1. #76
    Forum Member
    ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,339

    Default

    The quotes that I referenced were from 1992-2000, long before Bush was President and had the "inside" information. Did all the stuff mentioned in those quotes disappear in 2000? They all had the same information, some people decided to act on it, others talked about it.
    I do not question the fact that resolutions against Iraq existed. They exist against many nations, including many of our allies. My main problem is the way the Bush Administration presented the need for war, and the way they continue to tie the war in Iraq to the "war on terrorism". I don't think that many people actually consider the ramifications of declaring war on a sovereign nation for such flimsy evidence and excuses as what the President presented. And when none of it panned out, we are constantly fed the "well, the world's better off without Saddam" line. I'm sorry, but that was not one of the reasons I remember Bush giving for going to war. Would Saddam like to have multiple nuclear and biological weapons at his disposal? Of course he would; what nation (including our own) wouldn't? Did he have them? Of course not. Was he even remotely close to developing them? No. We were constantly fed horror stories of Saddam being so evil, he gassed his own people. In fact, Saddam did not consider the Kurds to be his "own people". He viewed them as troublemakers and a problem. Does this make it right that he gassed them? Of course not. Had it been any better if he had used conventional weapons to kill the same number of people? Before anyone misunderstands my comments, I do not support anything Saddam did or does. My point all along has been that we do not rush about the globe, sending the majority of our military into sovereign nations, simply because they are "evil" people. The Bush Administration used every trick in the book to convince us that war was the ONLY recourse we had; that Saddam had somehow forced us to act by violating UN resolutions, and was on the verge of attacking us and the rest of the world. As I've stated before, these people couldn't fart without us knowing it. When the vast majority of the world refused to go along with the plan, they were labeled as back-stabbing fools and cowards. People on these very forums have suggested unloading bombs on France on the way to Iraq. Really intelligent input there, I tell you. How do you think the rest of the world view us? Most of the posters here may not give a damn, and they have stated as such. But, I'm here to tell you; we will not win the war on terrorism with bullets and bombs. It just won't work, I don't care how much vengeance the armchair-generals here at home would like unload on these nations. And as for my often challenged notion that oil was at the heart of the decision to invade Iraq, I stand by my beliefs. It should be apparant to all that the reasons stated by Bush were wrong. And blaming "bad intel" should not release one from the liability and responsibility for one's actions. Of course, many in the American and British government would like nothing better than to return to the days of colonialism, when we could plunder other nations resources at will, because we had more guns than they did. (Iraq was a former British colony, by the way) I'm constantly berated on these forums to "prove" it was about the oil. Well, I don't have to. All of Bush's excuses have been shown to be a farce; and at best, certainly no reason to start a damn war, which killed thousands. That, plus the provable, known history of our involvement in that area of the world, is proof enough to me. We move and manipulate in that region of the world for the same reason Rommel and Montgomery were there fighting during WW2; oil.
    Last edited by ThNozzleman; 09-04-2004 at 03:34 AM.

  2. #77
    Forum Member
    ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,339

    Default

    It is a typical lib trait to say something, and as soon as you are called upon to prove it, you cry personal attack.
    Chasing someone from thread to thread, using a blanket statement concerning unrelated issues to attack my every post is just that; an attack.
    I have been challenging him to provide some evidence in his "War for oil" mantra for almost a year. So far, the total "proof" has been.."everybody knows it".
    Well, so far, we've pretty much determined that Bush's reasons were wrong and, basically, fabricated and puffed-up nonsense. So, since those are no longer valid reasons to start a war and invade another nation, then we must look elsewhere, right? Other than raiding ancient archeological sites, oil is the ONLY damn thing we've EVER been interested in, as far as that region of the world goes. Get a grip, George.
    I sleep better at night knowing that a principled leader like President Bush is at the helm. As Rudy said, "Thank God George Bush is President".

  3. #78
    Forum Member
    ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,339

    Default

    Funny, I see more people walking around proud to be Americans. More flags, more signs, etc. But I'm not in TN.
    I'm not really sure what you meant by this.

