he is president! Amazing isn't it?
And if you think he really won Florida fair and square and his disgusting brother didn't help rig that for him, then I've got some prime swamp land down there for ya.
IHGW
who squandered our surplus, got us involved in this indefinite commitment in Iraq & Afganistan, that is costing our country lives and something like $174 billion. Plays the arrogance and hubris card at every turn. Ignoring our enviroment. our educational systems, the states that didn't swing his way. Gave tax cuts to the wealthy, thus placing more tax burden on the middle class. The list goes on and on.....
Now theres real malfeasance.
Al Gore handling the fall out from 9/11. I get chills just thinking about it...
-- Modified on 10/8/2003 5:21:39 AM
i agree al gore what a joke Bush is doing fine he took the bulls by the horns and is doing a great job while many people are un happy with people getting killed over there i feel i have family fighting there too
but however remember when you join the military you know there are risks you may face one day . and 2 freedom is never free
all we can do id pray for out service men and women
If Bill clinton did something during his terms other than sticking monica we may noy be in this situation demacrats have no balls and want to give away everything so dont critize bush look back at clinten
hogan
well said hogan.
So we can criticize Clinton but not Bush? That is a rather one sided view. The last time I looked we had budget surpluses during the Clinton years, so I guess the Democrats didn't give everything away.
How ironic that many felt that Gray Davis lied to the people about the size of the state budget problem, and yet it appears that our current president misstated (I am being kind) his reasons for going into Iraq. Seems like a double standard to me.
....... but as I sure someone will tell me, what do I know?
Are you even AWARE of your OWN surroundings, caguy? Some people have a natural inability to understand logic & reasoning. I've seen this my entire life about some people. The logical question would be: where in the hell do you think the bacterial & chemical WMDs "evaporated" to (as even the democrats & foreign nations are sure IRAQ had)? And the reasoning would be: Don't you think finding a few containers (possibly buried in the vast desert & unconceivable intolerable mountains) could be sort of "hard" to locate? We all KNOW they WERE there - now we need to FIND them. A lot of people have a very limited view of the earth & it's size. Image me pitching a penny into 10 acres of ivy covered land & asking YOU to find it. Look at a satellite image of the entire country of IRAQ & imagine trying to find a disturbed mound of dirt - 80 feet by 10 feet. Don't you see the logic & the reasoning? Just think it out before you spit it out.
I will grant you that Iraq is a large place, and that it is possible that these WMDs are still hidden there. But I, unlike you, don't believe everything my government tells me. If enough people say something, does that make it true? Maybe I was really born in Missouri, because I feel the need to say "Show Me." We supposedly have informants who have tipped us off to the existence of these AMDs, yet not one has been found. When one is found I will be more than happy to say that the President was right all along. But before that happens, I will withold by belief. Imagine, a politician not telling the truth!!!!!
So, yes I am aware of my surrounding and can understand logic. Your mistake is to start with the assumption that the AMD's definitely existed. You should at least open your mind to the possibility that the vaunted AMDs do not exist. To do otherwise is to truly ignore reality.
.....now you may flame away, but at least use something besides blind belief to back it up.........
(This is not a flame -- as far as I am a concerned, just a discussion.)
I think it's only fair you accept these other folks lied:
-UN Security Council
-Koffi Annan
-Al Gore
-Madeline Albright
-Bill Clinton
All of these people said Saddam has WMDs. You can bash Bush for whole lot of things, but to bash him in isolation on whether there were WMDs doesn't have much integrity.
-Hoot.
-- Modified on 10/8/2003 5:53:42 PM
We would have found them by now. If you knowingly lie about something like that you will damn sure plant some to find afterwards.
I see no reason to say that Bush's administration would plant WMDs; I see saying this as just mean-spiritedness.
-- Modified on 10/9/2003 11:36:07 PM
Why would you think if Gore or Clinton were presidents, there would have been a September 11 tragedy? About 2-3 weeks before the tragedy, Gore had an interview with Business Week, definitely worth reading.
