What was the military hurry in Iraq for?

[Amazin]

Published on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 by the Los Angeles Times
Did Bush Deceive Us in His Rush to War?
The 'threats' that Hussein posed to the United States are nowhere to be seen.

by Robert Scheer

Now that the war has been won, is it permissible to suggest that our emperor has no clothes? I'm not referring to his abysmal stewardship of the economy but rather the fig-leaf war he donned to cover up his glaring domestic failures.

President Bush went to war with Hitler's Germany and found another Afghanistan instead. After comparing the threat of Hussein to that of the Führer, it was odd to find upon our arrival a tottering regime squatting on a demoralized Third World populace.

Now the pressure is on for Bush to find or plant those alleged weapons of mass destruction fast or stand exposed as a bullying fraud.

Of course, our vaunted intelligence forces knew well from our overhead flights and the reports of U.N. inspectors freely surveying the country that Iraq had been reduced by two decades of wars, sanctions and arms inspections to a paper tiger, but that didn't keep the current administration from depicting Baghdad as a seat of evil so powerful it might soon block the very sun from shining.

And while Emperor Bush piled on the fire-and-brimstone rhetoric, his bespectacled vizier for defense presented a mad-hatter laundry list of Iraq's alleged weapons collection, as long and specific as it was phony and circumstantial.

Secretary of State Colin Powell's now infamous speech to the U.N. Security Council employed "intelligence" cribbed from a graduate student's thesis, documents later acknowledged as fakes, and a defector's affirmation of the existence of chemical weapons while excluding his admission that they had subsequently been destroyed.

Having taken over the country, we now know with a great deal of certainty that if chemical or biological weapons were extant there, they were not deployed within the Iraqi military in a manner that threatened the U.S. or anyone else.

Likewise, Bush's fear-mongering about Iraq's alleged nuclear weapons program has proven baseless. There was no reason to hurriedly yank the U.N. inspectors out of Iraq.

Even Bush's only real ally outside of Washington, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, is worried that the fearsome weapons will not turn up — or that a skeptical world will believe they were planted as an afterthought. "Some sort of objective verification" of weapons finds would be a "good idea," he said last week.

However, the refusal of the U.S. to permit the return of U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix and his team to continue their work is damning evidence of our fear that the weapons simply do not exist, at least in any usable quantity or form. It also raises the suspicion that Iraqi scientists now held incommunicado in U.S. captivity will be squeezed until they tell us what we want to hear. Whatever happened to the prewar demand that those same scientists be given the freedom to tell their story in a non-intimidating environment?

Bush may fear the truth because the still-AWOL weapons are a potential tar baby for this administration. Undoubtedly the U.S. will find mixed-used chemical precursors for weapons, as was claimed only this week, but that is a far cry from being an "imminent threat."

As Joseph Cirincione, a top weapons expert at the Carnegie Endowment, put it, the purported existence of those weapons "was the core reason for going to war with Iraq and the reason we had to go now If we don't find fairly large stockpiles of these weapons, in quantities large enough to pose a strategic threat to the United States, the president's credibility will be seriously undermined and the legitimacy of the war repudiated."

That concern is largely absent in the U.S. media, where "liberation" is now a code word that smoothes over any irritating questions one may ask when a Christian superpower invades the heart of the Muslim world. Its partner phrase, "the building of democracy," is also all the rage, as if real democracy was something you could create with Legos or SimCity software.

At this point, though, we can only hope it will all turn out for the best, and that a retired U.S. general will figure out how to use the country's natural resources to end poverty, build excellent schools and provide crime-free streets and an electoral system where positions of power don't go to the highest bidder. Then he can come back and apply this genius at home, where we've got plenty of unwelcome violence, poverty and on-the-take politicians.

However, in the unlikely case this fantasy comes true, albeit at an untold price in money, lives and human suffering, it should be remembered that this was not the justification for war given to the American people.

And, in a more sober mood, one must still ask the embarrassing yet essential question: Did our president knowingly deceive us in his rush to war?

If he did, and we are truly concerned about our own democracy, we would have to acknowledge that such an egregious abuse of power rises to the status of an impeachable offense.

Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times

###

[Figman]

Did anyone see the news a few nights ago with the champanzee typing words on the computer....Amazin!

[superfecta]

Hint fella,don't pick and choose what you use as facts from the same sources.And don't hold back,tell us what you really think of Bush.And would you care to cite some examples of conduct that would be construed as impeachable?The last administration could help you on that.:rolleyes:

[Amazin]

Your responses are typical of this board.No intelligent argument against any points made.Just stupid empty insults reflecting your lack of knowledge on the subject.Your ignorance is their power.

[JustRalph]

You would be happy to know that in a recent poll 72% of Americans said that after seeing the celebrating Iraqi's after the liberation of Baghdad, they would say that the weapons of mass destruction question is now moot. I believe they actually asked,

Was it worth it anyway? 72% said yes.

BTW, do you know a damn thing about Chemical Weapons? They found the trailers for distributing it. 6 of them have been found. Take a few ounces of the right stuff hidden in the right hole in the ground and drive one of these trucks up and you have instant genocide. So he had the tools........and it looks like the guys who are cooperating now are starting to tell what happen to the Chem. Weapons etc. So don't count your Chicks just yet. As Yogi said "It ain't over till it's over" You still miss the more broad implications of this great spectacle of the last month. The bad guys got to see us in action. That is the greater benefit. The more broad issue at hand. A proactive action in defense of the country by the best damn military in the world. The tongues are still wagging in the land of Arab Terrorists. You think it's a damn coincidence that Syria and N. Korea suddenly soften up? After all this time......you can't see it. It was a display for the world, plain and simple. And you still can't think for yourself. What the hell would you do if it weren't for the cut and paste option in Winders? Now crawl back in your chair and surf on over to some liberal rag and this time cut and paste it to your desktop.

[JustRalph]

Amazin.... a little cut and paste right back at you.....

From Ann Coulter:

At Least Saddam Wasn't At Tailhook!

DESPITE LIBERALS' calm assurance that Iraq wasn't harboring terrorists, this week Abul Abbas, mastermind of the 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking, was captured in Baghdad. This is the second time the United States has caught Abbas. But the last time, the Europeans let him go. That's why liberals are so eager to have Europeans "help" with the war on terrorism. They did a bang-up job last time.

In 1985, Muslim terrorists hijacked the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro and threatened to kill the passengers and crew unless 50 imprisoned Palestinians were released by Israel. The terrorists doused American and British women with gasoline and taunted them with matches. They forced passengers to hold live grenades. When their demands were not met, the terrorists shot a wheelchair-bound American, Leon Klinghoffer, and forced other passengers at gunpoint to throw him overboard in his wheelchair.

Even as the Americans were preparing a rescue mission, the Italian and Egyptian governments made a deal with the terrorists, offering the release of the Palestinians and safe passage to Egypt to end the ordeal. The Europeans were delighted with this masterful act of diplomacy. The Americans were not so pleased.

Oliver North conceived of an operation to get the terrorists back. Contrary to Egyptian president Mubarak's assurances that the terrorists had already left Egypt, North found out the terrorists were still there. Indeed, working with Israeli intelligence, North determined the precise EgyptAir 737 that would carry the terrorists out of Egypt, even down to the flight number. He wanted to intercept the flight, modeling the operation on the extraordinary World War II interception of Yamamoto, mastermind of Pearl Harbor.

President Reagan was briefed on the daring plan – along with copious warnings from timorous State Department officials that the Europeans might have their feelings bruised, America would look like a cowboy, and it would only strengthen the hard-liners in Egypt. Asked if the operation should proceed, Reagan said: "Good God! They've murdered an American here. Let's get on with it."

Adm. Frank Kelso, the officer in charge of America's Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean, ordered his men to carry out the mission. In no time flat, Tomcat fighters had taken off from the U.S. aircraft carrier Saratoga. After refueling in midair and guided by Hawkeyes, the Tomcats caught up with the EgyptAir flight. The fighters stealthily trailed their target for a while in total darkness, their lights off, even in the cockpit. Then the Tomcats swooped in on the EgyptAir flight, surrounded the plane, and forced it to land at a NATO base on Sicily controlled by the United States.

The New York Post headline the next day was: "GOT 'EM." Reagan said: "I salute the Navy."

And then Abul Abbas was released by the Europeans – whom liberals insist on approval from in this war. Abbas dashed to safety in Iraq under Saddam Hussein – whom liberals have assured us was not harboring terrorists. Republican presidents keep catching terrorists while liberals keep sending them back.

If there is a parable of how liberals support the enemy, this is it. Adm. Kelso, whose men carried out the dauntless EgyptAir interception, was cashiered out of the Navy because of "Tailhook." Feminists don't care about Saddam Hussein and his rape rooms. But they were hopping mad at Adm. Kelso for walking through the Tailhook convention to say hello to his boys – boys who captured Leon Klinghoffer's murderers.

To jog the memory of the horror that was Tailhook, Lt. Paula Coughlin was the officer who made the most lurid allegations, accusing a black Marine of molesting her. But then she kept identifying different black males as the perpetrator. Liberals managed to put their concern for racist accusations against blacks on the back burner in this one case. When liberals get going, the ironies never end.

Though Adm. Kelso was cleared of any wrongdoing after an official Navy investigation, liberals wanted him punished. Former Rep. Patricia Schroeder, D-Colo., engaged in a hysterical witchhunt of Kelso, marching with her fellow termagants to the Senate to encourage them to deny Kelso retirement with four stars. Naturally, the New York Times editorialized against him.

After a lifetime of honorable service to his country, Adm. Kelso was barely permitted to retire with four stars, in a 54-43 Senate vote. A majority of Democrats opposed Kelso, along with all the Republican women in the Senate – Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Nancy Landon Kassebaum, Arlen Specter, Bob Packwood and so on. Had the Senate denied him his retirement with four stars, this American hero would have received a pension of $67,000 per year, rather than the princely sum of $84,000 per year given a four-star admiral.

The left's relentless attacks on Oliver North hardly require elaboration. He was endlessly investigated, charged with crimes, indicted by Lawrence Walsh, and his Senate campaign destroyed. Al Gore compared North's supporters to Down syndrome children.

Now liberals are demanding that the Europeans be let into Iraq so they can release some more terrorists, while liberals do their part at home, carving up the colonels and admirals who capture people who murder Americans.

[ljb]

Glad to hear the Bush war helped us capture a terroist . Too bad it took 17 years. Well we didn't find any wmds and Saddams threat to the world were really just an administration propaganda ploy. But we did catch this dude. Lets see the economy is in shambles, the market is in the dump, my 401 k along with it, interest earned is dismal and the Iraquis are now telling the U.S. to go home. And now our administration is trying to set up a puppet government in Iraq. Much like we did years ago with the shah of Iran , course we all know what happened from that. Kinda makes one wish for the GOOD OLD DAYS when all we had to worry about was what Bill was or wasn't doing with Monica.
ljb

[boxcar]

Originally posted by ljb

Glad to hear the Bush war helped us capture a terroist . Too bad it took 17 years. Well we didn't find any wmds and Saddams threat to the world were really just an administration propaganda ploy. But we did catch this dude. Lets see the economy is in shambles, the market is in the dump, my 401 k along with it, interest earned is dismal

The economy, sir, started its nosedive on Clinton's watch -- March 2000 to be exact.

and the Iraquis are now telling the U.S. to go home.

Some Iraquis want the the coalition forces to leave - these predominantly being the Shiite Muslims -- the extremist religious whackos.

And now our administration is trying to set up a puppet government in Iraq. Much like we did years ago with the shah of Iran , course we all know what happened from that.

Even if this were true, I'd venture to say the Iraquis would be far better off "under our boot" than sadistic Hussein's and his murderous thugs'.


Kinda makes one wish for the GOOD OLD DAYS when all we had to worry about was what Bill was or wasn't doing with Monica.
ljb

Oh, yeah, the "good ol' days" when Clinton sold our secrets to the Chinese, received illegal conributions from "buddhist monks", just about gutted our military and intelligence gathering capabilities, refused to take Osama bin Laden into custody, etc. You keep those "good ol' days", thanks. Even though I'm not a huge Bush fan, I'll stick with W.

Boxcar

[ljb]

originally posted by boxcar
Some Iraquis want the the coalition forces to leave"- these predominantly being the Shiite Muslims -- the extremist religious whackos."
These religious whackos being about 60 percent of the general population. What do you think it would be like if some foreign power came to the good ol US of A and tried to set up a government that wasn't in line with our religious beliefs and other various moral standards and lifestyles we have ?
The right wingers on these boards should really try to spend a day without there Blinkers on. There are many people in the world that don't see things as they do and don't want to be told how to live etc.
ljb

[Amazin]

Ralph

The basis for invasion into Iraq by the US and Britain was to get rid of WMD,not capture terrorists.It was allready documented by the CIA and FBI that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.Otherwise the Bush administration would have used information from those sources to make it's case for invading Iraq.
Right now everybody,including Bush and Rumsfeld themselves admit there have been no weapons of mass destruction found yet.The only ones who have found them so far are you and Lefty.

