Dell sued for "bait and switch" and false promises

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

    1. Advertisements

  1. Timothy Daniels

    Dogface Guest

    and something that other don't believe ever happened.

    Please explain this statement. You seem to imply that the gassing of
    thousands of Kurds by Saddam was a hollywood production and not reality. Do
    *you* actually question the authenticity of the reports and evidence? Was
    it a plot to frame Saddam? Are you relying on some crockpot website from
    the Netherlands for your "facts"? You just put one major league hole in
    your credibility with that link posting. No wonder you live in a
    fantasyland when it comes to these matters.
     
    Dogface, Mar 7, 2005
    #82
    1. Advertisements

  2. the article from the netherlands was presented because it is concise and
    well written. since we are dealing with a subject that requires a longer
    attention span than most people seem willing or able to supply i thought it
    might help get the point across quickly. it be interested to know why you
    say you have determined that site to be "crackpots". if you want more
    details from mainstream news source like the new york times then have a look
    at the additional links provided earlier today that discuss the matter in
    more detail. of course you are welcome to do your own web search on the
    subject where you will find lots more of the same including the fact that
    the un investigation did not conclusively state who gased who despite what
    some people suggest otherwise. and yes, saddam had ample warning of an
    invasion so had time to move weapons if he had them, but isn't an invasion
    exactly the sort of thing that one who would build such weapons use them
    for? you think he is saving them to use against his own people should he
    some how get back in to power one day? and don't forget that saddam was
    ordered by the un to destroy all of his weapons in 1991 after the first bush
    gulf war and inspectors did determine through their difficult seven years of
    inspections that a sizeable amount of the weapons were destroyed though it
    remained unclear what may have been left: http://tinyurl.com/5zzao
     
    Christopher Muto, Mar 7, 2005
    #83
  3. Timothy Daniels

    Irene Guest

    I couldn't have said it better, myself.

    I have been reading this guy's posts for well over a year and this thread is
    typical of his opinions and his politics.

    He falls right in line with Neville Chamberlain and his backers during the
    late 1930's. They closed their eyes to the truth until Hitler's bombs
    began falling on their homes.

    I sincerely hope it doesn't take something similar to open Christopher's
    eyes, but I am afraid that it just might.

    Irene
     
    Irene, Mar 8, 2005
    #84
  4. Timothy Daniels

    Ben Myers Guest

    Interesting concept: "the truth". Comparisions to Chamberlain and Hitler are
    nice and all, but what most people here and elsewhere are arguing about is WHAT
    IS THE TRUTH. Do ANY of us here know the truth, the real true facts, about
    Iraqi WMD? Unfortunately, NONE of us KNOWS the truth about WMD. Everyone here
    has his or her BELIEF about what is the truth.

    Governments have the ability to manipulate the truth. It's called propaganda.
    The current administration certainly spreads propaganda. So did the Clinton
    administration. And the administration of Bush the First. And the Russians
    under Putin and all of his predecessors. And so on and so on and so on.

    So let's lay off the character assissinations and rock throwing at one another
    and go solve some Dell-ish problems... Ben Myers
     
    Ben Myers, Mar 8, 2005
    #85
  5. Timothy Daniels

    Dogface Guest

    "By HNN Staff" who the hell is this? Some clown in his underwear
    concocting some fantasy world?

    "http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/who.htm" IS SOME CLOWN IN HIS
    UNDERWEAR! PLEASE TAKE SOME TIME TO INVESTIGATE THE SOURCES OF YOUR
    "INFORMATION"!

    "in all likelihood, Iranian gas killed the Kurds". The Kurds had always
    fought Saddam. The Iranians had just lost hundreds of thousands fighting
    Saddam. So now we're supposed to believe that one sworn enemy of Saddam
    would have gassed another sworn enemy of Saddam? Yes, this makes complete
    sense to somebody smoking crack!
    I find much more believeable that the Kurds were trying to take advantage of
    Saddam's focus on fighting Iran to expand it's territorial control in the
    north. Saddam's perceived weakness after the long war emboldened the Kurds.

