PDA

View Full Version : The Anti-Victory Neurosis of the Left



AmazingBrewdini
07-03-2005, 02:46 PM
Karl Rove nails the anti-victory neurosis of the Left
The Star [South Chicago] ^ | 7/3/5 | Michael Bowers

Col. Charles Beckwith, founder of the Delta Force, tells a story about White House planning in April 1980 for the mission to rescue our 53 hostages in Tehran. Beckwith had visited the White House Situation Room to brief President Carter.

In the meeting, according to one writer, "Charlie mentioned that his Delta shooters would 'take out' the hostage guards.

"Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher looked over at Charlie, eyebrows raised. 'Take them out,' Colonel?"

Beckwith replied: "Yes, Mister Deputy Secretary. We're going to double-tap 'em. Shoot 'em each in the head twice."

Christopher protested: "Couldn't you just shoot them in the shoulder or something?"

And liberals wonder why conservatives consider them weak.

Now, before you accuse me of painting with a broad brush, let me say many Democrats do not seek a weak America. For example, Joe Lieberman does not. Zell Miller does not. Sam Nunn does not. John F. Kennedy did not. Alive today, he'd be a hawk.

However, it is eminently fair to say that virtually all those bound to a weak America also are bound to the Democratic Party.

Karl Rove was 100 percent accurate with his June 22 comments: "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9-11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9-11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."

Liberals are livid, mainly because, secretly, they know Rove has them nailed. Their party in the past 60 years has a rich history of appeasement, defeatism, naivete, fear and weakness.

Liberals simply have not got the will to kill our mortal enemies. They just want to shoot them in the shoulder.

Consider two moments from the century that was: Yalta 1945 and Vietnam 1968-74.

At Yalta, President Roosevelt gave away Eastern Europe to Stalin. At the time, our side had had nearly three decades to size up the evil of the Soviet Union. It was, after all, the nation that murdered 5,000 officers the cream of Poland's military at Katyn Forest in 1940.

And yet, as Roosevelt told a confidante: "I think that if I give (Stalin) everything I possibly can without demanding anything in return, then, noblesse oblige, he will not attempt to annex anything and will work to build a peaceful and democratic world."

FDR was wrong. For millions of Eastern Europeans, his assessment meant oppression. For thousands, it meant death. For example, ask Peter Fechter, the young German who tried to escape East Berlin in August 1962.

Ah, but wait you cannot ask poor Mr. Fechter. Shot by East German border guards, he slowly bled to death in no man's land at the Berlin Wall.

American troops heard his cries but dared not rescue him lest they be shot themselves. Fechter was 18. Today, he would be 61. His corpse is Roosevelt's legacy. His corpse, plus the corpses of 1,064 others and all these at the Berlin Wall alone.

Now, Vietnam. In a book on the war, Col. Harry Summers recounts an incident from the 1974 Paris peace talks. Summers told Col. Tu of the North Vietnamese army, "You know, you never beat us on the battlefield."

Col. Tu replied, "That may be so, but it is also irrelevant."

Indeed it was. The communists did not have to win on the ground. They had to win on the TV screens of America's living rooms.

Doing so, they benefited immensely from the collaboration of America's reporters. The most egregious example is how our press magically transformed the Tet Offensive from a great defeat for the communists (which it was) into a great defeat for the Americans (which it was not).

Reporters were shocked that a handful of Viet Cong were able to take a cab to the U.S. Embassy in Saigon, blow their way into the compound and kill a few U.S. soldiers.

Indeed, this was disturbing. But in the big picture, it counted for virtually nothing. The Tet Offensive was a disaster for the North. The Viet Cong were wiped out: 50,000 dead. The communists were left to fight with only their uniformed troops.

But why would a reporter bother with such mundane analysis when he can embark on the sexy task of doomsaying? Walter Cronkite made his famous report declaring the war lost and what do you know, overnight, the war was lost.

Nothing changes. Thirty-seven years later, we may lose the Iraq war because of the protests of America's victory-haters.

Again, my caveat: Many Democrats are not weak Americans. But nearly all weak Americans are Democrats.

Therefore, I think I am entitled to say that when it comes to national security, the Democrats are the party that harbors the timid and the self-handcuffed.

You could say they are the party of Atticus Finch, the heroic lawyer but misguided father in "To Kill a Mockingbird," who told his brave daughter Scout, "I forbid you to fight."

Likewise, Democrats forbid America to fight. For 70 years, they refused to take communism seriously. Now, they refuse to take terrorism seriously. They simply cannot believe our enemies mean us harm.

Thank God, George W. Bush knows better.

At the White House in 1980, a shocked Warren Christopher asked: "You mean you're really going to shoot to kill? You really are?"

Yes, we really are. And for some Americans, it's time to grow a spine.

Michael Bowers is a copy editor and page designer for The Star. Send e-mail to mbowers@starnewspapers.com.

Drop1
07-03-2005, 05:32 PM
Intresting I have the feeling you would prefer a one party system. I don't share your love for labels,having voted for both parties. Do the words UnAmerican from the fifties ring a bell with you? America is being defeated,but not in the arena of weapons,and guts,but in the Globalization sell out.Lets watch the Chinese buy Unical with money from Wal-Mart. What happens when they belly up to the bar with leaders of Countries that would destry the U.S.,and buy products from those Countries with dollars. The quality of life is dropping in the U.S.,and you are praising the people that are doing it. I also see little to sing about among the Democrats, its a new world order. At Yalta,we agreed to be the currency of international trade. You will see a Pacific Rim dollar in the future. The War is now economic and we don't have the leaders for this type of war. Tie a yellow ribbon round the old oak tree,and bring in the body bags.

AmazingBrewdini
07-04-2005, 02:03 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Drop1:</font><hr> Intresting I have the feeling you would prefer a one party system.

<font color="green">Wow. What specific part of the article led you such a conclusion? Help me understand the tortured logic you used to conclude that I favor a totalitarian one party system? </font color>

I don't share your love for labels,having voted for both parties.

<font color="green">I'm sorry, but when did it become wrong to call something by its proper nomenclature? Are you saying that calling a leftist a leftist, or a right wing zealot a right wing zealot, is somehow wrong or misguided?

By the way, in the past I have embraced both the Democratic and Libertarian Parties, but as I became older, and perhaps wiser, I chose to support the Republican party. </font color>

Do the words UnAmerican from the fifties ring a bell with you?