[ljb]

Also if the economy started it's nosedive during the Clinton years, what has Bush done to get us out of the mess. His tax cuts for the rich and famous have done no good. He's had 3 years when are they going to stop blaming Clinton for everything and start taking a little responsibility for the misdeeds ?
Too bad we can't have Bill for another 4. Well there is always Hilliary. Yeah that's the ticket. Hilliary and Bill "Happy Days are here again"
ljb

[Lefty]

Anne Coulter
Damn her anyway, always trying to confuse the liberals with facts.

Boxcar, good post, but let's not forget Clinton's part that helped North Korea with their "nuke" prgm.

But don'tcha just love these liberals? Clinton raised and raised taxes settin' us up for economic disaster dn the rd, and then it starts to happen and his watch is over. Then Bush gets elected and we have all the scandals like Enron that proliferated on Clinton's watch and then we have 9-11 which cripples the economy and orchestrated by a man that Clinton had the chance to arrest, but he passed, and yet it's all Geo. W. Bush's fault.
I used to be a big drinker but what the hell are these liberals drinking> I never been that out of focus.

[Lefty]

ljb, You don't listen do you? I am not rich and famous and the tax refunds i've been getting since Bush have tripled. And i'm not rich. And besides, the bulk of the tax cuts haven't been put in effect yet. The economy is still reeling, from 9-11, yet you expect instant economic success from Bush. Get real, my man. Enjpy your tax cuts and don't worry about "the other guy" Your gastric juices will improve.
And as i've also told you before, even that Democrat JFK knew that tax cuts were the way to bolster an economy.

[Show Me the Wire]

Fanatic equates to uncompromising, which sounds like supporters of the liberal left. As for me, I cannot have a discussion with someone when the someone is uncompromising and is always much wiser than I.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

In mythical times all things were whole

[ljb]

You also are running with blinkers on. Oh did you get your welfare check yet this month? Like I said to Boxcar when is this gang of hooligans going to stop blaming Clinton for all there mismanagement of the economy and take responsibility. And finally do something besides there tax cuts for the well to do. Which have not worked yet except to help the well to do. Gosh Lefty try to broaden your horizons a bit, there is more to life then the measly tax cut you got from Bush.
ljb

[Figman]

Maybe in our world of pari-mutuel horse racing, the takeout (TAX) should be higher for the bettor that is wealthier and less for the guy or gal that has to scrounge up their daily betting stake. Good idea?

Of course a federal income tax cut will help the wealthier person for that person pays more taxes in the first place. The amount in dollars and cents should be larger. It seems to me that some of the people on this thread must be recent products of our downtrodden educational system.

[ljb]

I hate to upset your thought process here but, the tax/takeout at the race track is the same for all players. Those that bet higher amounts will be paying higher amounts.
Also, assuming you are not one of the rich and famous I hate to break the news to you but , you and others on board here pay a higher percentage of your gross annual income in taxes then the rich and famous.
Just another thing for you to think about.
ljb

[boxcar]

Originally posted by ljb
Also if the economy started it's nosedive during the Clinton years, what has Bush done to get us out of the mess. His tax cuts for the rich and famous have done no good. He's had 3 years when are they going to stop blaming Clinton for everything and start taking a little responsibility for the misdeeds ?
Too bad we can't have Bill for another 4. Well there is always Hilliary. Yeah that's the ticket. Hilliary and Bill "Happy Days are here again"
ljb

How selectively poor your memory is! (And btw, there is no "if" about it! I remember the time well because I got hurt fairly badly in the markets back in March 2000!)

And do you recall a date called 9/11? And do you recall the billions that attack costs us -- thanks in large part to Comrade Clinton refusing to take custody of Osama when he had that slimebucket offered to him on a platter.

And do you recall the corporate scandals -- scandals which roots also took hold on Clinton's watch but the flowers thereof blossomed during Bush's administration when the markets continued to tank.

The old worn out, tired "tax cuts for the rich" mantra only betrays your class bigotry. To me, there's something intrinsically and fudamentally fair about the bulk of the tax cuts going to the folks who pay the lion's share in taxes. But this isn't something I would expect liberals (socialists) to understand.

Boxcar

[ljb]

The lions share of taxes are paid by the middle income people in this country. The corporate scandals were perpetrated mostly by large contributers to the republican party. Kenny boy of Enron fame is one that comes to mind.
9/11 was a tradgedy that probably would have occurred irregardless of Osama's whereabouts.
We are supposed to be talking about current events here. When ever things don't sound the way you right wingers want to spin them you bring up Clinton. He has been out of the whitehouse for a while now. Get over it! Start taking a little responsibility for what your dude has done to us.
Like i heard on CNN this morning, Bush has done one thing that Osama and Saddam couldn't do. He has united the Arabs around the world in there hatred of the good ol U. S. of A. Your children and your children's children will be paying for Bush's actions.
ljb

[boxcar]

Originally posted by ljb
I hate to upset your thought process here but, the tax/takeout at the race track is the same for all players. Those that bet higher amounts will be paying higher amounts.

What manner of sophistry is this!? The irrefutable fact is: Both kinds of bettors pay the identical rate which is imminently fair.

Also, assuming you are not one of the rich and famous I hate to break the news to you but , you and others on board here pay a higher percentage of your gross annual income in taxes then the rich and famous.
Just another thing for you to think about.
ljb

You gotta be kidding! A guy making 20K a year is in a higher tax bracket (paying a higher rate) than a guy making 5 times as much? Is this what you're telling us?

Boxcar

[Figman]

ljb (or is it LBJ)

You must have learned the dysfunctional "new math" in your schoolhouse. In relation to your suggestion to "tax the rich" more on their income, I propose that we also segregate the taxation (takeout) in our horse racing world. Have more than one exacta pool at each venue. Those bettors in the clubhouse (the wealthy and well-heeled) should have their bets subject to a higher takeout and those bettors in the grandstand should be able to bet into pools with a different and lower (tax rate) takeout. Comprande? Makes as much sense as your arguments!

[ljb]

Figman ,
I am not sure if I understand your point. Are you suggesting a flat tax?
I have never advocated a difference in takeout at the track for different wealth levels of the players but what does that have to do with the topic under discussion here?
ljb

[ljb]

No Boxcar I am not saying a guy making 20 grand is in a higher tax bracket then a guy making millions. What I am saying is. As a percent of your gross income you are paying more taxes then the rich folk are. This includes all taxes not just federal income taxes. Keep in mind that as federal monies run dry states and local governments must increase there revenues to make up for the loss in federal funds. Like I said earlier you have to broaden your horizons and look at the BIG picture.
ljb

[boxcar]

Originally posted by ljb
No Boxcar I am not saying a guy making 20 grand is in a higher tax bracket then a guy making millions. What I am saying is. As a percent of your gross income you are paying more taxes then the rich folk are. This includes all taxes not just federal income taxes

Hold on, cowboy, let's stick with federal taxes, since this conversation started with Bush's tax cuts. Moreover, it helps to keep us comparing apples to apples, since states are all over the board with their tax structures -- with some states having no income tax at all.

You truly must be a product (no pun intended) of the "new math" courses.
The income tax system is a graduated system -- meaning lower income folks are taxed at a lower rate than higher income people. A person making 20K a year is in the 15% bracket, while a person making 100K is at the 38.6% level. Last time I checked, the latter percentage is greater than the former!

Keep in mind that as federal monies run dry states and local governments must increase there revenues to make up for the loss in federal funds. Like I said earlier you have to broaden your horizons and look at the BIG picture.
ljb

There's a cure for this problem! Public Charity (a/k/a welfare) is not sanctioned by the Constitution. If we lived by the law of the land, we would not be in the shape we are. In fact, sir, we wouldn't even have an income tax -- a system that is Marxist to the core. It's a system that says it's fine to rob Peter in order to pay Paul. Is it any wonder, then, that the Pauls of this nation are all in favor of it!?

Boxcar

[JustRalph]

The IRS admits that the top 50% of wage earners pay over 95% of taxes. They carry a much bigger load than the bottom 50%. Don't spew that tax cut for the rich garbage. If anybody deserves it.......it's the top 50% of wage earners. I am not in the top 50% but I will take my share too. It has been proven that tax cuts stimulate the economy. It takes a couple of years for it to come to a full head of steam. The longer we wait, the longer it takes.

[Lefty]

ljb, yep, you're a liberal. I prove you wrong on tax cuts and you tell me to broaden my horizons. Looks like you forgot the focus of your own thread. Yep, tax cuts help me and I don't wanta give them up because they might help someone else more. I have no class envy. And I never drew a welfare check in my life. But no sense arguing with you until you take economics 101. Tax cuts have stimulated the economy every time they are tried. And the BULK of the Bush tax cuts haven't been implemented yet.

[Tom]

Originally posted by ljb
originally posted by boxcar

These religious whackos being about 60 percent of the general population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
then they will benifit most from having a democraccy sicne they will be the majority.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you think it would be like if some foreign power came to the good ol US of A and tried to set up a government that wasn't in line with our religious beliefs and other various moral standards and lifestyles we have ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's what the liberals are trying to do.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The right wingers on these boards should really try to spend a day without there Blinkers on. There are many people in the world that don't see things as they do and don't want to be told how to live etc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They were totally repressed under Hussein, until we came along and livberated them. We are trying to help them rebuid and install a fair government - not an Islamic one, which the wolrd needs no more of. Too damn bad if islamic idiots don' t like it.
One less islamic state is a good thing. And Syria and Iran may soon find out, too, what price too support terrorists. Let's see, now, Afgahnistan and Iraq, under US control, surrounding the Irani-evil empire. And Syria, a gernade's throw away.
Take off your blinkers - THEY already came here and tried to destroy our way of life. Now they pay. Period. You are either with us or against us. Anyone who harbors terrorists are as gulity as terrorists.
W told us right after 911 that it waould be costly, that it would take time, that we would not always be told everything going on.
But from what I see so far, we are on track. Evil is falling. Maybe we are in Armageddon? The final triumph of good over evil?
The whor eof Babylon has fallen - wasn' that a signal?
Keep this in mind.....you can be agains the war, against Bush, against the US policies, but your are still an infidel, and Bin Laden still wants to kill you. In his eyes, you and I are the same.
Only we know better, don't we?

ljb :rolleyes: ;)

[Lefty]

ljb, oh, oh, I forgot. You say Kenny boy of Enron comes to mind as buddy of Bush. Hmmm, when Kenny asked Bush adm for help he was turned down cold. But Clinton adm helped plenty. These scandals were going on 8 yrs before Bush took office and were UNCOVERED on Bush's watch.

[ljb]

Sorry Tom but your post is totally messed up. You are attributing quotes to me that came from lefty and even signed the last paragraph with my id. Just one thing, the 60% whackos (leftys original term) are the ones that are raising hell about getting the U.S. out of Iraq. Would it still be good if they had a democracy? And you can get off the patriotism bit now, it is starting to wear thin.
ljb

[ljb]

There you go again . Bringing up Clinton. Look out the window, look at the calender, turn on the radio. Clinton is no longer President. Kenny boy was a staunch Bush supporter. Bush benifited from support such as this and is now trying to repay his supporters.
Funny how you right wingers always bring up Clinton when you can't face the facts.

[ljb]

I never implied the federal income tax was not a graduated tax. And this topic did not start with Bush's tax cuts. Bush's tax cuts just got in the fray.
Are you suggesting we have a flat tax ? I introduced all the other taxes we pay in order to open your eyes to the big picture. Something the rightwingers seem to have trouble doing.
ljb

[hurrikane]

one thing we can all be happy about.

No one up here is running the country. :D

[ljb]

LOL ,
Nice to get a light touch.
ljb;)

[Lefty]

ljb, first of all that 60% whacko quote wasn't mine. We bring up Clinton because he was president just 3 yrs ago and messed the country up so bad it surely will take longer than that to straighten it out. Besides how can you forget Clinton? He's ubiquitas.
You holler about the rich gettin' tax cuts and when I prove a poor guy like me benefits too, you tell me to broaden my horizons. Then when it's proven by plain old statistics you're wrong you try to throw in state tax and every other kind of tax. This country is still very much suffering from the actions of Clinton, so let's not dismiss him so easily.
This current meltdown of economy started on Clinton's watch, propogated by 9-11 and you expect a first term Pres to turn it all around on a dime. But don't worry, if anyone can do it Geo W can, if the libs and so-called moderates in Congress let him.

[ljb]

Lefty,
You used the term Whackos, I just supplied the percent. If you want to ignore the fact that you pay a larger percentage of your gross income in taxes then the rich do, go right ahead. Tighten up them blinkers. Kenny boy and the rest of Bush's cronies love your ignorance. Or maybe it's not ignorance just blind faith.
I see on the news that there are even a few of Bush's own party members that see the fallacy of his domestic programs. Perhaps you should listen to them . But wait that would be broadening your horizons, nope that won't work.
ljb

[Amazin]

Lefty Quote"I am not rich and famous and the tax refunds i've been getting since Bush have tripled'.

I Just did my taxes and haven't noticed much change in the last few years.What are you talking about SPECIFICALLY that has caused you tax refund to triple?

[Tom]

Originally posted by ljb
originally posted by boxcar
Some Iraquis want the the coalition forces to leave"- these predominantly being the Shiite Muslims -- the extremist religious whackos."
These religious whackos being about 60 percent of the general population. What do you think it would be like if some foreign power came to the good ol US of A and tried to set up a government that wasn't in line with our religious beliefs and other various moral standards and lifestyles we have ?
The right wingers on these boards should really try to spend a day without there Blinkers on. There are many people in the world that don't see things as they do and don't want to be told how to live etc.
ljb

All my replies were inserted into this post by you. No mix ups.
The ljb at the bottom was left there in error - I meant to erase it/

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Amazin
Lefty Quote"I am not rich and famous and the tax refunds i've been getting since Bush have tripled'.

