Right, the next tune you choose to dance to? Your account is empty the trust fund is a fund in name only. The Democrats blew one trillion dollars on social progarms in the 60's. our money was gone when we were just starting our careers and the people responsible have long since retired spent thier money and ours are most are dead so we can't even blame them now that the damage is coming to a head.

Paladin77

You are to stupid to live. I have PROVEN directly from the Treasury Web site that these trust funds do exist. They contain the same U.S. Treasury promises as the E-Bonds that Americans consider ASSETS. Bush has added over a Trillion dollars of IOU’s of the social security and Medicare surplus. You are either as dumb as a rock or just do not want to admit the truth!

I am getting tired of your insults without foundation. The point is that you fail to notice is that at one time the social security account number represented a personal account with your money in it. After 1967 it did not. You blame Mr. Bush for the failure of social security and I point out that the failure happened in 1967. you can play semantics but the meaning remains the same.

Paladin77

Anyone that is shown the facts, which I posted directly from the dept. of the Treasury and then continues to deny those facts is just DUMB!
The Trust funds do exist and Bush did add over a Trillion dollars of IOU’s to those Trust funds because of the budget deficit he created.

Paladin77

Anyone that is shown the facts, which I posted directly from the dept. of the Treasury and then continues to deny those facts is just DUMB!
The Trust funds do exist and Bush did add over a Trillion dollars of IOU’s to those Trust funds because of the budget deficit he created.

right

Glad you understand!

That you are a blind political hack? Yes!

only in your minds gentlemen. it's the same portable punditry that makes those claims every time. big whoop...the COL could put up 100 indisputable facts on "fact day" and they could all come down, sit on your face and wiggle, and ya'll would still claim ya proved him wrong...the neoconservative "smear over and over" methods wore thin a long time ago...but not in your minds. but when that's all ya know, i guess we shouldn't expect anything more.

the col's articles may be biased, and from a liberal perspective. and i'm sure he makes the occasional mistake like anyone. but claims that anyone has definitevely proved him wrong "on almost every article" is a joke. i have read so many threads that the neocons insist they have "proven him wrong" but actually don't do anything of the sort. just alot of mutual ass slappin and high fivin from the punditry. just cause you hate what he says, doesn't make them any less truthful. and anyway, no one has been proven wrong more in the last 6 years than the administration.

of course, i'm sure i'll get ridiculed for going against the vocal, neoconservative majority here @ JU....flame on...that all wore thin a long time ago.

have a nice day:)

I and others have proven you wrong on almost every article you have written. only in your minds gentlemen. it's the same portable punditry that makes those claims every time. big whoop...the COL could put up 100 indisputable facts on "fact day" and they could all come down, sit on your face and wiggle, and ya'll would still claim ya proved him wrong...the neoconservative "smear over and over" methods wore thin a long time ago...but not in your minds. but when that's all ya know, i guess we shouldn't expect anything more.

You are as wrong headed as the col is. Many others (myself included) have "proved" him to be wrong in just about every article he writes. Problem is, that if the "facts" contradict him in any way, he either ignores them or starts with personal attacks. I do "not" smear over and over. You don't know what you're talking about. If I say proven wrong to him it's because I have found "facts" that say he's wrong.

So now, "you" have a nice day.

drmiler

YOU HAVE NEVER PROVEN ME WRONG ION ANYTHING!!!!! PROVE IT!

::yawn:: blah blah blah...the only reason you are attackin me here (as predicted) in your case is because you can't work or play well with others so you are banned from my site.

but just to give you the benefit of the doubt, and put your assertions above to the test, that you aren't an attack dog, i am gonna lift your b/l...we'll see how it goes.

let me start us off with some common ground,,,GO STEELERS!

drmiler YOU HAVE NEVER PROVEN ME WRONG ION ANYTHING!!!!! PROVE IT!

Just go back over your articles klink, and you'll find what you seek.

You stated there was no yellow cake in Iraq, and you were shown to be incorrect.

You tried to misrepresent unemployment figures to blame Bush, you were caught.

You said there were no terrorists in Iraq, you were shown to be incorrect.

Shall I continue?

You stated there was no yellow cake in Iraq, and you were shown to be incorrect.

Like 500 meteric tons of the stuff. And if I'm not mistaken..."I'm" the one that put that proof out!

So now, who has "never" proven who wrong?

We were told we would be treated as liberators.


This I disproved to you months ago and you still won't let it go. This proves you are a liar. there are hundreds of thousands of still pictures of us being greated and offered candy in welcome to our invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam. On other posts others and I think myself gave you the websites to see them. There are thousands of hours of video of the same thing. Disproven and you continue to make the same disproven statement makes you a liar. You stated on many articles that you were never proven wrong by anyone on JU. This is one of those never happens things.