All you need to do to compare Bush and Clinton, is look at the number of jobs created, and our standing in the world. Some of us in the frontline of business, are finding it extremely hard to develop the right business alliances/activities even in Europe.
you are a brainwashed idiot.
Don't ASSume from this that I am totally a Clinton/Gore phile. Far from it. But this blind BS support of Bush is what is absolutely frightening.
We are in a WORLD here, not a movie. His childish statements like "bring 'em on" do nothing to make things better. If you think we don't need world support you are a sad case.
Now that he brought on the attack you see all the help we are getting? Where is the joyous support in Iraq that he promised us? Where are the wepons of mass distruction that made this so urgent? Where is the Alquida connection that made this a clear retaliation for 9/11?
What we need is an end to narrowminded dweebs who think that all we need to do is kick some butt. It aint highschool football dude.
It all comes down to the blue states vs. the red states. In the end there will be more electoral votes for Bush than any of the dems. The crop of Dem candidates is weak. Don't give me that Wes Clark bullshit - he wasn't even registered as a Dem last week. Bush may be vulnerable but jobless rates went down and no one will be able to outspend him. Take the rhetoric out of the equation and look at the science of campaigning. On the science of the 2004 campaign Bush is a better than even bet.
If you're not aware of the great things the former President Clinton did in the eight years he was president and can only concentrate on one incident with Lewinsky then i feel sorry for you.
Also, if Clinton had been in the white house maybe 9/11 would have never HAPPENED! Wow what a concept! Ever think of that?
IF you're going to make such claims get out your dictionary too. It might help so I can even try and decipher what the hell you're saying.
Maybe you have forgotten the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing, USS Cole, our two African Embassies, bombings of our barracks in Saudi Arabia, etc. that all happened during the Clinton Administration, and nothing was done to stop any of it! 9/11 might not have happened? Moronic thinking.
Or maybe you consider Clinton's drastic cuts in our defense budget, but yet he sent our troops to more engagements, in more countries than any other American President.
But your 401K did really well, pretty shallow, don't you think.
Come on, Clinton's legacy is a legacy of shame.
-- Modified on 10/8/2003 7:32:34 PM
Grace of God, more likely solid construction in the basements and sub basements of the WTC.
To suggest that nothing was done during the Clinton years, is simply not true. Lets compare two incidents, Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1998, where Clinton got virtually no cooperation from the Saudis, and the recent bombing outside Riyahd, where unlike Clinton's FBI, the agency had much greater access to suspects and information. Bottom line, in both cases the Saudis claimed to have caught, tried and executed several of the "suspects", with virtually no help from the US in either case.
Bush did a damn good job in Afghanistan with the military that Clinton allegedly gutted. And lets be clear, the Congress, controlled by Republicans at that time, sent Clinton the defense appropriations bills that he signed into law. Spending bills, as mandated by the US constitution originate in the House of Representatives. Look it up man, it's in all the text books......
Nearly full employment, roaring stock market(Clinton also signed a capital gains tax cut in to law, along with higher rates on the top brackets), budget surplus, IPO mania, and general domestic peace and tranquility may constitiute a legacy of "shame" in your mind, but I'll trade an off the oval office BJ with an intern, for a phoney, trumped up Iraqi war, any day of the week.
Bottom line, the voters will decide next November if they think Bush deserves a second term. If I had to bet, I'd say he'll win that term, but by a very narrow margin.
OK, I will give you the outstanding construction. But the attempt was made to fall the towers in a domino effect in 1993, it was their goal.
Clinton handled terrorist attacks as a law enforcement issue, I believe wrongly, and with little success at stopping them.
In all fairness, you know the stock market started to tank during Clinton's final year, and really took a dive after 9/11. And it was greatly inflated by DotCom mania (Amazon.Com at over $300 per share and it hadn't made a profit?) I liked the capital gains tax cut, but it was hardly his idea anymore than the Welfare Reform he signed. Domestic tranquility? I seem to remember an impeachment (second time in US history) not for a blowjob, but for perjury, an offense you or I would most likely be still in jail for (even if it was over a blowjob). I disagree that the Iraq war was trumped up, (but I would be in the company of Clinton, Gore, the majority of democratic senators and the UN Security Council) but we can disagree.
