ATV Florida Forum

These are the things I don't like about GW.

1.  Before the invasion of Iraq when one of the generals was addressing congress and he said we would need over 250,000 troops for the invasion and occupation he was forced to resign because the administration was trying to say it would take alot less.

2.  I believe as others do that GW Doctored the intelligence reports to make it appear that the war with Iraq was needed because of weapons of mass destruction.  I will admit that Saddam Hussein did try to make it appear that he did have weapons of mass destruction but we had evidence to prove otherwise and he ignored it.

3.  He and his cronies in his administration have run roughshot over any one that disagrees with them including calling people that don't like the way the war is run "anti-american".

4.  Allowing oil execs to write the administrations energy policy and then won't say who these execs were, what are they hiding?

5.  George kept changing the reason for the war.  In the beginning in it was about weapons of mass destruction and then Saddam Hussein, and then Al queda, now stability and so on and so on.

6.  Borrowing huge and I mean huge amounts of money to pay for the war and then to keep trying to reduce taxes has cost this country big time and we are starting to see the effects now.  Rising interest rates a while back slowed down the economy and the housing market and this started a couple of yrs ago.  The reason for rising interest rate in part is due to all the money that this country has borrowed for this war which is making money harder to borrow which shows itself in higher interest rates.

7.  I understand that GW is not directly at fault for the higher fuel prices and alot of it is due to speculation on Wall Street.  However the reason fuel prices are rising is because  Wall Street believes there could be another war with Iran (this time) which will cause problems in the world markets which would cause fuel prices to go up.  When prices went up under Bill Clinton he released our strategic fuel reserves to help bring prices down and that worked but our boy George won't do it, why?  Possibly because he is an oil man and big oil got him elected and they are making huge profits because of the high prices.

8.  The guy is dumber than a box of rocks and does not have the IQ to be a good president.  I have only been around for 47yrs but I do not remember a president that was as dumb as this one.

9.  I don't think he has the qualifications to be a president.  What was he, governor of Texas for 2 terms, so what that does not give him the experience to leed the greatest nation the world has ever known.

10. He is just too damn religious.  We don't need to be making decisions in the White House based on what "God" might do.

11. He has dragged along some really scummy people into his administration like Carl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, Roberto Gonzales and others.

12. His main people outed a CIA operative (because they did not like her husband)and he and his cronies try to cover it up and play it down.  This is a good example how this administration likes to use bullying tactics to get what it wants.

13. Finally he and his party have done everything they can to try to keep republicans in office and it started to get really bad during the middle of the Clinton administration.  They were on a witch hunt and would not stop until they found something and no one could have stood that kind of digging and probing into their personal lives.  George and his party of right wing fanatics have drove this country apart when we need to be brought together.  If you will remember when Ronald Reagan (yes a republican and my favorite president ever)came into office the country was in pretty bad shape from the Vietnam war, Richard Nixon and 4 yrs of Jimmy Carter we were a hurtin.  Ronald Reagan came in and brought this country back together and it stayed together pretty darn good until the republicans could not stand the fact the Bill Clinton earned a second term.  Ever since then they have done everything they can to get right wing republicans back in office no matter what it to did to this country.

These are not the only reasons but just some of the reasons and they are in no particular order.  Post up people let's hear your opinions

you know what,  SERIOUSLY, every time I write something on the internet reguarding my feelings about the current administration, I get letters from the IRS concerning my business.  Usually if I post something, I will no doubt recieve a letter from them within a week.  This is no Chit!

I firmly believe that there are key words that if typed, get red flagged and fowarded to a gov. agency.  So although I have strong beliefs about this topic,  I'm keeping my lips sealed because the last thing I need is to get more IRS hassles.  They have been up my A$$ with a microscope for over 2yrs now. 

I recently seen a couple of bumper stickers that read  "when Clinton lied nobody died" and "Clinton only screwed americans one fat chick at a time". I don't know if this is relevent but , it amuses me and I believe it.

 :R That's funny.

Fish, the only thing that Reagan did good was acting, and thats what he did during his presidency. A puppet on strings basically with an ear piece in one ear telling him what to say. Remember the recession of the early 90's that was from his trickle down economics theory. Borrow borrow borrow!!! The same $hit thats happening now.

I don't know anything about that but I do know that he brought the country together and almost single handedly won the cold war.

I would like to respond but my heart is not into it right now. This seems to be a country at war with itself. We are split and adrift when it comes to policies abroad. I believe in a strong military. When that the war in Iraq was looking bad, the dems decided to change their mind and retreat.   

Fish:

Good post. I am slammed today preparing for trial, etc. and will respond in kind to each of your points when I can.

As far as Reagan is concerned. He was an excellent president to say the least. Anyone who thinks the trickledown economics policy did not work obviously doesn't understand it, nor have they researched its impact. I've posted on this subject in the past and will see if I can find it. If I do, I'll cut and paste it in here.

~ Cheers.

Getting ready to SUE L-CROSS to get our money back? :o

Fish, I will also be chiming in but I'm headed out of town until Tuesday.  Unless my points have been covered, you can be sure your points will be picked apart piece-by-piece.  That post is typical, left wing puppeteering.  Talk about an earpiece; whose on the other end of yours?  I can't wait for the day I meet a Democrat that can actually bring an educated, fact-based argument to the table.  Can you actually think for yourself?  BTW, have you ever read the Declaration of Independence or The Constitution of The United States?  Have you ever read the histories of the men who wrote and signed these documents?  With one or two exceptions, they were all deeply religious men of God.  That doesn't mean I agree with all of this administration's agendas but to judge a president's performance on the basis of the deepness of his religious beliefs is asinine as well as a number of your other points.  I regret I have but one minute to devote to this argument.  I shall return!   ;)

I hate threads like these....... no one ever wins....

 :R :R :R :R

I see all your news must come from the new york post or the bankrupt air america.

Lets see. The first nine months that Bush was in office, our country gets terrorized. Everyone said that he did a great job at handling the situation at hand. Everyone wanted to stop the terrorist, well he proceeded. Even the democrats voted for the war, but are now flip flopping because it has taken so long and its election time. So now we should just give up and wait on the next attack. Thats great. Now I ask this, these same terrorist were in the USA training to operate plains while Clinton was in office and did nothing, yet he did not have to take any blame because he was not in office at the time of the actual attacks. These terrorist were planning on doing this while he was in office, Now you people want to put his wife in office. Do you think that he will have any influence on the dicisions that she makes while there. Well if you don't then you have another thing coming. Now wasn't he impeached but his term ran out before his impeachment took effect. HMMM.


Now here is what I think about your thoughts.

You have one vote, my vote will cancel yours out. So I guess after all is said and done, I guess my vote or your vote is not gonna count after all.

Bill Clinton is getting $12 million for his memoirs.
Hillary got $8 million for hers.
That's $20 million for the memoirs from 2 people, who for 8 years, repeatedly testified, UNDER OATH!!, that they couldn't remember anything!!!! WHOOOO!!!!

Another republican scare tactic (flip flopping), I guess you can't change your mind after someone blatantly lies to you and America.
Bush also had 9 months to do something with the same intelligences reports Clinton had and did nothing, but I guess Bush needed to have the 911 attacks to finance this useless war.



Fish, the Soviet's were crumbling apart since the early 80's. It wouldn't not matter if Reagan or Fred Flintstone was in office they would have still fallen. You can look up this reports, they were recently released.

So who is it gonna be, Fish?  Billary or Barak Hussein Obama?

You really have some great choices there pal. :D

I vote for Fred Flintstone & Barney as the vp. ;)

Can't be worse than the current dumb and dumber.

