussion was "If 9/11 had not happened, there would be no problem." Everything else has been commentary on that. And now I have to get back to work.


Check back. This is your verbatim text that I quoted and said was false:

Foxfyre wrote:
If we weren't spending billions to prosecute the war on terror, including Iraq, etc., the budget would not be unbalanced as revenues would be covering the expenditures


Note: It is false.

Subsequently note: you are now trying to divert attention to other comments.

Valuable hint: the other comments do not make this false statement true.

Suggestion: retracting an obviously false statement is prefferable to trying to divert attention to other statements or issue new ones. The reason is that the revisonism is transparent and the obdurate refusal to retract is damning. Hell, you've clung to the false statement so long that even a retraction in the future won't be pretty, but it's better than refusing to be divested of it.

Better late than never.

In memory of Regan: "Foxfyre, tear down this enthrallment to your false statement."

See, the reason is that no matter how hard you try to make other statements the focus, the statement that I addressed will not magically become true. You can call it "proof texting" or whatever you want, but that will not make your claim true. You can offer loaded questions, excuses, complaints and more but, you guessed it, it will not make your claim true.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 02:40 pm
HILLARY CLINTON:


Accepted a $100,000 bribe, laundered through cattle futures, from Tyson Foods Inc.
Speculated in Health Care industry futures while overseeing legislative reform of same.
Failed to correct false testimony by co-defendant Ira Magaziner in the Health Care Task Force trial.
Ordered members of the Health Care Task Force to shred documents that were the target of a court probe.
Obstructed justice by ordering the removal and shredding of Vince Foster's documents on the night of his death.
Hired Craig Livingstone to conduct a political intelligence operation against her opponents.
Defrauded the U.S. Treasury of more than $10 million by funneling Community Development Financial Institutions grants to financial institutions in which she has an interest.
Ordered Treasury officials to cover up the fraud by fabrication of false documents. Hillary Clinton is under investigation by an Independent Counsel.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/18/2021 at 11:59:48