And if depends on who the dems finally run that will decide the margin. If its Howard Dean, it will be huge. General Clark will be out of it in six months and the rest of them can't raise the money. I don't think Hillary will chance the defeat, she'll most likely wait until 2008 to get her ass kicked. But I pontificate again.
Brite, to suggest that Clinton's ideas on welfare reform and capital gains tax cut didn't play in to the political outcome, is to deny the man his due, not to mention ignores the awesome power of the US Presidency. Clinton was and is a very bright guy, had some great ideas, and worked well with a Republican Congress. NAFTA was as free trade an agreement as you'll ever see, pure capitalism at it's finest, and it was Clinton's push for it, that got it passed.
You guys that hate Clinton want to paint him as some left wing, wild eyed liberal. Liberal on some social issues for sure(abortion for example, didn't stop the supposedly pious right wingers from endorsing Arnie and his pro choice position), but moderate on others and again, I offer up NAFTA, pissed off every manufacturing labor union in the country didn't it? And pissing off unions seems to be a favorite past time of Bush's.
Did the Republican Congress force Clinton to the right on some issues? Of course, but I ask you, where is the compromise with Bush and a Republican Congress? Bush is ruling by executive fiat from the executive mansion, and Congress, even those in his own party, are starting to grouse about it.
Stocks go up and down, but they were generally up during the Clinton years, the economy boomed, and the impeachment scandal, much ado about nothing ultimately. Brite, on the day Clinton was impeached, his approval rating was at 63% percent...... The country was at peace, and we enjoyed an extended period of economic growth. You want to belittle that, and minimize it, that's your business, but the facts remain, the late 90s rocked, and most of us were along for the ride........
You paint such a glowing description of the Clinton years vs Bush and Iraq War II, but still come to the conclusion Bush will win re-election. Following your logic, why would Bush win? Why wouldn't the electorate want to go back to the Democrats to recapture the 90's?
According to the captured Al Quaeda Chief of Operations (can't remember his name-the fat guy that the Pakistanis pulled out in the middle of the night), the 9/11 operation was being planned since 1995. Bin Laden was already living happily and freely in Afghanistan supported by the Taliban. Earlier during Clinton's presidency the Saudi's offered up Bin Laden to the U.S. when he was in their country, but Clinton turned down the offer because of being to controversial. And then after it was determined that Al Quaeda had a hand in the first attempt on the World Trade Center, Clinton responded by blowing up some Afghan desert with million dollar cruise missiles.
Because of these actions Bin Laden, Al Quaeda, & the Taliban looked upon the U.S. as too meek and afraid to risk actual military contact. They were in fact emboldened by Clinton's responses because they thought they could act against America with minimal consequences.
I kind of liked Clinton, could care less about his white house blow jobs (I'm sure he wasn't the first), but he was a political animal-his actions, or lack of, were always a result of opinion polls. At least Bush is pulling out the stops to get the extremists who would gladly kill you, me, and the rest of the civilized world to go to their psychotic view of paradise.
The Sudan also offered Bin Laden to Clinton when they had him; Clinton demurred.
Sorry for the sarcasm.
"who squandered our surplus,..."
Funny how 9/11, a war, and a major downturn in the economy can do that.
"...got us involved in this indefinite commitment in Iraq & Afganistan,..." (sic)
Amazing how wars last longer than a few days, isn't it. How inconvenient.
"...that is costing our country lives and something like $174 billion."
All wars cost lives and money. Did you honestly think it would cost us nothing?
I could go on and on. The left is way off base in placing all the blame on Bush. I'm not a huge fan myself, but I'm not so blind with partisan hatred that I can't see that outside factors hit our nation hard, and we're paying for it.
Our economy prospered under Clinton. Not for what Clinton did, but for what he didn't do. He didn't interupt it. He didn't do anything so stupid that it impacted the economy in a negative way.