Okay, I fond my post from January 2007 on Reagan's trickle down economic theory. good thing because I did not want to try to re-trype the thing from memory, lol. BTW, I've got a bachelor's degree in Economics so I pretty well understand this stuff inside out.  :-*

Reagan's economic policies were solid. His trickle down path led to the boom in the late 80's and into the 90's without a doubt. Money in the hands of people stimulates the economy, whether they are rich or poor. The problem- how to you put money in the hands of the poor? Transfer of more wealth from the rich to the poor each year? This would only create greater dependency on entitlements and give lessen the incentive to achieve. Give the poor greater tax cuts? You can only cut the taxes for the poor by so much, because they don't pay much in taxes. When Tom Daschle said that the result of a proposed Bush tax cut would mean that a rich person would be able to buy a new car, without realizing it, he proved the theory of Trickle Down Economics. The person selling that car would generate income that he would otherwise not have had. Please note that if that person sells enough cars, he will gain wealth. If tax rates in this county were at 75% what would happen to the economy? The answer is that no one would have money to spend on anything except housing and food. The result would be that businesses everywhere would fail, because no one would have money to buy clothes, electronics, entertainment, repairs for their homes or cars, go on vacation..... If they did buy such things, they would have to go in to debt to do so. How would this help the working class or the poor? Please note the average taxpayer, pays roughly 50% of their income in taxes.

After the attack on September 11th, Hillary Clinton said, "come to New York and spend money." She knew if people stopped coming to New York and spending money, businesses would fail and the economy in New York would suffer a great downturn, which would hurt the average working family. This is interesting considering that liberals are for tax hikes and against tax cuts. The only thing that helps the working class is a strong economy. It gives the average worker more freedom and more bargaining power. When the financial sector was booming from 1987 through 1989, workers were getting bonuses, overtime and stock options. When the financial sector suffered a downturn in 1990, it trickled down. There were no more bonuses, overtime, stock options and their were layoffs.

Reagan's trickle down economic's program was designed to cut taxes and, over time, put more money into the hands of the average american consumer. It is based upon an old and very effective school of economic thought known as Simon Kuznets's "Law", which stands for the proven proposition that, any time a country's gross domestic profit is up, economic equality (ie.- more wealth distributed to the lower income sector) moves ahead.  Not a new theory, Adam Smith propounded the same theory in his late 1700's book, "The Wealth of Nations". [Great book, you should read it.]

Anyway, there's my thoughts on the Reagan issue relative to trickle down economics.

It resulted in 5 trillion deficient and a horrible recession of the early 90's. Works great!!

Sorry Jim Carey isnt running. So which tard are you voting for Billary or Barak?

I'm voting for an illegal, thats our future.

Because you say it, it's a fact? Back it up. If you are correct, you will completely rewrite every economic text book and theory in existence today.

You don't remember you must have the Alzheimer's disease like Reagen. Common Anoriginal its the same sh*t Bush is doing. Increase spending increase spending, Its like a dumb blonde with a unlimited credit card in a mall. Your going to live great for awhile!!!!!!!

nice skate job.

Still waiting on some back up or relevantly founded discussion from you....

LMAO, 9 months, he hadn't hardly had time to get settled in and get used to the big job he had acquired. Even in my local elections, I give the commissioners some time to settle in and get used to their new jobs. I won't even get into the flip flopping thing because everyone knows what party that is affilliated with. They did it the last election and doing it again now. As for republican, Not neccessarilly. I vote for who I think is the best person for the job. Looks like it may be republican this time again. I'm gonna vote for the one who I think is best for the job.

Perfect example of a Democratic puppet; incapable of a fact-based, think-for-yourself presentation.  You clearly have no handle on history.  In regards to the Middle East and all the lies, you need to go back and read what your precious Democratic administration was saying for years before GW ever thought of running for President.  As far as economics, you clearly do not have a clue.  Get off the stage and leave this argument to people who have some idea of what the facts really are.  You are just wasting bandwidth with your gibberish.

Here is a fact base argument that can't be argued:

This country will be hitting the big 4,000 for number of young men and women who have died in the Iraq conflict. That is undisputable. We should have left Saddam in charge and there would be 4,000 young people , like ourselves, alive now. What a waste! I am a suporter of our armed services but not for the Iraq conflict, a waste of American lives and money. So sad!

ive learned over the very short 16 years of my life to stay out of these conversations. and also isnt this atvflorida.com and not letsargueaboutpolitics.gov

No doubt the deaths of American soliders is sad. However, they signed up for it and knew the risk. You join the armed forces and you're signing up for a potential conflict that could mean your life is in jeopardy. We're not talking about average citizens here. I'm not discounting their lives but, you can't spit in the wind and complain when your face gets wet.

Want to debate politics try it here http://outdoorsbest.zeroforum.com/zeroforum?id=99 (http://outdoorsbest.zeroforum.com/zeroforum?id=99)

Very well said, My brother went to desert storm. It was his choice to join the army. He was not drafted. Why should we even have a military if we are not EVER gonna use it. Thats exactly what the terrorists would like to know. Heck lets go terrorize america because even though they have a military, they won't use it. What about all these law enforcement officers, they know that their job is dangerous but not many would want to do anything else. I support the military and our local law enforcement officers and I am proud of the job that they do.

Reagenomics should have be called Richonomics. Meaning only for the rich. :-\

Back that up.  :)

If I was "signed-up" and was sent to that cluster-f of a place Iraq I would not be too happy. Our mighty military is much more capable than what they have shown over there. They are under armored and under manned. And the pathetic war plan that has been drawn up is a disaster. There are people there that have lost thier lives needlessly. 8 weeks of boot camp for a 19 year old and then being sent into that meat grinder. Not too good if you ask me. I am sure its good "practice" but too many young kids have lost their lives. Our military personnel deserve a better cause to die for than that pathetic crizap hole.         

Here is another fact. The Vietnam war lasted 10yrs.  The US casualties were 58,209 & over 2,000 MIA. So lets just round up to 60,000. Thats 6,000 per year.

We have been in Iraq for 5yrs & only 4,000 dead. I would say we are doing much better.
I also dont discount the lives of our guys over there. My cousin, a United States Marine did 2 tours in Iraq & I wondered about him everyday. I hate to hear the horror stories of guys not coming home to their wifes & kids, it really hurts me. On the other hand, they are heroes & died for our freedoms!!! That is a NOBLE death one that their family can be proud of!

http://leftrevival.blogspot.com/2007/04/trickle-down-economics-perpetuates-war.html (http://leftrevival.blogspot.com/2007/04/trickle-down-economics-perpetuates-war.html)
 I'm sure going to argue that one too. If I were you I would stick to the law thing and please turn of the talk radio. ;)
You also contradict yourself saying you would follow Ross Perot anywere. Well Ross was very much against trickle down economics. Get your story straight Mr. register Democrat.
Let me guess your going to type some fancy crap trying to divert issue's now.

Let's face the fact.  Eliminate the media, and this war would be over.  The media portrays what they want the US people to see.  You don't see the whole war through the media.  I have several friends that I graduated with that have served and they say it is nothing like what the media makes it out to be.  My opinion is this, fight it over there, or fight it over here.  4,000 soldiers over 5 years, or 3,000 civilians in about 2 hours?  not a hard choice for me.  That is 4,000 soldiers that signed up knowing the duty they may have to carry out.  The 3,000 civilians didn't sign up for what they got.

It's a useless war Smoke, your never going to change the way those people think. Let those people self destruct them self's.
The worst Muslims are from Saudi Arabia but were never going to do anything about it do to we kiss there asses even though they finance the  911 attacks.
 Bush will never get Bin laden do to he doesn't want to, if we catch him the Bush administration can't getting financing for the war in Iraq then.Right now the war is the only thing keeping the economy going.

David Truskoff ...... you post a link to an article by David Truskoff? Come up with some original educated discussion and not some wacko commentary from a bleeding heart readical liberal who's so far left he has no idea where "realism" (as he refers to it) starts. trx, you really didn't do yourself any favors here. Again......I'm still waiting for you to back up your comments or at least engage in a fruitful debate instead of resorting to personal jabs repleat in demonstrating your inability to engage in rational discussion. Oh, and Ross Perot's economic policies proposed (while not 100% Reaganomics) advocated injecting money into the economy through lowering taxation and stimulating spending at the upper and middle class levels..... hmmmmm.



Now then, on to Fish and his original well thought out and drafted post. While I do not necessarily agree with all of it, I appreciate the theory, opinion and discussion. Here's at least a partial reply. I didn't have time to address all of his points and will get to them when I can.

1.  Before the invasion of Iraq when one of the generals was addressing congress and he said we would need over 250,000 troops for the invasion and occupation he was forced to resign because the administration was trying to say it would take a lot less.

