guess in your world it's still 9/10/01
so, saying that, in the morning, terrorists will hijack 4 planes. 2 will be crashed in the twin towers (the world trade center), 1 will hit the pentagon, and 1 will crash in a field in Pennsylvania.
soon thereafter, the economy will tank, money will be spent to go to war. The Taliban (the terrorist), will be defeated, Osama bin Laden will hide out in a cave somewhere, Bush's intelligence people will inform him of WMD's (weapons of mass destruction)in Iraq. We will invade Iraq, kill Saddam Hussein's terrorist sons, capture Saddam, uncover hundreds of thousands of mass graves, the terrorist will also invade Iraq, and we'll be fighting them tooth and nail in Iraq instead of the USA (Thank God), and then, we will have a record deficit.
As far as the "record surplus", try "projected record surplus". You know, the surplus we may have unless something goes terribly wrong (i.e. a terror attack, a war, ect)
remember, surplus= the taxpayers money. not Washington's money.
so, saying that, in the morning, terrorists will hijack 4 planes. 2 will be crashed in the twin towers (the world trade center), 1 will hit the pentagon, and 1 will crash in a field in Pennsylvania.
soon thereafter, the economy will tank, money will be spent to go to war. The Taliban (the terrorist), will be defeated, Osama bin Laden will hide out in a cave somewhere, Bush's intelligence people will inform him of WMD's (weapons of mass destruction)in Iraq. We will invade Iraq, kill Saddam Hussein's terrorist sons, capture Saddam, uncover hundreds of thousands of mass graves, the terrorist will also invade Iraq, and we'll be fighting them tooth and nail in Iraq instead of the USA (Thank God), and then, we will have a record deficit.
As far as the "record surplus", try "projected record surplus". You know, the surplus we may have unless something goes terribly wrong (i.e. a terror attack, a war, ect)
remember, surplus= the taxpayers money. not Washington's money.
The other day I heard a politician say that a few
"liberal," D's asked for some (oh don't you curse) "regulations"
on airlines. This was many years ago. Namely, we should harden the doors to the cockpit on all commercial flights. Naturally, the airline
industry was greatly concerned saying each ticket would
go up in price maybe as much as 3.00 to 7.00 per ticket.
OMG, most R's were outraged so it never happened.
Obviously, with this "regulation" 9-11 would never be
considered anything special, just another day. The US
would have saved, oh I don't know how many billlions?
The surplus could possibly still with us.
And thousands of Americans would still be enjoying their right to life.
You idiots that think all "regulation" is bad, before you
react why not think about this for a second or two.
Can't wait for your response on this one.
"liberal," D's asked for some (oh don't you curse) "regulations"
on airlines. This was many years ago. Namely, we should harden the doors to the cockpit on all commercial flights. Naturally, the airline
industry was greatly concerned saying each ticket would
go up in price maybe as much as 3.00 to 7.00 per ticket.
OMG, most R's were outraged so it never happened.
Obviously, with this "regulation" 9-11 would never be
considered anything special, just another day. The US
would have saved, oh I don't know how many billlions?
The surplus could possibly still with us.
And thousands of Americans would still be enjoying their right to life.
You idiots that think all "regulation" is bad, before you
react why not think about this for a second or two.
Can't wait for your response on this one.
ego
I don't think you read it properly. Did not say all R's are
idiots. Please read it carefully one more time, and I say
this with respect. The exact quote was "you idiots that
think all "regulation" is bad before you react why not think
about this for a second or two." This does not say R's are
idiots. Why would you twist the meaning?
Second, may I ask what is the difference who said this?
Because it is a true statement, does it matter, if it is true,
if Stalin, Hitler, Bush or Kerry said it. And this is true,
I hope you remember when this was an issue a few
years ago when planes were being hi-jacked. Do you
remember?
Would appreciate your reply and an answer to the question.
Thanks
I don't think you read it properly. Did not say all R's are
idiots. Please read it carefully one more time, and I say
this with respect. The exact quote was "you idiots that
think all "regulation" is bad before you react why not think
about this for a second or two." This does not say R's are
idiots. Why would you twist the meaning?
Second, may I ask what is the difference who said this?
Because it is a true statement, does it matter, if it is true,
if Stalin, Hitler, Bush or Kerry said it. And this is true,
I hope you remember when this was an issue a few
years ago when planes were being hi-jacked. Do you
remember?
Would appreciate your reply and an answer to the question.
Thanks
"remember surplus=the taxpayers money. not Washington's money."
Any clue as to how much of this surplus is going to rebuild this country.....rebuilding that was claimed by dubya to be paid from oil revenues???
It's time to remind those people in Washington that it is indeed the taxpayers money and not monopoly money to be thrown into the wind and pissed away at a whim.....