The trust funds "exist" in the same sense that your checking account "exists". That doesn't make your checking account a "trust fund". They are accounts for the receipt & disbursement of funds, more or less set up like money market accounts. There was a time that they were "off the books" accounts that sort of met the common-sense definition of a "trust fund" but that hasn't been the case for years.

IslandDog


“You stated there was no yellow cake in Iraq, and you were shown to be incorrect.” I said the Yellow cake Bush reported in the State of the Union was not true and I am correct!

“You tried to misrepresent unemployment figures to blame Bush, you were caught.” I was correct the unemployment rate in 2000 was 3.9% and we have not created enough jobs to return to that point. In addition I proved with the U.S. Conference of Mayors Study that the New jobs are paying about 20% less then the jobs that were lost and have fewer benefits.

“You said there were no terrorists in Iraq; you were shown to be incorrect.” There were no terrorist operations and training in Iraq when Saddam, was in power. There may have been a few isolated al Qaeda operatives but nothing that was an organized group of terrorists. They began operating in Western Iraq AFTER the Bush invasion! They are also increasing in Afghanistan and Pakistan during the past year!

And now the col will start a new article saying the same things as if the facts presented never happened. This is usual for him when proven wrong.

except for the three terror camps set up by AQ,not counting the terrorist recuperating in his hospitals that were wounded in Aftghanistan and seen and reported by more than one news orginazation prior to the start of the war. So Public was the reporting that Saddam had the man taken out of hospital and shot in the streets just to prove he had nothing to do with it. That the terrorist crossed teh border and made it all the way to baghdad and into a state run hospital that was exclusive to Saddam and his higher ups. Oops.



And it has been widly reported that Mr. Wilson confirmed that report but wrote an article saying it was not true. I assume that because the report was classified no one could say different or call him a political hack and liar without breaking the law to prove him wrong. Now even the nation of Niger says it happened so are you still going to stick by a discredited story to prove your hate for a person elected by the MAJORITY?

Wow talk about an appropriate title for an article written by you Gene. You are a hypocrite if you expect the republicans in office to respect the majority and not fight when for the last 6 years the democrats in the minority did no such thing!!

And he talks about someone living i a dream world.

LOL.

What Wilson reported was correct. Bush and Cheney were so unhappy that they put our CIS agents in danger to attack Wilson by outing his wife and all the agents she worked with when she was working on nuclear weapons in Europe.

There were no training camps in Iraq and 9/11 was not planned or connected to Iraq. There was no nuclear danger from Iraq and Iraq had no military capability to attack anyone. Yet Bush claimed that Saddam was such a danger that of ALL the countries in the world we were justified to attack Iraq. BULL SHIT! It was a lie and that lie has killed over 3,200 Americans, wounded 25,000 more and will cost our country about a Trillion dollars until this is over. Bush should be IMPEACHED for sending American Military into a war that was not justified and failing to provide the needed manpower and equipment to minimize the casualties. Like Powell said, Bush and the mistakes he made have allowed the civil war to develop in Iraq. To place our military in the middle of a Civil War is DEAD WRONG and reason to remove Bush and Cheney from power.

There were no training camps in Iraq and 9/11

"This" has been proven wrong so many times that it ain't funny any more.

Link

Link

Or this section from wikipedia:

