Terrorism causes poverty

[Freedom]

Even though the recession is over, dems say to focus on the economy.

Poverty does not cause terrorism.
Terrorism causes poverty.

Poverty does not cause terrorism.
Terrorism causes poverty.

Can you imagine what would hapen if there were a biological or chemical attack in NYC?The economy in NYC would be toast. OUr country's economy would be toast. The economy of the entire world would be toast.

The 911 tragedy cost $18 billion to clean ground zero.
The 911 traged cost $367 billion the first month.

1.5 million jobs were lost from that one day.

bin Laden said he would go after our economy.

Poverty does not caust terrorism. HOWEVER, terrorism causes poverty.
________
HentaiBaby (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/cam/HentaiBaby/)

[WantaghDem]

Is Freedom saying that there is POVERTY in America?

A few newsflashes for you, dude: POVERTY existed in America before 9/11; NO "poverty" was CREATED by 9/11 (tho some was worsened by the poor BUSH RESPONSE to 9/11); POVERTY is bng worsened by BUSH POLICIES.


And here are the LIES we get TODAY from Freedom:

"1.5 million jobs were lost from that one day."

Well, well, well. Let's do some math, eh?

The Bush Administration admits that 3 million jobs have been lost since Bush took office. And the Bush Administration admits that 2.1 million of these were in manufacturing, the rest a mix of other sectors. So, add 2.1 million manufacturing to your supposed 1.5 million jobs lost on 9/11, and you get a minimum of 3.6 million jobs - NOT counting ANY OTHER JOBS LOST except for manufacturing and 9/11. HUH? They don't add up. So SOMEONE must be lying. Is it Bush? Is it YOU? I think I know who...

"The 911 tragedy cost $367 billion the first month."

No, it didn't. It could not have. This is impossible. Please cite your independently verifiable source for this nonsense.

This is from the Naval Postgraduate School:

"The destruction of physical assets was estimated in the national accounts to amount to $14 billion for private businesses, $1.5 billion for state and local government enterprises and $0.7 billion for federal enterprises. Rescue, cleanup and related costs have been estimated to amount to at l $11 billion for a TOTAL DIRECT COST of $27.2 billion."

Not even a TENTH of what your lies claim.

Your lies are not normally this easily dispensed with. What's the matter? PMS?
________
PRILOSEC WITHDRAW (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/prilosec/)

[Parent]

Fuzzy math by 2nd poster. I post on another board and the Democrats lie there, too.

Truth: The economy of the 90's was built on fraud and dect.

[Billybob]

I think it's a little peculiar to say that poverty does not cause terrorism.

What then DOES cause it? In my opinion, you ther have to acknowledge that the terrorists are lashing out because of LEGITIMATE GRIEVANCES, or you have to believe that they are somehow subhuman, or at l less human than Americans.

May I remind you that the British Empire saw India and it's native people as uncivilized, and Rome thought the very same thing about hey, the middle ! Were THEY right in holding such beliefs?
________
ALASKA DISPENSARIES (http://alaska.dispensaries.org/)

[WantaghDem]

...of "fuzzy math"!

That's ironic, and laughable!

PLEASE point out the so-called errors!

BUSH ADMIN SAYS: 3 million jobs lost

BUSH ADMIN SAYS: 2.1 of those were manufacturing

THAT MEANS 900,000 other jobs lost. NOT 1.5 million. And NOT ALL from 9/11.

SHOW me the "fuzzy math."
________
Dream E (http://www.cyclechaos.com/wiki/Honda_Dream_E)

[REBEL]

Dems say focus on the economy.

The funny thing about that statement is the media seems to be the only one listening to the DEMS request.

Democrats today are trying to rnstate the Fairness Clause. The Fairness Claus was in place when cities had three television stations, and was based on a principal of scarcity. Scarcity bng the reality that there were only so many television stations you could have based on the limitations of broadcast television. The fairness clause forced stations to give equal to both political parties. The fairness clausr was revoked in the 1980's with the evolution of cable, and UHF. The average market went from having three television stations to having almost 100 television stations.

The reality is Dems want to force talk radio stations to put on liberal hosts for the same amount of time they put on Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck.

Fundamentally what this is: the Dems are taking thr ball and going home. They are pouting children, who in the marketplace of ideas it was shown they had none, are now running to teacher saying they're picking on me.

The trick here is the evening news is exempt from the fairness clause. So CBS news will not be forced to put a conservative to counter Dan Rather, but Radio Stations who play Rush Limbaugh will be forced to put on three hours of the Tom Daschle Show.