<font color="green">Again I see no valid connection between the substance of the article and your veiled reference to Joe McCarthy. (BTW, after the fall of the USSR, declassified KGB records proved that quite a few of the people McCarthy went after were in fact aiding the Communists.) </font color>


America is being defeated,but not in the arena of weapons,and guts,but in the Globalization sell out.Lets watch the Chinese buy Unical with money from Wal-Mart. What happens when they belly up to the bar with leaders of Countries that would destry the U.S.,and buy products from those Countries with dollars. The quality of life is dropping in the U.S.,and you are praising the people that are doing it. I also see little to sing about among the Democrats, its a new world order. At Yalta,we agreed to be the currency of international trade. You will see a Pacific Rim dollar in the future. The War is now economic and we don't have the leaders for this type of war. Tie a yellow ribbon round the old oak tree,and bring in the body bags. <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="green">The article was not about weapons, globalization, or your other claims. Please don't take this personally, but how about addressing the specific issues discussed in the article? That's not too much to ask, is it not? </font color>

DebraLiStarr
07-04-2005, 02:51 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote AmazingBrewdini:</font><hr>

<font color="green">The article was not about weapons, globalization, or your other claims. Please don't take this personally, but how about addressing the specific issues discussed in the article? That's not too much to ask, is it not? </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="red">THIS JUST IN!!! </font color>
[b] <font color="purple"> MR BEAN HAD NO COMMENT ON THIS SUBJECT BUT SAID HE WAS MORE THAN HAPPY WITH THE WAY EVERYTHING IS BOUNCING RIGHT ALONG.</font color> [b]

http://www.gagreport.com/Flash%20Animations/Mr_Bean.gif

Drop1
07-04-2005, 04:46 PM
Is this the Win a Date with DebraLiStar dick head contest? /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Qtec
07-05-2005, 09:48 AM
[ QUOTE ]
how about addressing the specific issues discussed in the article? <hr /></blockquote>

You mean like-----
-All Liberals/Democrats are yellow-bellied, Lilly-livered, closet Commies, who are basically responsible for all the failures of every Rep Presidency and everything- ever? /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
A lot of mistakes have been made, ie, I wonder who,s idea it was to sell arms to Iran, subsidise the Taliban, finance a Fascist Right wing terror group [ the Contras],help Saddam, invade Panama , sponser Noriega,etc, etc, etc
Q.........what you wont hear on the news is that the missile that recently took out a US chopper in Afghanistan, was probably bought and paid for by the American tax payer. Even after the USSR left Af., the US continued to provide the Taliban with weapons.

highsea
07-05-2005, 05:59 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>...what you wont hear on the news is that the missile that recently took out a US chopper in Afghanistan, was probably bought and paid for by the American tax payer.<hr /></blockquote>The only credible reports that I have heard so far, suggest it was an RPG-7 that downed the Chinook. No official reason has been given, since the operation is still underway, and we have only been able to secure the crash site within the last couple days.

Taliban claims notwithstanding, the video they posted on Net that purported to be of the incident was actually footage from a previous downing in Khost Province last May. So unless you have some intel that no one else has, all you are doing is speculating, with no facts whatsoever to support your assertion.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>...Even after the USSR left Af., the US continued to provide the Taliban with weapons.<hr /></blockquote>I know I've explained this to you before, I guess it just doesn't sink in. The Taliban didn't rise to power until several years after the USSR had already withdrawn from Afghanistan. Claims that the US subsidized the Taliban or provided them with arms are simply not true. Even when the US was providing food and medical aid to Afghanistan in the '90's, it all went through NGO's. There was never any direct support to the Taliban. ever. What part of never do you not understand?

The US did pass arms to the Afghan mujahadeen via Pakistan's ISI in the '80's. These were ethnic Afghanis, not Taliban (many of whom were ethnic Pakistanis, and didn't come on the scene until later). There is a big difference, but I suspect it is lost on you. The few Arab fighters that went to Afghanistan to join the fight (like OBL) were generally disliked by the mujahadeen. As fighters, they were ineffective, because they were inexperienced and didn't know the country, but they were tolerated because they brought money and weapons.

All of the US supplied weapons went first to Pakistan, and the ISI passed on whatever they wanted to. The US had no real control over what got through and what didn't, and we could never be really sure what they mujahadeens were getting. But the Soviets were planning to cut off Balochistan from Pakistan and take control of Gwadar, so it was in the ISI's interest to make sure that the mujahadeen had enough weapons to keep the fight going (which they did).

After the Soviets evacuated Afghanistan, the Soviet backed government in Kabul fell in 1992. The US just walked away. Clinton didn't want to have anything to do with Afghanistan or Pakistan.

This is what created the power vaccuum that allowed the rise of the Taliban. They didn't even exist during the war. The Taliban were comprised partly of Afghan refugees that had fled to Pakistan during the war, and partly of ethnic Pakistanis. Most of these Afghanis were too young to have seen any fighting in the war with the USSR. They were kids that were living in refugee camps and being educated in Madrassas in Balochistan. It was Omar, with the help of the ISI, that devised the plan to take control of these refugees and establish a fundamental Islamic government in Afghanistan.

Omar had control around Kandahar, but returned to Pakistan in 1993, and with the help of the ISI, was able to recruit about 1,500 fighters and return to Afghanistan and sieze power in Kabul. Most of these fighters were Pakistanis, very few were actually ethnic Afghans.

The Taliban were puppets of Wahhabi hard liners in Pakistan (especially the ISI), not the US. Nor did the Clinton administration fund them or provide them with weapons. And they didn't even exist during Reagan's or Bush Sr.'s administrations. Virtually all their support came from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and various "resources" within Afghanistan, such as opium.

Gayle in MD
07-07-2005, 05:49 AM
Spoken like a true war mongering, pistol happy, ill advised, truth twisting, ill prepared, half cocked, occupation happy Rupublican.

Karl Rove is going to get his real soon. He's a common filthy man, with no conscience, and deep emotional problems from being lied to by his own parents about who his real father was, and being the child of a parent who committed suicide. He's a decency terrorist, who fits the profile of a mentally ill mass murderrer to a tee. He leaves in his wake many destroyed lives of decent people, as documented in "Bush's Brain."

Gayle in Md.

AmazingBrewdini
07-07-2005, 11:49 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Spoken like a true war mongering, pistol happy, ill advised, truth twisting, ill prepared, half cocked, occupation happy Rupublican.

<font color="blue">Begging your pardon Gayle..I did not write the article in question. </font color>

Karl Rove is going to get his real soon. He's a common filthy man, with no conscience, and deep emotional problems from being lied to by his own parents about who his real father was, and being the child of a parent who committed suicide. He's a decency terrorist, who fits the profile of a mentally ill mass murderrer to a tee. He leaves in his wake many destroyed lives of decent people, as documented in "Bush's Brain."