    And if you think the New York Times is some great source of truth might I
    remind you of the name Jayson Blair, ace fantasy writer for the NYT. The
    NYT editorial staff is just a tad to the right of some of the communist
    newspapers for crying out loud. But that seems to be where you lean so
    you're probably comfortable reading the "blame America first" editorialists.

    If there are a lot of other people like you out there reading and believing
    this sort of garbage it is a scary thought indeed. It is no wonder there
    are crackpots that still believe the Holocaust never happened and the moon
    landing was staged on a Hollywood backlot. Truly scary.
     
    Dogface, Mar 8, 2005
    #86
  6. Timothy Daniels

    Irene Guest

    WHAT
    Strange that you should make that argument. I think some research on your
    part will show that this was one of the arguments put forth by Chamberlain
    and his supporters.
     
    Irene, Mar 8, 2005
    #87
  7. Timothy Daniels

    Leythos Guest

    Let me explain something about Truth - there are sheep that follow CNN and
    other news outlets and then there are people that have been there and seen
    "things" with their own eyes.

    If you can't understand the trucks leaving designated facilities and
    traveling to Syria, where there was no truck traffic of that type before,
    then you are indeed one of the sheep.

    I've been on operations where news reports contradicted what we did, where
    things were reported completely wrong, and also where nothing was reported
    at all. What you hear on TV is what they want you to hear/see.
     
    Leythos, Mar 8, 2005
    #88
  8. instead of calling my thinking that of a crack addict, and calling the new
    york times garbage, please site some references to support your position and
    tell us what you consider to be credible sources of information. it is
    easy to make unsubstantiated blanket statements and to reduce yourself to
    name calling, but it does not help your argument to not provide any
    references whatsoever... lazy people may take you at your word, but i am not
    so easily convinced and so ask you (again) for some references. also,
    please keep emotion and name calling out of this. you have an opportunity
    here to convince an open minded person of your position, but if you continue
    with hollow emotional responses you do yourself a disservice and i will just
    dismiss your statements as completely superficial.
     
    Christopher Muto, Mar 8, 2005
    #89
  9. Timothy Daniels

    Ben Myers Guest

    We can all look back on Chamberlain and Hitler with the best of 20-20 hindsight.
    Hey, if someone wants to use that analogy to compare with present day Iraq,
    fine. And that gives me license to compare the present situation with the
    Russian disaster in Afghanistan. The Russian government was just about
    bankrupted by the years and years and billions spent fighting Afghani
    insurgents. The USSR broke up into its constituent independent republics. The
    one-time Russian satellite states became independent countries. The Berlin Wall
    came down and East and West Germany came together again. All this happened as a
    direct result of Russia peeing away its wealth in Afghanistan.

    Today, I see the US government rolling up massive debts to fight a war,
    justified or not, essentially all by itself. (Yes, we have many "allies"
    helping out in Iraq, but maybe 90% of the manpower and expense fall on the US.)
    I see a huge balance of payments deficit, which has made it possible for foreign
    interests to buy up US companies. (The bank I deal with is now owned by a
    banking consortium in Scotland. The John Hancock insurance company is now owned
    by a Canadian company. Etc.) I see tax cuts favoring the wealthy, in the face
    of the huge deficits. The consequence is not that we'll win the battle and lose
    the war. The consequence is that we've won the war and are in grave danger of
    losing the economic battle. The combination of government debt and balance of
    payments deficit is a recipe for economic disaster. Even Greenspan has
    articulated his concerns about the situation, and many people have caricatured
    Greenspan as the economic toady of the Bush administration.

    In the meantime, we've got a corroding infrastructure of highways, bridges and
    railroads, and an ever weaker public education system at all levels from K
    through college.

    What's wrong with this picture? Am I an alarmist or what? What I've portrayed
    here is 90% facts and truth and 10% opinion. Go ahead. Disagree with the
    facts... Ben Myers
     
    Ben Myers, Mar 8, 2005
    #90
  10. Timothy Daniels

    Leythos Guest

    You missed the big picture - we went in to remove the massive oppressive
    government that sponsored terrorism and other things. Our goal is not to
    run the country, but to install a government of the respectable people
    with their own ability to govern and protect themselves. The Russians
    didn't have that intent and were not trying to do the same.
     