So, give the Democratic Party sound bites a rest.
given the initiative process which led to Prop. 13 and the recall provision which led to yesterday's historic election result.
Unless there is a US Constitution amendment passed which allow recalls, you have to wait till Nov 2004 to cast your vote.
Let's wait till the party conventions to be over next Sept to start those presidental election discussions. There are more pressing matters to discuss like the potentially historic World Series of Cubs against Red Sox. 
Happy hobbying to all.
Yes, there is a federal recall process. That is the purpose of impeachment.
protocol. However I have to agree with the Founding Fathers that the lack of recall procedures in the federal level made this republic much more stable.
Something that is good in the local and state level are not necessary good in the federal level since the federal government has to deal with other countries and treaty obligations.
Impeachment is appropriate if the sitting Prez does something illegal, not if he or she does something stupid.
IMPO Bush has dome some really stupid shit, but it's not illegal.
You want him out?, well vote him out next election. Problem is that the Democrats have yet to come up with a candidate worth a shit. If they don't I won't have any choice but to re elect the bastard.
While we are at it, lets figure out a way to get rid of the Electoral college.
I was commenting on the mechanics of a process. Bush has plenty of faults, but is still better than anything the Democrats have come up with.
...a Cinderella Series. I think even a diehard fan of either team would almost wish that neither team would loose.
Thanks for helping me get focused on more pressing matters.
I was getting so caught up in the verbal jousting a little lower in this thread that I needed a little comic relief.
The Padres have a new stadium next season. I hope they have a better record to go along with it!
There was no surplus, it was merely a projection based on income levels during the Dotcom boom. Considering the fact that the Democrats started spending increases on future possible income, no wonder we have a budget problem.
I don't hear you bitching about the fact that President Clinton placed us in military action in 14 countries aroudnthe world and we are still in most of them. Do names like Bosnia and Kosovo sound familiar. At least Iraq and Afghanistan were decisive actions with the US in full military authority. Yes, it will take time to help these countries recover. Much better chance of getting some our expenditures back from the oil fields in Iraq than the former baltic nations.
Bush signed the biggest educational packet in US history. He even let Ted Kennedy write it. It breezed through Congress. What the hell are you talking about?
Considering the 'wealthy' pay 90% of the taxes in this country, who else deserved a tax break? By the way, the tax breaks for the low income people have already gone into effect. The breaks for the 'wealthy' phase in over the next ten years and don't even start for two more years. Since the middle class didn't have a tax increase but actually had some minor breaks, how did that put more of the burden on them?
Michael CA,
Of course there was surplus under Clinton ... son, don't start rewriting history, typical of your ilk.
Use of our military force in Bosnia and Kosovo, was vastly different than our invasion of Iraq. If you stop watching Foxnews, CNN, and MSNBC, you will see this war achieves no strategic or tactical objective in the quest for our security. If Saddam had anything of a threat, by now, it has found its way to the hand of our nemesis.
By the way, $174B, is only a down payment! use your brain, our Homeland Security Department budget is only $30B to gauge the depth of the error in judgement. If a CEO makes a call like this, he will be fired by his board.
Your remarks about Tax/Wealthy is misguided ... you have no idea about the demographic of those who receive divideneds.
Now, if you are wealthy, meaning you have a trust fund at least worth $3M, you benefit from Bush policy, and you should be defending him, I have no problem with that.
BTW, a president can be recalled at any time with impeachment.
"Of course there was surplus under Clinton ... son, don't start rewriting history, typical of your ilk."
I suppose this kind of pathetic rewrite of history can be expected in the wake of Arnold's success in the recall election
and the "flexing of muscle" of the right wing ideologs.
It seems to me that one of the things that seems to get lost in this fiasco (aka recall) is how little the Bush administration did to assist the state of California in the wake of the energy crisis and the manipulation of enery markets by entities such as Enron, Duke energy etc. The FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) was virtually impotent under the Bush administration, and by design in my estimation.