Interesting comment. I say interesting in that the liberals have preached withdrawing and fewer troops from day one. Bush and many other conservative leaders called for a build up from the start. It was the liberal left that kept screaming, "withdraw...get out" without an exit strategy. (Come on, now we all remember Lieberman, Kerry and the others flip flopping on their support for the war and screaming about pulling out our troops on an expedited basis.) Even their recent attempt to force a pull out by attaching a withdrawal measure to a war funding bill could not muster enough votes in a Democrat controlled Congress to pass. Yet the Dems still have to appease the anti - war left while straddling the fence post to satisfy the moderates in the party whose constituency is against their surrender agenda.

2.  I believe as others do that GW Doctored the intelligence reports to make it appear that the war with Iraq was needed because of weapons of mass destruction.  I will admit that Saddam Hussein did try to make it appear that he did have weapons of mass destruction but we had evidence to prove otherwise and he ignored it.

You act as if it was only Bush and his administration that waved the WMD flag. The Democrats were right there with him and in fact provided the majority of the push to initially go into Iraq. Here's a few excerpts from liberal democrats' speeches and memos to the President prior to entering Iraq:

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

Lets not forget, the vote was 81-0 to go into Iraq from the start. This includes the most liberal of politicians. Doctored documents? Well, I guess Bush was able to doctor all of the documents from all sources read by all politicians on both the democratic and republican sides.

This doesn’t hold water or make any rational sense.

3.  He and his cronies in his administration have run rough shot over any one that disagrees with them including calling people that don't like the way the war is run "anti-American".

Rough shot with the democrats controlling the house and senate? Please. The democrats are so busy bickering and moaning over policies and programs of no impact that they’ve accomplished absolutely nothing of substance in the past two years.

Look at the democratic leaders. Nancy Pelosi? It’s not running rough shot when you ignore someone as fanatical and inefficient as she is.

4.  Allowing oil execs to write the administrations energy policy and then won't say who these execs were, what are they hiding?

Assuming arguendo this is true, what’s the problem with it? Again, the vast majority of oil execs in the US would love to exploit US oil/energy reserves thus: (a) making the US less foreign energy dependant; and (b) increasing the US economy.

5.  George kept changing the reason for the war.  In the beginning in it was about weapons of mass destruction and then Saddam Hussein, and then Al queda, now stability and so on and so on.

See my response to number 2 above.  If the finger deserves to be pointed on this issue, point it at everyone. Keep in mind though, Iraq violated 16 United Nation resolutions over a period of 10 years. Saddam Hussein only allowed United Nations inspectors to search for weapons of mass destruction due to the fact that the United States had Iraq surrounded by war ships and over 100,000 U.S. troops. He had ordered them out of Iraq and took actions to block them from inspecting sites. Many of the troops had been sitting in the desert and on ships for 6 to 8 months before the war began while diplomacy was given a chance. Military leaders had many factors to consider in the timing of the war in Iraq, such as the time of year (weather conditions) and morale of the troops. They could not invade in the middle of summer or in the middle of winter. They also could not leave our men and women in uniform remaining idle and bored for months or years while we try to negotiate with a dictator as countries like France undercut our efforts. If you really want to lower morale and place troops in great danger- leave them sitting stationed idle in a desert around Iraq for two years before conducting a war.

Also, keep in mind that goals in any military action develop over time. Look at any military conflict and you cannot deny that as time wears on, the initial goals are met, the outlook changes and in the end you’re always left with the task of stability and rebuilding. Kind of a no-brainer.


6.  Borrowing huge and I mean huge amounts of money to pay for the war and then to keep trying to reduce taxes has cost this country big time and we are starting to see the effects now.  Rising interest rates a while back slowed down the economy and the housing market and this started a couple of yrs ago.  The reason for rising interest rate in part is due to all the money that this country has borrowed for this war which is making money harder to borrow which shows itself in higher interest rates.

I will get to this one as soon as I can.


7.  I understand that GW is not directly at fault for the higher fuel prices and a lot of it is due to speculation on Wall Street.  However the reason fuel prices are rising is because Wall Street believes there could be another war with Iran (this time) which will cause problems in the world markets which would cause fuel prices to go up.  When prices went up under Bill Clinton he released our strategic fuel reserves to help bring prices down and that worked but our boy George won't do it, why?  Possibly because he is an oil man and big oil got him elected and they are making huge profits because of the high prices.

I’ve already responded to this one on the gas prices thread. Needless to say, I don’t think your reasoning is complete on this issue. You’ve got too many gaps and not enough back up.

8.  The guy is dumber than a box of rocks and does not have the IQ to be a good president.  I have only been around for 47yrs but I do not remember a president that was as dumb as this one.

Dumb? No. A poor speaker? Yeah. Big difference.


9.  I don't think he has the qualifications to be a president.  What was he, governor of Texas for 2 terms, so what that does not give him the experience to leed the greatest nation the world has ever known.

Clinton was the governor of Arkansas and Jimmy Carter a peanut farmer from Georgia. Texas has a GDP higher than most foreign countries. Also, the voters in the USA disagreed with you….twice.

10. He is just too damn religious.  We don't need to be making decisions in the White House based on what "God" might do.

Why not? What could possibly be wrong with bringing a little morality into the office? Granted,  I am all for separation of church and state. However, I appreciate a bit of morality in the oval office. Not saying he’s a saint, nor do I believe he’s as religious as you think. But, being a bit pias isn’t a bad thing.

11. He has dragged along some really scummy people into his administration like Carl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, Roberto Gonzales and others.

Scummy? In your opinion. Not in others. But, if you don’t like them and think they’re “scummy” it’s just that….your opinion.

12. His main people outed a CIA operative (because they did not like her husband) and he and his cronies try to cover it up and play it down.  This is a good example how this administration likes to use bullying tactics to get what it wants.

I'll get to this one too.

13. Finally he and his party have done everything they can to try to keep republicans in office and it started to get really bad during the middle of the Clinton administration.  They were on a witch hunt and would not stop until they found something and no one could have stood that kind of digging and probing into their personal lives.  George and his party of right wing fanatics have drove this country apart when we need to be brought together.  If you will remember when Ronald Reagan (yes a republican and my favorite president ever)came into office the country was in pretty bad shape from the Vietnam war, Richard Nixon and 4 yrs of Jimmy Carter we were a hurtin.  Ronald Reagan came in and brought this country back together and it stayed together pretty darn good until the republicans could not stand the fact the Bill Clinton earned a second term.  Ever since then they have done everything they can to get right wing republicans back in office no matter what it to did to this country.


This is a good one and I will get to it too.

 :)

David Truskoff a lot smarter than you buddy. I google this topic and that was one of many bashing trickle down economics with facts, do I have to post more. I think you have an ego problem. I can't believe that you can argue the statics that were presented. People can see through your smoke and mirrors. Prove to me your facts. Your in denial about the trickle down economics recession of the early 90's. Your in denial about the deficient it caused. I guess your pushing for this country to be like south America, 2 classes rich and poor with no middle class.
Show me were Ross Perot was for giving tax breaks for the rich to stimulate the economy, He was for tax breaks for the poor maybe but thats not trickle down.

Easy wee man don't stroke out on me. As far as Mr. Truskoff's intelligence verses mine, after reading through his blogs, I think I'll disagree with you. His statistics are contrary to just about all others out there. (Do a little more googling  :-*)

While you're at it do the same with Ross. In the meantime, look me up when you've got the ability to discuss this on an educated level. 

I think I'm a "middle of the road" kind of man and I'm taking a serious look at Fred Thomson.  I'll be the first to admit I'm not completely up to speed on all current affairs but when I hear Thomson being interviewed or answering questions on a show, I like his no B.S. nature and a good portion of his opinions.     It is sad right now for the Democratic side because the options of voting for Hillary or Obama isn't really even an option for me personally.  I just wish the Democratic party would get a decent person to run. 

Who knows what you all think about this one,  but I really think since the loss last time, Al Gore has picked himself up, and has been contributing to society in a great way.  some disagree with his Green thinking ways etc, but to me he has shown that even being defeated, he still tries to be a servant to this country/world in another way.  I think if he was to run again, I would vote for him.  Even before Thomson.