I would rather listen to my pet rock. Heck, Mrs. Daschle would Rather Listen to my pet rock.

________
Fisting videos (http://www.fucktube.com/categories/20/fisting/videos/1)

[Freedom]

P O V E R T Y does not cause terrorism. Even leaving aside multimillionaire Osama bin Laden, the backgrounds of the September 11 killers indicates that they were without exception persons of privilege - all were ther rich Saudis and Egyptians, citizens of the wealthy Gulf, or rich sons of Lebanon, trained in and familiar with the ways of the West - not exactly the victims of poverty in Muslim dictatorships.

T E R R O R I S M causes poverty. With terrorism comes the cessation of business, trade, open markets, investment, good will, and at the very heart, trust. Industries die when a terrorist infrastructure is established. Jobs disappear, expectations of a bright future vanish and are replaced by expections of misery and ongoing fear.
________
LIVE SEX (http://camslivesexy.com/)

[WantaghDem]

Freedom: as a social scientist, I must inform you that you are wrong on two counts. Three, if you count your assertion that all 19 hijackers were wealthy and privileged individuals ...most were from relatively well-off families in the southwestern Saudi Arabian provinces, but they were not wealthy. But let's stick to your main premise, which is incorrect.

1. Poverty is one of the causes of terrorism (and that's debated among experts), but terrorism does NOT cause poverty. You are wrong...and you are wrong because of #2 - your misunderstanding of what poverty is.

2. Poverty is NOT the loss of trade and investment. Yes, terrorism can cause interruptions in business, but this is NOT poverty.

Poverty can be defined as the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions, or when people lack the means to satisfy thr basic needs.

This state cannot be accomplished by a terrorist attack. Attacks can cause problems for local and even national businesses, even severe problems, but not "poverty."

If you wish to say that terrorist attacks cause problems for people and businesses, some of which are so severe that some go bankrupt, that is different from saying terrorism causes poverty, which it doesn't. No matter what the people who tell you how to think say.
________
Masturbation Tubes (http://www.fucktube.com/categories/27/masturbation/videos/1)

[REBEL]

If a country's economy is destroyed by terrorism, this will lead to poverty; therefore, terrorism does cause poverty.

The "experts" who do not see this are wrong - dead wrong.
________
Shaved Pussy Cam (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/webcam/shaved/)

[WantaghDem]

....name one country whose entire economy was "destroyed" by terrorism. The ENTIRE economy, not a region, and NOT civil war, NOT revolution, but terrorism.

I'll be here.
________
BUY GLASS PIPES (http://glasspipes.net/)

[REBEL]

I said "IF" a country is destroyed by terrorism it will lead to poverty and that is what COULD happen to our country, but WON'T because we are fortunante enough to have President Bush as our president.

I KNOW you just like those little old Dem presidential candidates twist the truth when you are wrong, but the general public is more sophisticated than they used to be so it just isn't working.

Do not read this sentence WDem because it is for HONEST thinking people only: Did such regimes as, say, Iran, Afghanistan under the Taliban, or the late regimes in ern Europe and the Soviet Union actually make the life of ordinary citizens better, or worse?
________
HotJennisButt (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/cam/HotJennisButt/)

[WantaghDem]

....please name a country whose economy was destroyed by terrorism.
________
DEPAKOTE CLASS ACTION (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/depakote/)

[REBEL]

IF
________
Avandia Classaction (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/avandia/)

[Billybob]

Rebel, you are quite a scary fellow.

First of all, your commentary on the FCC media consolidation debate seems a little misinformed to me. Deregulation of any industry in this country has always resulted negatively. With the media, it is no different. Since Bill Clinton signed the first deregulatory act in the 90's, almost all of the national airwaves (meaning stations that reach the whole nation) have been bought up by 3 major corporations. In addition, all of these networks' CEOs are heavy Republican campaign contributors. And GASP, look at the 100% partisan vote for the recent FCC rulings. Why, did the THREE REPUBLICANS vote in favor of the CEOS? Yup. If you'd watched those hearings on CSPAN (I did), you would see how ridiculously obvious it is that those corporations are simply seeking the ability buy up more of the market (and additional markets), dominate more of the airwaves, and make billions more. It has nothing to do with fairness. It was really creepy to see that while the democratic senators on the committee asked real questions, and ultimately were VERY skeptical about passing this legislation, the Republican senators unanimously pledged thr support for passing it, one of them seeming even to suggest that it would help the war on terror! It's just nuts.