  4. #79
    Senior Member
    Dalmatian90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Posts
    3,120

    Default

    Bob...if you want to talk about invading Iraq and using the words, "Sovereign" to help condemn it...remember Saddam had a history of invading Sovereign nations for oil (Iran & Kuwait). Both those invasions he predicated very directly over disputes about oil fields with the addition in Kuwait of not wanting to repay debts owed them. And oil was his actual pretext, not some conspiracy theory. He also supported terrorism in another sovereign state -- Israel -- by making large payments to the families of suicide bombers after they carried out their acts. It's not a word that holds much worth in context of Saddam & Company.

    Maybe the "used gas against his own people" is a bit of hyperbole. Ok, he used poison gas against citizens of his own country, as well as the military of Iran, and in the opinion of the U.N. inspectors was not fully cooperating with efforts to verify the dismantling of his weapons of mass destruction and similiar prohibited programs.

    So when you look at what information you had, and try and figure out what's going on...you're not sure if he's bluffing or not, he's not not folding his hand, and you know he's pulled the trigger on using poison gas, and you know he's supported terrorist organizations. So, do you go along hoping he's bluffing and or do end the game?
    IACOJ Canine Officer
    20/50

  5. #80
    Forum Member
    ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,339

    Default

    So when you look at what information you had, and try and figure out what's going on...you're not sure if he's bluffing or not, he's not not folding his hand, and you know he's pulled the trigger on using poison gas, and you know he's supported terrorist organizations. So, do you go along hoping he's bluffing and or do end the game?
    Invading other nations, based on what they MIGHT do, is very poor policy, especially when the reasons and evidence given to support such an action are laughable, and questionable at best. Even at their peak, Iraq was not a real threat to the United States, and never was a threat. A threat to our supply of oil, perhaps, and that's a stretch. America had no complaints about Saddam's actions against Iran during the war, and we even supplied him with the tools to wage it. There is nothing one could say about Iraq that couldn't be said about many other nations. The excuses Bush gave to justify the war in Iraq were nowhere near enough of a reason to start a war and invade another nation...not even close. And as for weapons of mass destruction, I'd like to remind everyone that there is only one nation that has ever used true weapons of mass destruction on innocent human beings...and we're living in it. We are not a very positive role model for the world as far as that goes.

  6. #81
    Forum Member
    DaSharkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    4,713

    Default

    And as for weapons of mass destruction, I'd like to remind everyone that there is only one nation that has ever used true weapons of mass destruction on innocent human beings...and we're living in it.
    Is this a reference two Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Be very careful or another can of worms gets opened up here. This will only take away from the discussion at hand.

    America had no complaints about Saddam's actions against Iran during the war, and we even supplied him with the tools to wage it.
    I agree. It doesn't justify it, but the Soviets were supporting Iran, so we had to support the other side (even though the Soviets were giving stuff to both sides.) To support those who began a war of aggression with another sovereign nation was wrong.

    The excuses Bush gave to justify the war in Iraq were nowhere near enough of a reason to start a war and invade another nation...not even close.
    You know, I am getting sick of this argument from everyone. Everyone has their feelings about hte matter, and these feelings have posted ad nauseum here. No one is going to convince anyone of the other side's views. Can we move past this and stop having the circular argument?
    "Too many people spend money they haven't earned, to buy things they don't want, to impress people they don't like." Will Rogers

    The borrower is slave to the lender. Proverbs 22:7 - Debt free since 10/5/2009.

    "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." - New York Judge Gideon Tucker

    "As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government." - Dave Barry

    www.daveramsey.com www.clarkhoward.com www.heritage.org

  7. #82
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Originally posted by ThNozzleman

    Invading other nations, based on what they MIGHT do, is very poor policy, especially when the reasons and evidence given to support such an action are laughable, and questionable at best. Even at their peak, Iraq was not a real threat to the United States, and never was a threat. A threat to our supply of oil, perhaps, and that's a stretch. America had no complaints about Saddam's actions against Iran during the war, and we even supplied him with the tools to wage it. There is nothing one could say about Iraq that couldn't be said about many other nations. The excuses Bush gave to justify the war in Iraq were nowhere near enough of a reason to start a war and invade another nation...not even close. And as for weapons of mass destruction, I'd like to remind everyone that there is only one nation that has ever used true weapons of mass destruction on innocent human beings...and we're living in it. We are not a very positive role model for the world as far as that goes.
    Can of worms is right.