I Just did my taxes and haven't noticed much change in the last few years.What are you talking about SPECIFICALLY that has caused you tax refund to triple?

Amazin, did you get the $600 check last year? And it depends on your tax bracket what kind of break you received.

[boxcar]

Originally posted by ljb
I never implied the federal income tax was not a graduated tax. And this topic did not start with Bush's tax cuts. Bush's tax cuts just got in the fray.
Are you suggesting we have a flat tax ? I introduced all the other taxes we pay in order to open your eyes to the big picture. Something the rightwingers seem to have trouble doing.
ljb

Of course you weren't, ljb. You are suggesting something far more absurd, however. You would have us believe that poor folks are bearing the greatest tax burden, which is pure unadulterated horse manure.

And no, I'm not for a Flat Tax. That's still a tax on income. I'm in favor of the Fair Tax, which is a consumption-based tax.

As far as open eyes are concerned, I believe hell would freeze over before any leftist blind guide would be able to lead any "rightwingers" down the golden path to utopia.

Boxcar

[Lefty]

ljb, better recheck, my man. Don't think I used the term whackos.
Anyway, by your premise on taxes, you know, us poor gettin' robbed on the gross and all, isn't that a still better reason to want that tax cut. Come on now, don't be a run-of-the-mill liberal and want it both ways.
Amazin," My acct. says it something to do with SS rebates. Gosh, Clinton raised taxes on SS and bush gives a rebate. I like Bush's idea better. And then there was that $600, hmmm...

[ljb]

I checked back and you have my deepest apoligys it was boxcar that first used the term whackos. Although I thought it was used in a response to my statement about the Iraquis protesting the U.S. being there. Unless some posts have been deleted.
On the tax issue. This should be all the more reason we would want the well to do to pay there fair share in supporting our governments. That is, why shouldn't they pay a similiar percentage of there gross income in taxes to what we pay?
I'm gonna post this and then go back and check the posts again.

[ljb]

I went through the posts and spotted another item which needs clarification. I had asked you if you received your welfare check yet this month and you had responded You had never drawn a welfare check in your life. Well according to the republicans you have, you see when they start ranting and raving about the amount of dollars spent on welfare they are including social security in there amounts. Seems they think any money given to american citizens by the government is welfare. Except of course if it comes in the form of tax breaks.
Go figure.

[ljb]

Consumption based tax. Of course that would mean the lower income people would still be paying a higher percent of there income in taxes. In reality consumers do pay all taxes. Now your going to have to think that out a bit before you respond but if you work it out you will find it is true.

[Lefty]

ljb, thanks for the apoligy. The more money you make in this country the higher your tax rate. So they do pay their fair share. I have never heard a Republican link SS with welfare. Republicans want to fix the SS system which is a giant Ponzi scheme and will come crashing down under its own wght. They want to privatize a part of it for younger people so my kids and grandkids and yours will be able to have some too.
A yr or so ago Boxcar and I bloodied ea. other over the flat tax and consumption tax issue. Boxcar is one helluva debater and I think he might have gotten the best of me but I stlll prefer the flat tax.

[boxcar]

Originally posted by ljb
Consumption based tax. Of course that would mean the lower income people would still be paying a higher percent of there income in taxes.

Such statements reveal your ingnorance about the Fair Tax plan. I'm not going to waste my limited time talking about this issue with you. If you want to broaden your own horizons go to:

http://www.fairtaxnow.com/

In reality consumers do pay all taxes. Now your going to have to think that out a bit before you respond but if you work it out you will find it is true.

Ahh...you have just made a great case for abolishing the income tax! We the People are indeed at the end of the tax chain and shoulder the entire tax burden across the board, i.e. federal, state and local taxes, which come in all flavors. So why should we be strapped with an unconstitutional federal income tax to boot (notwithstanding the highly questionable 16th Amend.)? In fact, sir, you are so correct that the reality of the matter is that corporations really do not pay taxes! The taxes they "pay" and the tremendous compliance costs for complying with a virtually incomprehensible, burdesome tax code are all incorporated into the costs of goods and services and are ultimately borne by the lowly consumer.

Put these hese facts in your hash pipe and puff on them for awhile.

Boxcar

[Lefty]

Boxcar, right-on. All corporation taxes are borne by the consumer. That's why I laugh when they talk about corporate welfare. And who are these evil corporations? They are us, anyone with stock or a 401K.

[Amazin]

Lefty,you may be an ant to a corporation but don't fool yourself that you mean anything more to them.BTW all those personal retirement plans have been so eroded since this administration that any income tax savings are ants compared to those losses.

Now can someone tell me what this $600. check that Santa Clause gave you has to do with?I'm self employed,so this may not apply to me.

[boxcar]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Amazin
Lefty,you may be an ant to a corporation but don't fool yourself that you mean anything more to them.BTW all those personal retirement plans have been so eroded since this administration that any income tax savings are ants compared to those losses.

You don't read too swell, do you, Amazin'? As I told ljb, that erodibility bagan back in March 2000 -- on Clinton's watch! You liberals, with selectively poor memories, need to get CAT scans done on your brains to find out why your onboard RAM
has also eroded along with those 401ks.

Boxcar

[Amazin]

I don't read well?Well I read history.Doesn't take a genius to look at what Bush senior did to the economy and how he lost the election to Clinton based on that.Clinton turned it around shortly resulting in an easy realection as a result of that.He didn't give the excuse that Bush SR. messed up the economy mommy and I'm having trouble fixing it.Now Bush Jr.follows in the same path of economic disaster.I don't need to describe them to you.Read the newspapers.Excuses,excuses.If their is one reason that this Bush stands to lose the election,it's the economy.Not because of what Clinton did in 2000,but what Bushwacker did in his 4 years.Your excuse is pathetic.

[ljb]

Boxcar,
You keep blaming the stock markets demise on Clinton. ( a typical rightwinger i might add) . My question to you : When in the hell is Bush gonna do something about the dismal state of the economy. Don't say anything about more of his unequitable tax cuts, they have already proven to be benificial to just the rich and famous.
Economys still in the tank as is the market.
ljb

[ljb]

Boxcar sorry to hear your time is too valuable to be wasted on this board. I thought I might be able to help you out here. At least we do agree on one thing. All taxes are paid for by consumers.
What part of "OF course that means lower income people would still be paying a higher percentage of their gross income in taxes " don't you understand?

[JustRalph]

When are you going to realize that President has very little to do with the current economy...... they can bat it around a little but the cyclic nature of the economy guarantees a four year or more cycle before anything that is done today, really takes hold. It is called flow through. It takes time for the money to 'Flow Through" :cool:

[thoroughbred]

Hey Everybody,

Why waste time debating "Amazin?"

Remember the famous saying that goes something like this:

"It is impossible to use logic to change the mind of someone who has reached his conclusions illogically."

[Tom]

Originally posted by ljb
Boxcar sorry to hear your time is too valuable to be wasted on this board.


Point of order here. Boxcar did not say he wouldn't waste time on this board, he said he wasn't going to waste it on YOU.

[ljb]

Well now aint that convenient. Bush's economic policies wont be affecting us until he is out of office. If I remember correctly things were in the tank during Bush seniors reign also. Guess that must have been Reagons fault.
ljb

[ljb]

I stand corrected.
Sorry to hear boxcar doesn't have time to waste on me . He could use the help I have to offer.
ljb

[Tom]

Just maybe there others responsible for destroying the economy.
How about all these big corporations "downsizing" to pad their CEO salaries? Look at American airlines - they get the rank and file to make wage and benefit concessions and then it turns out they were padding thier own packages to make sure that they got even richer than they would have. How about all these companies moving operations out of the country to cut costs?
How about the multitude of labor unions that have priced their woorkers rightout of jobs? How about the lobbiests that buy the representatives you and I think we elect to represent us?
It is not just Bush - America is in a greed mode and it is killing itself. We will do to ourselves what no foreign power could ever do.

[Amazin]

Ralph quote"the cyclic nature of the economy guarantees a four year or more cycle before anything that is done today, really takes hold."

Total Bull.Imagine running for election and having an economic platform saying we're going to turn the economy around but make sure you reelect me cause I need two terms to do that according to Ralph's theory of psuedo economics.Lose in a landslide.I'd love to run against a sucker like that.

[Lefty]

The economy was turning around during the last quarter of Geo H. Bush's adm. Clinton termed it "the worst economy in 50 yrs" This was a total lie. I guess he forgot about Carter. Everytime ANYTHING negative happened that Clinton was questioned on he blamed it on prev. administration, or sometimes someone in his own adm. i.e. Waco, "uh, you'll have to ask Janet Reno about that" he said. He wouldn't take responsibility for anything remotely bad. He took credit for everything good. His economy, which was the Bush economy coming back, was further bolstered by the election of the 94 congress who bullied him into welfare reform and the balanced budget. But he took the credit.
During the last of his adm those drastic tax hikes took effect and the economy stated sinking. Geo W. warned about it during his campaign.
Now in the face of all that, and 9-11, AND the fact that most of Geo. W's tax cuts won't take effect for several yrs, this one man is supposed to magically turn the economy around. Laughable, even for liberals.
$600 was Santa Clause money? Absolutely not. It was the return to hard working Americans a portion of their own money which was confiscated by the IRS. Singles got $300, married couples $600. If you paid taxes you got this money.
Now let the bulk of those tax cuts Bush wants ACTUALLY take place and watch the economy turn around.

[boxcar]

Originally posted by ljb
Boxcar sorry to hear your time is too valuable to be wasted on this board. I thought I might be able to help you out here. At least we do agree on one thing. All taxes are paid for by consumers.
What part of "OF course that means lower income people would still be paying a higher percentage of their gross income in taxes " don't you understand?

Well, Amazin', since you, evidently, have time to spare, educate yourself and visit the Fair Tax website.

BTW, my time isn't too valuable to be "wasted on this board". I never said that. But be clear on this: It is far too valuable to be spent on misguided, misinformed, simplistic, naive and brainwashed bleeding heart liberals like yourself.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Amazin
Ralph quote"the cyclic nature of the economy guarantees a four year or more cycle before anything that is done today, really takes hold."

Total Bull

What is "total bull" is that you believe the economy can turn on a dime, which it positively cannot. Typical liberal drivel.

And just for your info: It is the people of this country who make the economy work -- not the U.S. government. If anything, the government, for the most part, can only gum up the works. It is the hard working people of this nation and the entrepreneurs that drive the free enterprise system and the economy. Anything the government touches usually turns to horse manure in short order.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Amazin
I don't read well?Well I read history

If you were such a historyf buff, then you'd realize, as do most of the people on this board, that the economy started its nosedive in March of 2000 when your Comrade Clinton was in office. That's history! Other "little events" since then (do you recall 9/11, for example?) have aggravated the situation. But why I am even saying this to a Propaganda Buff who is a soul mate to Baghdad Bob?

Boxcar

[Tom]

Bush 41's mistake was a tax HIKE, not a cut. He bowed to pressure and did what he thought was not the right thing to do. Especially after he made that comment - Read My Lips......
So if the economy was screwed up, it sure wasn't a tax cut that did it.
Look at it this way, when you tax less, the public has more, so they spend it, invest it, churn it and grow the economy. When you raise taxes, the public has less, spends less, and the economy throttles down.

[Dave Schwartz]

Boxcar (and Amazin),

>>>And just for your info: It is the people of this country who make the economy work -- not the U.S. government. If anything, the government, for the most part, can only gum up the works.<<<

And that is a conservative position. Accurate, but still conservative. <G>

I would say that the economy was sliding before March of 2000. I remember all the fears of company's crashing with Y2k... and the serious hype that the White House "spun" to counteract that. We were lucky that we did not have a complete meltdown in 4th quarter, 1999.

And, if one wants to get critical of Clinton's years (and THIS one does), just look at the whole dot.bomb debacle. Remember those overnight, walk-away, leave-the-investors-holding-the-bag millionaires? That was on the Clinton watch. Or did you not read about that?

Dave Schwartz

[Rick]

I don't understand why you guys are surprised that LBJ is a liberal. Oops, sorry, I guess that's LJB. On the other hand, it could be a clever disguise.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Dave Schwartz

....That was on the Clinton watch. Or did you not read about that?

Dave Schwartz

Liberals are able to read and ignore facts. It passes through their systems, kind of like those nutritional fat-blockers. That is why so many of them are full of poop.

* * *
Welcome back Rick - we missed you.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Rick
I don't understand why you guys are surprised that LBJ is a liberal. Oops, sorry, I guess that's LJB. On the other hand, it could be a clever disguise.

I wonder if LJB carries his pups around by the ears...........

[boxcar]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dave Schwartz
Boxcar (and Amazin),

>>>And just for your info: It is the people of this country who make the economy work -- not the U.S. government. If anything, the government, for the most part, can only gum up the works.<<<

And that is a conservative position. Accurate, but still conservative. <G>

Gee, Dave, you almost sound as though you're apologizing for the conservatives being right. The fact of the matter is that conservatism is far more often right than wrong on the vast majority of issues.