<font color="blue">Do you have any proof that Rove has done anything illegal? If so please let us know, and be sure to let the investigators know as well. Just because you or anyone else says that Rove is this or that, doesn't make it so. And by the way for every book or article you refer to, I can refer you to an equal or greater number of books or articles that reinforce the conservative view. I could care less about any of the books you've read. I have my own opinions and you are not going to change them, just as you have yours and I'm not going to change them. FWIW, you are sounding more and more like a crazy liberal yenta. But hey, that's OK cause I happen to like you despite your cockamamie ways. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif </font color>


Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

eg8r
07-08-2005, 04:12 AM
LOL, another thump on Q's revisionist-history brain. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Gayle in MD
07-08-2005, 04:56 AM
I wasn't talking about you, I'm talking about the author. Was there something in my description which reminded you of yourself? /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

I don't have much faith in opinions which suggest that the reporting of the news, good or bad, is bad for America, or for amy War.

As for Rove, what he said was disgusting, and not true. My opinion of him is that he is the master of destroying people's lives when they are in the way, in any way, of the Republicans, and particularly George Bush. He has been involved in such behavoir since his college days. The politics of personal destruction is the hallmark of George Bush's carrer, all the way back to Texas. The documentary, Bush's brain, highlights not opinions, but testimoney from those very people whose lives have been destroyed by Rove, Bush and Cheney.

My opinion, FWIW, is that Joe Wilsons' wife was exposed by the Bush administration, namely Rove, Cheney and Bush, because Mr Wilson refused to tell the lies they wanted him to tell, refused to fix intelligence to fit their agenda regarding the purchase of Yellowcake.

Mr. Wilson tells the story himself in his own book, one of many written about the illegal ways in which George Bush led us into this war with lies. No president in my lifetime has been better documented as a liar than George Bush, hence the attack on those who make their judgements according to the truth.

The artical discusses Vietnam, another situation when the President, a democrat BTW, lied about the circumstances of the war. Vietnam was a massive mistake, as admitted by non other than Robert McNamarra.

Cheney just told massive lies regarding Iraq, which were refuted by others in the cabinet, including Rumsfeld, and Senator McCain.

I have no patience when I see Americans who get mad over the press reporting the truth because they are blindly following a bunch of proven liars, and then insinuate that any demand for accountability by those in power smacks of cowardess and unamerican logic.

Oh and believe me friend, I would never assume to change the minds of any brainwashed, truth denying Republicans, I'd sooner bang my head against a brick wall.

Love,
Gayle /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Qtec
07-08-2005, 06:04 AM
[ QUOTE ]
There was never any direct support to the Taliban. ever. What part of never do you not understand?
<hr /></blockquote>

LA Times- Bush's Faustian Deal With the Taliban
[posted online on May 22, 2000]

Enslave your girls and women, harbor anti-US terrorists, destroy every vestige of civilization in your homeland, and the Bush Administration will embrace you. All that matters is that you line up as an ally in the drug war, the only international cause that this nation still takes seriously.

That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the United States the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban's estimation, are most human activities, but it's the ban on drugs that catches this administration's attention.

Never mind that Osama bin Laden still operates the leading anti-American terror operation from his base in Afghanistan, from which, among other crimes, he launched two bloody attacks on American embassies in Africa in 1998.

Sadly, the Bush Administration is cozying up to the Taliban regime at a time when the United Nations, at US insistence, imposes sanctions on Afghanistan because the Kabul government will not turn over Bin Laden.


This article was printed 3 months before 9/11!


Q

Chopstick
07-08-2005, 10:41 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Colin Powell:</font><hr> At the direction of President Bush, I am today announcing a package of $43 million in new humanitarian assistance for the people of Afghanistan, including 65,000 tons of wheat, $5 million in complementary food commodities, and $10 million in other livelihood and food security programs within Afghanistan. We also expect to soon announce additional assistance to Afghan refugees.

Even before this latest commitment, the United States was by far the largest provider of humanitarian assistance for Afghans. Last year, we provided about $114 million in aid. With this new package, our humanitarian assistance to date this year will reach $124 million. This includes over 200,000 tons of wheat.

We will continue to look for ways to provide more assistance for Afghans, including those farmers who have felt the impact of the ban on poppy cultivation, a decision by the Taliban that we welcome.

We distribute our assistance in Afghanistan through international agencies of the United Nations and nongovernmental organizations. We provide our aid to the people of Afghanistan, not to Afghanistan's warring factions. Our aid bypasses the Taliban, who have done little to alleviate the suffering of the Afghan people, and indeed have done much to exacerbate it.
<hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">The Taliban didn't get any money from us. The article was published May 22, 2001 by Robert Scheer. A well known radical left wing wombat.

I never had any preferences for the left or the right. But here lately I hear all of these wild acusations from the left and when I go check them out they turn out to be completely unfounded. These things are in the public record. Anybody can go look them up. I don't see how they can keep on saying these things. I guess they are just banking on people not making the effort to go find out for themselves.</font color>

eg8r
07-08-2005, 07:29 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Mr. Wilson tells the story himself in his own book, one of many written about the illegal ways in which George Bush led us into this war with lies. <hr /></blockquote> Well, I am sure Mr. Wilson did his best to not be biased and only tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

[ QUOTE ]
Oh and believe me friend, I would never assume to change the minds of any brainwashed, truth denying Republicans, I'd sooner bang my head against a brick wall. <hr /></blockquote> Your holier-than-thou-attitude would surely keep you from doing that. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif One of these days the "smarter", "more truthful" left will win the office, however at the present rate, they can't think themselves out of a hole. Blame it on Rove. I guess he is the one Rep that is smarter than the entire left. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

pooltchr
07-09-2005, 05:16 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> You mean like-----
-All Liberals/Democrats are yellow-bellied, Lilly-livered, closet Commies, who are basically responsible for all the failures of every Rep Presidency and everything- ever? /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif <hr /></blockquote>

"All" is a pretty strong word that usually turns out to be used in statements that arent true.
Now, from an economic standpoint, the Republican party for the most part believes that anyone who earns money should be able to keep most of it. Democrats tend to believe that if you earn too much money, they should be able to take part of it and give it (through government programs) to those who can't or won't work to earn their own.
Communism supports the idea that everything belongs to the state and the state will distribute it all based on need.

Which philosophy seems more closely alligned with Communism?

