Menu
Forum
General Car Audio
Subwoofers
Speakers
Amplifiers
Head Units
Car Audio Build Logs
Wiring, Electrical and Installation
Enclosure Design & Construction
Car Audio Classifieds
Home Audio
Off-topic Discussion
The Lounge
What's new
Search forums
Gallery
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
Classifieds Member Feedback
SHOP
Shop Head Units
Shop Amplifiers
Shop Speakers
Shop Subwoofers
Shop eBay Car Audio
Log in / Register
Forum
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
Log in / Join
What’s new
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
General Car Audio
Subwoofers
Speakers
Amplifiers
Head Units
Car Audio Build Logs
Wiring, Electrical and Installation
Enclosure Design & Construction
Car Audio Classifieds
Home Audio
Off-topic Discussion
The Lounge
What's new
Search forums
Menu
Reply to thread
Forum
Off-topic Discussion
The Lounge
Debates last night
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Gauntlet" data-source="post: 561477" data-attributes="member: 545529"><p>This oughta be fun.</p><p></p><p></p><p>The war was voted on and authorized, thus it's a non-issue. Hindsight is not only 20/20, but it's irrelevant. If, as a voter, your concern is the deficit, neither Bush nor Kerry will disspell your fears. The Concord Coalition, a bipartisan group that is in favor of balanced budgets, estimates that when all is said and done, both Bush and Kerry's economic plans will raise the deficit by over one trillion dollars by 2014, when their respective tax plans would reach fruition. Neither candidates plan is significantly better than the other.</p><p></p><p></p><p>No one knows this. In Kerry's 10 year plan for the economy, he has $650 billion allotted to health plans, and $207 billion allotted to education, among other things. Some estimates say he would put us in debt over $1 trillion more than Bush, others say the complete opposite. We can't predict the future. What we can do is make assumptions based on their respective plans. Kerry's budget plan is set in stone - no matter what happens with the economy, his figures will remain constant. Bush's plan is partly based on economic growth, meaning his deficit reduction plan has the potential to be lower. Whether it actually would be, I don't really think so....just about every article I've read on the issue says that their deficit plans will be about equal. Again, back to my original point - if you truly want to reduce the deficit, government spending is not the way to go, and I would say nearly $1 trillion already devoted to specific plans would count as government spending.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I never said it wasn't problem. I said there are good aspects of it, which you seem to deny.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Then what's the point of even saying it, aside from filling up the empty void in your sense of ego? We are having a discussion here about issues, not intangibles.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Which I did. Your point?</p><p></p><p></p><p>You can't be serious, everyone who had any say in anything, and the majority of those who didn't, believed Iraq was a threat, independent of their party. During procedural inspections, the UN found SCUD missiles, chemical weapons, and biological warheads buried in sand dunes. Not a threat? Hell, even the man you will be voting for thought so. From congressional record:</p><p></p><p>"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime...He presents a particularly grievious 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."</p><p></p><p>"While we should always seek to take significant international actions on a multilateral rather than a unilateral basis whenever that is possible, if in the final analysis we face what we truly believe to be a grave threat to the well-being of our Nation or the entire world and it cannot be removed peacefully, we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise. I believe this is such a situation, Mr. President. It is time for a resolve."</p><p></p><p>Bill Clinton thought so:</p><p></p><p>"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tommorrow."</p><p></p><p>Al Gore thought so:</p><p></p><p>"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."</p><p></p><p>John Edwards thought so:</p><p></p><p>"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He already used them against his neighbors and his own people and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."</p><p></p><p>Would you like me to continue?</p><p></p><p></p><p>1) Would you want to take the risk of waiting for him to attack us before you made a decision?</p><p></p><p>2) No, there weren't (yet, however, who knows what is buried underground or has been shipped off to Syria). However, all intelligence reports stated that the possibility of WMD's being there was very real, as evidenced by the quotes above. Given the track record, how could you <em>not</em> take the threat seriously? I'm not sure what point you are you trying to make.</p><p></p><p>I'd continue, but I'm losing my mind addressing your assinine arguments.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Gauntlet, post: 561477, member: 545529"] This oughta be fun. The war was voted on and authorized, thus it's a non-issue. Hindsight is not only 20/20, but it's irrelevant. If, as a voter, your concern is the deficit, neither Bush nor Kerry will disspell your fears. The Concord Coalition, a bipartisan group that is in favor of balanced budgets, estimates that when all is said and done, both Bush and Kerry's economic plans will raise the deficit by over one trillion dollars by 2014, when their respective tax plans would reach fruition. Neither candidates plan is significantly better than the other. No one knows this. In Kerry's 10 year plan for the economy, he has $650 billion allotted to health plans, and $207 billion allotted to education, among other things. Some estimates say he would put us in debt over $1 trillion more than Bush, others say the complete opposite. We can't predict the future. What we can do is make assumptions based on their respective plans. Kerry's budget plan is set in stone - no matter what happens with the economy, his figures will remain constant. Bush's plan is partly based on economic growth, meaning his deficit reduction plan has the potential to be lower. Whether it actually would be, I don't really think so....just about every article I've read on the issue says that their deficit plans will be about equal. Again, back to my original point - if you truly want to reduce the deficit, government spending is not the way to go, and I would say nearly $1 trillion already devoted to specific plans would count as government spending. I never said it wasn't problem. I said there are good aspects of it, which you seem to deny. Then what's the point of even saying it, aside from filling up the empty void in your sense of ego? We are having a discussion here about issues, not intangibles. Which I did. Your point? You can't be serious, everyone who had any say in anything, and the majority of those who didn't, believed Iraq was a threat, independent of their party. During procedural inspections, the UN found SCUD missiles, chemical weapons, and biological warheads buried in sand dunes. Not a threat? Hell, even the man you will be voting for thought so. From congressional record: "Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime...He presents a particularly grievious 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." "While we should always seek to take significant international actions on a multilateral rather than a unilateral basis whenever that is possible, if in the final analysis we face what we truly believe to be a grave threat to the well-being of our Nation or the entire world and it cannot be removed peacefully, we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise. I believe this is such a situation, Mr. President. It is time for a resolve." Bill Clinton thought so: "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tommorrow." Al Gore thought so: "Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." John Edwards thought so: "Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He already used them against his neighbors and his own people and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." Would you like me to continue? 1) Would you want to take the risk of waiting for him to attack us before you made a decision? 2) No, there weren't (yet, however, who knows what is buried underground or has been shipped off to Syria). However, all intelligence reports stated that the possibility of WMD's being there was very real, as evidenced by the quotes above. Given the track record, how could you [I]not[/I] take the threat seriously? I'm not sure what point you are you trying to make. I'd continue, but I'm losing my mind addressing your assinine arguments. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forum
Off-topic Discussion
The Lounge
Debates last night
Top
Menu
What's new
Forum list