Our military involvement in Iraq is nothing like our involvement in Bosnia or Kososvo. Saddam was in a box with 24 hour/day overflights of the no-fly zones. UN weapons inspectors on the ground made it difficult, if not impossible for him to pursue weapons programs. Our own vastly larger staffed weapons inspectors have found virtually nothing with respect to WMD.
As long as our troops are in Iraq I will suport them in any and every way I can but do NOT try to suggest that legitimate criticism of the Bush administration and its misguided policies
is off limits because we have troops in Iraq.
The best support for our troops would be to get them out of there and get UN peacekeepers in that have the training in policing/peacekkeeping that is beyond the mission/expertise of combat troops.
I did a tour of duty in Vietnam and I understand full well what it is like to be involved in a military action that lacks the support of the American people. I do NOT want our troops in Iraq to experience that lack of support but I also do NOT want to see them continue to try and perform a mission for which they are ill trained and ill suited, a post combat mission by the Pentagon's own admission that received far less than adequate planning.
Of course getting the international community to get more involved in Iraq might mean that the US has to be more willing to share the lead in Iraq with other nations and also some of the lucrative contracts in rebuilding the infrastructure which are at present going almost exclusively to US firms such as Haliburton and Bechtel. Of course who is going to pay for those lucrative contracts: US taxpayers, you, me, all of us.
Can you say FEDERAL DEFICIT!?!
A couple of things you left out....
1)In California's "deregulation" of the energy market, they imposed upon the utilities that they had to buy on the spot market. To me, that is the antithesis of planning and had to fail.
2) The cost of the peace in Iraq. Keeping troops in the Middle East ad infinitum and monitoring the no-fly zones was not an inexpensive venture. If you want to say that we should not be spending the $87B, I am not directly addressing that. I just want it clear that not doing anything was not free and had a healthy price tag. I see Bush going into Iraq as more akin to "buying" the peace and our permanently monitoring/policing a corrupt Iraq as "renting" the peace.
-- Modified on 10/8/2003 5:47:50 PM
Yes the deregulation of the enery market in California was poorly thought out and poorly implemented. It was necessary in part to buy on the spot market because energy brokers like Enron were engaged in smoke and mirror schemes to transfer energy out of the state to help create artificial shortages
and then miraculously come up with an "available" energy supply once the price had been driven to obscene levels.
Frankly in my view energy is too vital and basic a commodity to be left solely to market forces and perhaps should have never been deregulated in the first place.
Simply because there was an opening for corporate interests such as Enron to exploit in no way justifies the kind of manipulation that took place. Is there no place for integrity in the corporate world? Just because there is an "opportunity" to exploit should it be pursued in as greed driven a fashion as possible? Is this the example we want to set for the young people in this country who will be tomorrow's corporate leaders?
Greed is greed no matter how one tries to cloak it as something
like a "legitimate" business "opportunity".
The cost of overflights of Iraq's no fly zones and the UN weapons inspectors in country will pale in comparison to the outlays in Iraq over the next several years. The $87 billion
is just a downpayment and there is serious cause for concern in just how that money is being spent.
Beyond that though is the loss of American lives in this post combat environment. Tell the mother or father, or brother or sister, or son or daughter, that has lost a loved one that the price is little compared to keeping Saddam boxed in with overflights and weapons inspectors. Somehow I don't think they will quite see it your way.
As for threats to peace and stability in the world I would suggest that North Korea poses a far greater threat than Iraq
ever did. If Bush went riding in to North Korea on horseback with his guns blazing he would get his nose far more severely bloodied than he has in Iraq. Coincidentally there is no "oil"
in North Korea, just a few nukes and the third largest standing army in the world.
-- Modified on 10/9/2003 4:49:53 PM
In the year prior to Bush taking office Clinton launched a special investigation into the gasoline shortages which caused the price escalations in many parts of the company. The investigators came back with no evidence that the refined gasoline shortages had been rigged by the energy companies.