See also: Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida Osama bin Laden first took interest in Iraq when the country invaded Kuwait in 1990, raising concerns the secular Baathist government of Iraq might next set its sights on Saudi Arabia, homeland of bin Laden and Islam itself. In a letter sent to King Fahd, he offered to send an army of mujahedeen to defend Saudi Arabia.[54] During the Gulf War, the organization's interests became split between outrage with the intervention of the United Nations in the region, hatred of Saddam Hussein's secular government, and concern for the suffering of Islamic people in Iraq. Many scholars claim that the alleged link between Saddam's regime and al-Qaida (which substantiated the WMD justification for the Iraq invasion) was non-existent and exaggerated.[citation needed] Whether or not al-Qaida was operating in any substantial way in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion is debatable. However, it must be noted that the killing & capture of al-Qaida fighters and leaders by Iraqi & Coalition forces are a near daily occurence in Iraq, many of whom fled Afghanistan after the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001. Al-Qaida was in contact with the Kurdish Islamist group Ansar al-islam from its inception in 1999. Several Afghan veterans, Arab and Kurd, entered the enclave controlled by Ansar al-Islam from Iran. Among them was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who left the Kurdish zone before the allied invasion in 2003. Abu Hamza al-Muhajir (also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri), al-Zarqawi's replacement and the current leader of al-Qaida in Iraq is believed to have been in Iraq before the 2003 invasion as well. During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, al-Qaida took more formal interest in the region and is known to have been responsible for actively organizing and aiding local resistance to the occupying coalition forces and the emerging government. Militant allies of al-Qaeda bombed both the local United Nations and Red Cross headquarters later that year. In 2004, the main al-Qaida bases in Iraq were raided by U.S. forces besieging Fallujah. Despite the loss of these key positions and many of its fighters, al-Qaeda continued to mount attacks across Iraq. During Iraq's elections in January 2005, al-Qaida claimed responsibility for nine suicide blasts in the Iraqi capital Baghdad. The majority of the suicide bombings and SVBIED (Suicidal Vehicle-Born Improvised Explosive Device, commonly referred to as "Car Bomb") attacks occuring in Iraq are commited by foreign al-Qaida recruits, many crossing through the Syrian border into Iraq. Al-Qaida's suicide attacks in Iraq have targeted mostly Iraqi Security and Coalition forces, and Shiite civilians. But as of late, they are increasingly targeting Iraqi Sunnis who are in growing numbers joining the fight against al-Qaida. Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi formally merged his organization "Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad" with al-Qaeda on 17 October 2004, and the organization began to use the banners of "Al-Qaida in Iraq". In the merger, al-Zarqawi declared loyalty to Osama bin Laden. Al-Zarqawi was killed by U.S. air strikes on a safe house near Baqubah, Iraq on June 7, 2006. Before his death, it appears al-Zarqawi was trying to use Iraq as a launching pad for international terrorism, most notably dispatching suicide bombers to attack hotels in Amman, Jordan. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was known to be in contact with several top al-Qaida leaders, most notably his correspondence with the Egyptian Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri. Since the killing of al-Zarqawi, it is widely believed Abu Ayyub al-Masri took over as head of al-Qaida in Iraq. Although the group has failed in its primary goal of driving U.S. and British forces from Iraq and destroying the Shiite-dominated government elected by the people of Iraq, al-Qaida in Iraq has effectively ignited widespread sectarian violence across the country. Al-Qaida in Iraq now operates primarily as part of the Mujahideen Shura Council, an umbrella organization of Sunni militant groups in Iraq who resist solidarity with Shiites, and vow to continue resistance. On September 3, 2006 the second-in-command of al-Qaida in Iraq, Hamed Jumaa Farid al-Saeedi (also known as Abu Humam or Abu Rana), was arrested north of Baghdad, along with a group of his aides and followers.[55]

Link

talk about BULLSH*T!!!! THIS IS A LIE PROPOGANDIZED BY THE FAR RIGHT. no one with any actual knowledge has said anything of the kind. unless we have white house officials leaking classified information again...

just like when darth cheney stands up and talks about what the new york times reported before the war...turns out they were articles he and his cronies fed the press, for the purpose of turning around and pointing to them as "evidence even from the liberals." or now he stands up and talks about how the democrat plan is "reported by many" as a "slow bleed." he tries to imply that they (the democrats) actually refer to their plan as such. when the facts are that THEY are the ones calling it a slow bleed, not the democrats.

For Gene who won't read the Weekly Standard link

THE FORMER IRAQI REGIME OF Saddam Hussein trained thousands of radical Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over the four years immediately preceding the U.S. invasion, according to documents and photographs recovered by the U.S. military in postwar Iraq. The existence and character of these documents has been confirmed to THE WEEKLY STANDARD by eleven U.S. government officials.

The secret training took place primarily at three camps--in Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak--and was directed by elite Iraqi military units. Interviews by U.S. government interrogators with Iraqi regime officials and military leaders corroborate the documentary evidence. Many of the fighters were drawn from terrorist groups in northern Africa with close ties to al Qaeda, chief among them Algeria's GSPC and the Sudanese Islamic Army. Some 2,000 terrorists were trained at these Iraqi camps each year from 1999 to 2002, putting the total number at or above 8,000. Intelligence officials believe that some of these terrorists returned to Iraq and are responsible for attacks against Americans and Iraqis. According to three officials with knowledge of the intelligence on Iraqi training camps, White House and National Security Council officials were briefed on these findings in May 2005; senior Defense Department officials subsequently received the same briefing.



The nation of Niger is not covered by our national secrets act of 1947 and the information was not classified for them. They publicly stated that agents from the nation Iraq was trying to buy the yellow cake from them as it is their chief export item. They were turned down out of fear of getting on the wrong side of the UN and the USA. This makes it hard to say the information was manipulated or leaked from the current administration since it was a news release from another nation not the US. Just because it got a paragraph buried somewhere in the NYT story and other news agencies does not mean it was not out there for people to see if they looked. I think AP ran a paragraph as well.