I would say that the economy was sliding before March of 2000. I remember all the fears of company's crashing with Y2k... and the serious hype that the White House "spun" to counteract that. We were lucky that we did not have a complete meltdown in 4th quarter, 1999.

You're on the mark on this one. Now that you mention it, I do recall some of that fear and hype.

Dave continues:
And, if one wants to get critical of Clinton's years (and THIS one does), just look at the whole dot.bomb debacle. Remember those overnight, walk-away, leave-the-investors-holding-the-bag millionaires? That was on the Clinton watch. Or did you not read about that?

Revisionists don't give a hoot about historical facts. They live by the spin and they'll die by it!

Boxcar

[Dave Schwartz]

Boxie,

My point was that "less goverment is better" is the cornerstone of the conservative beliefs. Not meant as an apology.

While I am conservative on most issues, I would like to think I am open-minded enough to be (dare I say it?) l-l-l-liberal on others. (Okay, almost l-l-l-l ... you know.)

I lose respect for anyone that is intractable in terms of their political beliefs. The "cookie cutter" style of political theory just doesn't work.

For example, where many "L's" never met a social program they did not like, and many "C's" resist all social programs, I can accept that there are some that are needed/merited/necessary. Of course, typically our governements implementation of the social program turns it into a simple doling of money. A social program should solve a problem, not just address a symptom. (But I am off the track here.)


Dave

[Tom]

You some kind of loose cannon or something? You have
L-L-L-iberal thoughts?
Quick, somebody wave some cash under his nose-bring him back!
:rolleyes:

[boxcar]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dave Schwartz
Boxie,

My point was that "less goverment is better" is the cornerstone of the conservative beliefs. Not meant as an apology.

While I am conservative on most issues, I would like to think I am open-minded enough to be (dare I say it?) l-l-l-liberal on others. (Okay, almost l-l-l-l ... you know.)

I lose respect for anyone that is intractable in terms of their political beliefs. The "cookie cutter" style of political theory just doesn't work.

Well, I am intractable in terms of my political ideology, for which I make no apology. Liberalism, generally, is ideologically and morally bankrupt. However, I am always willing to listen to reasonable arguments or defenses for any particular political issue from the Left. (Having said this, however, I must say that it's more likely that one will find a hen's tooth in a 100-acre cornfield long before hearing a good idea from a liberal.) :)

Boxcar

[Dave Schwartz]

Boxcar,

yeah, but at least you'll listen. <G>

Dave

[Rick]

Tom,

I wasn't gone, just watching way too much news and doing some research to improve my ROI. I used to consider myself pretty much middle-of-the-road, but watching all of the well known liberals make ridiculous statements lately has moved me several notches to the right. That's probably happening to a lot of other people too. Meanwhile, the Democrat leaders are moving farther to the left. They're going to lose big time in '04 if they keep talking that way. I can't decide whether they're stupid or just stubborn. Kerry wants to spend trillions of dollars on health care with no controls on costs. What we really need is just some affordable way to insure ourselves against major medical expenses, say anything over $10,000. That could probably be achieved at little or no cost to taxpayers. But it'll never happen because Democrats want everything and Republicans want nothing. Just my opinion.

[Amazin]

Here is an example of Bush taking from the poor(children) and giving to the rich:

Candidates Agree Bush Pushing Unfair Tax Cuts for Wealthy, Says Children's Defense Fund
WASHINGTON - April 24 - All nine Democratic presidential candidates this month pledged to defend poor children from the Bush Administration's budget war during the Children's Defense Fund's Presidential Candidates Forum on Children. While the candidates at the forum disagreed on the war overseas, all agreed this is not the time to cut essential services for children to pay for massive new tax cuts for the rich.

Six in 10 Americans believe that this is not the time for more tax cuts, according to an April 14th Associated Press poll. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration is planning more than 40 principal events across the country in the next several days to sell its budget and tax plan, which the Congressional Budget Office last month found would have a negligible effect on the economy -- except for causing the budget deficit to swell over the next decade.

Children's Defense Fund President Marian Wright Edelman said millionaires didn't need the tax cut Congress gave them two years ago, and they don't need a new one now, especially when our nation is experiencing a surge in unemployed parents with more and more children falling into extreme poverty, and a million American children are homeless each year.

"We must meet our children's needs during peacetime and wartime, during economic prosperity and downturn. How can we take food from children to give tax cuts to millionaires?" asked Edelman. "All the candidates that gathered with us agreed that it is immoral to subsidize massive new tax breaks for the rich on the backs of poor children."

Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts said there are two Americas -- the one that politicians talk about and the one where millions of children have no health care, are homeless, and lack proper nutrition.

"It is long since time that we had a president who made real the words, Leave No Child Behind(r)," said Kerry. "This administration is laying out enormous plans for building roads, schools, hospitals and providing books in Iraq, and it's time for us to demand that they lay out a plan to do the same here in the United States of America."

Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont noted that we could provide health insurance for every child under the age of 18 in this country for $200 billion.

"It seems to me like that is a better investment," said Dean. "What are we doing voting for $350 billion in tax cuts for people that don't need them?"

Sen. Bob Graham of Florida opposes a massive tax cut, which not only eliminates resources for children, but also leaves them with gigantic budget deficits that they will end up paying for in the future.

"President George Bush has decided that it is more important to give massive tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans than to invest in our children. That is wrong," said Graham. "The question before us is what should be our priority? My priority will be our children."

Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri said that we must provide health insurance for everyone in America, but we must first pull back the President's tax plan.

"We have to get rid of almost all of the Bush tax cuts, the one last year, and whatever he tries to put on the books this year," said Gephardt. "We cannot have those tax cuts, most of which go to the wealthiest Americans in this country."

Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio blasted the President's plan to implement massive new tax breaks for the rich.

"I mean, let's face it. Poverty's a weapon of mass destruction. Homelessness is a weapon of mass destruction," said Kucinich. "So my approach is to look to the heart of America, the social needs of America, and to set aside an agenda that calls for tax cuts and war."

Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut noted that we must help children at home have a better life by reordering our priorities, not financing trillion-dollar tax breaks on the backs of America's children.

"If we pull back this outrageously unfair and irresponsible tax cut program of President Bush, we could protect our security and provide a better life for our children," said Lieberman. "(The President) somehow doesn't think it's a moral issue when -- as a result of that tax cut -- you can't afford to support better education for our kids, more child care for our kids and health care for every American."

Rev. Al Sharpton of New York said he would like to see poverty and illiteracy toppled in this country.

"It doesn't take a leap to pass Dodd-Miller, it doesn't take a leap to guarantee health care, it doesn't take a leap to immediately kill Bush's tax cuts and invest that in education," said Sharpton. "We need to go on the offensive against an administration who will give tax cuts to the rich, cut aid to public education, cut aid to day care, turn around and use the rhetoric of Leave No Child Behind(r), while they leave the budget behind their own proposals of leaving no child behind."

Carol Moseley Braun of Illinois noted that charity begins at home, and if we're going to attend to our priorities, we should take care of America first and American children first.

"The American people are a great people, this is a great country, and all we have to do is tap the resources we have to make certain that no American is left behind, that every community has good jobs in it, that people have hope that they can contribute to the whole community to the maximum extent of their ability, whether they're black, white, Hispanic, male, or female," said Braun.

President George W. Bush said in his January 27, 2001 radio address that "Children and parents who have had only bad choices need better choices. And it is my duty as president to help them." In remarks to the Nation's Governors State Dinner on February 23, 2003, the president said, "We share the responsibility for making sure every child learns and no child is left behind."

[Doug]

AMAZIN,

What do you expect these folks would say?

They talk about this stuff every time there is a republican in office and then when they get in office it doesn't get taken care of.

These same issues have been around for years and years. Nobody wants to solve the problems, just leave them out there as ammo for the opposing party.

If you want to get on board with Carol Braun, you have got to be sick. Almost anybody but her.

Doug

[Jen]

So what this article seems to say (and I guess you believe) is that our children will benefit from programs and handouts. Personally, I think they would most benefit from their parents having jobs that would give them the ability and the self esteem of supporting their family themselves. How do you do that? Let businesses and others (including my-not-rich-self) to keep more of their money. Consumers can afford to purchase, businesses make more money, their companies grow, they hire more employees, Mom & Dad have jobs and support their kids - not the government. I don't know, it seems pretty simple and straight forward to me.

Jen

[Dave Schwartz]

Jen,

Bravo! Well said.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Tom]

Jen,
Welcome to the board and right on. You said more in one sentence than that whole long post just before you.

[Jen]

I think that some people become so emotionally vested in their views that they are unable see logic or acknowledge the merits of anybody else's arguments and thus, probably are not worth debating. Oh...but sometimes you just can't help yourself!

Hey, BTW, I've been having a major debate over on the Netcapper board (I've lurked on both for quite some time, but they looked as if they needed more help in the debate) with a majorly cynical, liberal Brit. I know you're busy on this board but if you feel like airing your views over there once in a while, I could certainly use your or anybody's help. Maybe there is just a silent majority but there are times I feel that the moderator, Gordon, and I are the only sane voices speaking-up over there.

Thanks.

Jen

[Amazin]

Jen

We'll I guess you and a few others think you hit a home run and that's the game.Except for one problem.You struck out.Join the crowd here.You fit in well.Misunderstand what is in black and white to suit your viewpoint.Reread the article.You say"So what this article seems to say (and I guess you believe) is that our children will benefit from programs and handouts.I'm sorry.That's not what it says.Here's a quote from the article"all agreed this is not the time to cut essential services for children to pay for massive new tax cuts for the rich."Apparently you missed the point alltogether.And as far as mom and dad getting jobs,once again you defy logic.When services are cut,jobs are lost.It's that simple.You don't create jobs by cutting services.I know from direct experience because one of my clients works for head start.She and her entire staff will lose their jobs in August thanks to Bush cause he's cutting head start.Great economic policy.Kill jobs.Deprive kids of services and reduce taxes for the rich as a result.Now that's America.Where's my beer.(Burp)Welcome aboard Jen(Burp)

[doophus]

Amazin,

The Headstart program had major flaws on inception day, and it has been even more worthless since. If the entire Federal Education Dept was disbanded by daylight tomorrow, it would be only (20) years too late.

Your Headstart employed client loses his/her job in August, and this is the end of April. I certainly hope my kids and grandkids have that much notice if/when they lose their jobs. BTW, why August? Isn't September 30th the Fed FY ending?

BTW, how has the Headstart program served the kids? IMO, it is only another of those (in)famous Federal projects that takes my $$'s and redistributes to whomever, usually to those with no at-home father/husband--the more not-at-home fathers/husbands that can be created, the more kids can be given a "chance" in life. God, what a motto!! (Can't you just hear Hillary making that statement?) For some of those another chance will be attained later in life, usually at the hands of law enforcement. We need to keep our jails full, huh?

Whatever happened to the home with a father, a mother, and kids all under the same roof? Could the demise of the American family be correlated to the growth of the Fed'l govt?

Keep cuttin', George (Mr President), just faster and deeper.

[Boris]

Originally posted by doophus
Amazin,


BTW, how has the Headstart program served the kids?


Investigation Into Use Of 'Ghost Kids' To Get More Funding

http://www.nbc5.com/unit5investigates/1957931/detail.html


In many cases, the people it serves are adults.

[boxcar]

Originally posted by Jen
I don't know, it seems pretty simple and straight forward to me.

Jen

LOL! This is precisely why this kind of common sense would never compute with a Liberal. A liberal thinks with his feelings not his head.

Boxcar

[Jen]

Amazin,

What you fail to understand is that our government should not have to create and maintain a never ending list of programs in order to create jobs. That is not the function of government. FDR had to because our (and pretty much the world's) economy was truly in a sink hole. This one is not. When the Depression was over, his Government Work Program for the most part ended.

I'm sorry that your friend may lose her job but there are plenty more in her situation in the private sector and that's where the the money that runs our economy is made. The difference is when your friend goes on unemployment, she'll just be getting her check from her old boss.

Jen

[boxcar]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Amazin
Jen

And as far as mom and dad getting jobs,once again you defy logic.When services are cut,jobs are lost.It's that simple.You don't create jobs by cutting services.

Tell us, Amain' just what "services" are being cut so that jobs will be lost? You're taliing about those pseudo jobs that are artifically propped up by the fedral govenment in such programs as "Head Start"? If so, I would to God that every wasteful, useless and counterproductive Public Charity program were abolished, or at least cut to the bone.! Maybe then, people in those artificially created positions would go out and find a real job in the private sector and learn not to rely on Nanny Fed for support!

Boxcar

[boxcar]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rick
Tom,

I wasn't gone, just watching way too much news and doing some research to improve my ROI. I used to consider myself pretty much middle-of-the-road, but watching all of the well known liberals make ridiculous statements lately has moved me several notches to the right.

BRAVO! I'm so happy for you. You're beginning to see the light. ;)

Hey, Rick, how the heck are ya? Was just thinkin' about you the other day and wondered where you were. Glad to see you here.

Rick:
That's probably happening to a lot of other people too.

We can only hope. But I suspect more than a few people's eyes were opened.

Rick:
Meanwhile, the Democrat leaders are moving farther to the left. They're going to lose big time in '04 if they keep talking that way. I can't decide whether they're stupid or just stubborn.