    First of all, you are absolutely the mosy un-American person I have ever encountered in my life. Your distortion of fact and history makes a mockery of the sacrifices that our ancestors have made to allow you to spew forth venom and hate for your country. Why don't you leave and move to a better country?

    A threat to our supply of oil? Please provide one shred of evidence that Pres. Bush started this war to gain control of Iraq's oil supply. Evidence, not rhetoric.

    The Japanese Imperial Forces provoked the US into WWII as a result of the bombing of Pearl Harbor. The goal of those Japanese forces was nothing less than to forcibly take over the world. They were going to do it one island at a time. We warned them for a long time (sound familiar) that we were not going to allow it. They attacked us and killled thousands (sound familiar) and we responded with force.

    The ensuing war was bloody and destructive and was taking a terrible toll on the forces of both sides. After three years, the US was in a position that a direct attack on the Japanese mainland was possible. An analysis of the costs of the attack in terms of US lives lost, money and time made this an unattractive option that, in the end, may not have accomplished the objective.

    Truman told the Japanese we had this new type of weapon that operated on the principle of the direct release of atomic energy. He explained the destructive nature of the weapon and he never gave any indication that we would be afraid to use it. He urged the Japanese to surrender. They did not.

    Truman was left with no option. He dropped the bomb on Hiroshima knowing full well what the result would be. When they didn't respond, Nagasaki was bombed. Both of these cities were targeted because they were major industrial centers.

    The result was a full and unconditional surrender. The losses were huge, but Truman made every conceivable effort to have the Japanese realize he was serious and to recognize the scope of the potential losses. The Japanese were responsible for the deaths of those civilians. The courageous act by Truman saved the lives of tens of thousands of Americans.

    Your statement about us being the only nation to use WMD against "innocent people" is a bold faced, America hating, lie. We were involved in a war with Japan and the bombs were released to end that war and to destroy their war machine. Saddam used chemical weapons on innocent citizens of his own country. He killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians. These deaths were nothing other than an intimidation tool to force compliance with his dictatorial desires.

    So Bob, as you can see, once again you tried to rewrite history to make the US an evil empire. We are not. In fact, after our victory over Japan, we could have taken over the country and established US controlled territories. Instead, we rebuilt their country, rebuilt their economy and gave it back to them. Sound familiar?

    Go find a better country you anti-American ingrate.

    They weren't excuses, they were valid reasons.

  8. #83
    Forum Member
    FireCapt1951retired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Between here and there
    Posts
    790

    Default

    Every nation we delt with said he had WMD's, I thought they had WMD's, almost every intelligence agency around the world said he had them, the U.N. stated he had them. I agreed he had them, he didn't deny having them and the aility to reinstitute a program rapidly, he allowed us in to verify right? There was no way they could have sent them to Syria, they say they didn't take them (after all Syria is trustworthy) and I know there is no way they could have buried them in that vast desert area there (who would be that stupid). I guess everyone lied and therefore I did too. Oh well, I guess I'll agree to just wait for the SOB's to come here before I do anything. I will also agree that we let the U.N., France, Germany and Canada make our decisions for us. If I have to go to war, I'll make sure it's a more sensitive one. This isn't a world war, it's just a few misguided individuals who we can talk to and come to some type of agreement, right. These terrorist groups aren't serious are they? They aren't dangerous either, are they? I'd much rather fight them here on our own soil rather than somewhere in their own region. I also backed the war, then I didn't back the war. Sorry I can't remember where I stood on that.

    Sorry, seem to drift off topic. John (Hanoi) Kerry has an economic agenda? What is it and when will it change (tomorrow, next week). I didn't know Kerry could take a firm stance and stick to it on anything.
    Last edited by FireLt1951; 09-06-2004 at 10:30 AM.