Smoke and mirrors baby!!!!!!!!
Just like I said!!!!

Ross perot was for increasing taxes and cutting the military by 40 billion dollars.

 Educate youself Mr. SMOKE AND MIRRORS.


I can see why you don't advertise your law firm on this site. ;)

why cant we all just get along?  ???

Wow. You're a hostile little one aren't you? But, that typical of someone who attempts a battle of wits with an advesary beyond them.

Anyway, pay attention Grasshopper and I'll fill you in on what the goggle searching failed to reveal.

Ross Perot advocated raising taxes in areas not related to upper class or big business. Rather, he wanted to tax certain retirement plans, but only to fund medicare costs. At the same time, he advocated cutting capital gains taxes as well as cutting taxes on long term investments (hmmmmm, that sounds like another past president's ideas. Give you 3 chances to guess who.)

In addition, he advocated tax incentives associated with qualified large business ventures and research and development incentives. Again, focused on aiding the economy via stimulating things at a high end business level rather than an high end individual approach taken by Reagan. But, not the across the board tax raise you blabber about although he did advocate a flat tax on gas.

Keep in mind that Perot's military cuts were aimed at obsolete (or pending obsolete) military programs that were on the chopping block by all 1992 candidates. PErot just took it a little further, meanwhile advocating a 10% tax break earmark for military personel retirement savings. Thus, leading to an actual build up of a more efficient and numbers strong military.

Perot thought that he could run the government like he ran one of his businesses. Trim the fat. Make the tax cuts where they'd make the most difference and increase them in areas that could bear the increase. Not brain science and so simple that most people couldn't see the forest for the trees.

But, I guess you never caught on did you?

Smoke and Mirrors? Please......get someone else to debate this for you. You're doing horrible.

Vote For Monica She Has Already Held The Presidency

Original, Your fighting a no cause issue with TRX. Anyone who has to google to get any answers, evidently don't know politics real well. He will beleive everything he reads and anyone who puts it on the internet. I am like Buzzardman, I may not be quiet up on all the issues as everyone else, but I have someone that does a heck of a lot of research when it comes to election time. And thats not by reading what everyone has to say about each candidate. They check them out thoroughly.

You left out a bunch, but even what you posted is clearly not Trickle Down Economics. He relieves some taxes here and adds some here. Not cutting taxes for the rich so the rich can get richer like the trickle theory. Most important thing you left out was the 10 cent increase in tax gas every year for five years. Not flat!


Anyways I'm done with ha, Many people PM about you being stuburn damn they were right.
I going to go trickle down in the toilet now.
                      






































                  :Fp

I can't remember every detail from 1990 I'm sorry. Smoke and mirrors does more pasting than anybody i know.

Of course I left out a bunch. But, then again, I only addressed the points raised in your diatribe. And as far as the .10 per year tax, it was early on. At the time he dropped out of hte race, he was preaching a flat .50 tax....... and that ain't no google pasting.  :-*

Also, it's funny how at every turn, I've demolished your arguments and then you try to draw off onto something unrelated...kind of like the Ross Perot discussion you brought into this thread. Headlong, you've been unable to present anything supporting your opinions or statements. Rather, you resort to personal attacks and misdirection such as my magically equating Ross Perot with trickledown economics. Never said that. However, I did believe in his economic policy which included NUMEROUS tax cuts in what I believed to be the right areas while providing definitive increases in areas capable of supporting the same.

And its not that I am stubborn. Rather, I am quick to call BS on people who rattle off unfounded opinions without an educated basis. If you believe your own hype, then get into the issues and actually develop the ability to discuss/debate them on a decent level rather than branching off anytime you're beaten back and resulting to personal attacks that establish only your immaturity and lack of intellect on the subject at hand.  :'(  Look at Fish's original post. I don't necessarily agree with all of it; however, I respect the fact it is well thought out, avoids personal attacks and isn't off the cuff.

Fish started this thread as a discussion/debate on the current administration. I've simply participated as invited to do so.

Hey Smoke and Mirrors, you need to stop arguing and get packing for the plex trip, I bought a new razor for this.  ;)

You know, you're right. I'm going down stairs right now and put two thongs in a zip lock, load up a cooler and get ready to rumble.  ;)

Leopard skin?

One leopard skin and one hot pink leather with tassles and fringe.....cause that's how we roll.

Like this?

(http://images.43things.com/comment/42982pw150.jpg)

Sorry for the post hijack.

I look much hotter than that.

Damn it to hell, I just typed a reply to you Anoriginal that took over an hour including dinner squezed in and when I went to post it said the page has expired  :K :'( :'( :'(.  It was some of my best writing to date  ;D.  Why me, why why me  :'(.

You call yourself a register democrat, You push upon your beliefs like your the grand Pooh pa of all knowedge. Quick to accuse BS but not on yourself.
You ask for facts about the recession of the early 90's
Also ask for facts about the trillions of Dept that was accrued after Bush Sr.
What facts there all facts duh. Are you really dumb enough to think the people viewing this topic can't remember that.
You must learn to deal with it. Your opinion is the minority on this topic abroad. Its a Neanderthal way of thinking. Giving tax breaks to wealthy to stimulate the economy and hopefully that trickles down to the lower classes. Thats really working, look at the statics the poor class is the largest growing class right now.
You sound like you narrating Rush Limbaugh.

Anoriginal, I will get back with you tomorrow I am just too pissed right now to try and type all that crap (I mean information  ;)).

I thought this was about politics, not radio interference...I give up ;)

trx - Thanks for proving my points with your last post.

Fish -

I've been there myself and know what you mean. I hate it when that happens. Oh well, do it when you can. I look forward to your post.

~ Cheers

So its sad to say your like Chaney and Bush. Thats fine Its your right.
  Statistics don't lie my friend!!!!!!!   :deal.gif

I heard Bush and Cheney have pit bulls.

And fight them against each other.

Every time you post....I look better.

Somebody tell Paul his inbox is full. Trying to PM him.

Gaaaaaasp. I'm so ashamed to have voted for them.

:'( :'( :o

Keep it up fat boy and meet the pimp hand. >:D

LMAO at you guys.  :R

I can't believe this thread died so quickly, I think I may have seriously underestimated fishes troll abilities!
Lets see if I can give it a jumpstart.  ;)


Many Religious Right activists have attempted to rewrite history by asserting that the United States government derived from Christian foundations, that our Founding Fathers originally aimed for a Christian nation. This idea simply does not hold to the historical evidence.

Of course many Americans did practice Christianity, but so also did many believe in deistic philosophy. Indeed, most of our influential Founding Fathers, although they respected the rights of other religionists, held to deism and Freemasonry tenets rather than to Christianity.

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


The U.S. Constitution

The United States Constitution serves as the law of the land for America and indicates the intent of our Founding Fathers. The Constitution forms a secular document, and nowhere does it appeal to God, Christianity, Jesus, or any supreme being. (For those who think the date of the Constitution contradicts the last sentence, see note 1 at the end.) The U.S. government derives from people (not God), as it clearly states in the preamble: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union...." The omission of God in the Constitution did not come out of forgetfulness, but rather out of the Founding Fathers purposeful intentions to keep government separate from religion.

Although the Constitution does not include the phrase "Separation of Church & State," neither does it say "Freedom of religion." However, the Constitution implies both in the 1st Amendment. As to our freedoms, the 1st Amendment provides exclusionary wording:

Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the 1st Amendment to his January 1st, 1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association calling it a "wall of separation between church and State." Madison had also written that "Strongly guarded. . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States." There existed little controversy about this interpretation from our Founding Fathers.

If religionists better understood the concept of separation of Church & State, they would realize that the wall of separation actually protects their religion. Our secular government allows the free expression of religion and non religion. Today, religions flourish in America; we have more churches than Seven-Elevens.

Although many secular and atheist groups fight for the wall of separation, this does not mean that they wish to lawfully eliminate religion from society. On the contrary, you will find no secular or atheist group attempting to ban Christianity, or any other religion from American society. Keeping religion separate allows atheists and religionists alike, to practice their belief systems, regardless how ridiculous they may seem, without government intervention.