What they are is desperate! The Libs have no positive message. They know this, and are beginning to realize (maybe!) that Americans are sick and tired of their negativism. So, in their desperation, they're trying to come up with something positive -- something to set them far apart from the Bush Admin, which now owns the "middle of the road".

Getting back to the war, though, for a moment, I loved what Rummy said today to troops in Iraq when he paraphrased some journalist about the media's take on the war: He basically said that he has never seen so many people wrong on so many things in such a short period of time. The mainstream media was so negative on the war that I believe they isolated a great many of their readers and/or viewers.

Boxcar

[Jen]

Maybe that's why Fox News is coming out way ahead. They're correct more often than not. That one anchor on CNN, I think his last name is Brown, annoyed me because he always had this look and air of sadness as if it pained him to tell us the news about the war whether it was good or bad. Blech... just tell me the news.

Jen

[PaceAdvantage]

Damn, Amazin has a fight on his hands!! Should be interesting to watch.....logic is always such a formidable opponent.


==PA



PS Welcome aboard Jen!

[Jen]

As I said, I'm usually over on Netcapper's board but I've always lurked here. Just...just couldn't contain myself any longer (re: Saddam - "He's an idiot" - oh boy, oh boy, oh boy.) The liberal Brit I've taken on over there is a bit of a screeching-howler-monkey type as well, but he will debate (after a kind and gentle attitude adjustment by me.) He still goes over the top though (the U.S. and Burma are morally equivalent!) and I have to take a break at times (like now) especially since no one seems to watch my back over there. However, I can hold my own. Gordon chimes in now and again but I imagine he has business to take care of and a debate takes time. He sure can string a sentence or two together well, though.

I apologize if I brought the discourse down with a couple of my comments but they just slipped out. No, really! Okay, not really since my typing skills are so poor ;).

Jen

[boxcar]

Originally posted by Doug
AMAZIN,

What do you expect these folks would say?

They talk about this stuff every time there is a republican in office and then when they get in office it doesn't get taken care of.

These same issues have been around for years and years. Nobody wants to solve the problems, just leave them out there as ammo for the opposing party.

If you want to get on board with Carol Braun, you have got to be sick. Almost anybody but her.

Doug

The federal government is not suited to address these kinds of social issues. Moreover, many attempts have been made by Liberals to “solve the problems” and they have all failed, for the most part. They are doomed to fail because Public Charity programs invariably aren’t administered properly; they invite (in fact beg for!) corruption and abuse; and there are never any disincentives built-in to the programs that would motivate welfare recipients to get off the dole and to stay off it!

But not only have the Libs inside of government failed, but so have Libs in the private sector in terms of their personal giving, generally speaking. Below is a link to a very interesting and enlightening site that ranks the 10 Most and Least Generous metropolitan areas in the U.S.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20030428_55.html

I cannot resist the temptation to do a little religious and political profiling with respect to these two lists. Let’s start with the Ten Most Generous Areas.

On the top of the list by a large margin is Salt Lake City – Mormon Country! Mormonism places a great deal of emphasis on “good works”, and as a religious sect is one of the wealthiest in the land (if not the wealthiest). The Salt Lake area also leans to the Right, politically, if memory serves.

The Grand Rapids Metro area is home to large number of Dutch who migrated to this country in the 18th or 19th century, I believe. Very many of these adhere to the Dutch Reformed traditions of the Christian faith. The area is also home to a Reformed Theological Seminary and a couple of well known (to Christians, of course). Christian publishing houses. That area is very conservative in its politics.

I don’t know what makes the Minn-St. Paul area tick or how they lean politically. If anyone can shed any light, I’m curious to know.

Then note where the rest of the cities are located on this list – in the Bible Belt! In “fly-over” country. In Redneck Land! Politically, the area leans to the Right, generally speaking.

Now on to the Ten Most Parsimonious Areas . Note carefully where the bottom four cities are located – all in the Northeast! All in the Liberal Land.

Vegas and N.O. aren’t surprises here. These two areas are perhaps America’s version of Sodom and Gomorrah. N.O. leans to the Left, politically, but I’m not sure where Vegas stands, politically. But to Vegas’ defense, I would imagine that that city is pretty transient? If so, that wouldn’t help matters any.

I’m not sure what the story is with the Austin-San Marcos Metro area. Can anyone shed any light?

Pittsburgh, Miami-Ft. Lauderdale, and Philly, Atlantic City and Wilmington come as no particular surprise. All of these areas lean to the Left, politically.

And, finally, I’d be remiss if I failed to mention Conspicuous Absences. How ‘bout we start with the Hollywood-Beverly Hills area – the Land of the Elite of the Elitists. The Land of Millionaires, who somehow couldn’t manage to scrape up enough bucks among themselves to make it to the Top Ten Most Generous List. And while on the topic of Hoidy Toids, we mustn’t forget the suave and debonair and filthy rich in Palm Beach. And how could all the rich liberal sophisticates in New York and Chicago fail to make the Top Ten list? All these Metro areas lean decidedly to the Left.

This little study confirms what I have long been saying for years now: Liberals are long on rhetoric but tend to have pretty shallow pockets. They’d rather preach to others to empty their pockets instead! Truly, the Left has earned its nick: Limo Liberals!

Boxcar

[boxcar]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
[B]Damn, Amazin has a fight on his hands!! Should be interesting to watch.....logic is always such a formidable opponent.


==PA

Just to make it fair and interesting, Amazin' needs to go out a drag in here Comrade Bill, Peanut-Breath Carter, D'asshole, Dear Ol' Mom Gephardt, Jessie Jackass, the Rev. Not-so Sharp(ton), and Propaganda King Baghdad Bob in here so we can turn Tom loose on the whole bunch. Anything less than this would only make for many dull moments and an unfair fight.

Boxcar

[Rick]

boxcar,

The reason I always like to think of myself as middle-of-the-road is that most liberals I've talked to seem too optimistic and most conservatives too pessimistic. It shouldn't be impossible to set up a well managed constructive cost effective social program (not socialist program). After all, the military is about the largest government managed entity there is, and it seems to work pretty well considering it's size. But, successful social programs are so hard to find that you have to admit that the pessimists are right far more often than they're wrong. And if the liberals want to slide even more toward wishful thinking and unworkable solutions, it's hard to believe in anything they promote. I don't want to turn into a total cynic, but it doesn't seem like politicians are motivated to come up with anything that really works. Partisan bickering and catering to special interest groups seem to be the only things they do well.

[Lefty]

Amazin, over FIVE TRILLION spent on poverty prgms since Johnson adm and we still have poverty. It's not how much is spent but where it's spent. Money is not the total answer. Prob. this money no help because it has been spent on liberal prms which are top-heavy in beauracracy. Most of the money spent there to implement the prgms and very little goes to the poor.
Tax cuts give more money to everyone who pays taxes at least the Geo. W style tax cuts do and not those shameful, embarassing "targeted" tax cuts demos like to talk about.
Consumers like me spend their money and people who make the goods and products and extend the services we buy have more jobs. The wealthy, spend more on their businesses, expand and create more jobs. Most of Geo. W's tax cuts have not been implemented. When they are, the economy will soar.
Let's talk about after school prgms. When I was a child we had those marvelous after-school prgms that cost the taxpayer NOTHING. I remember them as CHORES. The kids today come home from school and hit the streets. These kids need CHORES.

[Rick]

Lefty,

Politics confuses the heck out of me. In the 50's the top tax rates were over 90% under Eisenhower, a Republican. Then Kennedy, a Democrat, gets big tax cuts and pulls us out of a recession. Then we get Johnson, who starts all of the big spending social programs. He then wins big against Goldwater who is thought to be a "hawk" even though Johnson is now considered one of the most hawkish presidents of all time.

Now, Republicans are for tax cuts and that's considered "conservative". That's why I don't like the labels much. They change too much over time.

Personally, I've gone from cautiously optimistic to skeptical over the last couple of years. If you want to call that conservative go ahead, but the correct label may not last long.

[Lefty]

Rick, don't remember what tax rates were under Eisehower, I was a teen then, but righto Kennedy a democrat cut taxes, but it wasn't till Reagan that the the rate cut cut from 90% to 30something. You'd think these rich movie stars would be kissing Reagan's feet and voting Republican because without that tax rate cut they wouldn't be rich. I agree labels change. But remember, Eisenhower succeeded a demo and he just really wasn;t a politician. But I agree that the Demos of today ain't the Demos of yesteryear. None of them had the guts of Truman that's for sure. The liberals of today really are more like communists than anything. Take from you and me give to someone else, uplift noone but bring everyone dn to same level.

[Tom]

Originally posted by boxcar
[QUOTE]Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
[B]Damn, Amazin has a fight on his hands!! Should be interesting to watch.....logic is always such a formidable opponent.


==PA

Just to make it fair and interesting, Amazin' needs to go out a drag in here Comrade Bill, Peanut-Breath Carter, D'asshole, Dear Ol' Mom Gephardt, Jessie Jackass, the Rev. Not-so Sharp(ton), and Propaganda King Baghdad Bob in here so we can turn Tom loose on the whole bunch. Anything less than this would only make for many dull moments and an unfair fight.

Boxcar

Heh, heh, heh, here kitty, kitty, kitty!

[doophus]

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/

http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/TaxTimeline.htm

The above links should give you every possible tax fact you could desire. Plenty of historical presentations that will allow you to cruise around until your eyes cross.

Note spreadsheet presented at bottom of page of the korpios.org link (just keep scrolling) the max capital gains rates of the teens and 20's (1915 thru 1932) was only 12.5%. With a capital gains rate that low for most of the '20's, I now understand the high-flying '20's. Nope, Dave, I didn't say I remembered. <g>

It appears that the max marginal tax rate remained at 91% until 1964 when it was reduced to 77% and then to 70% the next year. It remained at 70% until Reagan's era. Of course, SS taxes were increased, unemployment benefits became taxable; do any of you remember when "sick pay" was taxfree?

Incidentally, LBJ became Senate Minority Leader the year of Ike's 1st inaugural (1953.) 2 yrs later he was Majority Leader. Sam Rayburn was the Speaker. Kennedy's tax rate decreases began after Kennedy's death.

I've spent approx (2) hrs in the above sites, and the only tax increase that I find during a Republican President's tenure is the tax increase of 1990-1991 (read my lips..........)
Note the tax increases when FDR was guiding us thru the depression.

Hey, gang, have fun!!

[Amazin]

Reality check time.Bush's budget plan calls for the Department of Health and Human services to cut over $15 million in aid to abused children,$200 million in child care funding,$20 million to early education initiative,and cuts to children hospitals.Headstart is just part of this "war on children"

Now lets take a look at what your Fuhrer has in store for the wealthy.The plan will disproportionatelyhelp the wealthy.The wealthiest Americans with average incomes over a million dollars would now save approx. $35,000 more per year.By 2010,(if and when) the Bush tax cuts are fully in place,52% of the total tax cuts will go to the weathiest 1%,who will now save on average,$85,000 per year.

So does this picture make sense to you.I suppose if all you horseplayers are millionaire's it does.But lets say you are a poor single mom.Now you get less help with your kids,your childcare services are taken away from you while your trying to hold down 2 jobs to make ends meet,and you see this Fuhrer,giving more help to those millionaires who don't need it and makes your life harder by taking away the little services you had.In other words,you have to be more of a slave to the system,with your burden of raising kids so you can fund the millionaires tax cuts so that they have more time to play golf.

[PaceAdvantage]

Ahhhh, more inflamatory rhetoric....instead of KKK, he is now invoking the ol' "Fuhrer" moniker. How very, very quaint. Further evidence that we are dealing with nothing more than a troll with web access.

You know, they used to call Rudy Giuliani the "F" word as well....so I guess by your standards, Bush is in pretty good company, since ol' Rudy can do no wrong these days.....

[Tom]

Let me explain tax cuts to you in horse racing terms. Maybe you will understand it then.
I go to the track and bet $2 to win on the 3 horse.
You go to the same track and bet $50 to win on the same 3 horse.
The 3 horse is scratched at the gate.
All money wagered on the 3 is REFUNDED (segway)
You get back $50. I get back $2.
Is this fair to me? THis GD track is only pandering to the big bettors. It is a plot aginst me. The track manager must be hitler.
Why should you get more than me on the refund?????
This refund is merely a break for the big guys.
This is not fair!!!

[Rick]

Lefty,

Right you are. The only thing that confuses me more than politics is rich Hollywood liberals. And how many songs have been written and sung by rich people about socialist ideas. Are they kidding us or are they really that stupid? I've always wondered what the result would be if you took the total income of the world and divided it equally over the entire population. I'll bet that it would turn out that nobody would have enough to do anything more than just survive. I don't think that's what any of us really want. I still think the luckiest thing that ever happened to me or could happen to me was to be born here. And I'm not giving it away. If someone else wants to, go ahead. But I'm not going to listen to anyone talk about sharing the wealth when they have 100 times more than I do.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Tom@HTR
Let me explain tax cuts to you in horse racing terms. Maybe you will understand it then.
I go to the track and bet $2 to win on the 3 horse.
You go to the same track and bet $50 to win on the same 3 horse. The 3 horse is scratched at the gate.
All money wagered on the 3 is REFUNDED (segway)
You get back $50. I get back $2.
Is this fair to me? THis GD track is only pandering to the big bettors. It is a plot aginst me. The track manager must be hitler.
Why should you get more than me on the refund?????
This refund is merely a break for the big guys.
This is not fair!!!

