- This topic has 99 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Some good news:
FF to 1:30
This guy is saying Osama asked for money in his last audio to the world. Does anyone know if this is true? Also did anyone actually catch the latest video file he sent out a couple of days ago? I have been looking (not very hard) and can’t find it.
I’m sure we can all agree, this punk needs to go down. (Osama I mean, but i don’t really like this reporter either)
YouWinGameOver said:
With Clinton’s “screwing around” he was able to bring to senate and other defenses osama bin laden and people shrugged it off basically as a joke saying that he was diverting the press to something that wasn’t there. Well guess what? He was there and clearly showed his power in 2001 when he hired 11 Saudis and 6(7?) others to hijack planes.Actually the Sudan’s practically begged us to let them arrest and extradite him to a US allied country. They also offered a good bit of intelligence on Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and Hezbollah. From everything I’ve read, the Clinton Administration ignored the offer.
In 2000, we had predator drones flying over his camps and they have flight videos with Bin Laden in them. Cruise missiles work great for that sort of thing and considering Clinton said “We will use all the means at our disposal to bring those responsible to justice, no matter what or how long it takes” I can’t imagine why he wouldn’t have done so unless he really just didnt’ care. Gary Schroen, a former CIA station chief in Pakistan, said the White House required the CIA to attempt to capture bin Laden alive, rather than kill him.
I can tell you this, if Bush was told they had the location of Bin Laden, I don’t think there would be less than 5 cruise missiles launched.
MasterP said:
Actually the Sudan’s practically begged us to let them arrest and extradite him to a US allied country. They also offered a good bit of intelligence on Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and Hezbollah. From everything I’ve read, the Clinton Administration ignored the offer.In 2000, we had predator drones flying over his camps and they have flight videos with Bin Laden in them. Cruise missiles work great for that sort of thing and considering Clinton said “We will use all the means at our disposal to bring those responsible to justice, no matter what or how long it takes” I can’t imagine why he wouldn’t have done so unless he really just didnt’ care. Gary Schroen, a former CIA station chief in Pakistan, said the White House required the CIA to attempt to capture bin Laden alive, rather than kill him.
I can tell you this, if Bush was told they had the location of Bin Laden, I don’t think there would be less than 5 cruise missiles launched.
They did not ignore the offer. What happened was that the press and congress and senate thought he was derailing attention from his sexual activities and refused to listen to him. The intelligence they had on Hamas and Hezbollah was the same everyone else had. Therefore the intelligence was useless.
Do you really think he needed Congressional approval to order an attack on a terrorist training camp?
Had he done it we would have said the same thing most “bleeding liberals” say about Bush, he is an *edited*, and once again he is derailing attention from what he has done.
He presented everyone with clear evidence in 1994 and 96(check date late) with power points and everything about Osama Bin Laden and they said that he was a no name terrorist and was not worth going after because he hasn’t gained any power. What I have to ask you is if more then 3/4 of the people who carried out the attacks on 9/11 why did we attack Sadam Hussein and go into Afghanistan? Was it not Saudi Arabia’s fault?
This has very little to do with this topic but I need to say something.
I am sick of people blaming the current state of the economy on Bush. That is complete bull*edited* and anyone who honestly believes that is retarded. The ONLY thing you might be able to partially blame him for is putting us more in national debt (note: because he lowered taxes), which really didn’t damage the economy. President Bush IS NOT the CEO of Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac / Lehman Bros / Washington Mutual ETC. He did not involve them in risky loans nor did he make the poor financial decisions they made. Hell, I won’t even blame Clinton for that (though there is certainly argument for it) because at the end of the day, it was the CEOs of all of these companies that *edited*ed us over. Go be *edited*ed at them if you want, not Bush. Please feel free to blame Bush for Iraq, Katrina, etc (I won’t) but at least blame him for things he actually had an impact on. According to an MSNBC poll I just looked at, about 70+% of responders said he was the “worst president ever”. Guess what America, YOU VOTED FOR HIM SO STFU AND GTFO.
Also, I will support Obama even though I did not vote for him because I would still like to believe he will do good things for the country.
/rant (for now)
Sorry I got riled up on comments I read on msnbc in response to Bush’s farewell message and I needed to vent lol
No one (here I don’t think) is blaming bush totally for the economy. But he is partially responsible. We are still in a WAR, which last I checked wasn’t helping our economy at all. And that debt thing you talk about Nickname, we have never been this much in economic debt ever.
$1,000,000,000,000.00
That number up there? That is a trillion dollars, down the tube. So bush isn’t to blame for the DOW going all wacko, but he spent the last 8 years blowing money in Iraq.
I think it’s more of a “Guilt by association” kind of thing:
“I blame bush for the war, the war is bad for economy, therefore I blame bush for the economy.”
