Well, we are now closing newspapers in Iraq. So much for our quest to bring democracy and freedom to poor Iraqi people.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/8308324.htm
Hope some of those weasels on this board now feel a bit of shame for insulting our intelligence! But I don't think so, the word shame is not in their lexicon.
Do you remember some of those shameless pundits [that sick pschotic, Miller] would say, yes, we are going there for oil. Have you seen the price of oil and gasoline recently????
Over $200 B in wasted resources { nearly 90 miilion households, this means over $2,000 per household, and we are supposed to jump up and down with a $400 tax cut! }
What a discovery to examine the brain of those who make less than $500k/year, or are not white, voting for Republicans this time around.
It's outrageous.
Even our 1st Amendment Rights have limits. We have laws against Sedition even in our Free country.
To continue to allow a seditious media in lieu of today's reports of murder (publicly) of international workers in Iraq would be at the very least naive and more probably stupid. Iraq is not yet a democracy, once they have one, they can decide whether or not to allow a violence promoting and hate filled newspapers to exist! Something that would never have had a ice cubes chance in hell of happening under Saddam!
You may think that we wasted our resources in ridding the world of Saddam, I disagree. The price tag for doing nothing has already been experienced in 9/11. Historically just look at the price tag for Neville Chamberlain's appeasement policies during the late 1930's.
I hardly make $500K a year, I can remember the tax increases under Clinton, Carter and Johnson however. I also remember that Kerry voted for the $0.50 per gallon gas tax last time it raised its head and that would cost American's a shit load more than your projected $2,000.00 over the next four years! And I have no problem with letting the American people do whatever they want with their OWN MONEY, even if it is on $400.00 per year!
I remember that you are involved in international trade, you should be encouraged by the reports today in the WSJ that international orders are increasing for American Manufacturer's after a three year slump. I would assume you believe that it would increase even faster with Kerry licking the balls of Chirac, Schroeder and the other UN weenies, maybe so, but at what price to our Sovereignty?
This $150k per year American is voting Republican with a keen eye on what democratic presidents have done to this country in the past!
yep the last few rebulican administration have been so honarable....iran-contra , pardons to the people involved in iran-contra , oliver northwarning bonzo on osama , record deficits, bonzo now the chimp, bibles signed br reagen to the idiots in iran...... panama, another real big danger to the us of a , were still lookng for wmd there , arent we ??
tax breaks to the privileged few , wich some in here have admitted to being in ,...but lets not raise the the minumum wage to the majority of the working class, will cut the profits for us select few ! lets see what we can do about overtime pay too....more money for us !
last couple democrat administrations brought , hmmmmm....record surplus , clinton, peace .eygpt-isreal, almost peace palestinians - isreal!, better human rights, less restrictions on our personal freedoms. less religion in govt.
oh yeah , the lie abot the stain on the blue dress, ...how many people died because of that lie , wich was noones fugging buisness to begin with , compared to the bullshit lie of iraq ????
Did he have Hitler boxed in with no fly zones over most of Germany and also have weapons inspectors inside Germany looking for and dismantling their weapons programs?
You call it murder but WTF, do these people not have the right to defend their country - yes I know they are international workers but WAR is WAR. Do you think some Iraqis are not happy with the US invasion. Are they supposed to just say okay bribite show us how to live now.
Your attitude is exactly why the US is so hated by many - you think the US is so righteous and everyone should just roll the fuck over so your $150k can reach $500k.
Cameltoe: Clinton, peace? The President who sent our Military on more deployments than any other President in the history of our country? What's the point, your post reveals your ability to think critically, mainly the lack of.
Boogie Boy: In lieu of the newest UN scandal, "Kofi-Gate" where it appears that billions were funneled to Kofi, the French, Germans, Russians and some US officials (Clinton Officials), the no fly zone was a joke! Furthermore, Saddam himself was condoning terrorism in Israel with funds for suicide bombers families, what he was doing under the radar is anybody's guess. BTW, it is quite obvious that the terrorist don't need their own air force to accomplish their deadly and inhuman deeds.
Ilcar: "War is War"? Are you fucking kidding me? That was not a act of war, it was barbaric murder and mutilation of four unarmed Americans by an evil and inhuman people! Unlike yourself, I don't consider this a "Popularity Contest"! You think my "attitude" is now responsible for those sicko fucks killing, burning, beating and hanging our people? And to your questions " Are they supposed to just say okay bribite show us how to live now.", no, I just want them dead for it! In deference to you, I would not shoot them, fire a grenade at them, burn them, beat their dead carcasses, and hang their dead bodies from a bridge, sending them to meet Allah would be enough for me!
BTW, look for a major crackdown in the Sunni Triangle within a week! Hopefully with street trials!
of defenders of this administration. You compare apples to oranges and when you're called on it, bring up pears.
