|
|
Post by RocDoc on Aug 13, 2004 10:00:13 GMT -5
I hope Mrs. McGreevy's not a vengeful woman....will SHE be able to take a 'live and let live' attitude, epsecially when her two children are smack dab in the middle of all this shit....
I hope she had at least a little bit of foreknowledge of her loving husband's, er, proclivities....if this 'no, I have no attraction to you whatsover, never EVER did' came as a complete surprise....bodily harm may be due to this 'gay American'...
Ooooh, she's gotta be SO fucking pissed.
If he wouldn't pay a mill to this Israeli 'asshole', then he's definitely going to be paying HER at LEAST that....
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 13, 2004 10:18:46 GMT -5
Bush is doing nothing. The geopolitical realities dictated that Iraq was not the true threat to spread WMDs, therefore I don't see this move as preventing anything regardless of the WMD reality. Many many experts believed that Hussein having WMDs at all at that point was for reasons nothing more than bargaining chips, invasion preventers and leverage against his enemies such as Israel and Iran. Even if Hussein had WMDs, he's still not the first person you look toward in the "who could give a terrorist a deadly weapon" community. But pretend for a moment that he was the first person. He's not the only person who would do so. Iran would do so, Kim Jong Il would do so. And by some accounts already are doing so, or want to do so, especially Iran. Both countries have nuclear capabilities and much stronger ties to terror. The nuclear black market via Pakistan's Abdul Qadeer Khan was open for quite some time if it's not still open. Are not these bigger threats than, say, a potential smallpox weapon, of which we have a cure? Your analogy only goes so far. As far as I'm concerned Shin, you answered your question yourself. As you said, we moved on Iraq BEFORE they had the leverage, bargaining chips, and power to threaten our ally. That's why we moved when we did ... to prevent them from getting to the level of N. Korea or Iran, where things become MUCH more difficult to deal with. |
|
|
|
Post by riley on Aug 13, 2004 10:24:12 GMT -5
I'd be all for better locks...fantastic, but what we're doing is dressing up like John Wayne and going to the robber's house (which turns out not to be the guy who actually robbed us) and beating the crap out of him...and his neighbors just for good measure. In the end all we've really done is made his neighbors more sympathetic to him and robberies have more then tripled since then...and they're still talking about trying to rob us again... This was brilliant. That is all. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 13, 2004 10:26:54 GMT -5
I'd be all for better locks...fantastic, but what we're doing is dressing up like John Wayne and going to the robber's house (which turns out not to be the guy who actually robbed us) and beating the crap out of him...and his neighbors just for good measure. In the end all we've really done is made his neighbors more sympathetic to him and robberies have more then tripled since then...and they're still talking about trying to rob us again... Isn't it about as short-sighted to believe that the one who robbed us the first time is the ONLY one who'd rob us in the future as it is to believe that WE encourage the robbers by having valuables in our house? |
|
|
|
Post by Proud on Aug 13, 2004 10:27:34 GMT -5
just donated a small sum of dough to the john kerry campaign. fwee.  |
|
|
|
Post by PC on Aug 13, 2004 12:12:06 GMT -5
HAHAHAHAHA.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Aug 13, 2004 13:31:49 GMT -5
Isn't it about as short-sighted to believe that the one who robbed us the first time is the ONLY one who'd rob us in the future as it is to believe that WE encourage the robbers by having valuables in our house? It's short sighted that you see it that way. It's stupid to continue with a war that is ineffective, it's irresponsible to continue putting these men and women's lives in danger for the small victories. Yes, we've done some good, it's even arguable that we've done alot of good but we've gone in with no foresight. Bush said we'll leave the day after the job is done, but when is that? We've got to able to say "this isn't working" and try someting else. Let's try better locks. Let's try pulling our troops home and protecting American soil on American soil, let's make sure they can't do this here again and then we'll make sure they can't do it other places. Let's make sure our intelligence is better. Let's start with our house and move out from there. |
|
|
|
Post by shin on Aug 13, 2004 13:36:56 GMT -5
As you said, we moved on Iraq BEFORE they had the leverage, bargaining chips, and power to threaten our ally. I never said we did this to protect Israel, but I'm glad you were willing to come out and admit that. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 14, 2004 7:47:38 GMT -5
I never said we did this to protect Israel, but I'm glad you were willing to come out and admit that. Of course we did! It's not the ONLY reason that we went in, but without question it's one of the good ones. |
|
|
|
Post by stratman19 on Aug 14, 2004 7:52:52 GMT -5
Of course we did! It's not the ONLY reason that we went in, but without question it's one of the good ones. That's damn right. If we don't protect Israel's right to exist, who else is going to do it? The rest of the world? What a joke that is. |
|
|
|
Post by stratman19 on Aug 14, 2004 7:55:34 GMT -5
just donated a small sum of dough to the john kerry campaign.