Steve

pooltchr
07-09-2005, 05:20 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> I have no patience when I see Americans who get mad over the press reporting the truth
<hr /></blockquote>

Gayle...I totally agree with you. Now when the press starts reporting the truth, rather than the liberal slant on the news that fits their agenda, I will stop "having no patience" with them.
Steve

highsea
07-09-2005, 03:30 PM
That's your best shot Q? Lol. Another direct miss.

As I mentioned, the US NEVER gave aid to the Taliban. The aid was for the Afghan people, and consisted of wheat and other staples, and was distributed by the UN and other NGO's.

Nice try with the propaganda....[ QUOTE ]
WASHINGTON --

Warning that Afghanistan is "on the verge of a widespread famine," Secretary of State Colin Powell Thursday announced a $43 million package in humanitarian assistance for the Afghan people.

Powell also called on other nations to send aid to the Central Asian nation.

"If the international community does not take immediate action, countless deaths and terrible tragedy are certain to follow," Powell said.

The package includes $28 million worth of wheat from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, $5 million in food commodities and $10 million in "livelihood and food security" programs, both from the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Powell said the U.S. aid is administered by the United Nations and non-governmental organizations, and bypasses the Taliban, "who have done little to alleviate the suffering of the Afghan people, and indeed have done much to exacerbate it."

The sum brings U.S. assistance to $124.2 million for this year, making the United States the largest Afghan donor for the second year in a row.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/05/17/us.afghanistan.aid/index.html
<hr /></blockquote>You would prefer we just let them starve???

Gayle in MD
07-09-2005, 06:51 PM
Oh, you mean the left has an agenda? I thought you righties think the left has NO agenda.

I don't rely on "The Press" for my opinions. They (The networks) slant the news both ways, right and left, depending on who the owner is and which side they lean to. There are still reporters out there who do a good job, and seek the truth. Ofcourse, if it isn't what the Bush people want told, they're punished and slandered for it, while they plant "Press" people, one in particular who was a gay escort, for their Presidential Press Conferences.

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
07-09-2005, 07:11 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Oh, you mean the left has an agenda? I thought you righties think the left has NO agenda.

<hr /></blockquote>

Sure they do. By creating bigger government and more programs to distribute the wealth, the left makes more people dependent on the government. (remember who started social security in the first place???)
Now the more people depend on the government to provide for them, the bigger the government becomes, and the party that creates and administers all those programs is the party that the dependant majority is going to support.

In other words, if you can't reach people on an intellectual basis to gain their support, create give-away programs, and BUY their support. What those poor souls don't realise is that every time you let the government get more control, you lose more freedom, until eventually the government has all the control, and the people have no freedom. That thought scares the Hell out of me! And that is why I am so strongly against the liberal forces in this country.
Steve

Gayle in MD
07-11-2005, 07:22 AM
Sounds like you don't believe in Social Security. Sounds like you don't believe in such things as the Head Start Program. Sounds like you prefer an administration and a Party which enhances opportunity for the rich, while ignorring the needs of the most needy in our society. Sounds as though you haven't noticed the way the Republicans and Bush have created a dangerously high deficit, mortgaged the future of our children and grandchildren while cutting taxes on investments, which by and large are made by the rich.

There are many in this country that don't give a damn about the poor and the needy, and don't care about the old and the ill. They don't understand that when a society doesn't care about the down trodden, when it becomes greedy and uncaring, it doesn't become "Better" it goes under. Social Security is the best thing that ever happened to America. When a society endeavors to insure that their aged, who have worked their whole lives, can be gaurenteed that they won't have to live in poverty, it is a good thing.

For more perfect examples of buying support, just look at the Bush administration, and how they have bought support for this stupid war. Anyone who believes George Bush when he says, "We'll fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" is not playing with a full deck. That philosophy didn't protect the British last week, obviously. The Bush administration is corrupt. They are covered in oil and blood, and for what. We are no safer now than we were on 9/11, and anyone who thinks we are, is in denial. You can't stop terrorism by occupying Iraq. There is no connection between the two. This occupation has only given birth to a whole new set of terrorists.

Bush bought the support of Corporations to get into the WH. He's been in bed with the Saudi's for years, or did you miss his handholding with the Saudi Prince? Which, BTW, was the country where most of the 9/11 attackers came from.

Even Allen Greenspan says we are in a dangerous situation, and the only way out is to raise taxes, or stop spending. Where do you want the money spent? Fighting wars, or helping the poor and the ill right here in America. Personally, I wouldn't give one single American woman or man to insure that Iraqi's can vote.

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
07-11-2005, 07:49 AM
Gayle,
I never said I didn't believe in programs to help people. I just don't believe the federal government is the best option to administer programs like this. Social Security, while very nice in theory, has turned out to be a nightmare for the feds. Privatization certainly makes more sense. How much of our tax money is spent just operating the social security administration.

Helping people who need it. Absolutely! If the feds would let me have my money, I would be able to support the local homeless shelters, battered womens shelters, and many other organizations who actually do some good, as opposed to just generating a bigger and bigger government boondoggle.

Head start? Yep! I just don't see anywhere in the constitution that gives the federal government any authority over education. It should be a program administered by the local systems, maybe overseen by the states, but NOT THE FEDS! This is my point. Read the constitution. It outlines exactly what the rights and duties of the federal government should be. Now look at our government, and see how much they are involved in that they have no right to be involved in.

The founding fathers of this country knew that allowing the federal government to get too much power would erode the freedoms they so strongly believed in. That's why they wrote the constitution the way they did. Slowly over the last 200 years, the government has taken more and more of our freedoms with no thought to the constitution. And we as citizens allow it to happen. We would rather be good sheep and follow along.

You talk about the truth. The truth is the majority of people in this country claim they love freedom, then willingly turn over their rights and freedoms to Washington and never bat an eye, because it's the easy way to go.
Steve

eg8r
07-11-2005, 11:49 AM
[ QUOTE ]
They don't understand that when a society doesn't care about the down trodden, when it becomes greedy and uncaring, it doesn't become "Better" it goes under. <hr /></blockquote> While I am not an advocate of "not caring for the down trodden", you make a statement here in which I would not mind seeing some examples. I am only guessing here as to what you mean when referring to the care of down trodden, but my guess is health, shelter, food, etc. So if those are correct or close, can you give any examples of a society that has fallen because it did not "care for the down trodden".

[ QUOTE ]
Social Security is the best thing that ever happened to America. When a society endeavors to insure that their aged, who have worked their whole lives, can be gaurenteed that they won't have to live in poverty, it is a good thing.
<hr /></blockquote> A "good thing" and "best thing ever" are completely different statements, which are not even remotely close to each other unless nothing "good" has ever happened. In this case that would not be true. I think, having a Constitution that limits the powers of the Government is, at least, "better" than having a SS program. I think winning the Revolutionary War could be the best thing that ever happened to America.