  9. #84
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,098

    Default

    Watch it George, the Webteam already sent me a Nasty Gram about attacking him with names. They even removed my post, as true as it might have been.

    Remember, you can only have free speech when you are spewing lies.
    Proud Right-Wing Extremist since 1992

    "Extreme Liberalism is a Mental Disorder"- Michael Savage

  10. #85
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    You should have seen the first three drafts.

    Besides, the truth is an absolute defense.

  11. #86
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,098

    Default

    Right, I am with you 100%.

    I guess some on the webteam don't see it that way. I would like some clear definition of a personal attack please.
    Proud Right-Wing Extremist since 1992

    "Extreme Liberalism is a Mental Disorder"- Michael Savage

  12. #87
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,694

    Default

    I'm not really sure what you meant by this.
    Simply that I am not in TN where you are so I can't speak for your area. Nothing more.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  13. #88
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,694

    Default

    and back on the Kerry & Edward's economic plan, I watched Kerry last night on TV, think he was in Cleveland. He is giving everyone a better paying job and better health benefits. That will be his first bill, I heard him say it. Of course, he can't pay for it until they repeal the tax break on the wealthy because that is going to pay for everything.

    Just a question, how long will it take for any of the repealled tax money to get to the government? Because in his own words, he's not doing anything until he has the money to pay for everyone's healthcare. Yup, I believe him.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  14. #89
    Forum Member
    DaSharkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    4,713

    Default

    Because in his own words, he's not doing anything until he has the money to pay for everyone's healthcare. Yup, I believe him.
    The sad thing is that a lot of people do believe it. He has not given a plan for anything, only that he will do it. I want the whos, whats, wheres, hows, and everything if you are going to tell me that you can and will fix a problem. I want this from anyone who is not going to tell me how they will accomplish the goal.
    "Too many people spend money they haven't earned, to buy things they don't want, to impress people they don't like." Will Rogers

    The borrower is slave to the lender. Proverbs 22:7 - Debt free since 10/5/2009.

    "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." - New York Judge Gideon Tucker

    "As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government." - Dave Barry

    www.daveramsey.com www.clarkhoward.com www.heritage.org

  15. #90
    Forum Member
    ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,339

    Default

    Go find a better country you anti-American ingrate.
    Same old "like it or leave it blathering". Such anger and hostility amazes me, even coming from you.
    Truman told the Japanese we had this new type of weapon that operated on the principle of the direct release of atomic energy. He explained the destructive nature of the weapon and he never gave any indication that we would be afraid to use it. He urged the Japanese to surrender. They did not.
    Talk about revisionist history. He may have told the Russians, but the Japanese people were most certainly NOT informed of this.
    http://killeenroos.com/5/bomb/Potsdam.htm
    I refuse to highjack this thread any longer. By the way George, your baseless comments and your assuming, arrogant attitude towards me personally have finally gotten you somewhere you probably should've been a long time ago. Guess where? By the way; I think you should seriously consider checking into anger management classes...or "retire" from the forums, again. Don't bother replying; I won't read it.

  16. #91
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,098

    Default

    Another hit and RUN by our Resident Coward and Non-debator, ThNozzleman.

    Now George is on your Ignore list, who in the hell do you have to post to?

    And BTW webteam, I hope someone else got the same stern warning I did for their direct attack on Comrade Miller.
    Proud Right-Wing Extremist since 1992

    "Extreme Liberalism is a Mental Disorder"- Michael Savage

  17. #92
    Senior Member
    Dalmatian90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Posts
    3,120

    Default

    The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.

    Sometimes, lines aren't just hyperbole.

    BTW, remember in scale, the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not exceptional in their destructive and killing power, and even had single-night conventional bombings that competed with them, but were exceptional in their efficiency.

    The lesson reinforced by WWII is application of maximum force to bring a situation to an end sooner, rather than inadequate force drawing out a conflict. As Bob points out, we're the only nation to have used nuclear weapons. But no other nation has spent the time and money either on developing ways to precisely aim and use tremendous force so that the "strategic" bombing of WWII doesn't have to be repeated.
    IACOJ Canine Officer
    20/50

  18. #93
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Originally posted by Dalmatian90
    The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.