Well I've donated a small fortune to Bush/Cheney '04, the Republican National Committe, and the Michigan Republican Party. I'm gonna be real pissed, if things don't work out in November.
|
|
|
|
Post by Howenstein on Aug 14, 2004 8:44:39 GMT -5
Me, too!
And if I hear John-John say one more time that the Bush tax cuts only benefit the wealthy, I'm gonna bash in my TV set with a 5-iron.
It was revealed yesterday (in the New York Times no less) that the Bush tax cuts HAVE had a positive effect on the economy. This cites recent data from the Congressional Business Office (CBO). Further, the CBO shows that the top 5% of wage earners are paying a MORE of the total income tax burden -- both in percentage and in raw dollars -- SINCE the Bush cuts went into effect! That's right: tax RATES went down and tax REVENUES went up. Geez, how did that happen?
Pretty simple. Growth creates profits, more income, more jobs -- all of which generate tax revenue. Lower marginal tax rates have a positive effect on growth. Also, since the Bush cuts went into effect, MILLIONS MORE Americans in the lower income brackets are paying NO Federal income taxes at all. How is that NOT a benefit to the lower brackets?
Yet, listening to John-John spew their bullshit, you'd think the "tax cuts for the wealthy" robbed the middle class, robbed the government and robbed from programs. That's because all they talk about is the dollar amount of the cut at the higher income levels. You hear nothing about how the PERCENTAGE of taxes cut for lower- and middle-income levels was actually higher than the percentage for the higher levels.
Yet, for whatever reason, people continue to believe these outright LIES.
More from the CBO...
The Income Tax Burden is defined simply as who pays U.S. income taxes in the form of individual and corporate income taxes, payroll taxes, and federal excise taxes. Based on this information, the following conclusions emerge:
An enormous percentage of taxes are payed by a minority of Americans:
-- The Top 1% of taxpayers pay 29% of all taxes.
-- The Top 5% of taxpayers pay 50% of all taxes.
Our tax system is called "progressive." A progressive tax is based on the premise that those with more income can afford to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes, and conversely, those with little income should pay a much lower percentage or none at all.
The progressive system proven in the data: The Top 1% of income earners (comprising about 1 million families) earn about 15% of the total income earned by all wage earners in the United States, yet they pay almost 30% of all individual income taxes.
Furthermore, the Top 1% are shouldering a roughly 50% higher proportion of the overall income tax burden than they did in 1977.
The argument most oft used against tax breaks are that they benefit only the wealthy. It is clear from even a cursory look at the numbers that the wealthy will receive the majority of any income tax reduction because they pay a disproportionately large percentage of the income taxes. To structure a tax break such that those in upper income brackets are excluded would constitute nothing more than transfer of wealth from those who have it to those who don't.
|
|
|
|
Post by melon1 on Aug 14, 2004 11:26:54 GMT -5
Although I'm quite sure I've stated it before on RS.com I want to state for the record that it is my belief that Condi Rice will win in '08 no matter who wins this time. That is whether she's running against Kerry or HITLARY.
|
|
|
|
Post by stratman19 on Aug 14, 2004 14:44:17 GMT -5
Atta boy, Howie! (#342)
|
|
|
|
Post by Proud on Aug 14, 2004 18:07:36 GMT -5
"Well I've donated a small fortune to Bush/Cheney '04, the Republican National Committe, and the Michigan Republican Party. I'm gonna be real pissed, if things don't work out in November."
*watches dana carvey walk into the room, dressed up as that church lady character*
isn't that speeccialll?
all kidding aside, good job. even though i have to calm myself down from (censored this anti-bush comment because it was a bit too evil), i respect your dedication and donations.
|
|