Your faith in a obviously corrupt UN is beyond belief. But then it has been said that people who don't believe in something will believe in anything. You're a poster boy for that crowd.
In which of my two posts in this thread (or any on this site, for that matter) did I even mention the UN? Hmmm, looks like I didn't. In fact, these are the only posts I've made on a political topic. So with nothing to go on besides the fact that I questioned your logic in defense of the Bush administration, you know all about my beliefs and my position on the UN. I have to admit, one thing I admire about you Bushies is your ability to shout down opponents while being completely oblivious to how foolish you look.
"Did he have Hitler boxed in with no fly zones over most of Germany and also have weapons inspectors inside Germany looking for and dismantling their weapons programs? "
"Did he have Hitler boxed in with no fly zones over most of Germany and also have weapons inspectors inside Germany looking for and dismantling their weapons programs?"
The "he" in that sentence is Chamberlain. The UN didn't exist at that time.
He has been blinded by all his shiny gold coins.
Rico
A matter of history: John Adams was turned out of office, and ruined his party, the Federalists, with his use of sedition laws.
The idea that we can occupy-in a democracy without a plan has flaws. We were able to do something of the sort with Germany and Japan, but only after they were exhausted from years of war. What will we have to do to exhaust Iraq?
Doing nothing and keeping Saddam in power did not cause 9/11. If not for his invasion of Kuwait, he would have been one of our allies against Islam extremists-- and was. It's perhaps true that doing "something" else might have saved us the agony of 9/11, but besides doing "something" there's a such thing as doing the wrong "something," and that's exactly what this is.
If your policy is to let Americans keep their own money, fine. Dissolve and liquidate the government, and let them have all their money. Do you think that will work? Do you think their lives will be better? That they can be guaranteed to have anywere to spend their money?
This policy of tax cuts is a bait and switch in every repect. Republicans in office intend very much to collect their own paychecks with taxes, filter favors to their cronies, and screw the rest of us, including their voting constituency. They're not going to cut their own pay to do this. They don't intend to have "less" government, because no one votes for a government, or gets into it with the idea that they will do nothing. Would you vote for a government that did nothing? Wouldn't that be a cheap, efficient government, though?
We censored the news in Japan, Germany, Italy, etc after WWII. The Arab media is replete with lies, check out the link below for daily updates of what horseshit is being written in the Arab Media. Not closing that newspaper would have been idiotic! Furthermore, if it was allowed to continue to spread lies and incite the people, you would have blamed Bush for allowing it to continue to operate.
Saddam was used to hinder what most considered a more severe threat to the region - Iran led by Islamist madmen! (Which of course we can thank Jimmy Carter for)And it worked! Iran was hammered. He was hardly an ally, although some would call france an ally too, until you need them.
I find it interesting that those of you on the left ALWAYS break down and whine when it comes to tax cuts! Nobody insinuated dissolving government! But you go there immediately, like a frightened little girl running, screaming with your hands in the air. Talk about knee jerk reactions, I'm glad that you were most likely sitting down when you wrote that, you probably jerked your knee on the bottom of your desk.
http://www.tarleton.edu/~polisci/DemSeal.html
Take a moment to read your post:
"Republicans in office intend very much to collect their own paychecks with taxes"
What does that mean?
I find it interesting that Kerry, a very rich man, wants to tax those "earners" with higher incomes at a higher rate, when will he come up with a tax for the FUCKING FILTHY RICH like himself? He doesn't pay shit on his RICHES! (Which by the way he didn't earn!) He doesn't want to tax the rich, he wants to keep people from becoming rich! And a shitload of Americans are too stupid to see that very blatant truth.
I could tell by your titleing here that you've taken this personally. I'll answer you point by point over a few posts:
B:
"We censored the news in Japan, Germany, Italy, etc after WWII."
Z:
Then we had a government that had a plan and a clue. We *censored* them, but as far as I know, we didn't have to close papers. We especially didn't wait until they committed an especially vile atrocity until we noticed the press was out of hand.
I will also state that invading Iraq after 9/11 makes about as much sense as invading Spain after Pearl Harbor. What would have been wrong with allying with India and together invading both Pakistan and Afghanistan?
My question comes down to Bush's competence, not his agression.
His invasion of Iraq has been ill-conceived, and he brought us into Iraq without a plan. If Bush's people had put a censorship plan in place to begin with, we wouldn't have had to close papers, thus avoiding this debacle of trying to bring freedom to Iraq while we send storm troopers to close their papers.
I took exception to your knee-jerk connection to domestic sedition, and conservatives right now have developed some very
jerky knees. More about that in subsequent posts.
/Zin
B:
"Saddam was used to hinder what most considered a more severe
threat to the region - Iran led by Islamist madmen! (Which
of course we can thank Jimmy Carter for)And it worked! Iran
was hammered. He was hardly an ally, although some would call
france an ally too, until you need them."