In the early summer of 2000 before Bush was even elected president there were electrical shortage issues and pricing problems in the San Diego area. The response was to freeze the prices that the electric company could charge consumers. This act helped to insure that the company would slowly go into bankruptcy by having to pay more for the electricity they were receiving than they could charge their customers. At this point it was apparent to anybody with 2 brain cells in their head that California was headed for big energy problems. Apparently Gray Davis was too busy trying to make sure that Al Gore carried California to pay any attention to this looming problem. He did not attempt to find a solution at that point in time or ask his buddy Bill Clinton for help. Instead he waits for 8 or 10 months until George Bush is president and the state is in a crisis to ask for federal help and intervention. And of course the problem was all created by George Bush. How is that again ??
Oh and when he decides to negotiate long term contracts with the power companies he selects a guy who was receiving several hundred thousand dollars in compensation from the very companies he is negotiating with.
It gets very tedious dealing with this kind of lock step walk the Republican party line mentality presented as "the way and the truth".
Political discourse and political debate is more often an expression of differing viewpoints on some given issue.
Perhaps sometimes a point of view and ascertainable facts mesh well and then other times personal bias and emotional rhetoric
drive the argument far from any relationship to the factual, historical or otherwise.
If you had read my post more carefully instead of going off on some partisan diatribe presented as an "illumination" of the historical facts it would have been apparent that I no where stated that the "problem was all created by George Bush".
Quite to the contrary, I indicated in my second post that the deregulation of energy markets was poorly conceived and poorly
implemented. I would add that the primary architect of deregulation legislation was state Senator Steve Peace a Democrat. So yes I can fairly admit that a Democrat had a major hand in how this all played out. That however in no way justifies the kind of corporate malfeasance exercised by Enron et al.
It borders on the ludicrous to suggest that a governor of any state regardless of party affiliation would simply sit around and wait for the opposing party to inaugurate a President and then suddenly dump a problem of such magnitude at the president's feet in an act of political gamesmanship. The energy crisis was not a bolt out of the blue it played out over many months as you suggested, and yes it went well into the Bush administration's term in office.
Your meanadering an illdefined rendition of "historical facts"
seems largely as nothing more than a set-up piece for you to deliver your partisan one-liner. Quote below.
"And of course the problem was all created by George Bush."
George Bush, his administration, and it's policies are fair game for criticism just as Gray Davis and his policies are likewise.
Of course everyone can read through these various threads and come to their own conclusion.
-- Modified on 10/10/2003 12:33:10 AM
I stand corrected on the matter of surpluses.
You have ignored your own comment about Afghanistan. Yes, Iraq is a different military action than Bosnia. I can see the argument both ways on whether Iraq posed a threat or not. In no way did Bosnia offer any threat to the US. There can be made an argument from a military standpoint that by eliminating Saddam's regime and helping build up the new govenrnment, the US has possibly gained a foothold in the Middle East. This has been sadly lacking. Not a good excuse but it is one.
There has never been a war that made any money. As a rule we write off or forgive wartime debts of allies. However there is an economic incentive from a succesful war. Every country that we have invaded and subsequently won the war against, have become good trade partners and substantial producers to the world economy.
Not fair saying that the dividend tax reduction is only for the rich. At last accounting more than half of Taxpayers have dividend income. More than half of all retirees receive a substanial amount of their income from dividends. Yes, the very rich get substantial income from dividends but they are not the only ones who benefit substantially from the tax break. My point about the changes to the tax tables is still valid.
As pointed out in other posts, by the government's standards, any individual earning $50k per year is considered rich. Most people with income of this level or higher have 401k's or other dividend related income. So these people all benefit from the dividend tax reduction. The future changes in the tax brackets will also effect these taxpayers. You don't have to be a trust fund kid to have your taxes reduced.
BTW it requires a criminal act for a President to be impeached.
In 1992, the government was $290 billion in the red. That means at the end on the fiscal year, (Sept 30) they had to borrow 290 billion to pay the bills. In 1998, the government was 69.2 billion in the black. That means that the government had money left over after all the bills where paid. In 1999, the government was 122.7 billion in the black. Again, after everything was paid, 122.7 billion was left over in REAL money. In 2000, the government was 230 billion in the black. In REAL money.
