Bush a fantasy player?

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Wed Dec 08, 2004 2:59 pm

Does anyone think Bush would make a good fantasy sports player? He was in fantasy lala land with his WMD claim in Iraq.
Bush Lied

Only cost BILLIONS of dollars and countless US LIVES. I support our troops 100%, but I also feel sorry for them. Dealing with the no-win situation that BUSH put them in.

Diesel · Post by **Diesel** » Thu Dec 09, 2004 9:21 am

2 words explain it all. Bush and Dick.

Dyv · Post by **Dyv** » Thu Dec 09, 2004 3:54 pm

I wish the world were a peaceful place and nobody hurt anybody and we all hugged a lot... then that mean old wicked President guy wouldn't have to get people killed fighting for no reason.

Then again, at WAR Iraq has had less people die on it's sand than before we invaded. Most estimates peg the average at about 100,000 people per year murdered in Iraq under Saddam's regime.

It sure would be nice if we could get back to the good old times when Saddam could just murder his people quietly. Good call.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Thu Dec 09, 2004 4:13 pm

Originally posted by Dyv:
It sure would be nice if we could get back to the good old times when Saddam could just murder his people quietly. Good call. the reason bush took us to war was WMD. none were found. now i know why the majority of other countries didn't support us.

in any event, it would have been nice to use the (Hundred of?) BILLIONS of dollars spent on the Iraq war for domestic issues....homeland security, education, health care, infrastructure, etc...

what is the end goal of the iraq war?

Dyv · Post by **Dyv** » Thu Dec 09, 2004 8:28 pm

All factually correct (although with numerous explanations and bi-partisan agreement not just Bush, etc.)

And yet the facts are it was a good thing, has and will save lives and the cost is a pittance.

The cost for the war (through Fiscal Year 2004) is approximately $93.7 billion. Which sounds like a really big number if you're comparing it to dinner at a nice restaurant.

But the fact our Gov't budget is $1.5 TRILLION makes $93,700,000/$1,500,000,000,000 = about 6.25% of our budget. As those costs will clearly be spread out over at least 2 years (we're at 18 months already) you actually can easily say that number has been accounted for with about 3.125% of our budget.

That's about the same as someone making $60,000 per year playing in the NFFC. Something someone could afford to do every now and then but perhaps not every year.

In other words, $93.7 billion is a relatively small number.

Sure, it would be nice to have more money to toss all over the place and that $93.7B could have easily been used elsewhere. Still, can you so easily dismiss that cost as worthless and wasted money? Is it possible (just possible, mind you) that eliminating Saddam might actually save billions in damages prevented?

Just for the sake of argument, it appears some early estimates had the repair bills around 9-11 to be over $200 billion.

It's not as easy to just say 'him bad' like you want, Gordon... not saying I think Bush is bright or brilliant or right or anything else. But I feel safer now that we've invaded Iraq... and that money would have been spent by ANY government (Dem or Rep)on something stupid instead of something productive anyway. (who said "Big Dig"?)

Dyv

[ December 10, 2004, 02:32 AM: Message edited by: Dyv ]

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Thu Dec 09, 2004 10:53 pm

Originally posted by Dyv:
All factually correct (although with numerous explanations and bi-partisan agreement not just Bush, etc.)

And yet the facts are it was a good thing, has and will save lives and the cost is a pittance.

The cost for the war (through Fiscal Year 2004) is approximately $93.7 billion. Which sounds like a really big number if you're comparing it to dinner at a nice restaurant. can you clarify YOUR reasons when you think going to war is the correct decision. it sounds like in the case of iraq (correct me if i'm wrong), since we are saving lives and it doesn't cost much 'money' to do it, it's acceptable. am i close?

lichtman · Post by **lichtman** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 1:56 am

There are plenty of other countries out there where the dictators are killing thousands of their own people.

We haven't invaded those countries for two simple reasons. Americans couldn't care less about Africa and these countries have no oil.

6% of our budget when the government is cutting support to the National Science Foundation is an absolute travesty. At a time when we rank near the bottom of the inustrialized world in math and science scores among high schoolers, 6% is a lot.

The entire Department of Education Discretionary Budget request for 2005 was $57b -- so again, 6% is a lot.

[ December 10, 2004, 08:04 AM: Message edited by: I Cojones ]

Dyv · Post by **Dyv** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 6:12 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
quote:Originally posted by Dyv:
All factually correct (although with numerous explanations and bi-partisan agreement not just Bush, etc.)

And yet the facts are it was a good thing, has and will save lives and the cost is a pittance.

The cost for the war (through Fiscal Year 2004) is approximately $93.7 billion. Which sounds like a really big number if you're comparing it to dinner at a nice restaurant. can you clarify YOUR reasons when you think going to war is the correct decision. it sounds like in the case of iraq (correct me if i'm wrong), since we are saving lives and it doesn't cost much 'money' to do it, it's acceptable. am i close? [/QUOTE]That's a fair enough assessment, yes. Although I would add the removal of a serious threat to our future safety as an additional reason.

Dyv

Dyv · Post by **Dyv** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 6:25 am

Originally posted by I Cojones:
There are plenty of other countries out there where the dictators are killing thousands of their own people.

We haven't invaded those countries for two simple reasons. Americans couldn't care less about Africa and these countries have no oil.

6% of our budget when the government is cutting support to the National Science Foundation is an absolute travesty. At a time when we rank near the bottom of the inustrialized world in math and science scores among high schoolers, 6% is a lot.

The entire Department of Education Discretionary Budget request for 2005 was $57b -- so again, 6% is a lot. ICO, can you explain to me how we will benefit from Iraq's oil? To the best of my knowledge the only thing we have potentially done now is free them up to sell it to us. Wow... big impact.

As for other countries that fall into the same category of 'needing rescuing' you have to decide you are on one of two sides. Either you support us invading for humane reasons or you do not. You cannot ( I will not let you ) use the logic in any kind of intellectual debate to argue that we should never have done it in the first place and we should also do more of it if we do any at all. These things are not consistent, so pick a side of the debate to discuss and we can do so. I can argue we should and should not have but I won't

Finally, when the NSF wastes ridiculous amounts of money on things like researching housefly mating habits ($300k), etc. Well publicized and discussed wastes of money with ZERO possible gain (unlike a free Iraq`). The other fact you are letting the liberal media neglect for you is that the NSF budget has been exploded upward by about 30% the past 4 years so stepping back 6% of that isn't as big a deal as you seem to think.

Look at the facts, do some googling, don't just read a liberal article about how we're now going to eliminate science in the US. As for our education problems, I agree - let's fix them, but to me that doesn't mean throw a lot of money at it and hope it works.

Dyv

Route Collectors · Post by **Route Collectors** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 10:59 am

Dave for president!