Z:
Then I take it you agree with me here. Are you surprised? This
is close to exactly what I was saying. He was our ally, or perhaps as you prefer to believe, our dupe. As a secular state, Iraq had nothing in common with Osamas or Ayatollahs. If not for his dispute against Kuwait, Iraq would still be our lynchpin in the region.
Having restored this, BTW, would have been of growing importance as Saudi Arabia destabilizes, as it undoubtly will now. We've lost that opportunity.
Invading Iraq after 9/11 was a major strategic blunder. It makes as much sense as invading Spain after Pearl Harbor (Franco was a bad guy too, BTW). Moreover, it actually damages us much more. The better strategy would have been to ally with India and take out both Pakistan and Afghanistan. Bush had other reasons for taking out Saddam, and as it has come out, and they predated 9/11, as Paul O'Neill's book has made clear. The fact that
Bush was unwilling or unable to change his strategy after 9/11, says something about his ski. If he doesn't deserve impeachment, he deserves de-election, on principle.
/Zin
On vacation, my internet access is restricted. I'm forced to work off line with notepad. I cut & paste and then fix the text. It hasn't worked very well. And with that one post, I had to "take it to press" before I was ready.
/Zin
B:
"I find it interesting that those of you on the left ALWAYS break down and whine when it comes to tax cuts! Nobody insinuated dissolving government!"
Z:
You don't insinuate it because you've never thought it through. If you were ever smart enough to think it through, you wouldn't insinuate it, because quite possibly you would stop being conservative.
About taxes, conservatives are vegans. Your tax-aversions are
just as unhealthy and ill-considered. Unlike vegans, you're forcing everyone onto the same diet. I'll put it in your terms: you're girly about it. Like anorexic little girls.
A person who feels too guilty to eat animal products is similar to a government made too guilty to tax. Both are ruining their
health, both run quite the same risk of ceasing altogether. There has never, ever, been an animal that hasn't sustained itself by plundering other life. It's intrinsic to the design. Similarly, there has never been a national government that
could sustain itself without taxes. Period. A shitty deal I agree. We're stuck with it. Unless you can radically redesign either animal physiology or government, imposing guilt about it is just suicide. BTW, conservatives show no ability to redesign government so to exist with no taxes or less taxes.
You put a fine spin on this guilt you're shoving down our throats: to give people more of "THEIR OWN" money, as you put it. It's money, BTW, that means nothing without a strong government to print it, to defend it, to guarantee it,
to allow them to save it or spend it safely with any choice. Bush has given people immediately "THEIR OWN" money, at the cost of all of the rest. The paradox: we get a little more money while we still get poorer. Some deal.
You mentioned before Kerry licking Chirac and Schroeder's balls at the price of our sovereignity. Let's look at what Bush has done for our sovreignity now. China and Japan are now financing both our government and consumer debts. These are Bush's hidden "taxpayers," and they will demand representation as time goes on. They will continue finance us as long as they need to sell to the American consumer market, until that market is exhausted, or until they just get fed up with us. This is on the horizon. The consumer market is approaching its limit. We have record consumer debt. So, the question is, what concessions do we make to keep them from cashing in? By comparison, licking Chirac's balls would probably to be tasty, and a lot more manly, I will add.
/Zin
And he looks like he just suffered a very bad round of golf.
Tell your conservative friends to choose a graphic that looks less like a republican.
Also, your memri link is very useful, but I can' find the specific excerpts from the Arab media you're talking about. I need a better link.
I do anticipate that when I find them that the "horseshit" aroma you refer to will remind me of Ann Coulter's book. Horseshit fed from different fodder.
/Zin
"Talk about knee jerk reactions, I'm glad that you were most likely sitting down when you wrote that, you probably jerked your knee on the bottom of your desk."
There was a time when liberals ran out of ideas, lost their fire, went brain-dead, and only the reflexes remained active, the famous "jerky knees." It was this exhaustion that Ronald Reagan was able to exploit.
That time, however, is now at an end. Now conservatives have lost their intellect, they've lost their fire, have exhausted their energy, and they rely more their autonomic reflexes for their political action. A good example is your quip above about "jerky knees." It wasn't funny, it referred to a cliche about 25 years out of date.
But conservatives are the original "knee jerks" aren't they? As Rush Limbaugh would say, in an alternate universe where Rush was actually intelligent, "My friends, being a conservative is the easiest thing in the world. All you have to do is look at what people have always done before and say, 'I'm all for it. In fact, I'm a fanatic about it.'"
What can be more of a reflex than that?
/Zin
B:
(Quoting me) "'Republicans in office intend very much to collect their own paychecks with taxes.'"
What does that mean?
