Luck is truly with the Irish

I had the luck of the Irish today! The company I work for announced a 30% across the board RIF starting tomorrow. This afternoon I got a call from a company I interviewed a few months ago. They offered me a job making nearly 40% more than I make now! Yeah buddy! What luck

 

Now you can start praising Bush instead of blaming him for all of your troubles!

 

I knew one of you Neo Con Bush lovers would say this.

Let me state this simple fact:

1. Neither Bush has created or put into motion the creation of a single job. Period, end of story.



Fact #2

1. There was never a proven connection between 9/11 and Saddam. Bush was informed of this fact several times by key members of his staff. When he got up before god and country and stated that Saddam had WMD and planned to use them on us, he was lying, period. End of story.

You Neo Cons have had control of the government almost continuously since 1980 - and control of the media since the mid-90's. The economy still blows and we are not better off. Still you whine and cry about liberals and mainstreamers. When will you learn that Reganomics didn't work and nothing either Bush has done has worked as well.

 

Hmmmm.

For someone who screams that everyone should prove their statements, the following is devoid of any prooof whatsoever.

It is nice to be what you call others. Anyway, congratulations on getting one of those jobs you have been preaching aren't out there for the past many, many months....

 

Unlike an unnamed moderator, I have never once asked someone on the board to prove their statements. (you have me confused with this person).

I do however demand my elected officials to prove their statements and not to set their own agendas based on whatever whims they have at the the time. I have no doubt in my mind that Bush planned to oust Saddam long before 9/11, and use the attacks as a excuse and ruse. Sad - very sad. Alas, a lie is still a lie.

 

If you're a liberal and you express -- 1) an optimistic attitude 2) a religious or patriotic feeling 3) a belief in the importance of responsibility and self-reliance -- then you obviously must be a lying hypocrite, since those virtues exclusively belong to the right! I've run into that kind of thinking before, it's definitely irritating

 

So, if you think GW didn't lie and this is a "just and noble cause" (Karl Rove's actual words, not GW's), then why not join up and fight?

Oh - it is because you don't have to - I see. (just like GW and Cheney - they found it easy to let someone else pay the price of freedom)

Definitely irritating.


But alas, this is about luck. I just happened to stumble on to this position. They are actually making money despite the semiconductor recession that is now into its 4th year. (very rare, even Intel's margins have dropped down to nearly nothing)

 

Funny paradox's

You have often asked for proof or claimed something to be unfactual. But if you say you haven't so be it.

However, let's look at the paradox here. You have complained ad nauseum how poor the economy is and others have stated there are jobs coming or available if you are prepared to look. You label them, basically, idiot neo-cons. You make economic judgements based on no known theory and blame the current problems squarely on the current administration with almost zero justification. You and qvatlanta then label those people who disagree blind, naive, neo-cons, or whatever. Then, you get laid off and "stumble" onto (not even look for) another job but it has nothing to do with what others have told you? Hmmm....

Unlike many on this board, I am an actual moderate and have worked pretty high up in the political process. (Hint, being slightly right of Michael Moore does not make you in the middle as many on here believe). I am, generally, a supporter of the president but find much in with to disagree with him. (several examples; gun control, Rumsfeld, stem cell research). It will happen as the political sprectrum is very broad and a truly unbiased person will never entirely agree with another person politically. It is really shocking sometimes the extreme's many of you on this board go to indict the administration and many of its supporters. Truth and common sense are never an obstacle in your assertions. For example, the FACT (absolute fact) that most people in the world believed Saddam had WMD is blithely ignored no matter how many times it is shown. Bush had to have lied, period. Its absence up to this point is a straw man argument you hug close to your hearts as it one pysical argument you can point to to support your undying bias. But it really only serves to highlight how glaringly poor your other arguments are.