    Sometimes, lines aren't just hyperbole.

    BTW, remember in scale, the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not exceptional in their destructive and killing power, and even had single-night conventional bombings that competed with them, but were exceptional in their efficiency.

    The lesson reinforced by WWII is application of maximum force to bring a situation to an end sooner, rather than inadequate force drawing out a conflict. As Bob points out, we're the only nation to have used nuclear weapons. But no other nation has spent the time and money either on developing ways to precisely aim and use tremendous force so that the "strategic" bombing of WWII doesn't have to be repeated.
    This is very true.

    But, I'm sure you would agree, that no other nation on earth has spent more time and money:

    1. Going out of their way to avoid the use of these weapons and not using them for expansionist and imperialist purposes.

    2. Rebuilding that country. Can nayone dispute that Japan regained their position as a world economic pwer within less than 30 years after they lost the war?

  19. #94
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Originally posted by ThNozzleman

    Same old "like it or leave it blathering". Such anger and hostility amazes me, even coming from you.

    Talk about revisionist history. He may have told the Russians, but the Japanese people were most certainly NOT informed of this.
    http://killeenroos.com/5/bomb/Potsdam.htm
    I refuse to highjack this thread any longer. By the way George, your baseless comments and your assuming, arrogant attitude towards me personally have finally gotten you somewhere you probably should've been a long time ago. Guess where? By the way; I think you should seriously consider checking into anger management classes...or "retire" from the forums, again. Don't bother replying; I won't read it.
    I'm never angry when I post. Let me take that back. I'm never angry when I post unless someone is using these forums to spread hate and vitriole against the greatest country in the world. I was not angry when I told you to leave this country and go find a better one. I was totally sincere.

    Your arrogance amazes me. Why would I possibly care if you put me on your dreaded ignore list? I don't. In fact, I WIN! Since you have put everyone involved in these discussions on your list, we shouldn't be hearing from you again. That means another self-hating American, who should be down on his hands and knees thanking God for the privelege of living in this country, has been silenced.

  20. #95
    Forum Member
    DaSharkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    4,713

    Default

    And I do believe that the Japanese government was warned prior to the droping of the single bomb on Hiroshima. I also recall that Japan was warned that a second device would be dropped if they did not wish to speak about surrendering. They did not speak with us, and a second bomb was dropped.

    Untold millions of US, Chinese, Russian, Australian, Canadian, British, and of course Japanese lives were saved by the prevention of the invasion of the home islands.

    Perhaps adding another 10 or million to the death count of WWII would be OK then?

    remember in scale, the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not exceptional in their destructive and killing power, and even had single-night conventional bombings that competed with them, but were exceptional in their efficiency.
    Correct. General Curtis Lemay ordered bombings of Tokyo and other cities with ordinance to help stop Japan's construction and weapons capabilities. Upwards of 100,000 in one night in Tokyo alone.

    A sad state fo affairs that life is so easily wasted by irrational people.
    "Too many people spend money they haven't earned, to buy things they don't want, to impress people they don't like." Will Rogers

    The borrower is slave to the lender. Proverbs 22:7 - Debt free since 10/5/2009.

    "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." - New York Judge Gideon Tucker

    "As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government." - Dave Barry

    www.daveramsey.com www.clarkhoward.com www.heritage.org

  21. #96
    the 4-1-4
    Jasper 45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    ...A great place, on a Great Lake
    Posts
    2,784

    Default Hold on a second .....