Classic Tom! Classic....it says it all......:D

[Lefty]

Tom, I was going to say the people that pay the most get the most back; but your analagy was much better. Superb!

[doophus]

Tom...

Again, top notch!!!

Rick...

If each human had an equal amount of $'s on a given day, how long would it take the 20% to control the 80% of $'s?? My $'s would be bet on sooner rather than later.

[Amazin]

I'm begininig to wonder your about reading comprehension.Evidently it is lacking or pretending to be nonexistent.None of the replies deals with the point I made which means either you know I am right or you are skirting the issue which is:Bush policy:Greater tax cuts for the rich apparently subsidized by simultaneously providing less aid to the poor and children. This is my point..I don't need you to tell me how much I get back when my horse is scratched or if aliens exist or other irrelevant info.

[Tom]

Judging by your posts lately, I can only conclude you must have been a pro-level dodge-ball player in high school. That cut and weave stuff always, well, amazes me!

[boxcar]

Originally posted by Amazin
I'm begininig to wonder your about reading comprehension.Evidently it is lacking or pretending to be nonexistent.None of the replies deals with the point I made which means either you know I am right or you are skirting the issue which is:Bush policy:Greater tax cuts for the rich apparently subsidized by simultaneously providing less aid to the poor and children. This is my point..I don't need you to tell me how much I get back when my horse is scratched or if aliens exist or other irrelevant info.

Tell me where in the U.S. Constitution, you Class Bigot, is the moral imperative established for Public Charity. Once you show me that, we'll go from there.

Boxcar

[Tom]

Originally posted by boxcar

Tell me where in the U.S. Constitution, you Class Bigot, is the moral imperative established for Public Charity. Once you show me that, we'll go from there.
Boxcar

Ball's in your court, Big A.

dada da da dada da
dada da da DA! dadadadada

(Jeopordy theme music in background)

[Jen]

Consumers can afford to purchase, businesses make more money, their companies grow, they hire more employees, Mom & Dad have jobs and support their kids - not the government. I don't know, it seems pretty simple and straight forward to me.

Friday, May 02, 2003

Associated Press

"A big fear among economists is that consumers, whose spending accounts for two-thirds of all U.S. economic activity, will continue to keep their wallets closed as layoffs continue and hiring remains stagnant. That scenario would result in even more job losses."

"Factories, which have been hardest hit in the recession, shed another 95,000 jobs in April. Those losses were widespread, with notable declines in motor vehicles, fabricated metals and electronics equipment."

They're talking about the folks that make the stuff and the folks that buy the stuff. Let everybody keep more of their money - the rich, the middle-class, and the poor - then consumers spend, factories need to produce goods, companies start hiring, people get jobs, and they too start spending. It's a winning cycle.

I can tell you that I live in a city with a high cost of living (ask freeneasy in Venice) so I sure would appreciate more in my paycheck. I might do some more home improvements, give Home Depot some of my money...

Jen

[Lefty]

Amazin, we read your point, we get it, and we say you are WRONG. The poor can't be helped by more taxation or less tax cuts. The bureacracy EATS UP the money. The way to help poor children is to stimulate the economy through tax cuts. This has been enumerated ad nauseum. Maybe it's you who does not possess the proper teading and cognitive skills. Just perhaps...

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Lefty
The bureacracy EATS UP the money.

There were some studies by the Reagan Admin in the 80's that said 69 Cents of every dollar in some area's went to bureacracy.
One was the headstart program. Reagan gave them 3 years to fix it and when it only dropped to 60 cents he cut the funding in his next budget. The Dems howled.

[Rick]

One can only imagine how outraged people would be if a charitable organization ran as inefficiently as the government.

[Amazin]

Nobody responded with any argument to my last point in bold with any reasons even closely resembling a counterpoint.Boxcar calls me a class bigot(meaningless).Lefty says I'm wrong but reasons given are not relating to the point.You guys are an embarrasment to the word intelligence.No wonder you guys follow Bush.Clueless.

[ljb]

Amazin,
I am amazed at your tenacity. These Bush lap dogs will never see the light. They blindly follow there hero down the primrose path.
"I did not have sex with that woman." Bill Clinton
" Saddam has advanced nuclear wepons and must be erradicate." Dick Cheney
Which lie cost the most American lives ?
Bet the rightys skip right by that question.
Good luck,
ljb;)

[Tom]

Originally posted by Amazin
Nobody responded with any argument to my last point in bold with any reasons even closely resembling a counterpoint.Boxcar calls me a class bigot(meaningless).Lefty says I'm wrong but reasons given are not relating to the point.You guys are an embarrasment to the word intelligence.No wonder you guys follow Bush.Clueless.


It is your opinion, not backed up by any facts presented by you or anyone else. While we all agree your right to your opinon, we do protest your claim that it is fact without evidence. You tired old liberal arguments have been used in school budget referendums for years - if you vote against it, you are against education.
CRAP.
What typically happens is the liberals are waasting money on things not remotely helping education and then want more. They hide under the guise of we need it for the kids. I would prefer to see the kids learn what is menas to have a budget and have to live within it - and to do without when you can't afford it. For all the cry your libs have about the conservatives being for the rich, it always YOU guys that wnat more, more, more. All we are talking about here is give us back OUR money, in a proportion that WE paid it to begin with so that WE can use it to help the economy.
Now answer MY question....if the Bush administration is so evil and corrupt, why in heavens name do you push so hard for IT to handle the welafare of people and trust IT with using our taxes?
If the country is truly more to YOUR way of thinking, wouldn't you think THEY would use the money more wisely?
And, LJB, we are tenacious...it is hard to give up on the truth.
We are not die-hards, we are just RIGHT.
No, you two losers get no more attention - there is a great day of racing coming up and I don't see either of your numbers as worth a bet. BTW, are you guys betting the Derby? If you do, aren't you supporting the RICH folk you hate so much?

[Tom]

Originally posted by ljb
Amazin,
I"I did not have sex with that woman." Bill Clinton
" Saddam has advanced nuclear wepons and must be erradicate." Dick Cheney
Which lie cost the most American lives ?
Bet the rightys skip right by that question.
Good luck,
ljb;)


Oh no, we won't - I may be first but I will not be the last to adress this one. Simple - Clinton's lie cost more lives in the long run. Becaseu he was a zipper-monkee for 8 years, the whole US military was allowed to weaken and the whole arab world was allowed to gain power and confidence. We will be paying the bills of Clinton's presidency for decades to come in both money and lives lost. Talk about lap dogs - if you are still defending that idiot, you are really in need of a real education, not the watered-down liberal trash most public schools are doling out these days.
Together, you and Amazin make a good wit :rolleyes:

[Lefty]

Well said, Tom. ljb, Clinton lied, Cheney did not. We know right from one of Saddams top scientists that Saddam was working on Nukes. Cheney did not cost one American life; Saddam did, but you just don't want to get it. Bush and Cheney saved Iraquis and american lives. Iraqui lives were saved now and in the future, americans were saved from Saddam getting any nukes or chemicals to use upon us in the future. Clinton was an embarassment, Bush is a hero.

[ljb]

You guys both appear to have your heads in the sand. Cheney LIED! It was the lean mean fighting machine that Clinton built that just made a shambles of Saddam. Bush also said we must remove Saddam as he has wmd and is a threat to the free world. These appear to be lies as we have found nothing that could be considered wmd. And Saddams power should be evident to all now.
But don't let me stop you in your blind obedience to this administration. After all everybody likes lap dogs. Here boy sit. Good doggy you want a cookie? (taxbreak):eek:
ljb

[ljb]

Tom,
I can't speak for Amazin but, I don't hate the rich folk. And I support them in more ways then betting on the derby. For example I use Windows so that supports Gates and all the many others realated to Microsoft.
just wanted to clear up this one thing.
ljb

[ljb]

What makes you think a charitable organzation is any more efficient then the government ?
ljb , just curious

[Lefty]

ljb, how can you be any more wrong? Well, you were half-right. Clinton built a lean military by decimating the funding.
Charity is more efficient because when done right,it is done by people who do not use up the money in salaries. For instance the Church a few blocks from me gives out food for the needy(and a lot of times the greedy)and all contributions both cash and food get to the recipients.
Keep your cookie and just get on your knees, Clinton's waiting.

[Lefty]

I find it hard to blve that anyone could think a tax hike is preferable to a tax cut. I guess they are afraid someone else might get more ,so in effect, they are willing to "cut off their nose to spite their face" If I hadn't read these guys' spurious arguments with my own eyes, I just wouldn't believe it.

[Tom]

OK, oh great liberal thinkers....how does a tax hike help the economy? How does welfare help the economy?
You are great ones at attacking Bus, what miracle would you perform to fix the economy?

[ljb]

Lefty,
Note your comment
"Charity is more efficient because when done right,it is done by people who do not use up the money in salaries."
The disclaimer here of course is "when done right" and that tends to disprove the original comment that charity is more efficient then government.
ljb

[Lefty]

ljb, well, you're conistent cause you are wrong. Churches do it right, money not tied up in salaries for beaurocrats, Places like Gleaners do it right, all the food is distributed to the people.
The govt. never does charity right because of the chain of bureacrats getting salaries, paying for office space, supplies, help etc. I put in disclaimer because I am suspicious of big, organized charities like United Way where people draw big salaries. But small, local charities is the way to go.
Just to help you further: The Federal Govt NEVER DOES CHARITY RIGHT> I think in the welfare prgm about .20 on dollar gets to the people. Disgraceful.
Read Orwell, Read Huxley, or better yet look at the communist countries. This is what happens to people who expect big govt to take care of them cradle to grave. There is no success among the people, only the misery is spread equally. You want that? Vote for Demos and their big social prgms and that's what you will get.

[Tom]

Liberals with the hand-out mentallity.
Liberals with the concept of living wages.
Liberals with the whole idea of punishing the people with money - hey guys, the people with the money are the ones who went out there and did something - created wealth, created jobs, moved this country.
How may people are welfare receipients hiring these days?
You say you want W to fix the economy? Me too - let him do it by putting money back in the hands of the people - the people who will spend it and stimulate growth. What kind of economy do you think we would have today if it weren't for the trillions of dollars flushed down the toilet on welfare over the years? All that got us was more peolpe living off those that work.
You hear about elderly people who cannot afford the drugs they need to live decent lives and this rally disturbes me. Then you go to the grocery store and look at the carts filled up by food stamp people- beer, cigs, booze, etc. They got money for this crap becasue I am buying them dinner and the elderly who need it are giving them thier viagara money.
The govn't is so evil yet you want everyone to be dependent on it?
No sense in that.

[boxcar]

Originally posted by Amazin
Nobody responded with any argument to my last point in bold with any reasons even closely resembling a counterpoint.Boxcar calls me a class bigot(meaningless).Lefty says I'm wrong but reasons given are not relating to the point.You guys are an embarrasment to the word intelligence.No wonder you guys follow Bush.Clueless.

Well, you didn't bother to respond to challenge to you, to wit: Where in the U.S. Constitution is Public Charity (a/k/a welfare or entitlement programs) sanctioned?

And you are a bigot! the definition of "bigot" is:

Main Entry:big£ot
Pronunciation:*bi-g*t
Function:noun
Etymology:Middle French, hypocrite, bigot
Date:1661

: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
–big£ot£ed \-g*-t*d\ adjective
–big£ot£ed£ly adverb

This describes all liberals to a tee. All libs are intolerant of the "rich". And the "rich" to your way of thinking is just about anyone who isn't living in cardboard houses or eating cans of dog food!

Suppose I were to say this about blacks?: We don't need to waste money on Blacks for a better education. If I were to say something like that I would most certainly be accused of bigortry. Well, when libs tell us that "the rich" don't need tax cuts, it's understood that what you mean is that they're making too much money as it is -- money to which they're not entitled to control or spend as they see fit. It's very easy for you (not to mention high and mighty of you) to sit in judgment of other people and presume to tell them how much money is enough for them. Those kinds of value judgments should be left with the people earningthe money!

So, yeah...you're a Class Bigot, whether you want to accept that fact or not.

Boxcar

[ljb]

I'm waiting for the derby and have a few to reply. My original statement was asking rick what he based his statement Charities are more efficent then goverment. You replied when they do it right they are more efficient. I wont disagree with that. However using the same logic, some government agencies are more efficient then some charities.
Oh and I'm going with the six horse in the derby. Whichever one(s) you like, I wish you luck.
ljb

[Tom]

Good luck with the 6...I left it out but I think it has a good chance - can't bet them all. He is being talked about in the War Room as a soild horse.

[Amazin]

Read my lips,the following are FACTS not opinions.I previously said:"Bush's budget plan calls for the Department of Health and Human services to cut over $15 million in aid to abused children,$200 million in child care funding,$20 million to early education initiative,and cuts to children hospitals.This is a fact,not an opinion
I also said Bush plans greater tax cuts for Millionaires.This is a fact not an opinion.Boxhead thinks I'm a class bigot for stating facts.if you want to criticize me then criticize my point:These two FACTS are happening simultaneously.It looks like Bush is subsidizing millionaires by cutting aid to the poor and children .If there is a class bigot, it's Bush.Boxcar,you are so far off,you are close to deranged.