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

The Declaration of Independence

Many Christian's who think of America as founded upon Christianity usually present the Declaration of Independence as "proof" of a Christian America. The reason appears obvious: the Declaration mentions God. (You may notice that some Christians avoid the Constitution, with its absence of God.)

However, the Declaration of Independence does not represent any law of the United States. It came before the establishment of our lawful government (the Constitution). The Declaration aimed at announcing the separation of America from Great Britain and it listed the various grievances with them. The Declaration includes the words, "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America." The grievances against Great Britain no longer hold today, and we have more than thirteen states.

Although the Declaration may have influential power, it may inspire the lofty thoughts of poets and believers, and judges may mention it in their summations, it holds no legal power today. It represents a historical document about rebellious intentions against Great Britain at a time before the formation of our government.

Of course the Declaration stands as a great political document. Its author aimed at a future government designed and upheld by people and not based on a superstitious god or religious monarchy. It observed that all men "are created equal" meaning that we all get born with the abilities of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men." Please note that the Declaration says nothing about our rights secured by Christianity. It bears repeating: "Governments are instituted among men."

The pursuit of happiness does not mean a guarantee of happiness, only that we have the freedom to pursue it. Our Law of the Land incorporates this freedom of pursuit in the Constitution. We can believe or not believe as we wish. We may succeed or fail in our pursuit, but our Constitution (and not the Declaration) protects our unalienable rights in our attempt at happiness.

Moreover, the mentioning of God in the Declaration does not describe the personal God of Christianity. Thomas Jefferson who held deist beliefs, wrote the majority of the Declaration. The Declaration describes "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." This nature's view of God agrees with deist philosophy and might even appeal to those of pantheistical beliefs, but any attempt to use the Declaration as a support for Christianity will fail for this reason alone.

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

The Treaty of Tripoli

Unlike most governments of the past, the American Founding Fathers set up a government divorced from any religion. Their establishment of a secular government did not require a reflection to themselves of its origin; they knew this as a ubiquitous unspoken given. However, as the United States delved into international affairs, few foreign nations knew about the intentions of the U.S. For this reason, an insight from at a little known but legal document written in the late 1700s explicitly reveals the secular nature of the U.S. government to a foreign nation. Officially called the "Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary," most refer to it as simply the Treaty of Tripoli. In Article 11, it states:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."



The preliminary treaty began with a signing on 4 November, 1796 (the end of George Washington's last term as president). Joel Barlow, the American diplomat served as counsel to Algiers and held responsibility for the treaty negotiations. Barlow had once served under Washington as a chaplain in the revolutionary army. He became good friends with Paine, Jefferson, and read Enlightenment literature. Later he abandoned Christian orthodoxy for rationalism and became an advocate of secular government. Joel Barlow wrote the original English version of the treaty, including Amendment 11. Barlow forwarded the treaty to U.S. legislators for approval in 1797. Timothy Pickering, the secretary of state, endorsed it and John Adams concurred (now during his presidency), sending the document on to the Senate. The Senate approved the treaty on June 7, 1797, and officially ratified by the Senate with John Adams signature on 10 June, 1797. All during this multi-review process, the wording of Article 11 never raised the slightest concern. The treaty even became public through its publication in The Philadelphia Gazette on 17 June 1797.

So here we have a clear admission by the United States in 1797 that our government did not found itself upon Christianity. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, this treaty represented U.S. law as all U.S. Treaties do (see the Constitution, Article VI, Sect.2: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.")

Although the Treaty of Tripoli under agreement only lasted a few years and no longer has legal status, it clearly represented the feelings of our Founding Fathers at the beginning of the American government.


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


Admit it, you guys missed me. LMAO

Did you just call me a troll  :dunno.gif

No, I just questioned your trolling skills. Making a post against GW on this site really can't be construed as anything else IMO. Not that I have any room to talk, seems I got skunked. Hahaha. That is why I use a speargun these days.

Here's another fact for you Wiburz.  If Bill Clinton had gone in on any of the opportunities he had to kill Osama and the other leaders of al Qaeda and the Taliban, 3,000+ wouldn't have died in a single day on September 11, 2001!  Get over yourself.  More people die in a month on our nation's roads and highways than have died in the four years of this conflict.  Are you crying for them?  These soldiers joined the armed forces for what it stands for.  There was a calling they had to answer and that calling is freedom  Do you think for a second there hasn't been another "9/11" because the work our soldiers are doing in the Middle East hasn't made it possible?  What would these people have wrought upon us if we had continued Clinton's head in the sand response he made famous during his administration?  Why do you think they attacked us in the first place?  Because Clinton had proven this country is full of a bunch of panty-waste, tree huggin' Democratic pous-says that would rather look for a way to appease a bully than knock him on his ass.

JackL, you take the Treaty of Tripoli out of context.  American shipping was being obliterated by the pirates operating out of Tripoli and the Treaty was demanded for, in its context, to prove we had no latent allegiance to England, with whom the Barbary Coast was in what amounted to a full scale war.  We HAD to present that treaty to them in that manner so that we could get relief from the pirate activities and we could resume commerce in the Mediterranean.  As for the Declaration and the Constitution, there was great motivation for the men of those times to seperate church and state.  The church ran rough-shod over England and our founding fathers never wanted to live under that type of rule again.  The seperation of church and state had more to do with rule by the people and defining our new government as secular, and writing The Constitution in that mindset, was their means of guaranteeing that the church would never rule this new country.  It had nothing to do with declaring the people or leaders of this country as god-free or aetheists, as so few, in their inimitable, disgusting way, try to cram down the throats of the majority.

If we would have just nuked Afghanistan like I wanted, none of our boys would have had to die and the world and OPEC would fear us, like they should. At this point we look like punks and our country is broke for years to come. Great job GW did making a bunch of people with rocks, sticks and camels hate us enough to strap on bombs and blow themselves up to try and get us.

National security hasn't been improved one bit since 9/11, and still no attacks on our soil. Just as always, these people are free to come and go here yet they do nothing. I have always believed they have all sorts of bad intentions against us till the moment they see what is going on and assimilate rather quickly with the first taxi driver job or 7/11 position they can get. Very few of the 'Saudi' hijackers knew they were going to die that day, they thought it was a regular hijacking. They were probably told they would be flying to Afghanistan, not into a building.

This war was the most colossal waste of time, money and resources in history, and as far as I am concerned GW and Cheney should be tried for treason.

What you propose is called genocide and it would hardly be an appropriate response.  Study your history a little bit and you will find those same cave dwellers kicked the sh*t out of Russia (albeit with some shoulder fired help from the good old U.S.)  The suicide bomber 'phenomenon' is hardly new.  Fanatics have been blowing themselves up in every war going back to the invention of gun powder (we had our own suicide bombers during the Civil War - they piloted the original submarines).  So big deal; a bunch of slick-talking oil sheiks convinced a few hundred camel jocks to die for their taste of virginal flesh.  Don't lose sight of the fact that both sides are fighting for control of oil.  It's nothing new; every war in history can be traced back to an economic catalyst.  Without this colossal waste of time, money and resources, it's quite possible your forays into the Holeylands would be on foot.  And if Bush and Cheney should be tried for treason, then you better line up nearly all of Washington, including the previous administration.  After all, most of the intelligence used to 'justify' this conflict was collected in the years prior to GW ever taking office.  Only time and an inconvenient election schedule kept Clinton from pulling the trigger.  Don't believe for a second the outcome would have been any different if not for a few 'hanging chads.'

Diggin, Diggin, Diggin  :tsktsk.gif :tsktsk.gif.  You are the typical extreme right wing republican, you fit this example to a T.  I am reading a great book right now by John Dean called Conservatives without Conscience in the 1st chapter he goes about trying to explain what a right wing conservative is and I swear in the end he mentions your name.  John goes to great lengths to describe who these people are and what they want and it is not a pretty picture.  And one last thing to save you from trying to figure out who John Dean is, he was part of the Nixon administration (that's right a republican, and a conservative at that) until the extreme right wing went after him to blame him for the whole Nixon fiasco.  Then and only then did he learn what real right wing conservatives are all about they are nasty, morally corrupt, arrogant, hypocritical and do not like change.  Time is a changing son your part of the old guard, hop on over to the center the water is not that cold and the people are a lot nicer.