    The statement of there is only one nation to ever use WMD on innocent people is inaccurate. Unless of course the Kurds were not innocent. Poison gas was used by Saddam Hussein on people in his own sovereign nation. Citizens of Iraq. The thought process of not acting on what someone might do, erases all credibilty the left is using against our President about the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. By this logic he should not have acted on intelligence that al-qaeda "might" have an attack planned, were he to have held that information. Obviously we can't act on what might or might not happen, again using this logic. Unless an event happens, it is a possibility that it "might" not happen. I guess what we need to do is wait, and allow our innocent civillians to be killed. It does boggle my mind that the actions of Iraq do not warrant its designation as a state sponsor of terror. The training camps, the bankrolling of suicide bombers, the existance and treatment of notorius al-qaeda members in Baghdad itself prior to our invasion. Just FYI, al-zaraqawi had extensive connections related to WMD. He was suspected behind a plot of producing ricin to be used in poisoning British miltary food. Al of this, combined with the daily attempts to shoot our military fighters down patrolling the no-fly zones of Iraq. An act of war in and of itself. Iraq was a threat to us, maybe not by a conventional invasion, but certainly by openly funding and supporting terrorist thugs. Where did those WMD's go? I certainly hope they never existed, because I suppose there was absolutely no way they could have been smuggled out of Iraq through the borders we weren't able to control. Mostly the eastern borders. Jordan and Syria I believe. Syria, another bastian for terrorism to live in. There is positively no way anything moved accross those borders.

  22. #97
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Greenspan: Economy Regaining Some Traction
    By MARTIN CRUTSINGER

    WASHINGTON (AP) - Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said Wednesday the economy has "regained some traction" after a late spring slowdown that was triggered by a sharp spike in oil prices.

    Greenspan's moderately upbeat forecast came as the nation entered the final two months of an election battle in which President Bush and Democratic challenger John Kerry have widely different views on how the economy is performing at present.

    Normally, incumbent politicians are unhappy if the Federal Reserve is raising interest rates close to an election.

    However, this time around, many private economists believe the Fed is probably helping the Bush campaign by signaling an intention to keep raising interest rates because such a stance supports the administration's view that the economy has begun to emerge from the recent slowdown.

    In his testimony before the House Budget Committee, Greenspan said that two key indicators, consumer spending and housing construction, bounced back in July after a weak performance in June.

    "Economic activity hit a soft patch in late spring after having grown briskly in the second half of 2003 and the first part of 2004," Greenspan told the committee.

    "The most recent data suggest that, on the whole, the expansion has regained some traction," he said.

    In its latest survey of business conditions around the country, the Federal Reserve said Wednesday that economic activity in July and August expanded, with many Fed regions reporting modest growth.

    However, some areas such as the St. Louis region reported economic improvements were coming slowly, while San Francisco said activity was solid.

    The Fed has boosted the federal funds rate, the interest that banks charge on overnight loans, from a 46-year low of 1 percent to 1.5 percent in the past two months.

    Economists believe the Fed will keep raising rates at a measured pace at coming meetings, including another quarter-point increase on Sept. 21.

    Greenspan made no comments in his prepared remarks on the direction of interest rates.

    He said that this year's slowdown "in activity no doubt is related, in large measure, to this year's steep increase in energy prices."

    The big jump in energy prices acts like a tax on consumers, leaving them less money to spend on other items.

    In answer to questions, Greenspan told the panel that if it had not been for the jump in oil prices this year, he believed the country would "still be seeing some very strong growth."

    Greenspan refused, however, to quantify how much the oil price increase had reduced growth, saying it had affected the economy in a number of ways such as depressing consumer confidence.

    A big slowdown in consumer spending pushed overall economic activity down from a robust 4.5 percent rate of growth in the first three months of this year to a much slower 2.8 percent growth rate in the second quarter.

    The slowdown has been accompanied by a significant slowing in job growth as well, although there was a bit of a rebound in August with payrolls rising by 144,000.

    The state of the economy has become a debating point in the presidential campaign with Bush contending that his tax cuts averted a more serious recession in 2001 and are helping to promote a sustained recovery currently.

    Kerry contends that the tax cuts went primarily to the wealthy and have left the country with record budget deficits.

    In response to questions, Greenspan said he believed the Bush tax cuts were well-timed to help the economy rebound from the last recession. But he agreed that there were other things the government could have done that might have provided an even bigger boost to growth.

    Greenspan, as he has in the past, urged Congress to reinstate budget rules that were in effect through much of the 1990s that required any tax cuts or increases in benefit programs such as Social Security to be paid for either by tax hikes or spending cuts in other areas.

    Greenspan warned that Congress must act with more urgency to address the country's long-term deficit problems before the retirement of the baby boom generation at the end of this decade.