LJB nice pick on the 6.I originally picked him until I heard them say no N.Y. bred had won the Derby.So I picked Peace Rules.Appropriate name these days.

[Lefty]

When will you libs realize that these bureacracy top-heavy prgms do not work! Tax cuts work. Stimulate the economy and people work and can take care of their own damn kids. It's not the govts job to take care of everybodies kids. Our public education should be completely scrapped and the whole thing privatized. We spend more on education than any country in the world and certainly do not get the best results. Especially since the teacher's union came into existence during the Carter yrs.
Can you do math? You pay more you get more back. What's so hard about that?

[Tom]

You are a testimony for liberal educaton.
See how you do with the new math:

Little Johnny has two apples. On his way to school, he rips of three more from the local bodega because it is run by racist Koreans anyways.
He trades on of the apples for a hit of crank on the playground.
He has to dive for cover duiring a drive-by and loses one apple.
He has to give one apple to Billy for "protection."
When Little Johnny get to class, how many of his fellow students can spell APPLE?

[ljb]

I just read your new math note. It appears to be loaded with racist bias and class bigotry. Surely you are not a racist class snob. What are you really trying to say here?
ljb:confused:

[Lefty]

ljb, you can't be that dense; he was using absurdity to point out absurdity.
But you're true to your liberal leanings; quick on the draw to call someone a racist.

[boxcar]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Amazin
[b]Read my lips,the following are FACTS not opinions.I previously said:"Bush's budget plan calls for the Department of Health and Human services to cut over $15 million in aid to abused children,$200 million in child care funding,$20 million to early education initiative,and cuts to children hospitals.This is a fact,not an opinion
I also said Bush plans greater tax cuts for Millionaires.This is a fact not an opinion.Boxhead thinks I'm a class bigot for stating facts.if you want to criticize me then criticize my point:These two FACTS are happening simultaneously.It looks like Bush is subsidizing millionaires by cutting aid to the poor and children .If there is a class bigot, it's Bush.Boxcar,you are so far off,you are close to deranged.

"Subsidizing millionaires"? Are you mad!? How in the world can someone be subsidized with their own money!? Typical socialist drivel. You believe the money is the government's from the git go -- forgetting from whence the Feds confisicated that money! Someone needs to put your mind in a straightjacket to protect you from yourself!

Boxcar

[JustRalph]

You took the words right out of my mouth..........

[ljb]

Lefty,
Thank you for clearing this up, Tom's absurdity that is. I haven't been around long enough to know when Tom really means what he posts and when he is just exageratting for emphasis.
Oh and I did not call him a racist, quite to the contrary, I said. "Surely you are not a racist class snob."
If we are going to make accusations here lets get our facts straight.
Thank you again,
ljb

[Lefty]

I have my facts straight. "surely you are NOT a racist snob."
Gimme a brk. Are you telling me that sentence was not rife with faciousness? Sounds like you called him a racist to me. But if you didn't, good, but then what was your point?

[Amazin]

Lefty Quote


When will you libs realize that these bureacracy top-heavy prgms do not work! Tax cuts work. Stimulate the economy and people work and can take care of their own damn kids. It's not the govts job to take care of everybodies kids. Our public education should be completely scrapped and the whole thing privatized. We spend more on education than any country in the world and certainly do not get the best results. Especially since the teacher's union came into existence during the Carter yrs.
Can you do math? You pay more you get more back. What's so hard about that?

Re the school issue your statement is heartless.We are talking about the youth of American,not Iraqi or French kids.This is the future of America.

Can I do the math?Certainly.When Clinton left office we had a 5 trillion dollar surplus.We now have
a 2 trillion dollar deficit.The question is can a Bush supporter do the math.

[Lefty]

You say my statement about kids is heartless? I want the best for all kids and my grandkids. Govt. schools not getting job done.
In Mass. a few yrs ago 57% of teachers failed their tests. You are heartless to want to keep our kids in a situation that no longer works.
You did the math now go to dictionary and look up surplus. That means more than you need. A surplus of money in Govt.(if there ever was one, highly questionable projections were made)means theh had TOO MUCH OF OUR MONEY. We were OVERCHARGED. Bush got that money back to us; the people who were overcharged.
Obviously you blve big govt works, I don't. Give me my money, arrest the criminals, keep the country safe from terrorists and leave me alone. Don't STEAL my money in for your worthless unworkable, topheavy, govt. prgms.

[Tom]

And where else, but BERKELY!
Those racist dogs at the campus are banning students from 5 Aisina countries from attending summer school for fear of SARS.
RACISM! ON CAMPUS! ON LIBERAL BERKELY!
Say it ain't so, Joe!
Everyone knows that not al Asians have SARS. These rats are denying people thier right to an education based on their country of national origin andI wnat to know what Amazin and Ljb are doing about i t?????
How can we tolerate this blatant disregard of human rights?
Fear of disease is no reason to discriminate.
Berkely-ites are HEALTH BIGGOTS!

[Rick]

Does anyone here know of a good source of information regarding the economic impact of tax cuts? I hear this subject debated all the time but haven't seen any references to what most economists think these days. In the Reagan era some theories regarding this were developed but I haven't seen anything about how well they worked out in practice. I'm generally in favor of tax cuts, especially if they benefit me, but worry about the impact of increased government deficits. And don't tell me that reduced spending is going to solve that problem 'cause it ain't gonna happen.

[boxcar]

Rick, try this link:

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm

Boxcar

[Lefty]

Rick, when Reagan cut taxes that led to more than dble the money coming in to the IRS coffers. Can anyone tell me please how having more money can lead to deficits? That's like saying, "honey I got a raise and my paychk will dble."
And she says, "oh no, our budget can't take it."
Doesn't make sense. Gimme those tax cuts. Keep your Govt prgms.

[boxcar]

Originally posted by Lefty
Gimme those tax cuts. Keep your Govt prgms.

AMEN and AAA-MEN!

Boxcar

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by boxcar
Rick, try this link:

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm Boxcar

Excellent page for info....short sweet and to the point ! Great Post Boxcar!

[superfecta]

Originally posted by Lefty
Rick, when Reagan cut taxes that led to more than dble the money coming in to the IRS coffers. Can anyone tell me please how having more money can lead to deficits? That's like saying, "honey I got a raise and my paychk will dble."
And she says, "oh no, our budget can't take it."
Doesn't make sense. Gimme those tax cuts. Keep your Govt prgms. More like once you got that raise she goes out and spends that money and charges up some more on the credit card.Thats what happened.We spent the money and then some.In the hope the economy will catch up later (much like hoping you got another raise to pay off the credit card in the example).Bad part of the Regan policies was that the oil and gas industry took it in the neck,which in turn killed that part of the economy which was tied to it ,which was quite alot in the middle part of the country ,but both coasts flourished since they were not into heavy oil producing or related manufacturing.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by superfecta
Bad part of the Regan policies was that the oil and gas industry took it in the neck,which in turn killed that part of the economy which was tied to it ,which was quite alot in the middle part of the country

Show me this info.......

[superfecta]

Reagan administration made it a market oriented industry(which sounded good,instead of using about 35% of our own resources) we could get the Arab Emirates to import more oil.Down side -oil companies could get a cheaper raw product at about 1/3 the price,so they abandoned the more costly U.S production facilities. Closed many a well,no matter how good it produced because they could get the oil cheaper from overseas.It was not gradual,more like overnight,so the economys of these states had no time to adjust.So it was good that oil prices came down for consumers,no good at all for U.S. oil producers.But it got scary at one point,because since all of the banks in the oil producing states were heavy into financing the industry,many of them went bust as well.Too much leveraged out ,the banks were greedy as well,they thought the local oil producers would keep on expanding and exploring new well sites.Well they went bust as the oil companies did(Im talking about the producers and associated companies,not the big companies they worked for)and it was a domino effect.Almost took out Chase Manhattan bank.But if I remember right the Fed bailed them out with a large loan and took over the control of those smaller banks that had got overextended.But it ruined alot of people and lost alot of jobs .Some of them deserved to lose everything,they were greedy and spending money they didn't have,figuring the oil money would keep rolling in.But when the oilies went broke then it affected the local economy from the stores to construction So everybody suffered.

[boxcar]

As most of you oldtimers know, I'm not a card-carrying member of the Bushtapo, as I have criticized Bush on many fronts in the past. And I will do so again now.

I firmly believe Bush squandered a valuable asset when he let Paul O'Neill go. O'Neill is one sharp cookie -- a very savvy businessman, having years of experience at the helm as CEO for a large aluminum corporation (I think Reynolds, if memory serves). He brought an awful lot to the table with his business background. But Ithink most importantly, I'll remember him because he was a breath of fresh air in the Beltway, having little stomach for raunchy, sleazy Beltway politics -- and always ready to speak his mind. Because of this the Beltway Boys on both sides of the aisles considered him as a rogue and held in low esteem.

But I will especially remember him for his bold and innovative approach to fundamental tax reform; for O'Neill was a big supporter of the Fair Tax plan. To O'Neill this kind of tax plan just made great business sense for the entire nation -- from the small guy to big business. This, too, I'm sure irritated (and probably frightened!) more than a few politicians, since most politicos will fight to the death before relinquishing their Marxist-like grip on the citizenry with a communistic-rooted tax system.

What follows below is a partial transcript sent to me from a list to which I subscribe in which Neil Cavuto interviewed O'Neill. Note carefully what the former Secretary said about the "fiction" of corporations paying taxes, and how many billions it costs us to adminster the current tax code (which O'Neill calls a "morass").

Boxcar

---------------------------------------------

This is a partial transcript from Your World with Neil Cavuto, April 30, 2003, that was edited for clarity.

NEIL CAVUTO, HOST: The president still wants his tax cut. But it’s not the size he wants. And apparently it’s not even what some Republicans want, most notably this next fellow, this very
president’s former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill.

Secretary, good to have you.

PAUL O’NEILL, FMR. U.S. TREASURY SECRETARY: It’s great to be here, Neil.

CAVUTO: So much I want to talk to you about. First on the tax cut, Secretary. You went out on the record shortly after leaving office saying it was a mistake. Do you still feel that way?

O’NEILL: In fact, I didn’t say that, it was an interpretation that ended up in the newspaper from a question that was asked to me after I did a television interview.

CAVUTO: Yes, but the interpretation was fairly, I don’t flip over this.

O’NEILL: Well, I’ll tell you my view. Alan Greenspan (search) said today something I think is very important, that people need to focus on, that is fundamentally the long-term growth
prospects of our economy are still very solid. I believe this. I don’t care too much to get caught up in the day-to-day pushing and shoving over these issues, but when I was in the
government, and even now I believe this, that the federal government has a unique responsibility to define the terms and conditions under which our a economy works. And when I was
there and even now as I look at what we should be doing, I continue to believe that we need to do fundamental tax reform.

CAVUTO: Is this fundamental?

O’NEILL: What I have said, for me, fundamental tax reform is really sweeping reform that simplifies the system that makes it fair. Right now, by the best calculations, $200 billion worth of revenue that is due in owing under the current law is not being collected; partly because the system is too complicated. There are 9500 pages in the tax code.

CAVUTO: I know how complicated the whole system is. Here’s what I want to know.

O’NEILL: And so I believe for fundamental tax reform, we need to basically redesign, we need a consumption based tax. We need to eliminate the fiction that corporations
pay taxes.

CAVUTO: Well, the president agrees apparently on all those counts. But it is going to be done in stages. The first cut you championed and got through. Now this, are you just as confident about or no?

O’NEILL: I’ll tell you, I believe that you need to have a north star in what you are you trying to accomplish. And for me, the north star is fundamental tax reform.

And I think you don’t get it done unless you lay it out for the people so that they know where are you going and they know how it is going to affect them. And I think only a president can
put that premise down. I think it takes time to do it. I think in the case of fundamental tax reform, it takes a couple of years for a president to establish the predicate for why we
should do it and how we should do it. And then I think there needs to be an election so that a president gets the mandate.

CAVUTO: But you think this Iraq war and the goodwill the president got after that helps him in his push? We had Treasury Secretary Snow here not long ago saying certainly this will
make the president push harder.

O’NEILL: I don’t know. You know, not being an insider, I don’t know. But if I can finish my thought, I think the federal government has a responsibility for creating the context for our economy. And I think fundamental tax reform would be
interpreted if enacted by the market as a very positive sign because we have got so much inefficiency in the system. It is costing us $200 billion to administer this morass. That would
be a very substantial amount of money to reduce to make available to the economy for investment. Secondly, I think that the market would love a creation of a new retirement system
that is better than Social Security, that creates more savings in the economy.

CAVUTO: Well, you are probably right on all those counts, but now you talk about what the market would like, were you bothered that many in the market were glad to see you go and
they blamed you for a lot? Did that hurt?

O’NEILL: Well, I don’t know that your premise is right. I’ll tell you, as I walk around the streets of New York, I’m amazed. As I was walking in here today, some fellow from J.P. Morgan
introduced himself to me and said, you did a great job and I’m sorry you are gone. So I don’t know, maybe you know a lot of people who are glad to see me gone.

CAVUTO: So how did you feel about that? I mean, how did you feel about the way you had to leave and the circumstances?

O’NEILL: I’ll tell you what, I am having fun every day of my life now. I am working on things that I know a lot about and I think are fundamental. Health and medical care is a great
problem in our country. I believe that I know how we can reduce the cost of health and medical care 50 percent and substantially improve outcomes at the same time.