[ QUOTE ]
Bush bought the support of Corporations to get into the WH. <hr /></blockquote> Can't fault him for doing what works. Every other politician has travelled the same route.

[ QUOTE ]
Even Allen Greenspan says we are in a dangerous situation, and the only way out is to raise taxes, or stop spending. <hr /></blockquote> I believe it is the "or" section the greedy left likes to ignore. Thank you for adding it because it is probably the best solution. Government has gotten much too large and there is way too much money going to special interest. Government spending has been out of control for many many years.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
07-12-2005, 06:29 AM
As for Social Security, it has been shown that the costs of implementing a system of privatization, in the trillions BTW, are exorbitant, and without getting into all the other options, there are other options which would make the system solvent. If politicians hadn't dipped into SS to hide spending and deficits, the system would be solvent. President Clinton wanted to put SS money in safe interest bearing investments, but the Republicans had a hissey fit.

May I ask, when we had a mini crash in stocks several years ago, and many folks lost much of their retirement, does it occur to you that investing in the stock market, the money which would pay into SS, is not insurance for ones retirement? Investing in private accounts is available to anyone who wishes to do so but Social Security was supposed to be an insurance for retirement, a supplement, in some cases, but in many cases, the whole ball of wax for those who have managed only to "Just get by" throughout their lives, of which we have many in our society. And now that the Bush people are seeing to it that the top one tenth of the top one percent of the wealthiest on our country are getting richer and the poor and middle class are melting into one group, I dare say, this is no time to turn an insurance for retirement into riskey business.

YOU talk about truth, and the truth is that the majority of people in this country do not want Social Security to be changed from an insurance program into a riskey investment program which will make the rich even richer. And also, it could be fixed by raising taxes for the top ten percent in this country by less than one percentage point, instead of implementing a system which would cost trillions to implement, and destroying the insurance that the poor and the old and ill among us will not have to live on the streets, and eat dog food to pay for their medicine.

As for founding fathers, and the constitution, misleading the Congress and the Senate, namely fixing intelligence to fit policy, is a felony. Leaking the name of CIA agents who have been involved in undercover work, is a felony.

Taxation was intended to somewhat soften the burdens of the poor, by maintaining.... pay according to ability to pay. Bush has reversed this philosophy, and this is why the rich are getting vastly more of the pie, the most proportionately, since the twenties.

As for the federal government and the power they have, it seems to me that the assult on freedom is one being launched by the right, some of it hidden in the so called Patriot Act, which gives them the right invade our privacy, to abortion rights, personal medical family decisions (Terry Schievo) , gay marriage, all assults on freedom. Organized religion is always the source of the wish to dictate the choices of the masses, from the Evangelists to the al Qaeda.

Gayle in Md.

"bin Laden? I don't know where he is, he's hiding. I don't think about him" George Bush.

eg8r
07-12-2005, 09:21 AM
[ QUOTE ]
President Clinton wanted to put SS money in safe interest bearing investments, but the Republicans had a hissey fit. <hr /></blockquote> I can see this is an attempt to show Clinton as some sort of SS savior but I am sure it is the details of these accounts and how it would work that the Reps did not like, not the mere fact it would be in an interest bearing account.

Anyways, in this feeble attempt you have forgotten the real Clinton... Here is a quote from the US Senate Republican Policy Committee <blockquote><font class="small">Quote US Senate:</font><hr> According to CBO, Clinton spends $40 billion of the Social Security surplus in his budget's first year (2000) and $158 billion over the first five years (2000-2004).

This is the same Social Security surplus that he has promised to save in its entirety. <hr /></blockquote> Here is the web page (http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1999/bd030499.htm) that lists some of Clintons budget issues. Clinton raided SS just like every other politician that has come before him and will come after him.

[ QUOTE ]
YOU talk about truth, and the truth is that the majority of people in this country do not want Social Security to be changed from an insurance program into a riskey investment program which will make the rich even richer. <hr /></blockquote> This is a strawman argument. The TRUTH is that majority of the people whom you lobbed into this broad statement don't care what happens to the rich as long as the RISKY insurance program is still around when they are ready to collect.

[ QUOTE ]
And also, it could be fixed by raising taxes for the top ten percent <hr /></blockquote> There is Marxism rearing its ugly head again. Each according to ability to each according to need.

The better answer is to reduce the size of government and lower spending.

[ QUOTE ]
Taxation was intended to somewhat soften the burdens of the poor, by maintaining.... pay according to ability to pay. Bush has reversed this philosophy, <hr /></blockquote> Thank God for Bush. Marxism does not work. However, I think you are creating another strawman argument. Taxation was intended as revenue to the government that is it. The structure of our tax system is what gives breaks to those with less. This is a pretty important distinction.

[ QUOTE ]
As for the federal government and the power they have, it seems to me that the assult on freedom is one being launched by the right, some of it hidden in the so called Patriot Act, which gives them the right invade our privacy, to abortion rights, personal medical family decisions (Terry Schievo) , gay marriage, all assults on freedom. <hr /></blockquote> The Patriot Act does all that? Wow, I had no idea gay marriage was listed in the Patriot Act. The Patriot speaks about personal medical family decisions? I am interested to see where those are listed.

eg8r

pooltchr
07-12-2005, 09:53 AM
eg8r,
I couldn't have said it better myself.

I was listening to Boortz yesterday tell a story about a herd of sheep. One of them walked over a cliff, and over 400 more followed. Makes me think about too many people who will blindly follow the "leaders" in Washington, and not even question where they are being led. Unfortunately, too many are being led away from the basic principles this country was founded upon. The Supreme Court just said government can take your property if they think someone else can do something to generate more tax revenue. Gayle wants to raise taxes a little more on the people who already pay the most taxes so we can give more to those who pay the least in taxes.
God help America! (Please!)
sj

Qtec
07-12-2005, 10:48 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I believe in the United States of America as agovernment of the people, by the people, forthe people; whose just powers are derivedfrom the consent of the governed; a democracy in a republic; a sovereign nation of manysovereign states; a perfect union, one andinseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, and humanity forwhich American patriots sacrificed their livesand fortunes.
<hr /></blockquote>

Humanity.
A word not often used by Reps.


