0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Also Bush & Co. have zero responsibility for the largest attack on America's homeland since Pearl Harbor. Not their fault at all. In fact, it was Clinton's fault.
Quote from: Kat Kid on October 07, 2014, 09:13:28 AMAlso Bush & Co. have zero responsibility for the largest attack on America's homeland since Pearl Harbor. Not their fault at all. In fact, it was Clinton's fault.Kat Kid is a truther. Mods, please change the name of this forum to "The Kat Kid Truther Pit"
Quote from: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 07, 2014, 10:49:52 AMQuote from: Kat Kid on October 07, 2014, 09:13:28 AMAlso Bush & Co. have zero responsibility for the largest attack on America's homeland since Pearl Harbor. Not their fault at all. In fact, it was Clinton's fault.Kat Kid is a truther. Mods, please change the name of this forum to "The Kat Kid Truther Pit"Not a truther. Bush just presided over a massive, catastrophic failure to protect the American people.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning. They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.
The president doesn't really impact most of the stuff you guys are blaming/crediting presidents for. At least, not that much.
America's jobs picture is seeing huge improvement, with robust numbers that are giving investors confidence in the economy. The U.S. added 248,000 jobs last month, bringing the unemployment rate below 6 percent.But one part of that picture is still a puzzle: People continue to stop looking for work, and in doing so, are dropping out of the labor pool. In fact, the participation rate in the labor force has fallen to 62.7 percent -- its lowest level since early 1978.How can this be? As the job market heats up and the unemployment rate falls, wouldn't that mean more people are looking for work, not less?"The decline is without precedent," Bob Funk, chief executive of global staffing company Express Employment Professionals, told CBS MoneyWatch. Government tracking of employment statistics go back to 1948, he said, "and a decline like this has never happened since then."There's no clear reason why people are leaving the workforce, and the issue has ignited a fierce debate among economists. One trend that they seem to agree on? About half of the decline is due to baby boomers entering their retirement years.The other half of the decline gets a little fuzzy. Funk notes that some portion of the unemployed either don't want to work or don't think they can find a job. His company commissioned a poll of the unemployed in May, he said, and found that 47 percent have completely given up looking for work. "That's a real problem," he said.The labor force participation rate was around 66 percent of the population in 2007 before falling to 62.7 percent.Some economists say the expansion of food stamp and disability programs are keeping people out of the labor pool. Others says that young people are dropping out, partly because more are going to college and partly because the ones who aren't are getting crowded out of the job market.
Quote from: Cartierfor3 on October 07, 2014, 03:39:22 PMThe president doesn't really impact most of the stuff you guys are blaming/crediting presidents for. At least, not that much.You really don't think the President has much of an impact on taxes, trade agreements, regulatory burden, and other things that affect business growth and job creation? They do.
Quote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on October 07, 2014, 03:51:34 PMQuote from: Cartierfor3 on October 07, 2014, 03:39:22 PMThe president doesn't really impact most of the stuff you guys are blaming/crediting presidents for. At least, not that much.You really don't think the President has much of an impact on taxes, trade agreements, regulatory burden, and other things that affect business growth and job creation? They do.maybe a tiny bit
Quote from: Cartierfor3 on October 07, 2014, 06:45:36 PMQuote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on October 07, 2014, 03:51:34 PMQuote from: Cartierfor3 on October 07, 2014, 03:39:22 PMThe president doesn't really impact most of the stuff you guys are blaming/crediting presidents for. At least, not that much.You really don't think the President has much of an impact on taxes, trade agreements, regulatory burden, and other things that affect business growth and job creation? They do.maybe a tiny bitFair enough, and it certainly takes time to lay the foundation. That's the the two-fold disaster of two terms of Obama: not only does our business climate stink now, it's going to continue to stink for quite some time after. The massive regulatory expansion the Dems have wrought cannot be rolled back overnight. Any tax reform will also take time to implement.
Quote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on October 07, 2014, 07:55:33 PMQuote from: Cartierfor3 on October 07, 2014, 06:45:36 PMQuote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on October 07, 2014, 03:51:34 PMQuote from: Cartierfor3 on October 07, 2014, 03:39:22 PMThe president doesn't really impact most of the stuff you guys are blaming/crediting presidents for. At least, not that much.You really don't think the President has much of an impact on taxes, trade agreements, regulatory burden, and other things that affect business growth and job creation? They do.maybe a tiny bitFair enough, and it certainly takes time to lay the foundation. That's the the two-fold disaster of two terms of Obama: not only does our business climate stink now, it's going to continue to stink for quite some time after. The massive regulatory expansion the Dems have wrought cannot be rolled back overnight. Any tax reform will also take time to implement."Blame it on Obama" is going to be great during the next president's tenure.
Don't forget the part where Bush's administration lied about WMD's and embroiled us in an in winnable war that cost thousands of American lives, and destroyed the lives of countless others.
Quote from: Pete on October 08, 2014, 06:59:36 AMDon't forget the part where Bush's administration lied about WMD's and embroiled us in an in winnable war that cost thousands of American lives, and destroyed the lives of countless others. If Bush "lied" about WMD, then so did Bill, Hillary, Kerry, and a host of other Dems. And Iraq was very "winnable" - Bush bungled the post-invasion management of the country, further compounded by Obama's refusal to leave security forces in Iraq.
I think they wanted to believe the lie because they wanted to a start a war which is probably worse than just lying
The scenario that makes the most sense, seeing that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed he had them, that all of the chemical weapons had been moved to Syria during the year or so prior to the invasion.
It seems like it was more a case of bad intel than deception. Still, I think they had a number of reasons for wanting to invade Iraq and they just harped on that one because people - inside and outside of the US - viewed it as the most legitimate. It was a means to an end.