I was deployed with my National Guard unit to Bosnia and thought it was a worthwhile endevor, others I did not appreciate so that one is a toss up. Afghanistan was also a good thing, but Iraq was a knee jerk power grab, because the Bush philosophy on politics is "Better to do something then nothing, even if it is monumentally stupid!" But that is all subjective.
Anyway, you are also right, the rich (top 10 percent) pay 90% of the taxes in the U.S., BUT they pay less then 8% if you look at it in terms of percentage of personal income. The sad part is that 8% of their income totals to 90% of the total tax revenues the federal government collects in personal income taxes. Last time I checked, I payed closer to 35% last year on my income. (Maybe I need a better accountant). I guess we should be happy they pay that. Bill Gates as not paid a single bit of personal income tax in the last 8 years. Of course, he has charitable foundation that I think are doing more good than the government so I do not blame him. If I could do more to keep my money out of the governments hands and but it in the hands of those who need it, I would.
Yes, Yes, I know the rich create jobs by funding companys and buying expensive things. Well, if Reagan's advisers taught us anything, it is that "trickle down economic" is a lie. The more money you give the rich, the more money they horde. Hell, I would. What else is money good for except as a tool for collecting more money?
-- Modified on 10/8/2003 12:25:22 PM
Well .. three things here
First, I never got a job from a poor man
Second, the overwhelming majority of the rish are not the 'super rich' we read about .. they're people like you and me (and some of us are) that sweat blood to get and keep what they have.
Third, more complex, I pay more taxes than most people. The water doesn't come out of my tap any hotter, 911 doesn't respond any faster, my roads aren't all that much better .... now, you have to tax the people who have it because the ones that don't can't pay.....
But Still ... I cringe when people talk about what percentage of my income I have left over ... as if somehow I could pay more taxes because I shouldn't be allowed to HAVE that much after taxes.
is somewhere around $50K per year. If you make at least that much money, you are rich.
-Hoot.
-- Modified on 10/8/2003 12:19:40 PM
I beleive in a fair playing field. From a tax perspective, no privilege for anyone, including the poor. Those who have more, should not get any more breaks then someone who earns 20K a year. If the tax system where fair, we would all pay less. But it is not. This country has provided me with an enviroment where I can work hard and achieve my goals. I pay my share of taxes because I beleive it is the right thing to do to ensure that enviroment continues to exist (kinda like your TER membership comment). I stay in the national guard even thought my ROTC commitment is long up and I have already served all the tours I care for (IRAQ 1 and Bosnia) because it is my contribution to maintaining this society. Hell, my civilian monthly income is 21 times my monthy guard check so I am not doing it for the money.
By the by, the only thing I hate worse then someone who ducks their commitments, like a draft dodger (Clinton), is someone who takes up the commitment and reneges on their obligation. (Where were you for that year you where AWOL Mr. President?). At least the draft dodger stood up for what he believed in and defied the law. I can respect that.
-- Modified on 10/8/2003 12:31:40 PM
Not sure where you are going with this post. Taxation is far from equitable. If you want everyone paying evenly, support the Flat Tax. I would love to see it, but I am not holding my breath. You do realize that nearly half of the adults in this country do not pay any income tax at all.
Clinton originally stated that he was not a draft dodger and was not active in anti-war demonstrations.
Never heard the 8% figure before. Do you know where the numbers come from? Doesn't surprise me that the ultra-rich have tax-exempt income. It really is not that hard to establish, but it is expensive. Considering the fact that the 'rich' that pay 90% of the taxes are all those with total incomes of $92k or more. The top 1% are those earning $292k or more per year.
You're a bit late to the game. Unless there are legal fights, it's a done deal.
Not late to the game at all, Hoot. My comment referred to the re-hashing of old issues relating to the presidency & things passed. There will be plenty of opinions posted after the presidential primaries are over & the candidates have been selected. Until then, the discussion seems a bit premature to me.
he is president! Amazing isn't it?