People who spout the costant lies like Limbaugh, O,Reilly etc, seem to see the poor as freeloaders and lazy fkrs who just want your tax dollars so they can sit around and drink beer all day.
That is until there is fighting to be done!
The same deadbeat joins the Army and gets posted to Iraq to get his ass shot off! Now,suddenly, he is a hero! You wont see many guys from Wall Street over there. Now suddenly its "all for one and one for all".
Until they get back!
I did mention earlier that 1 in 3 of homeless in the US are Veterans! To me, thats a disgrace.
In Iraq, 8 billion dollars are unaccounted for, Haliburton got a new $ billions contract even after ripping off the tax payer, Boeing writes its own contracts with the Govt, Ken Lay [ GW,s buddy]ripped off the tax payer for billions and caused blackouts to make extra cash, etc, etc ,etc............the list of abuses are endless.
The reason that the US is ALONE in the world when it comes to climate change is because Exxon-Mobil wrote the report! Doesnt it worry you that a profit driven company is deciding whats good for you and your family? And the rest of the world I might add.

This Admin is TOTALLY owned by certain parties. The American people have lost control of their Govt.

[ QUOTE ]
agovernment of the people, by the people, forthe people; <hr /></blockquote>

This is not directed at you personally Steve, its just when I hear that Rep red-herring it drives me nuts! /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Q

pooltchr
07-12-2005, 11:05 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> The American people have lost control of their Govt. <font color="red"> Unfortunately, I think you are pretty much on track on that one.
</font color>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
agovernment of the people, by the people, forthe people; <hr /></blockquote>

This is not directed at you personally Steve, its just when I hear that Rep <font color="red"> Sorry, Q. I thought you knew I am a liberterian /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif </font color> red-herring it drives me nuts! /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Q <hr /></blockquote>

Gayle in MD
07-12-2005, 11:35 AM
Yeah, God help American is right. The basic principles of this country were not to Rob the Poor, to Give to the Rich, FYI.

As long as Bush and his crooked friends are running this country, America is at risk.

As long as people like you would rather protect the filthy rich, and be damned with the starving among us, and there are many who are hungry right here in this country, while this war costs us a fortune, much of it stolen by the Vice President's friends, and their war profiteering in Iraq, all ofcourse so that Iraqi's can vote, while our attacker goes free, well, that's about as resonable as telling people that as long as their stroke is straight, the ball will go into the hole.

As long as people like you and Ed don't give a damn that your President and his policies are causing a raging deficit, and mortgaging the future of our children and grandchildren, we're in trouble alright.

The subject of this thread, is Karl Rove. Now, you republicans just jump on in here and tell me what a nice guy he is. Tell me that it isn't a fact that he set out to discredit Joe Wilson, because Joe Wilson exposed SOME of the lies that the Bush administration fed to all of YOU LAMBS, about Yellow Cake, and WMD's that didn't exist. BAH BAH BAH.

This administration tells so many lies, they can't even keep them straight amongst themselves.

Gayle in Md.

"I don't know where he is, he's hiding. I don't think about him" George Bush discussing the leader of the 9/11 attack against America.

Gayle in MD
07-12-2005, 11:54 AM
Ed, you're little twists on semantics are old and tiring.

If you can't follow, stop reading.

Clinton left office with a surplus. Bush has rung up the worst deficit in modern times.

Karl Rove is a common back stabbing SOB, and I for one hope he gets everything he has coming to him, after all the people he has slandered and ruined in his illustrious career as Bush's commander in chief of lies, slander and spin.

I recommend once again "Perfectly Legal" for an accurate appraisal of where our money is going, and how the Bush people have robbed the poor and middle class in this country, to help the rich get richer on the backs of the poor and middle class.

You two are hilarious. You've already been led to the slaughter by Bush, and you don't even know that you're bleeding to death!~

Read some books Ed.

Gayle in Md.

"I don't know where he is. He's hiding. I don't think about him." George Bush, speaking about the leader of the 9/11 attack against America.

pooltchr
07-12-2005, 01:45 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Yeah, God help American is right. The basic principles of this country were not to Rob the Poor, to Give to the Rich, FYI. <font color="red"> Nor was it built on the principles of marxism </font color>

As long as Bush and his crooked friends are running this country, America is at risk. <font color="red"> You are right, I felt so much more secure when we had the lovely, honest, morally upright Clinton family looting the white house. </font color>

As long as people like you would rather protect the filthy rich, and be damned with the starving among us, <font color="red"> People like me???? You are drawing some rather drastic conclusions about someone you have never met. You have no idea how much chairty work I do in my community. So sue me because I would rather do it on my own rather than let the idiots in Washington administer inefficient programs that allow the politicians to skim from the people who really need help. </font color> and there are many who are hungry right here in this country, <font color="red"> No Sh-t! So when was the last time you stood in line serving at a soup kitchen? </font color> while this war costs us a fortune, much of it stolen by the Vice President's friends, <font color="red"> You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Do you have facts to back this up? </font color> and their war profiteering in Iraq, all ofcourse so that Iraqi's can vote, while our attacker goes free, well, that's about as resonable as telling people that as long as their stroke is straight, the ball will go into the hole. <font color="red"> If the stroke is straight, the ball certainly has a better chance of going in the hole. </font color>

As long as people like you <font color="red"> There you go with that "people like you" thing again. </font color> and Ed don't give a damn that your President and his policies are causing a raging deficit, and mortgaging the future of our children and grandchildren, we're in trouble alright. <font color="red"> The economy doesn't concern me nearly as much as the continued growth of the federal government and their continuous power grabbing tactics. Although, imagine how much better off the economy would be if you and I were allowed to keep a much larger percentage of what we earn. Maybe if we "downsize" the government, fewer companies would be "downsizing" their employees. </font color>

The subject of this thread, is Karl Rove. Now, you republicans just jump on in here and tell me what a nice guy he is. Tell me that it isn't a fact that he set out to discredit Joe Wilson, because Joe Wilson exposed SOME of the lies that the Bush administration fed to all of YOU LAMBS, about Yellow Cake, and WMD's that didn't exist. BAH BAH BAH. <font color="red"> Those last 3 words were certainly a highly intelligent point! </font color>

This administration tells so many lies, they can't even keep them straight amongst themselves. <font color="red"> Something your beloved previous administration never considered. You are so intent on bashing the present administration that you completely miss the point. It makes no difference who is in the white house. They all seem to become corrupt the longer they stay inside the beltway. Politicians spend fortunes to get sent there, then spend all their time money and effort trying to stay there.
It's the system, and very little is going to change until the system changes. </font color>

Gayle in Md.