CAVUTO: You are writing a book, right?

O’NEILL: Well, actually, what I am doing in this area is, five years ago, I helped to found a group of 42 hospitals, and all the medical societies, and the insurance companies, and the big and small employers in Pittsburgh, and we are beginning to demonstrate that it is possible to make big cost reductions by eliminating mistakes, by getting rid of what happens in most
acute care facilities.

CAVUTO: So that is your focus now. There’s no bitterness looking back at the whole White House thing.

O’NEILL: I’m working on.

CAVUTO: Have you talked to the president since?

O’NEILL: I have not.

CAVUTO: Have you talked to Treasury Secretary Snow since?

O’NEILL: I talked to him when he was coming in. Let me finish what I was saying. I am working on health and medical care.

CAVUTO: Seriously, why don’t you like to mention all of this political stuff, you just don’t want to be bothered with it?

O’NEILL: It is not relevant to me anymore.

CAVUTO: You were the treasury secretary of the United States.
You left like a thief in the night.

O’NEILL: It does not mean that I am not continuing to be interested in these things, but I am finding new ways to get ideas in front of the population, to help perhaps shape the
conversation going forward in things I know about.

CAVUTO: But if you were ever asked to government service again, what would you say?

O’NEILL: That’s really hard. I must tell you, I think you know this, when I was asked to be secretary of the Treasury, I made a three-page list of reasons why that wasn’t a good idea and shared them with the vice president and the president. And they waived them aside. I think maybe my instinct was right.

CAVUTO: All right. Paul O’Neill, always a pleasure, thank you
very much.

O’NEILL: Nice to see you.

CAVUTO: The former treasury secretary of the United States Paul O’Neill.

[Amazin]

Quote by economically challenged Lefty:

"A surplus of money in Govt.(if there ever was one, highly questionable projections were made)means theh had TOO MUCH OF OUR MONEY. We were OVERCHARGED. Bush got that money back to us; the people who were overcharged."

Checkmate.You don't like a surplus and certainly no one likes
the deficit we are in now.Do you actually have a preference or are you just brain dead.

FYI a strong economy leads leads to growth which leads to a surplus which can then be put into areas like Social Security and Medicare.Contrast that with a weak economy which leads to unemployment and a deficit.This is simple economics 101.Apparently you don't like the strong economy and the surplus.So then you prefer the weak one with unemployment which Bush knows may cost him his job.I think Derek was right about you.Clueless.

[Lefty]

Hey, pal, you wanna get nasty and call names or do you truly want to have a dialogue. I have no time for namecalling.
The surplus prob. didn't really exist. But say, it did. That surplus came from tax money, yours and mine. So if there's a surplus were overcharged. The govt. will take that surplus(assuming it was real) and use it on their worthless, feel-good unworkable social prgms. Put that money in the people's hands and you get REAL economic growth. Do not call me names unless you're prepared to come to Vegas and do it to my face!

[boxcar]

Originally posted by Lefty
Do not call me names unless you're prepared to come to Vegas and do it to my face!

You don't have to worry about any Gutless Wonder facing off against you who doesn't have the backbone to answer our questions forthrightly in the world of virtual reality. If I were you, I'd forget about this kind of socialist trash.

Boxcar

[Lefty]

Thanks, Boxcar. You are a breath of frsh air.

[JustRalph]

I have already told him in another thread that he doesn't have any credibility and I don't read half of what he posts anymore. I declare a moratorium on Amazin. I won't respond to anything else he posts. .................

[Tom]

Originally posted by Amazin
Quote by economically challenged Lefty:


...FYI a strong economy leads leads to growth which leads to a surplus which can then be put into areas like Social Security and Medicare.Contrast that with a weak economy which leads to unemployment and a deficit.This is simple economics 101...


Here's some advanced economics for you...those of us that go out everyday and work for our money are fed up with carrying the millions of lousy deadbeats who don't pull their own weight and we are going to do something about it.You ignored my earlier question, A....how many people are going to be hired by welfare receipients? How many people are going to be hired what you call rich people?
The basic flaw in all of these social problems is they do not address corrective action - only containment. Remember the old story, give man a fish and teach a man to fish? That is not happening, and there is no criteria for leaving welfare, no incentive, in fact, the incedntive is have more children out of wedlock and get more money for longer times. I would say that something in the neighborhood of 90% of all peolple getting welfare, food stamps, or unemployment are able to and shoudl be forced to do some kind of work - to a defined standard - to qualify for the money, and then if they fail to perform, the fail to eat. And in no case is cash ever handed out - everyting should be done throught ATM-type cards, so that there is records of how much, when, and on what it went for - the with they ultimate goal holding these people accountable for the aid they get and with them having to pay it back at some point. NO FREE rides for the majority ( there is some percentage of people we have to help, or even carrry - some people - the minority, are legitimately I need and how no choice. What fries my donuts is that these people are forced to get by with less than they deserve while worthless freeloads and sluts get paid to destroy our country. Enough.
We have got to have the stones to allow people to fail and force them to either stand up like men (or WOmen) and accept responsibility.... or starve, or freeze. Or whatever.
The surplus was give back to those that deserved it - those who worked to create it. If you are so damn worried about having a surplus to use for "other" projects, stop your inane liberal spending and waste (although that goes for republican, too - when it comes to money, there is no difference-greed is the great equalizer).
And, Little A, stop with the name calling....grow up a little bit.
That might be why when PA says something un-conservative we pay attention and discuss the point and when you do we write you off. It is something you, like Clinton might not completely grasp. It is integrity.
Now, go wash up and hit the hay, little A...big day tomorrow. :rolleyes:

[Amazin]

Lefty

You are really pathetic.My point still stands,It's a slam dunk.You have no response but to resort to machoism.A true sign of trying to cover up defeat,stupity and weakness.

[Lefty]

That's it for me. Take a course in economics 101 and also look up masochism. You're not close in either. You are a coward and not a very bright bulb, to boot.

[Amazin]

Regarding Namecalling:

You guys can dish it out but you can't take it.What name did I call,brain dead?That is a very mild and acceptable term.You want namecalling,try freeandeasy or doug.They've called me every slut name in the book.I've been called an ass by almost everyone here,and on and on.Names don't bother me.But I think an adjective at times,like in lefty's case where I have no other term for his dumbfounded statement is fitting.Brain dead or economically challenged are not curses.If you think so,you need to grow up.You want curses,I can give you hell.But I don't see the point.

[Amazin]

Lefty,I said Macho-ism not Masochism.

[Lefty]

You're right, it was machoism, i read it wrong. I need to grow up? I've been trying to debate in a logical vein and I get all these names. Hey pal, I am macho and please don't call names unless you got the brass to back it up. State your argument and leave the name calling be. I don't care what others call you, that's not me. I can get as mean as anyone, but prefer to do it in person. Either argue like a gentlman or shut up!

[JustRalph]

One entry found for machismo.
Main Entry: ma·chis·mo
Pronunciation: mä-'chEz-(")mO, m&-, -'kEz-, -'kiz-, -'chiz-
Function: noun
Etymology: Spanish, from macho
Date: 1948
1 : a strong sense of masculine pride : an exaggerated masculinity
2 : an exaggerated or exhilarating sense of power or strength

Machoism isn't a word......machismo is. That would have probably worked for your sentence Amazin. But I got the point. This is why I love this board. You have to admit there is never a dull moment in here. Go get em Lefty!

[Amazin]

For such a macho guy you certainly act like a baby.What did you do when you were a kid and someone called you a name?You must have been booked for months with fight appointments.What if you were French?Did you miss all the insults thrown at them.Makes my statement to you look like a compliment.This is my point of "grow up".This is the kind of world we live in.


My advice to you is relax.What we say makes no difference.I doubt Congress or Bush are reading this.I know why I'm practically the only one debating on my side on this board.It's because they can't stomach arguing with 20 ultra-conservatives. Can you imagine the names I've been called.If I took it personally I obviously would have quit long ago.I don't take it personally because this is cyberspace.I don't know you and you don't know me.Yes you know my political posistion but I don't judge people by their political position.I judge them by what I percieve in their hearts and that is impossible on the internet.Even if they spew hatred for me,there is a quality that is hidden on the net,that only comes thru in person.

Back to the issue,If you are refering to brain dead as namecalling,then what do you call it when you tell me to shut up.Do you think that's rude?In the past you have refered to my"pacifist ass".Isn't that name calling?I can't sugarcoat my words for you and you don't necessarily do that either.The terms I used,I've heard on TV,so they can't be that bad.These aren't curses,but they get the point accross which I felt was needed in light of what you said.If you can't take the heat,get out of the kitchen.

[Jen]

Hang on you two, you're dickering over a nonexistent word!

Plus, I think there needs to be a spell-check on this thing. :D

Jen

[hurrikane]

I can't believe this thread is still alive. :rolleyes:

[Jen]

We've gone from war to taxes to name calling and then some.

I think we should officially call this thread closed. I'm sure something else will pop up to send us on a rant but we should start a new thread about it.

Jen

[boxcar]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Amazin
Back to the issue,If you are refering to brain dead as namecalling,then what do you call it when you tell me to shut up.

Here's a new one for the name-calling book, according to A-Maze: "shut up". Telling someone to shut up could be considered rude, but...name-calling!?
This euphemisim is as bad as comparing tax cuts to "subsidies" for the rich.

Hey, A-Maze, I have a great idea for how you can raise some money to feed a poor, starving child: Put your brain up on the auction block at E-Bay for the next Monkey Science Fair Competition. It might fetch the price of a hot dog. I'm sure some kid will love you for it.

Boxcar

[Jen]

Now, boys! Don't make me turn this car around! You behave or we're goin' home right now!

Jen

[Lefty]

Yep, Amazin, been in plenty of fistfights. My dad told me to stand up for myself. I'm not some pathetic, cowardly pacifist. Please don't quote Truman. He had guts. I suppose you think he was wrong to drop the A-bomb on Japan. You can call names, i guess I'm expecting too much of a liberal with no argument not to call names. When your argument is specious, what's left? You say, what do I prefer, surplus or deficit? It's not a zero sum game. But I don't want the govt to be holding a surplus of my money. If you do, sendthem extra at tax time. I have this wild ass theory that the american people drive the economy and that they can best spend their own damn money better than any govt officials.
Economics 101, the people spend money, buy goods. The wealthy hire people to make said goods, and of course the service work such as UPSFedex, sales, etc.
The govt throwing money down the "rat hole" of feelgood social prgms where most of the money doesn't get to where it's supposed to go does not drive the economy.
Deficits: what are deficits? A lot of the deficit goes to american citizens that hold bonds and draw interest.
So Amazin, call me all the names you want but it still doesn't change how the economy works. And yes, if I ever get the chance, I will slap you silly. You see, I will protect my good name, and I will protect my home and family. If an intruder broke into my house I would kill him. What would you do? Surely, if you are so strong in your beliefs, you can answer this one simple question i've asked about 4 times now. I've tried to answer every question you've posed to me, now extend me the same courtesy.

[Tom]

From now on, I want to be called.....Huggy-Bear! :p

[Jen]

Heee hee hee haa haaa Hu-Hu-Huggy-Bear!

Hoo Doggy - priceless! Best laugh I've had all day!

Jen

[Jen]

I'm I the only chick on this board?

Jen

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Jen
I'm I the only chick on this board?

Jen


Nope, offhand, I know of at least 2 others.....(so.cal.fan and Observer)....

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Jen
I'm I the only chick on this board?
Jen
Not anymore...........Tom.....do you have a felt Hat?
http://home.columbus.rr.com/justralph/dancin_chicken.gif

[Jen]

:p

Jen

[Tom]

A felt hat?
How did you get that dancin' chick in here?
I tried to put up a reply but laid an egg!

[Lefty]

Amazin, just reread a post of yours where you said I too called names because I referred to your pacifist ass. Hey didn't you call yourself a pacifist and you do have an ass, don't you? So how is that namecalling? Just a thght.

[Tom]

....you conservative forearm, you!:rolleyes:

[Amazin]

Lefty,you need a chill pill and a brain scan.Then check into your nearest liberal clinic and get a complete makeover.You'll feel like a liberated Iraqi.It'll take years off your deadbeat posts and you'll thank me for it.Then join me as we slowly unbrainwash the rest of the slimy Pa conservatives.This is my road map to peace on the pa board of absurdity.

[Tom]

Wash up, put on your glasses, and read this.
I received this from Deep Throat on assignment in Berkely (it's his turn to watch you).
DP says Hey! What's that in your hand? Opps! Wrong thread! :rolleyes:

http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2003/05/10/news/opinion/opin03.txt

[Lefty]

Amazin, Your command of the English Language escapes me so I don't know what the hell you're talking about. Doesn't deadbeat mean someone who doesn't pay? Do I owe you money? I know all you liberals want my money to go to the govt for their phony prgms. Hey, why don't you move to SF? There's a move afoot there to give homeless people $350 a mo. Out of the people's taxes of course. Then when it was suggested that it be cut to $59 a mo. and the rest put into housing and food for these poor homeless; why, the homeless went to court. They want that $350. The liberal judge said the voters(taxpayers) had no say in the matter. I'm going to tell all the homeless here about it so they'll go to SF and voila, i've cleared up the homeless prob. here.