I must say diggin, I look forward to some day shaking your hand and riding the little land we have left.

You are certainly the most intelligent and skilled debater I have encountered in a very long time.
I do not see the agenda of the ACLU and other groups you allude to as trying to cram atheism down anyone's throat, exactly the opposite in fact. Freedom of religion for everyone. Certain groups have attempted to re write history to their liking, but it just doesn't hold water IMO as I tried to illustrate in my other post.
I could write paragraph upon paragraph about the founding fathers intentions, as well as their beliefs, but I am tired and I doubt anyone here cares to read it anyway.

We didn't call it genocide in Japan, we called it kicking azz, winning a war and being victorious. I didn't propose wiping the country off the map, just showing the world we are number one because of our superior technology and not being afraid to use it. No sense in having a gun if you are going to pick up a stick when confronted with evil IMO.

I believe if we would have hit Afghanistan hard and fast, the entire middle east would be on notice that we are still the big dog and have no intentions of rolling over, and gas would be $1.00 a gallon. Saddam would be our lapdog and gave us Osama in a heartbeat to save his butt right along with the Saudis. Instead, we have mortgaged our countries future and put ourselves in a more vulnerable position than at any other time in recent history. If we needed to fight a ground war somewhere else right now for who knows what reason, the draft would have to be reinstated or use the nuclear option against someone that doesn't truly deserve it.

Hey, the way it looks now we might just give Iran a taste of the fat man if this new GW middle east 'peace initiative' fails.

Your point goes back to what I said about appropriate response.  Japan had proven, after four years of a viciously fought war in the Pacific and the death of hundreds of thousands of American service men, that a ground assault of Japan would be horrific in terms of human loss and economic hardship.  Americans were slowly but surely being crippled at home by the costs and hardships caused by WWII.  It was crucial to the future of this country that the bleeding stop in a big way and that is what prompted the well timed and appropriate response at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  As it turned out, Japan was in far worse shape than had been imagined and probably would have crumbled anyways.  Nevertheless, it ended the war and showed the world what a nuclear weapon was capable of.  Yes, it proved we were, finally, the true world power and paved the way for nuclear build-up and proliferation, but at the same time, kept everybody's finger off the trigger for fear of unleashing the nuclear devastation on themselves.  There is no winner in a modern nuclear war.  Imagine the response of the world had we set off a nuclear device in Afghanistan.  What about the nuclear powers to the immediate north and east?  What would their response be to the fallout?  Finally, would it truly make any sense to drop a nuclear bomb on an enemy that you really didn't know the location of?  Mountains make pretty good blast shields.  About the only thing that would have been accomplished is the collapse of any tunnels or caves within a few miles of the epicenter.  After that, little energy would have been left, having been directed upwards by the landscape.

As far as Iran goes, they have been probably our most dangerous foe for a long time.  They literally control the flow of oil out of the Persian Gulf and out to the world.  Don't believe me?  Get a globe, find Iran and find a little strip of water called the Straits of Hormuz.  All the oil leaving that area by tanker flows through that little strip of water and the Iranian shoreline bristles with Chinese Silkworm anti-ship missle batteries.  If Iran is allowed to develop nuclear weapons, they will single handedly control over half of the world's oil supplies and they will rule the Middle East.  The only thing stopping Ahmadinejad from implementing this is knowledge of world response.  However, with nuclear tipped missles (Iran is very technologically advanced and have missles they have developed that have the range, accuracy and capacity to deliver nuclear warheads hundreds of miles away), he can control the entire Middle East and would force any response to require the use of nuclear weapons, making the oil fields nuclear wastelands.  He effectively wins because everybody loses if he doesn't get his way.  In one foul swoop, Iran becomes the most powerful country in the world and $3.00 per gallon gasoline will seem ridiculously cheap.  This is the reality few Americans contemplate when thinking about the Middle East.  All they can seem to think about is the death of the kid that grew up down the street.  Yes, it's sad to see someone go before their time (does any of us really know what 'our time' is, anyways?) but there are real issues out there that require the use of America's military and until the day we are oil independent, those issues reside in the Middle East.  All wars have their roots in economics and the mother of all wars is looming if we don't exert our influence.  There is no way the rest of the world, let alone the United States, will stand by and let a single country dictate the cost of energy.  An oil free future is decades, possibly lifetimes, away and until that time, there will be oil conflicts.  The cost of war pales in comparison to the cost of energy should someone like Ahmadinejad ever control the world's oil spigot.  Why do you think the U.S. is getting support from the world in the Iranian crises?  Because of the truth that is truly inconvenient: You will either pay now or pay dearly later.

I am well aware of who John Dean is and his little book must be taken in context.  He wrote it after being outed by his comrades.  It is human nature to lash out when you've been hurt.  And why not write the book?  Any hope of resurrecting a political life was gone, so the next best thing is put a little spin on an old story, poke a finger in the eyes of your accusers and call them mean, corrupt and immoral (are you sure he wasn't talking about Bill and Hillary?), put it on paper and watch all the little people go buy it and say "SEE?  SEE THAT?  I TOLD YOU THE DEMOCRATS WERE RIGHT!!"  It's pure political b.s.  As far as me being a so-called right-wing, fanatical neo-con, nothing could be further from the truth.  I walk the middle ground on matters of personal freedom but when it comes to business, economics and finance, I'm pure Republican, baby.  There's more to life than money but there's more fun in life with money.  I subscribe to the ideals of let the people choose how to spend their money and not have government spoon feed it to a bunch of professional baby-puking couch potatoes.  But, then again, that's another topic for another day.  All you whiners out there crying about the inequalities of tax breaks need to get a reality check.  Give the little man a couple hundred bucks in tax breaks, he runs out and buys a big screen tv.  Give Daddy Big Bucks a few thousand dollars in tax breaks and he invests it into the stock market, giving business a boost and building the economy.  Sounds hard core but that's the way it works.  And by the way, Daddy Big Bucks is still paying huge amounts of taxes even though his tax break is more than all the taxes you pay (or possibly more than you make).  Unless you are a latent fan of Karl Marx, I would much rather have Republicans running this country.

Give the rich a tax break they need it. OK then, but were going to get rid of right offs then. Most large companies pay hardly no taxes right now, they fudge there books.
We need a flat tax across the board. 10% to everyone and no right offs.
Some billionaire guy that just came forward and said he pays less taxes than his workers do, that are making 50 to 60 thousand a year. I'm sure someone will remember his name.
Giving large tax breaks to the rich will result in no middle class. If you want to be like south America or Mexico OK then don't beatch when it happens. I going to car jack your a$$ first. ;)
I think were heading there anyways with all the minority's taking over. We will probably have to go back home to our mother land of Europe in a few years. Soon as they can out vote us were screwed kinda like south Africa. One hundred thousand whites move out of south Africa a year. Do you know were there going, certainly not to this country. Australia!!!!!!! Digginfool and Anorignal you can't go they don't give the rich a tax break.  ;) South America will suite your needs better. ;D

Here's a 'right off' for you; why don't you get 'right off' your soap box until you learn to spell/type/probably speak intelligently.  Even if you had something worthwhile to say, you still look like an idiot typing like that.  If all else fails, try a dictionary.  I know, it will take a long time since you can't even seem to get the little words right (or is that 'write').  Come back when you get there (or is that 'their').  I'm sorry, I shouldn't poke fun at immigrants who haven't yet mastered the English language (you are an immigrant, aren't you?  If not, somebody needs to take your GED away from you).

Sorry I thought this was a forum, not a grammer test. Next time all get off the phone.  I'll prove read next time too! I didn't realize there's such tight a$$es on here. Keep the insults coming buddy, make yourself look like a real jerk. Just like a right wing sicko you are. :Clown.gif

Shock and awe I imagine.



I figure Israel would throw a party, and all the money we have invested there would go a long way
towards keeping the Arabs at bay, since they would be more than ready to finish off what ever we missed. As for the fallout, I don't know what my opinion is anymore. The Bikini Atoll has the worlds most beautiful coral reef these days and I have been reading of the adventures of what very well may be the coolest girl in the world, Elena in Chernobyl  http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter1.html which both point to it being not so bad...




I'm pretty sure we have the technology and intelligence to have picked the right places to blast, while making a very strong point in the process.