And next, you mention those "terrorist" countries ("Iran, Afghanistan under the Taliban, or the late regimes in ern Europe and the Soviet Union"), but don't seem to acknowledge much of the history of those countries. But more frighteningly, your statement relies solely on the labeling of those nations as "terrorist". I hope that despite your writing, you really do realize how EXTREMELY subjective the term "terrorist" is. England called the American colonists terrorists, as well as Ghandi's peaceful resistance movement. Are you really suggesting the Soviet Union was a bunch of terrorists?

And not only that, you don't acknowledge how the United States has been involved with those countries over the decades. Certainly the cold war contributed greatly to Soviet poverty. And Iran wouldn't exactly be the country it is today without the good ol' US of A. I'm NOT blaming America exclusively, but to seriously believe that terrorism alone created poverty in those countries seems a little silly.
________
Mercedes-Benz In Motorsport (http://www.mercedes-wiki.com/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_in_motorsport)

[WantaghDem]

...for admitting that no country's economy has EVER been destroyed by terrorism....even countries like Israel and Ireland, who have been dealing with terrorism for decades, have not had thr economies destroyed.

You have made a weak, if not totally incorrect point. Saying "if" doesn't do anything for your argument.

IF that were so, then we could claim ANYTHING is "correct" given enough IFs.

End.
________
Vaporizer (http://twitter.com/vaporizer)

[Neuro Axis]

The problem is defining the parameters of the debate. As others have already pointed out, terrorist is a totally subjective term. As is, for the purposes of this debate at l, the term poverty or economic ruin.

When Clinton bombed the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, it was then, and probably still is, the greatest cumulative death toll in history (the greatest instant death toll bng ther 9/11 or Hiroshima/Nagasaki, depending on how you look at it). It's hard to say because few are bothering to count and the US blocked a UN inquiry into the matter. The bombing was justified, according to New York Times columnists because the plant was producing terrorists supplies and weapons. It wasn't, and contrary to Micheal Moore's information (Bowling For Columbine), the plant wasn't just producing Aspirin, it was producing half the country's pharmaceutical supplies. The destrcution is unimagineable, but human toll aside this undoubtedly caused massive economic ruin in the already poor country. Because of the huge tide of disease and lack of hygiene the pharmaceutical business was thriving, until Clinton decided it should be put to waste. Imagine the reaction is Islamic terrorists had destroyed half of the medicines and pharmaceuticals in the US. The bombing did, and still does stand in violation of all international law, but requests for justice have mostly fallen on deaf ears. This is an example of a terrorist act that caused massive economic ruin in addition to the devastation effected upon the civilian population.

In Latin America there are even more stark examples. According to the World Bank, Latin American debt grew from $60 billion to $200 billion in just ten years (1970-1980). What happened was that the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) were encouraging leaders of Latin American nations to borrow huge loans, because according to the World Bank and IMF theories, the loans would pay for themselves. They didn't, and as happens in a lot of places in the world, the leaders and thr cronies borrowed huge sums of money and the largely poor population were left to foot the bill. Let's say I borrow $10 milion dollars from you and put it in a Swiss bank to gather interest. Is it your responsiblity, or anyone else's for that matter, to pay the money back? Of course not, but hawks and some doves frequently envoke the reasoning of 'the US lends out huge sums of money to other countries and never sees any of it back.' The EU may begin the lofty task of eliminating debt in Africa, responsibility for unparalleled suffering at the moment, when Ireland assumes the rotating presidency. Needless to say the US will not follow suit, and continue to lay the blame on the people of the countries that the money was loaned to. The result is a sustained campaign of what can only be deemed severe economic terror. From 1980-1990 the debt grew from $200 billion to $433 billion, and by the end of 1999 it was expected to be $700 billion. Meanwhile, from 1982-1996, some $740 billion has been sent to North American banks and the institutions themselves in order to pay off the debt. The debt will never be payed, it keeps escalating to unprecedented levels.

There are other examples of this kind of economic terror. Mexico was deemed by NAFTA to be an "economic miracle" with a "stellar reputation," since NAFTA's arrival in Mexico. But purchasing power has dropped by more than 40 percent since 1994, poverty is soaring and most people are poorer than thr parents, a little economic miracle that is sometimes called wiping out a generation of progress. Agriculture in the country is bng devastated by US-subsidized agricultural imports, manufacturing jobs have declined, manufacturing wages have decreased by 20 percent (Wall Street Journal). Brazil now faces the same problem that Mexico did in 1994, except Mexico had one important difference that Brzil does not: Mexico was a dictatorship, so it could not transfer the burdeon of debt to the poor while the rich stayed safe. Brazil was maybe too democratic, or too chaotic. Now that Mexico has an elected president, this may present a problem, the same problem recognized by a Pentagon workshop on NAFAT in early 1990. They found that a "democracy opening" in Mexico could result in a leader who was willing to "challenge the US on economic and nationalist grounds," which basically means a leader who would challenge that the scourge of debt be left on the people of Mexico. However there is little hope, because just as the problem was identified at the workshop, it was decided that NAFTA would lock countries like Brazil and Mexico into agreements like this with treaties.