Of course, this post will ignite a firestorm of name calling and charges of neo-connness or whatever. Who cares? I have found that when I post a detailed response based on facts and generally accepted economic theories it is ignored and you rapidly move onto another topic. Most of you have lost any credibilty on the issues and no one really who cares what you think when you where your bias on sleeve. It is virtually the same as the cry wolve syndrom, no expects you to debate rationally so we ignore the ranting.

Oh, and before you jump on it, I am retired military and my volunteer packet is in and current.

Merry Christmas to all...

 

Good argument and good points. Unfortunately a lot of people on this board think that if you are against GW and his policies, then you must be a far left-winger. This is hardly the case. I am a registered Libertarian.

As far as most of the world knowing that Saddam had WMD, you are merely stating your opinion. Did he have WMD at one time? Yes - mainly because we armed him against the Iranians. (Just as we armed bin Laden against the USSR). The question is; did they have them before we invaded? More and more evidence is pointing to the No answer. I personally believe that GW lied, and that this war is more about vengeance than anything else. I am sorry if you feel this is offensive, but I think it is more offensive that we are sacrificing our young soldiers for a cause that is a no-win situation. This is the problem with most ideologues such as GW; they believe their views are more important than anyone else’s.

I think everyone has bias on his or her sleeves, you included. (JMHO)

 

Vengence and profit

 

You believe I have bias, doesn't make it so...

A quick review of the literature prior to the invasion will reveal the vast majority of those with an opinion believed Saddam had or was attempting to get WMD. I also believed it and even though it is now very apparent he did not have it to the degree most (including me) thought he had it doesn't mean he didn't intend to have it in the future once the sanctions were lifted. I totally misread his intentions in kicking out the inspectors (I read it to mean he was hiding something when now it appears he did it out of pride or pique, obviously, I gave him more credit for sense than I should have). The reasons I misread his intentions, though, makes me more certain that he would have attempted to get it again when the heat was off of him. This guy was totally out in left field when it came to common sense. However, since I had advocated the guy needed to go for years, the absence of WMD does not invalidate my belief he had to go. Events subsequent to the invasion by his supporters have just reinforced that belief.

BTW, look up where Saddam got most of his weapons. His primary conventional arms suppliers were Russia and France. His gas factories were built with help from the Germans. I was in Germany when a few businessmen went to jail over that. Did we support him against Iran? Yes, but that is not the same thing as supporting his other transgressions. It is an absolutist argument to say past support means forever responsiblity.

Problem with many that their arguments come from a basis of absolute. We supported Saddam at some time so we are guilty of his sins. However, life is actually governed by degrees.

Example absolutist arguments:

Abortion - Life begins at conception so any stopping of a pregnancy is immoral. On the other side: if we have a right to control our bodies that extends to anything growing inside all the way up until the day the life leaves and breathes.

Gun control - The Constitution says we have a right to bear arms so if I want that machine gun it is my right. On the other side; You don't need a gun and gun's kill people so let's ban guns.

WMD - Bush said there was WMD and it is not there so he must have lied. On the other side; he had it before so it must still be there he has just hidden it really well or moved it out of the country.

The economy - The economy tanked when Bush was in office (debatable) so it must be his fault. On the other side; economic factors move slowly so the causes of the current downturn actually happened before Bush took office.

There are many many more arguments to point this out but the real deal is that for all of them the correct stance is probably in the middle. Life and leadership is often about compromise and that will lead to some paradox's that make no sense. My favorite is Bush's policy on stem cell research. If it is immoral to use stem cell's derived from embryonic tissue why is it ok to limit its use to what is already existing? However, my disagreement is with his placement of his compromise as I realize that there is an extreme point of view either way and he has just found his place in the middle and that is what I expect of my leaders. But others will call him an idiot because his views aren't with theirs when in fact his views are more with the norm than their own. Fact is, usually the more vehement the name calling and violent the argument the more extreme the person is to one side of the other.

Am I biased? Yes, everyone is. The trick is recognizing that and dealing with it in making your decisions. It is obvious some on here cannot do that...