    "As a nation, we may have already made promises to coming generations of retirees that we will be unable to fulfill," he told the budget panel. "If, on further study, that possibility turns out to be the case, it is imperative that we make clear what real resources will be available so that our citizens can properly plan their retirements."

    Greenspan has suggested in the past that Congress consider raising the retirement age for receiving full Social Security benefits or adopting a less generous annual cost-of-living adjustment as two ways to trim payments to baby boomers.

  23. #98
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,694

    Default

    Anyone else notice the word Congress being used often here?

    - urged Congress to reinstate budget rules
    - Congress must act with more urgency
    - Congress consider

    Bush can't do it, Kerry can't do it, Congress does it. They are the ones that approve/disapprove these things.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  24. #99
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Conshohocken, PA
    Posts
    391

    Default It's not what the Constitution allows

    Originally posted by ThNozzleman

    Nonsense. It is in the best interest of the people of this country that the federal government have oversight. As for your solution to local problems, we all know that this is not always possible, due to different reasons. Economical or political, fire departments continue to come up short.

    This is not true. Had it not been for federal intervention, much of the South, no doubt, would still be wallowing in the misery of its racist past. Federal dollars continue to help rebuild areas of our nation that are struck by disaster. While I don't question the mismanagement of many of these programs, I do believe a great deal of them are needed, and have been very successful in the past.
    The US Constitution does not allow for the Federal Government to provide "oversight" over the states. In fact the Constitution and it's Ammendments restrict the ability of the Federal government to only what is allowed by the constitution. Article 1 section 8 provides for the duties of the Congress in 18 clauses. None of them provides for the "oversight" of the states. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits such "oversight"; "The Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States respectively, or the people." The purpose of the framers was to have strong state and local governments as opposed to a strong federal government. It was just the problem that you propose with "oversight" that caused so much difficulty during the colonial times in our country that the framers were trying to avoid, and which our liberal... opps, "progressive" legislators wish now to employee upon us.

    Your assumption that the US acted as "oversight" to stop the illegal activity of some southern states in the 60's to restrict the ability of others due to sex, race or religion, the right to vote is incorrect. The Attorney General Robert Kennedy, forced the FBI to act to enforce the Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments to the Constitution. It wasn't oversight but a matter of law and the legal requirement of the US government and it's agents, including the President and his AG, to protect and defend our Constitution.

    While the Constitution does allow for Congress to raise revenue, pay debts and borrow money it does not allow for the removal of my hard earned money from my paycheck to be redirected for any of the following purposes:

    1. Redistibution of the wealth. (The head of the AFL/CIO stated at this years DNC that the tax structure was intended to do just that. That my friends is SOCIALISM.)
    2. Financial relief to any person other than those who have a redress against the Government.
    3. Programs intended to assist those who while able to work refuse to do so.
    4. Programs that provide for the purchase of equipment and manning of public safety or works programs that benefit or are for the purpose of a local community.
    5. Programs that fund useless research and questionable art.

    But the whole key to the main purpose of this discussion is that if you believe that John Kerry will lower your taxes and at the same time raise taxes on himself and his running mate, and many of those who now serve in Congress who are themselves some of the richest men and women in this country, then I got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell ya.

    Politicians will tell you whatever you want to hear just to get your vote....and then sc^@w you when they get the chance. Just so they can finance their own pet projects on our dime in their state and get re-elected.

    IT'S TIME FOR TERM LIMITS ON ALL REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS, AND TO TRASH THE ENTIRE TAX CODE ALL TOGETHER. Everybody pays the same. Right now the top 5% of our citizens pay 95% of the taxes. Those who don't pay taxes shouldn't get a tax break/refund.
    Last edited by glowpop; 09-08-2004 at 11:18 PM.

  25. #100
    Forum Member
    FireCapt1951retired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Between here and there
    Posts
    790

    Default

    JOHN KERRY VOTING RECORD: THE LIST

    Kerry's voting record. Print it out if you want and use it when people defend him on what a "great guy" he is. It is obvious that he cares nothing for the unborn, the military, defense, law & order, tax relief, school choice and many other issues.