    Leythos, Mar 8, 2005
    #91
  11. Timothy Daniels

    Ben Myers Guest

    I DO see the big picture. I do not dispute that Russia had different goals in
    Afghanistan that the US has in Iraq.

    *** The big picture issue here is the massive deficit spending by the US
    government. ***

    If someone had been able to look at the Russian govt budget and actual spending
    back then, I'm sure it would have equated to massive deficit spending.
    Regardless of the goals, the deficit spending for a war by both governments is
    not healthy in an economic sense. Pointing out the different goals of Russia
    and the US simply deflects the real issue I raised. The US government is trying
    real hard to sweep the war deficit issue under the carpet, which is one reason
    why it has lost its credibility in my household... Ben Myers
     
    Ben Myers, Mar 8, 2005
    #92
  12. Timothy Daniels

    Leythos Guest

    You're wrong Ben, I've not seen anyone or party try to hide the deficit or
    even spending on the war. In fact, it's been very public.
    No, I addressed the issues that were raised in your prior post, maybe you
    didn't state your real issue. This war is nothing like anything else, and
    it's not a conventional war with a single target, it's fluid and has no
    fixed country to target.
    This is one of the first governments to actually have any credibility
    since Nixon in my opinion.
     
    Leythos, Mar 8, 2005
    #93
  13. Timothy Daniels

    Ben Myers Guest

    Oh, yeah. Nixon was so marvelously credible that he is the only President in
    the history of our country to resign in disgrace. Apt comparison between Nixon
    and Bush!

    .... Ben Myers
     
    Ben Myers, Mar 8, 2005
    #94
  14. Timothy Daniels

    Leythos Guest

    Clinton has been the only disgrace we've had - "I did not have sex with
    that woman". Heck, Nixon didn't do anything all the other presidents
    didn't/haven't done before/since, he just got caught.

    Are you missing the in one short meeting that Syria is changing it's
    position on it's troops - and that it was ONLY because of Bush that they
    are leaving?
     
    Leythos, Mar 8, 2005
    #95
  15. Timothy Daniels

    Ben Myers Guest

    I agree that Clinton was not the paragon of integrity. But there is a large
    difference between getting caught having sex at work and getting caught
    masterminding the Watergate break-in to steal an election. Nixon is still the
    only president in our history to be forced to resign, whether one considers his
    resignation a disgrace or not. Had he not resigned, he would have suffered the
    impeachment process, been found guilty of masterminding the break-in, and shoved
    out of office anyway. Sounds pretty disgraceful to me... Ben Myers
     
    Ben Myers, Mar 8, 2005
    #96
  16. Timothy Daniels

    Irene Guest

    Every heard the saying: Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of
    history are doomed to repeat them?
     
    Irene, Mar 9, 2005
    #97
  17. Timothy Daniels

    Irene Guest

    I don't completely disagree with you. But the majority of the deficit is
    being caused by foreign aid that we give to countries that neither deserve
    nor need it and wasteful government bureaucracies.




     
    Irene, Mar 9, 2005
    #98
  18. Timothy Daniels

    Bea xx Guest

    What's wrong with this picture? Am I an
    Sorry Ben but I don't think the "alarm" is going to be set off in time
    to protect our country from the financial ruin this so called "War" has
    and is going to cause. If only people like yourself had been able to
    set off that alarm before a certain President got a SECOND chance at
    this insanity. I just wonder if our deficit can take 4 more years of
    abuse. If this keeps up, no one will have money enough to buy Dell or
    Shinook Computers! It's so very sad that even the most intelligent of
    our citizens cannot see the reality of what is truly happening here.
    Just my opinion and these days, it isn't worth much.

    Bea
     
    Bea xx, Mar 9, 2005
    #99
  19. Timothy Daniels

    Irene Guest

    "masterminding". You don't honestly believe that Nixon planned that mess do
    you? I am not a big fan of Nixon, but I am intelligent enough to know that
    things like that are left up to "underlings".
    As to the stealing of elections. If you want a class A example of a stolen
    election, it was JFK and his bootlegger of a father using the Mafia to steal
    that election. The only class that Nixon ever showed was his decision to not
    challenge it in court. The same class that Gore clearly demonstrated he did
    not possess.




     
    Irene, Mar 9, 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.