You can’t really blame one person or even a group of people for this. Just like you can’t totally blame bush for this. But he still has a piece in the collective blame game that will probably never end.
i blame myself for be stingy with my money and shoping at walmart China.
i also blame god for making more than one god and not letting everyone be happy and get along w/o fighting/war, and for making some people richer than others
Nickname said:
This has very little to do with this topic but I need to say something.I am sick of people blaming the current state of the economy on Bush. That is complete bull*edited* and anyone who honestly believes that is retarded. The ONLY thing you might be able to partially blame him for is putting us more in national debt (note: because he lowered taxes), which really didn’t damage the economy. President Bush IS NOT the CEO of Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac / Lehman Bros / Washington Mutual ETC. He did not involve them in risky loans nor did he make the poor financial decisions they made. Hell, I won’t even blame Clinton for that (though there is certainly argument for it) because at the end of the day, it was the CEOs of all of these companies that *edited*ed us over. Go be *edited*ed at them if you want, not Bush. Please feel free to blame Bush for Iraq, Katrina, etc (I won’t) but at least blame him for things he actually had an impact on. According to an MSNBC poll I just looked at, about 70+% of responders said he was the “worst president ever”. Guess what America, YOU VOTED FOR HIM SO STFU AND GTFO.
Also, I will support Obama even though I did not vote for him because I would still like to believe he will do good things for the country.
/rant (for now)
First off I am *edited*ed at CEO’s they make more money than the president does yet they do not do remotely any work compared to him. CEO’s make more money then neurosurgeons….the list is endless.
Secondly I did not vote for him and and I will not STFU AND GTFO. Part of being patriotic is dissenting the government but you fascist conservatives wouldn’t know anything about that you are just as bad as the terrorists you want to kill. You realize that you’re blind faith is the same blind faith that took out 9/11?
O and btw MP you still don’t have an answer to my questions.
.cb new_rayz said:
No one (here I don’t think) is blaming bush totally for the economy. But he is partially responsible. We are still in a WAR, which last I checked wasn’t helping our economy at all. And that debt thing you talk about Nickname, we have never been this much in economic debt ever.$1,000,000,000,000.00
That number up there? That is a trillion dollars, down the tube. So bush isn’t to blame for the DOW going all wacko, but he spent the last 8 years blowing money in Iraq.
Might want to hold off on that. According to the CBO, Obama’s “new, new dead” will push us into largest deficits in the history of this country. Percentage wise, it will be worse than WW1, WW2, “Bush’s Wars”, and everything in between.
Last year the deficit was around $450 Billion but when you tack on $350 Billion of democrat congress bailouts and Obama’s extra $700+ Billion “new, new deal”, THAT is what creates the $1.1 Trillion deficit. Not anything Bush did.
Another thing that really *edited*es me off is the “tax cuts of the rich” spew. It’s surprising how many people are blind to this. Let me break it down for you, the top 1% of income earners (~$300,000+) pay ~35% of the taxes. The top 5% of income earners pay ~55% of taxes, the top 25% pay ~85% of the taxes, and the top 50% pay ~97% of the taxes. The top 1% pay over 10 times the amount that the bottom 50% pay. What Obama intends to do is pay poor people to stay poor by giving people that don’t pay taxes a larger tax refund. At least Bush’s tax cuts actually helped.
Something I’d like to know is what happens in 2 years when Bush’s tax cuts expire? A good chunk of the middle class has become dependent on the lower taxes and Obama has already said he has no intention of renewing them. This whole “taxcut for the working middle class” may completely come out in the wash by the time Obama leaves office. Then again, the media will quietly ignore the whole thing.
On a seperate note it’s also worth noting that the minority party in the House can no longer make ANY changes to a bill, nor can they request a vote on changes. Allowing the minority party to have a say in legislation was started when Republicans took the House in the 90s and was pushed through by the Republican majority leader to “make things fair”. Wonder what happens when Republicans get the House back? Will Democrats cry foul over the rule they created?
And yes, lockem, I am a conservative. I believe in small government and low taxes. I think people who work hard in life and get rich shouldn’t be punished for it by having their money taken away and given to those who didn’t work as hard. I don’t believe people should depend on the government, rather it is the government who should depend on the people. If you didn’t save any money or invest in your retirement, you don’t deserve to retire or get free handouts for being a wasteful spender, ignorant, or lazy. With a few rare exceptions, every single person who’s poor fits into one or more those.
Feel free to argue about it and I’ll explain how any poor person can get into college for free, simply because they’re poor. The middle and upper class are the only people who pay full tuition. Of course, to get into college you have to have good grades which is where most people have a problem, because it’s easier to blame the poor school systems than it is to walk or ride a bus to a library or tutoring center.
To GameOver: According to our new president, paying TAXES is our patriotic duty. And don’t even get started with CEO salary comparisons, most congressmen make more than doctors. Since congressmen sit in an office all day long or ride around on private jets, why aren’t you *edited*ed at them?
Facism: “A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.”