"I don't know where he is, he's hiding. I don't think about him" George Bush discussing the leader of the 9/11 attack against America. <hr /></blockquote>

pooltchr
07-12-2005, 07:50 PM
Gayle,
As for Rove, if you can get anything on him that would cause his resignation, have at it. It wouldn't break my heart at all. In my opinion, the guy is a closet liberal who has led Bush to some pitiful compromises. I'm disappointed in Bush for even listening to him, much less going along with some of his BS ideas.

I'm surprised you are attacking him. I think he's on YOUR side!

Steve

eg8r
07-13-2005, 04:50 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Ed, you're little twists on semantics are old and tiring.

If you can't follow, stop reading.
<hr /></blockquote> I have not twisted anything. If you are tired that is a good explanation for not reading what I posted. I was clarifying your rambling. One of the issues with your posts, is that you always say something that is not completely true, and then you try and attach everything wrong with it.

[ QUOTE ]
Clinton left office with a surplus. <hr /></blockquote> ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS A STRAWMAN ARGUMENT!!!!! Your post was not talking about surplus (not the section I quoted you), and my reply was not. THEY WERE BOTH TALKING ABOUT SS AND POLITICIANS MISUSE OF IT. Don't twist what is being said here, it is old and tiring.

[ QUOTE ]
after all the people he has slandered <hr /></blockquote> Just so I don't get accused of twisting anything, I guess this is your opinion. No court in the US has recognized him as a slanderer.

[ QUOTE ]
You two are hilarious. <hr /></blockquote> It is good to see a liberal laugh. This has been few and far between in the past 10 years. Maybe if you guys win an election somewhere without stealing it (remember Washington state /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif) you will feel better about yourselves and get serious. All this laughing must be out of humility of most every election your participate in. Don't worry, shrillary is on the prowl in a couple years. Is she your savior?

[ QUOTE ]
Read some books Ed. <hr /></blockquote> Once again, I ask you to be bipartisan. Because you read books means very little. Just given the library you have mentioned it is clear you are only interested in hearing what you want to hear (or reading what you want to believe, truth or not).

[ QUOTE ]
"I don't know where he is. He's hiding. I don't think about him." George Bush <hr /></blockquote> George needs to go have a one-on-one conversation with the surviving SEAL from this weekend. I bet he knows where OBL is hiding.

eg8r

eg8r
07-13-2005, 04:58 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, God help American is right. The basic principles of this country were not to Rob the Poor, to Give to the Rich, FYI. <hr /></blockquote> I know mentioning this to you is like talking to a brick wall, but I digress...A tax cut DOES NOT TAKE ANYTHING AWAY FROM THE POOR. It allows everyone to keep more of the money they earned. You and the rest of the left refer to reducing income-redistribution as stealing because you have already alloted future increases in government spending to give to the poor. I am sorry but I am tired of you mortgaging our countries future with this sort of increased spending.

The left never talks about reducing government/spending (and neither has W). That is the best way, NOT STEALING MONEY FROM ONE PERSON TO GIVE TO ANOTHER. Basically if you look at the FACTS, you are the thief. You are trying to steal money from one to give to another. Quit twisting the REAL facts with those in your head.

eg8r &lt;having a good time. The caps are for emphasis not emotion.

DickLeonard
07-13-2005, 06:12 AM
Eg8r you must read, None Dare Call it Conspiracy, its basic tenent is that in the 200+ years of Congress no bill has ever been passed that benefited a poor man.

I hate replying to your posts with all the gaps and other peoples posts intermingled with mindless Rep ramblings. ####

Deeman2
07-13-2005, 07:16 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> It makes no difference who is in the white house. They all seem to become corrupt the longer they stay inside the beltway. Politicians spend fortunes to get sent there, then spend all their time money and effort trying to stay there. <font color="blue">

But just you wait. When Hilary gets elected, government will be honest again! and, Bill will be there, just to make sure it is! </font color>
<hr /></blockquote>

pooltchr
07-13-2005, 07:47 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman2:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> It makes no difference who is in the white house. They all seem to become corrupt the longer they stay inside the beltway. Politicians spend fortunes to get sent there, then spend all their time money and effort trying to stay there. <font color="blue">

But just you wait. When Hilary gets elected, government will be honest again! and, Bill will be there, just to make sure it is! </font color>
<hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote>

That gives me such a warm fuzzy feeling! /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Wally_in_Cincy
07-13-2005, 08:46 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> ...in the 200+ years of Congress no bill has ever been passed that benefited a poor man. ..<hr /></blockquote>

Dick,

Which program has helped the poor more, the War on Poverty instituted by the Dems (which destroyed the inner city), or Bush and Reagan's tax cuts for the middle and lower class?

Just think it through, you will see what I mean.

DickLeonard
07-13-2005, 11:21 AM
Wally, Bush and Reagan put us 10 Billion in the hole. Bush's tax cut went mainly to the 75% bracket. Reagan lied about the funneling money to the Contras.Bush lied about WMD.

In time of war no Defense Supplier should make a profit. Solders die so Halburton can make billions. It never made sense that the only ones paying the price is our soldiers, with inferior humvs etc while the corps funnel money to the Repubs to keep the war going.

Nice to see you posting.####

nAz
07-13-2005, 11:37 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman2:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> It makes no difference who is in the white house. They all seem to become corrupt the longer they stay inside the beltway. Politicians spend fortunes to get sent there, then spend all their time money and effort trying to stay there. <font color="blue">

But just you wait. When Hilary gets elected, government will be honest again! and, Bill will be there, just to make sure it is! </font color>
<hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote>


Can someone remind me again what did the Clintons do wrong? especially Hillary?

eg8r
07-13-2005, 12:11 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I hate replying to your posts with all the gaps and other peoples posts intermingled with mindless Rep ramblings. <hr /></blockquote> Not sure that is my problem?

eg8r

eg8r
07-13-2005, 12:12 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Reagan lied about the funneling money to the Contras.Bush lied about WMD.
In time of war no Defense Supplier should make a profit. Solders die so Halburton can make billions. It never made sense that the only ones paying the price is our soldiers, with inferior humvs etc while the corps funnel money to the Repubs to keep the war going.
<hr /></blockquote> Wow, I don't know how you libs make it through life. Can anyone from the left stick to the topic?

eg8r
07-13-2005, 12:14 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Can someone remind me again what did the Clintons do wrong? especially Hillary? <hr /></blockquote> No we are tired of talking to a brick wall. How many times should an adult be "reminded"?

eg8r

nAz
07-13-2005, 12:49 PM
WTF does that mean? can you not remind me of the lie they perpertraded on this country? or maybe it pales in comparison to the one that you bought into when you voted for Bush. /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

eg8r
07-13-2005, 12:57 PM
[ QUOTE ]
WTF does that mean? <hr /></blockquote> Do a search. It means, it gets tiring have to repeat the same information over and over every time you (or anyone) decides to be sarcastic.