I agree with you here, this is and always was my objection to waging a ground war in Iraq of all places. This war on 'terror' was a colossal waste of time and resources no matter how you look at it. It has accomplished nothing. They were no threat to us at any point. It was simply a vendetta for ''After all, this is the guy who tired to kill my dad.'' and the entire country is bleeding for it.

I also agree the mother of all wars is looming if we don't exert our influence. I am just wondering when we are going to do that, and if we even could at this point.

IMO our President failed us miserably on so many counts he will be remembered as the worst in history, should be charged with treason, and my children's children will be footing the bill for his revenge trip which has placed our country in a seriously perilous state with nothing to show for it but a collapsing economy and a million plus people who really do want to put a hurting on us now.

At this point, I feel our best option is to invest heavily in nuclear powerplants and get all our internal combustion stuff on ethanol and vegetable oil. That will give us a good supply of DU to shoot at anyone who challenges us in the near future, namely China.

All of this would be mute if we would have put a big fat smackdown on Afghanistan in the beginning, at the cost of only a few million dollars and no American lives.

Oh well, time and history will tell all....

trx,

I've already dominated you on every level. You should leave me out of your discussions. Believe it or not, you actually posted something I'm not opposed to trying.... the flat tax on a personal level only. Why personal only? Because most people are not business owners and the business tax breaks have historically worked quite well.

Oh, and I like it right here....in control.

Come on now, you didn't realise their were such tight a$$es here?/? ;)

Wow, you and diggin just gave me the best laugh I have had in a while!! Great stuff!!! Hahahaahah

This thread really got off topic. Although, I am enjoying the diatribe being sold as original thought and/or debate. 

Thanks for the laughs. :D

I just want to nuke something.

One should only lawyer not judge!!! ;) I bet you and d-fool damage your views more than helped it. :-X

Digginfool, if this statement is true     "I walk the middle ground on matters of personal freedom but when it comes to business, economics and finance, I'm pure Republican, baby.  There's more to life than money but there's more fun in life with money.  I subscribe to the ideals of let the people choose how to spend their money and not have government spoon feed it to a bunch of professional baby-puking couch potatoes.  But, then again, that's another topic for another day.  All you whiners out there crying about the inequalities of tax breaks need to get a reality check.  Give the little man a couple hundred bucks in tax breaks, he runs out and buys a big screen tv.  Give Daddy Big Bucks a few thousand dollars in tax breaks and he invests it into the stock market, giving business a boost and building the economy.  Sounds hard core but that's the way it works.  And by the way, Daddy Big Bucks is still paying huge amounts of taxes even though his tax break is more than all the taxes you pay (or possibly more than you make).  Unless you are a latent fan of Karl Marx, I would much rather have Republicans running this country".


If the tax breaks for the rich really help society as a whole then why is the gap between the very rich and the middle class growing?  We have had almost 7yrs of these fantastic tax cuts for the rich,  that should be enough time for these tax cuts to work there way down thru society but they are not.  If these tax cuts are so good for the rich and society as a whole then why is the stock market flat and has been for years?  Would not all this extra money floating around into the little guys hands help the housing market also? 

The economy sucks, and it is a reflection of your beloved president, not the democrats.

Don't even try to tell me about the morals of republicans and GW in particular because I know better.  Most politicians I believe are morally corrupt but the republicans are the ones with the holier than though attitude not the Dem's.

Good post!!! :Clap.gif

OMG!!  You really don't have a clue, do you?  Have you ever looked at the growth of the stock market over the last 5 years?  Do you realize historical records have been smashed and by many analyst opinions, we are in a period of consolidation, poised to make another run towards new historical highs?  And as far as the housing market goes, I have no pity on anybody who is suffering through the so-called housing crises.  Nobody but the mortgagee signed those papers.  People making $60,000.00 per year have no business trying to purchase half-million dollar homes.  They gambled and lost.  Yeah, it was tempting to get into the thrill of the deal, but unless you were in and out early, and made intelligent decisions, you most likely got burned.  That's the way of the world in an open economy.  It's become so typical in America these days.  People make bone-headed decisions, usually based on greed, and then refuse to accept blame for their predicament.  Can you really look in the mirror and take yourself seriously when you say it's GW's fault that these dickwads bit off more than they can chew and now want to blame everybody else?  Do you really believe that all the people who used their brains should now bail out the greedy bassturds that got caught with their pants down?  Is that what you truly believe?  If so, you're a bigger fool than I ever thought you were and you represent everything that is wrong in this country today.  Nobody accepts responsibility for their actions anymore.  "It's not my fault!  I was taken advantage of!  Somebody's got to do something!  Lower my taxes, lower my interest rate, pay my mortgage!"  Hey, moron, that money has to come from somewhere!  It just doesn't disappear because somebody imposes a moratorium.  And here's something else for you to ponder, dimwit.  IF the economy sucks as bad as you say it does, why the hell is unemployment so low?  Do you know anybody who's trying to hire workers these days?  The only people that don't have jobs are the ones who don't want one in the first place.  I'm offering all time highs in hourly rates just to get people in the door to fill out an application.  Half the time, they don't even show up!  You listen to the Democratic rhetoric and you just automatically assume it's true without doing any research on your own.  The Dow was in the range of 8,300 in December 2002.  It closed today at 13,445.  I would hardly call that flat.  And if you need perspective, the Dow didn't break 2,000 until 1987 and today's closing is 3,000 points higher than the peak of the Internet bubble and the vaunted economy (in your eyes) of Bill Clinton (the Dow went up by 7,000 points during Clinton's term in office but much of that gain was due to the tech bubble and that corrected itself in 1999/2000.  It also had much to do with a Republican dominated legislature that helped foster strong economic growth that continued once George Bush took office and the shock of 9/11 wore off).  The housing market was another bubble just like the tech bubble; it was driven to highs that had no basis and when the truth came out, there was a correction.  It's not politics; it's economics.  The whole thing was driven by greed.  You want to blame somebody, blame the guy down the street that owns a $500,000.00 mortgage on a house that is now worth $275,000.00 and was only worth $190,000.00 four years ago.  Speculators are to blame, not George Bush.  So, if the 'mortgage crises' does cause a major market correction (which I don't believe will happen until after the election, if at all, and is a phenomenon with historical basis), you can blame the greed of your neighbors, not this administration.  As far as the trickle down effect of tax breaks for business goes, it does go into the hands of the little guy.  All that money floating around went into the hands of the little guys in the form of loans they now don't want to repay.  It went into the little guys hands in other ways, as well.  I gave a 10% (yes, 10%!!!) across the board raise to every employee in my company this past year and some of them have received more in the form of performance bonuses and additional raises.  So yes, the money I saved in tax breaks did trickle down to my employees.  Furthermore, through networking with my colleagues, I know we are not alone.  Nearly every company I know gave across the board raises.  Again, your whining about being held down by the establishment is typical.  Nothing is ever enough.  You want to be Daddy Big Bucks?  What the hell were you doing when you were supposed to be applying yourself in school?  When did you ever lay your nuts out on the line by signing the dotted line for millions in loans, putting your entire future in jeopardy, because you had faith in your business plan?  When did you ever even sit down and develop a business plan of any sort?  That, careful planning, execution, sacrifice and some God-given luck is what makes a succesful business and the right to receive breaks from the government so you can pass it down to your employees and/or reinvest in your company so that you can try to make their lives even better.  I've been in business for myself my entire life; I've never worked for somebody else, other than my customers, since I was 20 years old.  I've seen every economy and I've suffered and I've prospered but I never blamed anybody.  I took it like a man when it was bad and I spread it around when it was good and I've lived a prosperous life.  That's the difference between victims and victors, mice and men.  It's pretty clear what column you fall into.

You are the typical right winger, and you proved it in your answer.  Which btw was the longest paragraph I have seen in a long time.

Did you call me a dickwad in that rant of yours, if you did I am truly hurt, I have not been called that since 8th grade or was it the 9th grade I don't remember because that was the mid 70's and you know about the free love and free drug days.

Dow was around 10,000 in August 2001 and now we are around 13,500  I don't think your comparison of the market just a month or so after 9/11 is a fair one, anyway that is not real bad but it is not great.  Now I reckon if you have money in big oil you would be doing good or maybe KBR but all in all the stock market is not on fire. 

