Air France? Ptui!

Geoff Miller wrote:

Tchiowa wrote:


He served in the military only long enough to say he did so
that he could pursue his political ambitions. He has always
looked down on the "little folk".



mrtravel responds:


And Bush's service record?????


Nice attempt at diversion. What's that got to do with Kerry?


So, it is OK to mention Kerry's service, but not to mention Bush's?


I don't think American political discourse has quite dropped to the
level where politicians are so petty as to attack their opponents'
academic records in primary or secondary school, do you?


So I guess you never learned anything outside of school, huh?

Geoff Miller wrote:

ant writes:

: Absolutely. Trade is a two-way street: other countries need our
: commerce as much as we need theirs.


You have a point. We'd all be lost without McDonalds.



If you really believe American trade is limited to McDonalds, you're
too ignorant to be allowed to participate in public debate.


So, Geoff.. Since you think King George has been so good for the
economy, what do you think of the huge increase in the National Debt
since he took office, due to his love of deficit spending?

Geoff Miller wrote:
Stephen Farrow writes:

: Nice attempt at diversion. Did Bush inherit an economy in recesssion
: from the Clinton administration, or not? Yes or no?

Oh my. You really *don't* have any better comeback than that. Life must
be very hard for you.


Don't pinch off intellectual excrement just to have the last word.
Answer the question:

Did Bush inherit an economy in recesssion from the Clinton administration,
or not? Yes or no?

Nope, you can't get over the tired tactic of blaming Clinton for
everything. Bzzt! Game over.

--

Stephen

MASTER: You were destined to die. It was written.
BUFFY: What can I say? I flunked the written.

Stephen Farrow writes:

: Did Bush inherit an economy in recesssion from the Clinton
: administration, or not? Yes or no?

Nope, you can't get over the tired tactic of blaming Clinton for
everything. Bzzt! Game over.


Sorry, not so fast. What did I blame Clinton for? Please quote a
passage of mine in which I did so. Otherwise you forfeit the debate.

Note that saying Bush inherited an economy in recession from the Clinton
administration isn't to say that the economy being in recession was
Clinton's fault. How and why the recession existed may or may not
have been Clinton's fault, but that's beyond the scope of this discus-
sion.

Rather, the area of interest is whether _Bush_ screwed up the economy
(or allowed it to be screwed up on his watch). You asserted that he
did. I pointed out that to the contrary, he inherited an economy in
recession -- and that the economy actually grew during the course of
his presidency.

I find that being an educated person allows one to make distinctions
which are often too subtle to be grasped by the lumpenproletariat...



Geoff

--
"Take my archetypes...please!" -- Henny Jungman

Geoff Miller wrote:
Stephen Farrow writes:

: Did Bush inherit an economy in recesssion from the Clinton
: administration, or not? Yes or no?

Nope, you can't get over the tired tactic of blaming Clinton for
everything. Bzzt! Game over.


Sorry, not so fast. What did I blame Clinton for?

You have no debating tactic, it seems, other than pinning the failings
of your current administration on the Clinton one. That's all you've
got, as you've shown us over and over again. And, unfortunately, it's
not good enough - but I suppose if you're happy to be a Republican dupe,
that's your affair.

--

Stephen

I know all the games... pin the thing on the thing... pass the thing...

Stephen Farrow wrote:
Geoff Miller wrote:
Stephen Farrow writes:

: Did Bush inherit an economy in recesssion from the Clinton
: administration, or not? Yes or no?

Nope, you can't get over the tired tactic of blaming Clinton for
everything. Bzzt! Game over.


Sorry, not so fast. What did I blame Clinton for?

You have no debating tactic, it seems, other than pinning the failings
of your current administration on the Clinton one. That's all you've
got, as you've shown us over and over again.

Not entirely true - he also has some other fearsome weapons in his
armoury, like calling people names, and inventing "rules" for who
"forfeits" the debate.

Quite an adversary.

B,

So what WAS Bush's intent on occupying Iraq? (this should be good, watch
this bush apologist squirm now)

His intent was quite clear from the beginning: to remove a dictator who
had invaded his neighbors, tried to assasinate an American president,
used WMDs to kill tens of thousands,

A-Ha, you fell right into my trap. You don't install democracy by declaring
martial law.

So what was the intention again?

No squirming required. Bush's intent for occupying Iraq should be
apparent to anyone who's been paying attention. It was that Saddam
was believed to have chemical and biological weapons (which he'd used
both in the Iran-Iraq war and against the Kurds in northern Iraq) as
the result of reconstituting his WMD program after the departure of
UN weapons inspeactors, and because it was suspected that Iraq was
trying to acquire nuclear weapons. For details, Google up "National
Intelligence Estimate (NIE)" and "October 2002."

How could you not know this? Seems to me, _you're_ the one who should
be doing the squirming.



Geoff

You first. Tell me where, specifically, all these NBC type weapons were
found in Iraq. Oh wait, they're still looking for them. Never mind

"Stephen Farrow" wrote in message
...
Geoff Miller wrote:
Stephen Farrow writes:

: Nice attempt at diversion. Did Bush inherit an economy in recesssion
: from the Clinton administration, or not? Yes or no?

Oh my. You really *don't* have any better comeback than that. Life must
be very hard for you.


Don't pinch off intellectual excrement just to have the last word.
Answer the question:

Did Bush inherit an economy in recesssion from the Clinton
administration,
or not? Yes or no?

Nope, you can't get over the tired tactic of blaming Clinton for
everything. Bzzt! Game over.

Yes, that is certainly a difficult fact to deal with.

Dave wrote:
No squirming required. Bush's intent for occupying Iraq should be
apparent to anyone who's been paying attention. It was that Saddam
was believed to have chemical and biological weapons (which he'd used
both in the Iran-Iraq war and against the Kurds in northern Iraq) as
the result of reconstituting his WMD program after the departure of
UN weapons inspeactors, and because it was suspected that Iraq was
trying to acquire nuclear weapons. For details, Google up "National
Intelligence Estimate (NIE)" and "October 2002."

How could you not know this? Seems to me, _you're_ the one who should
be doing the squirming.



Geoff


You first. Tell me where, specifically, all these NBC type weapons were
found in Iraq. Oh wait, they're still looking for them. Never mind


They weren't NBC's weapons.
What evidence was there of any nuclear weapons at any time?