Dell sued for "bait and switch" and false promises

Discussion in 'Dell' started by Timothy Daniels, Feb 27, 2005.

  1. Timothy Daniels

    Leythos Guest

    Do you really think the President can do anything on his own? Do you
    really think that the President could invade any country without all of
    the politicians backing it? Do you really think that the politicians or
    the public would have stood for going after terrorists in another country
    before it? Do you really think people would have put up with searches and
    intrusions on their lives before something happened?

    Get real - there was nothing that could have politically been done, it
    would have been stopped by the political BS that can't take action unless
    it is going to look good doing it.

    Oh, and Clinton could have stopped it, the info was there when the Cole
    was hit, when other sites were hit, when the WTC was planned, and his
    presidency, with nothing to lose (since they were on their way out) didn't
    do anything.

    Leythos, Mar 4, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Timothy Daniels

    Ben Myers Guest

    Well, not exactly on his own. Only by using the entire resources of the
    executive branch at his disposal.
    Yes. Backing for nailing the Taliban was nearly unanimous. The invasion of
    Iraq did not have ALL the politicians backing it. Not even close.
    Before 9/11, you mean? Probably not. But going after suspected terrorists in
    this country would certainly have been acceptable. Whether the Clinton or the
    Bush administration, the underlying CIA, FBI, DOD, and immigration bureaucracies
    all had the information about Arabs attending flight school. Unfortunately,
    their coordination and exchange of this information was totally inept.
    Well, personally, I would have taken great offense if somebody subjected me to
    search and intrusion. I'll bet that Mohammed Atta would have been pissed off
    had his life been intruded upon and he had been searched. The doctrine of
    probable cause would have supported searching his effects, but not yours or
    Let's see now. Clinton could have stopped it, but Bush couldn't, even after
    almost a year in office. Um, what's the difference? Both had access to the
    same information. One can hypothesize that Bush had access to even more
    information, gathered in the months since he had become president. But his
    adminstration chose to downplay and took no action on the warning of an
    impending attack orchestrated by Osama.

    BTW, I feel LESS safe these days, not more so. Tom Ridge's manipulation of the
    public with different colored levels of alertness was positively clownish, and
    left an image of complete ineptitude. Maybe the new guy will improve things.
    Since 9/11, I have been able to imagine scenarios where it would be VERY easy to
    mount a very effective terrorist attack here in the United States. I have not
    articulated these to anyone, but they scare the hell out of me.

    And don't get me started again about the economic drain of the war on our
    economy. Why do you think that the Berlin Wall fell and the USSR got broken up?
    Did it have ANYTHING to do with the huge sums of money and the lives lost in the
    futile Russian campaign in Afghanistan? You don't think that could happen here
    as a consequence of Iraq? The enormous deficits run up by the Bush regime are
    unprecedented in the history of this country. Together with the huge negative
    balance of payments in our world trade, the unsound economic policies of our
    government run the risk of precipitating an economic collapse unlike any seen
    since the Great Depression... Ben Myers
    Ben Myers, Mar 4, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Timothy Daniels

    Finnius Guest

    Answer: He is good at patiently sitting while a children's book is read to
    him. That's certainly something!!!
    Answer: Yes he can!. But of course he has to first manufacture lots of
    convincing evidence and get his Secretary of State and Director of the CIA
    to pitch it to the world. Unfortunately this approach it makes doing it a
    second time much harder.
    Answer: What? Did you only begin to read newspapers after September 11?
    Answer: I have asked for searches to be done at airports... they still just
    wave me through.
    Answer: Clinton did some stragetic bombing, sadly not enough. But Bush on
    the other hand has done way too much and has made the world much more
    unstable for years to come and destroyed the credibility of our intelligence
    gathering agencies. Forget about the lies spun about Iraq that convienced
    us (me) to go to war, but how shortsighted to not plan for what to do after
    we (USA) occupied the place. The anomosity that this war has generated has
    fueled a new hatred for the USA and has given birth to a new generation of
    terriosits. Just wait until they mature. Al Qaeda is already stronger and
    more diversified now than ever before. The short sighted belife that we
    (the USA) have brought the war to 'their' turf might prove to be the case
    today, but the long term view is the complete oposite.
    Finnius, Mar 4, 2005
  4. Timothy Daniels

    Irene Guest

    With all the advance warning that Sadam received, anyone that believes that
    he didn't move all his WMD development to either Iran or Syria, or both
    prior to the attack by the U. S., is living in a dream world.