Yes, the unemployment is low but so are the wages.  You need to come out of your gold filled office and look at the common man, the average Joe is worse off now than he was before your lover GW took office.  For one who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth you seem to know a lot about the average hard working American.  Maybe your nanny showed you how the poor people lived, but that is not the same as going out and looking around the country and seeing what it happening.

I never said that GW is 100 % responsible for the woes of this country but he has a lot to do with it, but it is a lot easier on your conscience to bury your head in  the sand as long as the little guy is footin the bill and you have more money in your pocket all is good.  That is the problem with your type, it's all about you, me on the other hand care about the good of this country.  I would not support higher taxes because I want to pay more but I would because it would be best for this country. 

And one more thing mister I don't care about nobody but myself, I never complained about the man holding me down, or my mortgage payment being too high or wanting the government to bail me out, you are just throwing those into the mix to cloud this issue.  The issue here is why I don't like your lover, GW.  I think it is becoming very clear that he is a liar, amoral, hypocrite, not all that bright and worst of all he is easily swayed by those around him.  Face it he sucks, and he will go down as one of the worst ever and you can't stand it, it eats at you that your lover sucks. 

Ok, make it two more things.  I don't need to go on the internet and hurry up and look up facts. I have lived it just like you but unlike you I don't get the republican talking points daily but I do read the papers, magazines, books and other periodicals and I also watch the news and from all this I form an opinion.  I know, it's a big liberal leaning media, all controlled by the liberals, my god it's a liberal conspiracy to bring your man down.  Give me a break anyone with half a mind can look at this country and say that we are NOT better off after 6 yrs of GW, that is unless you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth.

Digginfool said  "That's the difference between victims and victors, mice and men.  It's pretty clear what column you fall into."

That is the other thing about you right wingers, you think your the school yard bully, try to talk tough, kick a little dirt and try to scare people with your wrath.  And believe it or not that works it does scare the weak minded and that's where you get most of your members, the weak minded followers of the school yard bully because if I am his friend he won't pick on me.  Too bad I am not a follower, I am a leader, I form my own opinion and I will meet the school yard bully on his turf if that is what he wants.  I have been living my life like that for many a year and it has served me well. 

I'm living in a nice house, drive a nice truck, have a nice quad, plasma, surround..........and on and on and on.  But what I don't do is expect other people to have to pay my way.  I don't expect gov't handouts (or in your case tax cuts) and I want to pay for my stuff myself.  You on the other hand do want gov't handouts in the form of tax cuts, so who do you think will pay for that? Your kids thats who, and their kids also, wait a minute you have such high morals and you care so much for all man kind because you are a right wing fanatic, you would not pass the buck to the next generation or would you?  The answer is yes you would and you are passing the buck, as long as your good and your getting your handouts why should things change. 

Wow you gave across the board 10% raise.  Now your workers are earning $7.70, are you paying for their insurance or how about 401k are you matching their contributions, retirement what about that or are most of your workers part time so you don't have to pay for these things.  Your type make me sick but by golly your weak minded followers look up to you.  Good for you, milk the system for all it's worth but I would rather not

Yawn....

This has become rather boring and I'm not so sure I will 'tackle' all the points.  Did I grow up with a silver spoon?  Not really but my family wasn't hurting, either (sorry, didn't have a nanny but I did enjoy our membership at the yacht club).  My father grew up on a farm during The Depression and made it on his own and he had no intentions of supporting us beyond the school years.  Once we were done with school, we were hustled out into the real world.  Yes, it was an eye opening experience for a long haired, pansy-assed, dope smoking white boy who was used to living on the Intracoastal, hanging at the yacht club and living an easy life.  Since leaving my sheltered life behind, I have been so low as to have to drag bed sheets through the grass flats off Grant to try to get enough bait to try to catch dinner.  On more than one occassion I ended up enjoying a nice pot of bait stew.  I've scraped barnacles off boats, worked longline and kingfish boats and crawled through attics in the middle of summer but I never cried about it and never stopped thinking about what the future had to bring me.  Since starting my business with absolutely nothing but an old work van, I've had weeks on end go by when everybody in the company was getting paid but me, the owner.  You try to downplay my 10% across the board raise; that cost me over $100,000.00 this year.  I would much rather put my half of that money in my pocket but as I have always done, I spread it around.  I will also hand out another $50-60K in Christmas bonuses this year as well.  Why do I tell you this?  Certainly not to make anybody feel sorry for me but to show that I do know what it's like to live at the bottom of the food chain (and I'm certainly not at the top but the view is pretty clear where I'm at).  I'm a Republican for a real good reason; for all but 8 years of the 25+ years I've owned my company, there has been a Republican president and, for the most part, a Republican dominated legislature.  For those with a dream and the drive to accomplish it, the administrations I have experienced created the economic atmosphere for me to realize my dream of one day creating my own little dynasty.  I did it on my own, except for the help my brother brought to the table (and by no means was it financial help - he was poorer than I was and also had a wife and two babies at home) when I made him partner in 1988.  Nobody but us ever put a dime into it, other than when we took loans from the bank to purchase equipment, and we did it all by the seat of our pants, learning as we went.  There was no guiding hand showing us the way or silver spoon feeding us; we did it alone and started from scratch.

Now, as far as calling you a "dickwad," go back and read that section.  That was the moniker I attached to the fools that caused this so-called housing crises.  So unless you are one of them (which you claim you're not but you do seem to only be able to focus on that one particular issue - that and you can't stand to be wrong), I never called you, specifically, a dickwad.  However, what part of my generosity makes you sick, dickwad?  When's the last time you got a 10% raise, in one year and still have your annual review and cost of living adjustment handed to you as well?  That's what I thought. 

Yes the Dow was at 10,000 in August of 2001 but had been stagnant and trending downward since the peak of 11,500 in December 1999.  December 2002 Dow was more than a few months after 9/11 (try 15) and is a perfectly legitimate starting place for his administration since he inherited the tech collapse and 9/11 in the first 9 months of his office.  This Republican administration rebuilt a severely damaged economy and gets full credit for doing so.  And before you start bitchin' about the housing crises again, you can't blame GW for all the speculators out there.  If you absolutely must put a name to the blame, try Carlton Sheets or one of the others that harked real estate get-rich-quick schemes on tv at 2 AM. 

Let me ask you one question; if GW is to blame for the Iraq issues, how come none of the Democratic candidates are harping about bringing the troops home anymore?  It's not because GW left them with such a mess that they can't leave now.  It's the oil and if you check history, you will see that everyone of them wanted to go into Iraq and do something about Saddam before GW ever ran for office, let alone got elected.  Explain that one if you can.  All right, I'm bored plus I have things to do.  Gotta go for now.

NOW, I know you called me a dickwad and I did not misread that.  I see your tone has settled down some and now that you are more civil we can agree to disagree.  I want you to understand that I don't blame everything on GW but I know enough about economics and politics that he can certainly take the blame for alot of our countries problems.  True there are other factors but he is the is the main culprit.  His so-called war on terror (Iraq) has been a clusterf#@*, and is draining the financial resources of this country and in turn bringing down the economy.  Can you at least admit he screwed up this Iraq war, and don't blame the military, remember GW is the commander and chief.

If your so rich and well off, why haven't you made a donation for the injuried girl Jennifer and her family. It's on other thread in open discussion. Cheap a$$!!!

I feel for her and would hate to be in her position but I can't jump in on every single charity that comes along.  My charities of choice are St. Judes, Children's Cancer Caring Center and Make-A-Wish Foundation.  I donate thousands of dollars to these causes each and every year.  What do you do for mankind, jerkoff?  Actually, that's exactly what you should be doing to keep the gene pool clean.

Wow, I knew there was a reason I'm registered as a Republican. Certainly wouldn't want to have to debate diggin or Anoriginal if I were a Democrat. By the way, where are all the Democrat's?

Ok there bull$hit artist. You really show your true colors, can't even donate 5 bucks. Thats how most rich and stuck up snobs are. Oh I donate to all these other charities already.
(Diggin a deeper hole because I'm a fool). :ouch.gif