    ABORTION
    Voted to federally fund abortions.
    Voted against parental consent for minors.
    Voted against ban on Partial Birth Abortion (3 times)
    Voted against ban on sending money to UN population fund if the money was sent to pay for China forced abortion and sterilization policy.
    NARAL lifetime rating of 100%
    National Right to Life Committee lifetime rating of 0%

    DEATH PENALTY
    Opposes federal death penalty.
    Voted against death penalty for terrorists. (recently flip-flopped in 2002)
    Voted against death penalty for drug-related murders.

    TAXES & BUDGET
    Voted against Bush tax cut and wants to repeal portions of Bush tax cut.
    Voted for 1993 Clinton tax hike. (largest in history)
    Voted against major tax relief packages at least 10 times.
    Voted at least 5 times against balance budget amendments.
    Kerry voted at least five times to raid The Social Security Trust Fund.

    MILITARY & NATIONAL SECURITY
    Voted for 7 major reductions in military funding Voted against Gulf War I (1991).
    Voted for Gulf War II (but then criticized and voted against military appropriation for troops).
    Voted against MX missile.
    Voted against Trident Submarine.
    Voted against SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative "Star Wars").
    Favored UN control of US Troops (in the 1970s).
    Supported Slashing $2.6 Billion from Intelligence Funding While Serving as a Member of Senate Intel Committee.
    Voted to kill the Bradley Fighting Vehicle
    Voted to kill the M-1 Abrams Tank
    Voted to kill every Aircraft carrier laid down from 1988 onward
    Voted to kill the Aeges anti aircraft system
    Voted to kill the F-15 Strike Eagle
    Voted to kill the F-16 E/F (Block 60)
    Voted to kill the P-3 Orion upgrade
    Voted to kill the B-1
    Voted to kill the B-2
    Voted to kill the Patriot anti-missile system
    Voted to kill the FA-18
    Voted to kill the F117

    FAITH & VALUES
    Voted against ban on human cloning.
    Voted Against Defense of Marriage Act (to give states option to decide whether to recognize homosexual marriages in other states).
    Sent letter to Massachusetts Legislature opposing Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman.
    Favors civil unions for homosexuals.
    Voted against a constitutional amendment on flag desecration.

    EDUCATION
    Voted against voluntary school prayer.
    Voted against voucher pilot program.
    Voted against approving a school-choice pilot program

    JUDGES, COURTS & LAW
    Voted against confirmation of Clarence Thomas for Supreme Court Justice.
    Voted against confirmation of Robert Bork for Supreme Court Justice.
    Voted against confirmation William Rehnquist as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
    Voted against confirmation John Ashcroft as US Attorney General.
    Voted against punitive damages in products liability cases.
    As Michael Dukakis Lt. Governor From 1983-1985, Kerry Supported Granting Prison Furloughs To Hundreds Of Massachusetts Inmates.

    FOREIGN POLICY
    Against linking Most Favored Nation status to China human rights record.
    Voted for Kyoto Protocol on Environment that exempted major Third Word polluters.
    Supported Iraq regime change as late as January, 2003.
    Now has flipped-flopped For Unilateral nuclear Freeze.
    Voted against deployment of INF missiles in Europe.

    POLITICAL ASSOCIATIONS
    Leading member of VVAW (Vietnam Veterans Against the War)
    Attended and conducted anti-war and anti-American protests in the 1970s. Organized the Protests.
    Votes with Ted Kennedy an average of 94% of the time.
    Received $300,000 contribution from Johnny Chung as directed by Chinese intelligence officer.
    Supported Communist Sandinistas and visited with leader Communist Daniel Ortega days before Ortega flew to Moscow and received $200 million in Soviet aid.
    Has a lifetime rating of 26% from Citizens Against Government Waste.
    Has a lifetime rating of 0% from the National Rifle Association.
    Lifetime liberal vote rating of 93% from Americans For Democratic Action (5 points higher than Ted Kennedy).
    Voted with the liberal activist group, The League Of Conservation Voters, an average of 95% of the time.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register