Z:
Is the concept that daunting for you? Or is it just heresy, so you can never consider it? The Republican leadership intends very much to enrich themselves in the tax-cutting business. I'm talking Republicans and their fellow travelers at the head of select companies. They will cut taxes selectively, where it doesn't damage their economic interests. When it eventually sabotages and undermines the government, they are going to retire to a quiet life in Belize or the Cayman Islands.
Now, this is not all Republicans. Most, right now, are simply dupes. Every faction in humanity has its liars, manipulators, opportunists, and psychopaths. These people are just in control of that party right now. And if they haven't let you in on it, it's probably because you aren't a liar, manipulator, opportunist, or psychopath, and because you're own sense of heresy prevents you from asking the questions.
/Zin
B:
"I find it interesting that Kerry, a very rich man, wants to tax those "earners" with higher incomes at a higher rate, when will he come up with a tax for the FUCKING FILTHY RICH like himself? He doesn't pay shit on his RICHES! (Which by the way he didn't earn!) He doesn't want to tax the rich, he wants to keep people from becoming rich! And a shitload of Americans are too stupid to see that very blatant truth."
Z:
You do advocate class warfare very selectively. Kerry, if anything, will be a step out of the wrong direction. If he even makes a baby-step in the right direction, I will be pleasantly surprised. He might hold more pleasant surprises than George W. I dispute that he hasn't earned his money, since the man has a talent for marrying well, and that's something George W. couldn't do. Also, his war and post-war record suggest that there is a fire someplace in the man.
/Zin
You remember Kerry voting for the 50 cent gas tax hike?
This explains a lot - I think Republicans need to be careful what they eat, the bread made with that old grain has argot in it which will cause hallucinations......
http://blog.johnkerry.com/dbunker/archives/001470.html
Just another Bush lie - Kerry NEVER voted for that tax hike. He once said he might on a talk show, before he studied it closely.
Keep repeating those lies, Bribite - it makes it so much easier to deconstruct the Bush presidency. Or do you even know what truth is?
It came off of this years child deduction, it was not a bonus, or a cut, it was a cash advance. Also it did absolutely NOTHING to boost the economy. Furthermore I have yet to see the tax savings that were promised either. I earned less money this year yet paid the same amount of taxes. This shows me the supposed tax cuts were not targeted to help middle income families at all.
Withholding all depends upon how the taxpayer fills out the W-2? W-9? form.
I do not recieve a paycheck, I pay estimated taxes throughout the year and the bottomline is this, I made substantially LESS money in 2003 than in 2002, yet I paid nearly the same in taxes. There was NO tax relief for me, my tax burden actually INCREASED! Which tells me that the more you make the more favorable GW Bush's tax plans work out for the taxpayer.
Bribrite is what you get when you base your self-esteem and self-image on money and wealth.
And he needs to get a real education -- not this Business Administration shit, but one incorporating general education, liberal arts, humanities, and history. An MBA is great only after one has a solid foundation in the fundamentals of society and humanity -- otherwise you become a shallow, money-hungry machine like Bribite.
It is amazing how money can blind a person, how someone who makes a decent income can so easily be made so short sighted they can't get see past their pocketbooks.
I read Bribite's paranoid rantings about how the liberals are out to prevent him from becoming rich and accuses Kerry of wanting to squeeze the "up and coming" rich and wannabe wealthy's while saving the "truly rich," but provides no substantive support for his claim.
Advice to Bribite: get a real education. You're ability to think criticaly is being compromised by your obsession with money.
Rico
I live in Southern California where a 1200 sq ft, 50 year old tract house is currently going for $450,000 plus (depending on the city, up to over $1,000,000 in beach cities). I believe the average household income of Orange County, CA is just above $90,000. So in your world we are all stinking rich with our incomes! I can't wait to tell all my friends and neighbors that we are rich! My point was to demonstate (and I apologize for offending your sensibilities, alhough I wonder how someone of your admitted limited financial resources participates in the hobby) that although I don't make $500K a year, I'm still voting for Bush!
Without the tedious job of pouring over the millions of page of our current federal tax code, you can ask any tax preparer, how much tax is paid on wealth ( even your $50 savings) and you will find out that the answer is ZERO!
Tax is paid on income, not held wealth! So, now follow this closely, RICH PEOPLE, LIKE KERRY DO NOT PAY TAXES ON THIER WEALTH, ESPECIALLY THOSE LIKE KERRY WHO INHERITED IT AND MARRIED IT! Your inablility to understand this elementary fact will indeed sentence you to a life work.
That said, I find your retort lacking ANY definitive response. Kind of like when Kerry is asked a question, your a good dupe.
A comment about my ability to critically think coming from a person of your intellect is just so hurtful.
no incentive to achieve anything for themselves but to let the government support them THAT's why they want you to pay more taxes so they don't have to work as hard.
Funny, didn't you whine about me commenting about your 'limited hobby money' on another board?
A bit two faced, aren't we?