    Irene, Mar 4, 2005
  5. irene, i don't believe that there is any dispute over the fact that the wmds
    simply did not exist. not from either side of the isle. it is largely now
    believed that sadam projected the idea that he had wmds in a hope to either
    keep iran or the usa out of iraq. you seem to believe otherwise. please
    explain the facts that you might base this on. thank you.

    Christopher Muto, Mar 4, 2005

  6. No, DON'T explain the "facts". This thread has gone to far off
    topic, already. CUT IT!

    Timothy Daniels, Mar 4, 2005
  7. No, but he could have started the notion of doing something.but he chose not

    Do you
    Not all but a majority

    Do you really think that the politicians or
    Before 9/11 nope
    After 9/11 yes

    Do you really think people would have put up with searches and
    of course not, of course, some still don't like the intrusions
    I was not saying that there should have something in place but Bush and the
    govt could have gotten something rolling but he chose to put the memo aside.

    Yes, Clinton could have stopped it too but he did not.
    Dan Sgambelluri, Mar 4, 2005
  8. Timothy Daniels

    Leythos Guest

    I agree with this at this point - when we went into Iraq there were no
    WMD's. At the same time, until the EXACT time that we started the Assault,
    I believe that there WERE WMD and that they were removed during the first
    weeks of our ultimatum before the action started.
    Leythos, Mar 4, 2005
  9. Timothy Daniels

    Leythos Guest

    Before that "Memo" there were other memo's about such actions, and before
    that too, and with all the left-wing morons, the green-peace idiots, the
    people that want freedom at the cost of security, etc... there was no way
    the masses of sheep in this country would have let them take care of it

    There was a time when I was being stopped at every terminal as I flew
    around the country, and then one day I asked "Why do I get searched at
    every gate?" and you no something - they told me and I've been able to
    change my schedule to avoid it almost completely (not at the terminal, at
    the gate before entering the plane).... Here's the thing, being old
    Military I didn't object to being incorrectly identified, searched at
    every gate, delayed in getting my seat, but there were many that did.
    After 9/11 many people accepted it as a fact of safety....

    While the US was limited by it's politicians and bleeding hearts screaming
    about being searched or monitored, they (those same groups) let out
    country be compromised. Now, we're stronger, more aware, less tolerant of
    it, better able to understand that there is a threat.
    Leythos, Mar 4, 2005
  10. I agree but Bush could have at least started something, and even if it
    didn't get passed, at least he tried.
    Dan Sgambelluri, Mar 4, 2005
  11. Timothy Daniels

    Leythos Guest

    You said it so well that I wanted to quote it again. It's amazing at all
    the Intel that indicates he did have WMD before we went in, and that
    during the warning period that all sorts of LARGE trucks left the country
    from factory/medical/military locations and entered Syria. People don't
    want to understand that - I wonder if it scares them that Syria has that
    stuff now and that's why they (those people you mention) are denying it -
    so that they don't have to be "As" afraid?
    Leythos, Mar 4, 2005
  12. Timothy Daniels

    Dogface Guest

    Let's see...

    1. Every intelligence agency of ours AND EVERY OTHER FOREIGN COUNTRY
    believed Iraq had WMD.

    now why would that be... hmmmmm... could it be... that

    2. He USED them to kill THOUSANDS, no, TENS OF THOUSANDS of Iraqis and
    IRANIANS during their war.

    or maybe that...

    3. He played every game in the book to deceive and obstruct U.N. inspectors
    (could some of have been bought off like the rest of the U.N. was?).

    but not to leave it there...

    4. Now why the hell would an Iraqi scientist be burying WMD machinery in
    his rose garden? Glow in the dark roses maybe???!!!