This is certainly terrorism, and without a doubt one that has caused massive poverty. Of course, this is a definition of terrorism which rarely makes it into modern political discourse in the US, namely one that defines the US as a terrorist country, or 'rogue state.' But the principle remains the same.
________
Xxx Amateur Tube (http://www.fucktube.com/)

[WantaghDem]

El Shifa has more cumulative deaths than the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal? Chernobyl? And Hiroshima/Nagasaki deaths include instant as well as longer term radiation...El Shifa is STILL greater than these?

What numbers do you have on El Shifa?

This is a friendly question, not a challenge!
________
Blckpoizen (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/cam/blckpoizen/)

[Neuro Axis]

Quote: El Shifa has more cumulative deaths than the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal? Chernobyl? And Hiroshima/Nagasaki deaths include instant as well as longer term radiation...El Shifa is STILL greater than these?

Like I said, it depends on how you look at it. Bhopal was a major disaster, as were the examples I mentioned, but you have to decide whether you are looking at instant death tolls or cumulative. El Shifa probably had the longest lasting effects, because the country's economy is in such ruin, and because the Clinton bombings effected real damage on other sectors of whatever little economic activity the country had, a replacement for the work that El Shifa performed has not been possible. To say that El Shifa produced half of the country's pharamceuticals is a modest estimate, I have seen other sources claim that the plant produced anywhere from 60-70% of the country's medicines, and distributed them to other areas of Africa as well. Its abscence has caused infant mortality rates to skyrocket and life expectancy to plummet with dieases like Cholera and Tuberculosis bng at the leading edge. For the reason I mentioned, but more largely because few are paying attention, it is almost impossible to get an exact count of the dead. The most modest estimates place the cumulative dead at at l tens of thousands. Only last year the US unfroze the assets of the plant owner, so the death will continue for some time.

Of course, with the utilization of this explanation other examples come to mind, like Iraq where economic sanctions have cause the death of probably around a million people (when asked about her reaction to the fact that half a million children in Iraq had been killed in five years as part of what can only be deemed as biological warfare, then Secretary of State Madeline Albright resonded, "a though choice...but the price is worth it." Current estimates still remain at around 5,000 children a month); Serbia, where the bombings killed several thousand people but, more importantly, destroyed the industrial infrastructure, meaning the deaths of thousands more; or Cambodia, where unexploded mines and 'bombies' (anti-personal devices) are responsible for the deaths of about 20,000 people, with most of the fatalities concentrated among children; there are others.

________
Herbalaire Vaporizer (http://vaporizer.org/reviews/herbalaire/)

[Neuro Axis]

Also please allow me to apologize for the atrocious spelling mistakes in my last two posts. I was late for a class and had to type rapidly and I still have not been able to figure how to edit posts. Can anyone enlighten me?
________
Toyota avalon history (http://www.toyota-wiki.com/wiki/Toyota_Avalon)

[Poverty]

Show me poverty in America and I will show you homeless white guys bumming money by the side of the road. I will show you white families in the Appalachian mountains. The blacks may live in slums but that is because they have allowed them to deteriorate to that yet they still have nice cars and can afford crack and guns. as for the hispanics they are living like kings in this country. ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION causes DEFECIT which causes TAXATION which will cause poverty. Illegal Immigration will cause hospitals to fail is putting a strain on our school systems that has ruined our education for our American children, it has crippled our economy. They do not pay taxes they are a parasite on our entire country.

Here comes the wattadummy retort..."racist" you are brilliant wattadummy. You sociolist scum.:">

[WantaghDem]

No, clearly, you would have to actually have an education in order to even understand how to be a racist! No....you are clearly far too ignorant to be considered a racist...you have a long way to go, but you're on the road.

Your comments, however - and not my understanding of them, but just the comments themselves - clearly indicate that you judge people on the basis of thr race, and not the individual's character......what do they call that again?.....it's on the tip of my tongue......


And actually, TAX CUTS have caused THIS deficit, not the unbelievably small amount of money that has ANYTHING to do with illegal immigrants. It's virtually NOTHING.
________
Effects of wellbutrin (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/wellbutrin/)