Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

BIOLASE, Inc. Message Board

  • donchiandude_ot donchiandude_ot May 28, 2005 12:05 PM Flag

    From the Media Research Center

    The uranium bit is it the bottom...
    <
    <Clift & Moyers Denounce Rice's Lies,
    Shredding U.S. Credibility

    <<snip>>

    "As if that's not disturbing enough, look who is succeeding her as the President's National Security Adviser. His name is Stephen J. Hadley, Rice's Alter ego and deputy at the White House. The very same Stephen Hadley who failed to remove from the President's State of the Union message that phony statement about Iraq's search for uranium in Africa, despite having been warned by the CIA that it wouldn't hold up. The very same Stephen Hadley who in June of this year wrote this article in USA Today insisting that Saddam Hussein had links to al-Qaeda, despite the finding by the official 9/11 Commission that there was no operational relationship. And the very same Stephen Hadley who led the White House planning for the post-war period in Iraq, an occupation that can only be described as a debacle. I'm not making this up. It's all on the record. So instead of putting America's foreign policy in the hands of people who might have restored the country's credibility in the world, the President has turned it over to two of the people who helped shred it. Both are known first and foremost for loyalty to the official view of reality, no matter the evidence to the contrary."

    As for the "phoney statement" about Iraq seeking uranium from Africa, Britain's Butler report backed the British claims about that. As noted in a July 15 Wall Street Journal editorial:
    "Like the Senate Intelligence findings, the Butler report vindicates President Bush on the allegedly misleading '16 words' regarding uranium from Africa: 'We conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that 'The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa' was well-founded.'" See: www.opinionjournal.com>>

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • rivvir, Could you parse this sentence for me. I have read it several times and it still makes no sense:

      "further if so, if you can't see socialism in aarp's group benefit, and partake in socialism where YOU benefit and don't give a damn about others benefitting from something else that you don't like because you don't benefit, sorry, i'll never get the idea through to you."

      I think your trying to say that in your opinion group discounts are socialist. This is wrong, IMHO. They are actually capitalistic in that they reduce marketing cost and allow the provider the opportunity to share those reduced cost with his customer.

      Giving groups rates for old folks who have more free time on their hands than most was indeed a master stroke for AARP's founder, but it has nothing to do with their political agenda. IMHO, the large majority of AARP members either disagree or don't care about AARP's political agenda.

    • "Mainly it is reduced entertainment admission, travel and car rental pricing." "These savings have nothing to do with their social agenda."

      do you get these at reduced pricing due to the group benefit? if so, they have everything to do with their social agenda. further if so, if you can't see socialism in aarp's group benefit, and partake in socialism where YOU benefit and don't give a damn about others benefitting from something else that you don't like because you don't benefit, sorry, i'll never get the idea through to you. i hope you find your conservative socialistic group.

      please use your ot handle if you reply. even if you don't i'll sight ignore it anyway. regards

    • rivvir, I should have explained which benefits I use. Mainly it is reduced entertainment admission, travel and car rental pricing. (I got more off two tickets to Sea World last Spring than my membership cost). These savings have nothing to do with their social agenda. In fact I have found their insurance rates for life, health and cars to be laughable. Likely these fat rates support the organization and guarantee the elderly users remain impoverished. LOL

    • Rivvir, you probably won't see this, but I'm asking anyway:

      How exactly is an advocacy organization a automatically a socialist group?


      Please 'splain this to me.

      DD

    • just had to see this one due to the response title for the one to you.

      let's see, you'd join a conservative organization that provides benefits through its socialist policies, the benefit of the group, is that what you're saying PKewl?(lol) i guess you go socialist when it's to your advantage, your joining aarp for the benefits, yet you'd go to the conservative group if they offered the same socialist benefits. no, not lol; hahahahaha, roftmfao! no, i'm not even going to look at your answer, that's for the benefit of everyone else here. hahahahahahaha, i can't stop!!!

    • You just wrote my post.

    • frank_is_orin_scrivello_dds frank_is_orin_scrivello_dds Jun 2, 2005 11:48 AM Flag

      Over 60,000 shares already

    • Pucky, I'm an AARP member. They send out a news letter a nd a magazine. They shallowness of the discussion on Social Security is amazing.

      They are constantly writeing profiles of 80 year old widowed school teachers who "were never able to save" anything in the 30 years they spent working and "don't know what they'd do if Socail Security benefits were cut."

      No one ever asks they people WHY in 30 years they couldn't set aside just $100/month or what the heck they were thinking when they retired at 55 because thats all they needed for their full pension.

      The articles also fail to mention that todays retirees or even those scheduled to retire in the next 10 years won't see a single change in their benefits.

      They acknowledge the fact that benefits are rising faster than inflation, but AARP view adjusting for this error as a cut in benefits. Sigh.

      I belong to AARP for the benefits, not for their politics. I'd drop them in a heart beat if there were a conservative organization with similiar benefits. I wonder how many other AARP memebers would?

    • AARP has come out specifically against the "privitization" option and that must mean they are concerned that SS participants who enhance their retirement prospects will no longer view AARP as a resource to lean on.
      But I've not heard them speak against this feature being included in Congressional retirement programs. Or in selected State Retirement programs. Why would they be against it for one group and neutral on it for yet another group? Something smells here.
      Anybody from AARP on this board with the knowledge and moxie to reply?

    • My only guess with the AARP thing is they realize that the current system, while unsustainable, is giving them a tremendous deal, sort of like winning the senior lottery. Basically it's the same disease affecting most other layers of the political scene: fear and selfishness.

      Regards

      DD

    • View More Messages
 
BIOL
1.510.00(0.00%)Jul 30 4:00 PMEDT