[ QUOTE ]
can you not remind me of the lie they perpertraded on this country? <hr /></blockquote> This is also well documented (here and on the net).

[ QUOTE ]
or maybe it pales in comparison to the one that you bought into when you voted for Bush. <hr /></blockquote> Maybe or maybe not, however, given your memory, I am sure you have forgotten that one also.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
07-14-2005, 02:25 AM
Ed,
I know you are intelligent, but truly, you do need to do some reading about the true results of the Bush tax cuts. It is painfully obvious to me that you know absolutely nothing about the results, and who is really getting the breaks, IT IS THE RICH.

Crooked politicians are everywhere. What else is new? They are republican, Democrat, independent, you name it, it's a given, but if you think for one minute that it's better for this country to have Bush in there than Clinton, who balanced the budget, left a surplus, and kept us, by and large out of war for eight years, you have a serious problem my friend. Either that, or you think Saddam H. was the most important threat to America, which is a total joke.

Bush will go dwon as the worst president to ever sleep in the White House, and I do mean SLEEP!

Gayle in Md.

Where is the missing 8.8 billion dollars? Where is bin Laden?

eg8r
07-14-2005, 03:47 AM
[ QUOTE ]
It is painfully obvious to me that you know absolutely nothing about the results, and who is really getting the breaks, IT IS THE RICH.
<hr /></blockquote> I am sorry, but getting the breaks was not what we were discussing. You made a statment that Bush was robbing the poor and you mentioned the tax cuts. I am simply showing you, that your logic is flawed. Nothing is taken away from the poor. I understand just fine, but you are so insistent on being right that you are forgetting the subject or you are just not reading what I write. Your reply quoted above is a good example.

[ QUOTE ]
Crooked politicians are everywhere. What else is new? They are republican, Democrat, independent, you name it, it's a given, but if you think for one minute that it's better for this country to have Bush in there than Clinton, who balanced the budget, left a surplus, and kept us, by and large out of war for eight years, you have a serious problem my friend. <hr /></blockquote> I have no problem, we are just seeing things differently. You are painting Clinton as a saint right after you agreed he was a crook. You thank Clinton for, by and large, keeping us out of war, yet he had us in war three times, Bosnia and Kosovo and Iraq. In Kosovo he went in and bombed them without UN approval. He allowed terrorists to attack the US with little to no repercussions, WTC and USS Cole. No action. This is the guy who "by and large" kept us out of war. Clinton gave away Nuclear secrets to the Chinese, he open the White House hotel, how much more can we top on.

Now that China is building up their military maybe your shortsightedness will have a little correction. I just hope that does not happen AFTER China uses a Nuclear weapon on us.

[ QUOTE ]
Bush will go dwon as the worst president to ever sleep in the White House, and I do mean SLEEP!
<hr /></blockquote> Your buddy Clinton will go down as the only president to ever sleep with Chinese in the White House all cuddled up in Top Secret US documents. Along with being the second president impeached.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
07-14-2005, 06:57 AM
To compare implementing a fair tax system to Marxism, well that's a real stretch.

I was taught that to discuss ones charity work, was in poor taste, unless done in the process of enlisting more help, so I won't respond to your remark, other than to say, whatever I do, I wouldn't post about it here.

The economy doesn't worry you, how nice. Mr. Greenspan is certainly worried about the Bush economy, and the deficit.

If you didn't aim the ball correctly, the stroke doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of difference.

I have no beloved administration, you and I atleast agree on the corruption factor, however, I wonder what the right would have said if after Pearl Harbour, Roosevelt had announced, "The Japanese have bombed Pearl Harbour, therefore, we shall bomb and occupy Canada in retaliation, since they just might have bombs also."

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
07-14-2005, 07:23 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> To compare implementing a fair tax system to Marxism, well that's a real stretch.

<hr /></blockquote>

Gayle,
I would LOVE to see a fair tax system in place. I think doing away with income tax, and having the tax we pay based on consumption rather than earnings sounds like a great program to me. That way, everyone gets to choose how much tax they pay, simply by controlling how much they spend. (Wow, that sounds like what I would like to see our government do as well!)
Your arguement on tax cuts has one small flaw in it. Tax Cuts, by their very nature, can only be given to those who pay taxes in the first place. Now who pays the majority of taxes? That would be the top 10% in income earners in the country. So where would you expect a tax cut to go? Can't give a tax cut to someone who doesn't pay any income tax to begin with, can we?
Steve

Chopstick
07-14-2005, 08:05 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr>

Your arguement on tax cuts has one small flaw in it. Tax Cuts, by their very nature, can only be given to those who pay taxes in the first place. Now who pays the majority of taxes? That would be the top 10% in income earners in the country. So where would you expect a tax cut to go? Can't give a tax cut to someone who doesn't pay any income tax to begin with, can we?
Steve <hr /></blockquote>

Actually it's a large flaw. Tax cuts for the poor. That's a favorite left wing scam. People in a tax bracket of 50 thousand and above pay 96% of all taxes that get paid. The so-called rich they keep talking about don't usually get their income from working. They get it from their investments. When you change the tax laws they move their investments into where ever they will get the most tax benefit from. Quite often it is in government bonds that provide tax shelters as an incentive to buy them. Changes in tax law will never affect the rich.

What it does affect are the income earners. People in the 50 to 250 thousand range. I'd be willing to bet that almost all taxes get paid by these people. They are also the ones who really drive the economy. The lefties like to preach they will give tax cuts to 4% of the tax payers instead of 96% of them. Give a 5% tax cut to some making $200 a week. What have they got. Ten bucks. What are they going to do with that? McDonalds?

Give a 5% tax cut to someone making 100K. That's $5,000. What are they going to do with it? Spend it or invest it. That's what drives the economy. Unemployment is at a four year low. Wonder how that happened?

The truth about taxes, for me is quite simple. I am single, with no deductions, and in a high tax bracket. Every time a democrat opens their mouth, I GET SCREWED.

eg8r
07-14-2005, 08:14 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I have no beloved administration, you and I atleast agree on the corruption factor, however, I wonder what the right would have said if after Pearl Harbour, Roosevelt had announced, "The Japanese have bombed Pearl Harbour, therefore, we shall bomb and occupy Canada in retaliation, since they just might have bombs also." <hr /></blockquote> Your example makes no sense as you are forgetting about Afghanistan.

eg8r