    Freakin' Monday morning quarterbacks around here that can't rememebr
    ANYTHING that doesn't suit their purpose....
    Dogface, Mar 4, 2005
  13. Timothy Daniels

    Dogface Guest

    I guess it means the average consumer is supposed to be able to take on the
    multi-national mega-conglomerate that shares the market with the other
    multi-national mega-conglomerate in a cozy relationship while the government
    stands idly by the wayside complaining they don't have enough resources to
    do anything.

    and the beat goes on... (usually on the top of the consumer's head)
    Dogface, Mar 4, 2005
  14. Timothy Daniels

    Irene Guest

    What do you call the poison gas shells that Sadam used to kill tens of
    thousands of his own people? Pellet guns?.
    Irene, Mar 5, 2005
  15. Timothy Daniels

    Dogface Guest

    In all likelyhood many more than 122 innocent people were killed across the
    United States today, and the day before and the day before....yet life goes
    on. We don't all just close up our clam shell and live in fear (but some
    do). And the Iraqi people are not clamming up. They all know the dangers,
    they are not idiots. They are CHOSING to go out and defy the animals that
    would terrorize and intimidate them. They did it in the last election and
    will continue to do it if given the chance and some help. Chose a chance
    for freedom instead of oppression? What sane human being would not do the

    So the real question is NOT are the Iraqis courageous enough to help
    themselves, but are WE courageous enough to help them beat back oppression?
    They have showed they ARE courageous enough. I fear too many here and
    especially in parts of Europe lack the courage and fortitude to fight what
    they know to be evil. Yes, they will TALK against it but that is where
    their support ends. Unfortunately that approach leaves "innocent people"
    dying in much greater numbers and in a much worse way.

    Dogface, Mar 6, 2005
  16. Timothy Daniels

    Dogface Guest

    You mean the "Social Security Trust Fund"? You mean the 3.7 TRILLION
    dollars that the government has looted from the people and spent instead of
    wisely investing it for the benefit of those people? The "Trust Fund" is
    3.7 TRILLION dollars of government IOUs that will start coming due in 13-20
    years. First, 50 billion a year then climbing to over 200 billion over a
    few years! Yup, nothing broke about this "system"! Funny how the Democrats
    were talking about fixing Social Security when Clinton was President but now
    demographics and world is NOT what is was when Social Security was started.
    To survive at all, it MUST change. All the theivery and lies of the
    politicians is coming home to roost. The day of reckoning is here. And we
    will all learn that, indeed, there is no free lunch!

    But don't worry about government workers and the politicians because they
    weren't stupid enough the include themselves in this wonderful "Social
    Security Trust Fund"!
    Dogface, Mar 6, 2005
  17. of course you realize that you didn't answer my question as to what evidence
    you know of regarding sadam moving his weapons. i am sure that is because
    you have none. no one with credibility has put forth this argument. there
    was an exhaustive unfettered search for weapons and evidence of where
    weapons may have once been manufactured or stored but nothing was found.
    there simply were no wmds to be found. it is quite amazing why some people
    remains confused about this point. but, to address your question of what i
    would call the story of sadam gassing his own people... i would call that an
    event that some people believed happened about 12 years before the current
    iraq war began and something that other don't believe ever happened.
    Christopher Muto, Mar 7, 2005
  18. Timothy Daniels

    Irene Guest

    Nor did you answer my question about where the WMD came from that he used to
    kill tens of thousands of his own people.
    If Sadam had no WMD, where did all those poison gas shells come from?

    As to, where it went. Numerous people testified that there was extensive
    heavy truck traffic out of Iraq in the months and weeks before the invasion.
    This testimony was widely televised and reported. Where were you at the
    time? I guess you believe Sadam was shipping out his money, huh? >g<
    Irene, Mar 7, 2005
  19. Timothy Daniels

    Irene Guest


    Twelve months or twelve years, it still happened and he had to have had the
    weapons. So, I guess you believe that he used them all up, killing his own
    people, huh?

    You go right on closing your eyes to the truth.

    Remember Chamberlain --He said Hitler wasn't a danger to England and was
    just trying to protect Germany's borders.

    And Eleanor Roosevelt's "agrarian reformers from the north".
    Irene, Mar 7, 2005
  20. Timothy Daniels

    Leythos Guest

    While many people are confused, or just ignorant, there are also many that
    watched the trucks leaving Iraq for Syria during the 10 days before the US
    entered Iraq, trucks leaving those facilities, truck traffic that was not
    seen before those last 10 days. It's quite amazing at how many people
    choose to ignore the fact that he was given plenty of time to ship those
    WMD's to other countries and that other countries welcomed them.
    Leythos, Mar 7, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.