Any clue as to how much of this surplus is going to rebuild this country.....rebuilding that was claimed by dubya to be paid from oil revenues???
It's time to remind those people in Washington that it is indeed the taxpayers money and not monopoly money to be thrown into the wind and pissed away at a whim.....
Stacinoclue,
Where was Clinton on the cockpit doors? His admin only had 8 years to implement? Where's the outrage? You libs are all the same. If the Bush admin had implemented you would be complaining that the cost increase is a tax on the poor or as Lurch said Bush is overstating the terrorism threat by scaring everyone.
Where was Clinton on the cockpit doors? His admin only had 8 years to implement? Where's the outrage? You libs are all the same. If the Bush admin had implemented you would be complaining that the cost increase is a tax on the poor or as Lurch said Bush is overstating the terrorism threat by scaring everyone.
Game is a useless tit. We'll make a statement like Bush is a liar then state several instances. Game and the likes on the other hand post things like Kerry is full of crap then never post an example. That's why I ignore this twit stick. He's voting for his party regardless of their view point. He's too dumb to do anything else and I understand that. To do other wise would require one to have to think, research and analyze. Something a guy of Games education and many Americans are completely incapable of.
Marco said:
I wholehearedly agree that Bush and Congress have spent money like drunken sailors. Doesn't matter who is President, the budget goes up every year. I do give Clinton credit for paying off the debt, didn't like the fact that he taxed the dog crap out of the "middle class" to do it.
stacilu said:
1) you weren't referring to any Dem's as idiots, were you???
2) It does matter who made the statement, how do I know if it's a true statement if I don't know the source. Because you post it on a message board, I'm supposed to take it as gospel.
3) Yeah, I DO remember. I brought up 9/11 in the first place. I'm not supporting the candidate that see's terrorism as a "nuisance"
sorry i didn't answer your questions sooner, i don't live in the forum, you know.
Your number 1 implies that I only think in the terms
of D's and R's. Of course, I don't. You don't have
to have a label to be an idiot.
Your number 2 implies that the source is what should
be used to determine whether it is true or not.
How neolothic. Hitler told the world that the
Versailles Treaty was not fair. This was a true
statement, because it came from Hitler doesn't
make it any less true.
Your number 3. I didn't ask you if you remembered
9/11. But, did you remember the hijackings of
airplanes before 9/11.
We seem to have a communication problem.
Maybe, I am not being clear. Sorry about that.
But what is happening here is an argument that
really doesn't answer my original question. If
you don't really believe that "hard cockpit" doors
was an issue before 9/11, maybe you should
read "Against all Enemies," not written by a
politician but a ranking expert on terrorism in
both Bush and Clinton administration.
of D's and R's. Of course, I don't. You don't have
to have a label to be an idiot.
Your number 2 implies that the source is what should
be used to determine whether it is true or not.
How neolothic. Hitler told the world that the
Versailles Treaty was not fair. This was a true
statement, because it came from Hitler doesn't
make it any less true.
Your number 3. I didn't ask you if you remembered
9/11. But, did you remember the hijackings of
airplanes before 9/11.
We seem to have a communication problem.
Maybe, I am not being clear. Sorry about that.
But what is happening here is an argument that
really doesn't answer my original question. If
you don't really believe that "hard cockpit" doors
was an issue before 9/11, maybe you should
read "Against all Enemies," not written by a
politician but a ranking expert on terrorism in
both Bush and Clinton administration.
to answer your original question, as a monday morning QB, yes, we should've had the hard doors. also, arming the pilot, or having an armed Police Officer on board every plane wouldn't be a bad idea either.
as far as your answer to my second point, you imply that a person should believe anything they hear. i know better than that.
i give you credit for being open minded and debating the issues, instead of resorting to Bush is an idiot comments like a few others here. maybe you should run for elected office. you're probably too honest to win, though.
as far as your answer to my second point, you imply that a person should believe anything they hear. i know better than that.
i give you credit for being open minded and debating the issues, instead of resorting to Bush is an idiot comments like a few others here. maybe you should run for elected office. you're probably too honest to win, though.
Thank you, but I can think of a few posters that would
very much disagree with you.
At the very least it is an interesting election. But, I will
rejoice when it is over. Getting so disgusted hearing
both sides and all the bs. We are really hurting for
a great candidate and somebody that will do what
is best for the country. I don't think either of these
two fit the bill.
very much disagree with you.
At the very least it is an interesting election. But, I will
rejoice when it is over. Getting so disgusted hearing
both sides and all the bs. We are really hurting for
a great candidate and somebody that will do what
is best for the country. I don't think either of these
two fit the bill.