And if you think he really won Florida fair and square and his disgusting brother didn't help rig that for him, then I've got some prime swamp land down there for ya.
IHGW
Can't stand that drunk driving idiot. With all this talk about Clinton vs Bush or Bush vs Gore each side has a lot of ammo. Well, I say compare them based on their children. If you can't raise kids, how the Fuck you gonna lead a country. Those two little F'in delinquents are so pathetic it's not even funny (well, actually it is). Yeah, Clinton has many faults, but at least he's not a war monger. Not only that, Clinton could kick the shit out of Bush - for that matter Hilary could kick W's scrawny little bitch-ass. So, there !!!!
Get involved, speak out, and vote.
Light
"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
Carrying on about everything that bothers me or you in the world doesn't add to the sense of "community" on TER, as is often claimed as a defense around here. In fact it does just the opposite- it unecessarily alienates people who don't hold the same opinions, and don't wish to debate politics on a board dedicated to something else. And the key word in that last sentence is "opinions."
Arguing "fact" is one thing, but debating opinions- which is what always happens here and elsewhere when politics or religion are the subject- is pointless and doesn't change anybody's mind, or add any factual information. It just pisses-off the people that don't share your opinion, don't wish to engage you in a debate, or came here under the impression that this board was about providers and the men who enjoy their company.
The temptation to use this board to espouse your personal views on the state of the state, or state of the union is great. Please fight the urge. Your opinions are just that- yours. You are both entitled and encouraged to have them, but the rest of us don't care nearly as much about them as you might think. Especially since this board is devoted to another common area of interest.
And to all those who love to talk politics on this board- and there are many of you- how would you like it if the religious fundamentalists, or anti-abortionists took over this board to express their "opinions" and express their disdain for our lifestyle. Would that also add to the "community" around here? It's not why this board exists.
Anyone have any experiences with providers or related to the hobby they'd like to share?
Makes me horny!
Pass the thread Counterpoint! You don't have to click here.
You could find and participate in one of the many sites dedicated to your interest in discussing politics. Whereas I can't find another site comparable to TER, nor should I have to.
Talk about the glass being half empty! This was a pretty historic day you know.
And I really don't give a fuck if you retain your VIP membership or not. Somehow I think we will survive! You don't seem to contribute any reviews anyway.
Counterpoint....
I respect your suggestion, but I am going to have to take issue.
Last time I checked, TER had a few features, provider reviews, on line chats, discussion boards. You don't like to have to read the political threads...then don't. Go read the reviews, or go chat, or go hunt for the provider posts. Better yet, start your own thread on a subject of your choosing.
In the time that I have been a VIP, I find that there are a great number of very intelligent people who post. Inevitably, I learn something, alter my thinking on a subject, or just have a plain ol belly laugh.
Don't be so narrow, politics effect everything including the hobby.
Theres more to life than f**king and s*cking, not much more, but more nonetheless.
Peace.
I see your point and it was well made. However, it seems to me that the national board is mostly about general discussions which often involves politics - especially nowadays. To get info about providers you need to go to your respective regional board. So, just pass on the political threads.
Take care.
What I want to know is why we arent going after the saudis? Whay are we still buying oil from them and continue to support terrorism? I would rather have gotten after them than the Iraqis who had no real threat against us... except maybe some oil that our US/alies companies needed. I am all for fighting for cheaper gas prices... but lets go after the real threat.
They have a trillion dollars invested in our stock market and another trillion dollars in our banks. If they chose suddenly to remove that money, our corporations and financial institutions would be sent into a tailspin, causing an economic crisis the likes of which has never been seen. Couple that with the fact that the 1.5m barrels of oil we need daily from the Saudis could also vanish on a mere royal whim, and we begin to see how not only you, but all of us, are dependent on the House of Saud.
-----------
The preceding is a quote from the link, but I think it answers your question about why we aren't going after the Saudis.