–Centralization of authority under a dictator: government control of markets, banks, and industry through bailout the program
–stringent socioeconomic controls: Helping the poor and minorities by “redistributing wealth” from the rich
–suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship: Obama is the only candidate to date to kick reporters from newspapers that didn’t support him off his plane, independent studies found that Obama’s press coverage was much more positive than McCain’s and that McCain had nearly 60% negative stories and 15% positive ones while Obama was balanced at ~30% positive/negative/neutral
–policy of belligerent nationalism and racism: Obama played the race card before anyone came close to bringing up his race as a negative
Now the real question is whether or not Obama will pick communism or facism as there are fairly strong signs of both in how he plans to run things while in office.
Relist the questions as I don’t feel like looking for them but will be happy to answer.
The fact that Kip managed to troll you for 3 pages in this short amount of time amazes me. Epic job kip. /golfclap
YouWinGameOver said:
Secondly I did not vote for him and and I will not STFU AND GTFO. Part of being patriotic is dissenting the governmentYou personally may not have voted for him but guess what, 52% of voters did and now he only has a 34% approval rating, meaning that a whopping 22 million people went “o wait, maybe I DIDNT mean to vote for him”. Also, just because I didn’t vote for Obama does that mean I should automatically disagree with his every action? I mean you said THAT is patriotism so sure why not.
MasterP said:
Might want to hold off on that. According to the CBO, Obama’s “new, new dead” will push us into largest deficits in the history of this country. Percentage wise, it will be worse than WW1, WW2, “Bush’s Wars”, and everything in between.Last year the deficit was around $450 Billion but when you tack on $350 Billion of democrat congress bailouts and Obama’s extra $700+ Billion “new, new deal”, THAT is what creates the $1.1 Trillion deficit. Not anything Bush did.
That seems a little low to me. We were a trillion dollars in the hole BEFORE the bailout came to be. The number is close to 2.4 trillion dollar deficit. Of that Bush is responsible for half, because half of that came from his war. Also to note, the CBO is flawed, and Obama is well aware of this.
http://www.heritage.org/research/budget/wm2019.cfm
From the above website:
Conservatives have few grounds for agreement with Obama’s agenda, but on these points we should be in complete agreement:
* The CBO revenue baseline is wrong;
* Preserving current law is not a policy to cut taxes; and
* Allowing any of the current law tax provisions enacted in 2001 or 2003 to expire is a tax hike.
MasterP said:
Another thing that really *edited*es me off is the “tax cuts of the rich” spew. It’s surprising how many people are blind to this. Let me break it down for you, the top 1% of income earners (~$300,000+) pay ~35% of the taxes. The top 5% of income earners pay ~55% of taxes, the top 25% pay ~85% of the taxes, and the top 50% pay ~97% of the taxes. The top 1% pay over 10 times the amount that the bottom 50% pay. What Obama intends to do is pay poor people to stay poor by giving people that don’t pay taxes a larger tax refund. At least Bush’s tax cuts actually helped.There are a ton of ways the rich can avoid being taxed, and they take full advantage of that. Also something to note, business owners like to do a little thing called hand me downs, which they basically give part of their tax burden to their employees. How is that fair? The whole point is, the rich can afford to take on a tax burden, as they should. They have the most money so they should pay the most. Not every poor person is lazy or ignorant. A lot are, but to say that “besides a few rare cases, poor people deserve to be poor” is ignorant within itself. Sure, there are a few bad apples, but there are a lot more genuine single moms and low income families who struggle to get ends meat. They don’t deserve to work 80 plus hours a week, but they have to because that is the only option. It boggles my mind that conservatives can preach to be christian and all that nonsense, then turn around and not give a flying hoot about their neighbor.
MasterP said:
Something I’d like to know is what happens in 2 years when Bush’s tax cuts expire? A good chunk of the middle class has become dependent on the lower taxes and Obama has already said he has no intention of renewing them. This whole “taxcut for the working middle class” may completely come out in the wash by the time Obama leaves office. Then again, the media will quietly ignore the whole thing.Actually Bush’s tax cuts expire in 2 year ONLY for people who make over 250,000. Obama intends to keep all the cuts for everyone below that number, and add a couple more.
http://www.heritage.org/research/budget/wm2019.cfm
MasterP said:
If you didn’t save any money or invest in your retirement, you don’t deserve to retire or get free handouts for being a wasteful spender, ignorant, or lazy. With a few rare exceptions, every single person who’s poor fits into one or more those.Feel free to argue about it and I’ll explain how any poor person can get into college for free, simply because they’re poor. The middle and upper class are the only people who pay full tuition. Of course, to get into college you have to have good grades which is where most people have a problem, because it’s easier to blame the poor school systems than it is to walk or ride a bus to a library or tutoring center.
Poor people do get into college easier, but then again a poor person has had a much harder life than you or me. The problem isn’t walking to a bus because poor people already do that. See, they can’t afford as much time as you or me. You think it’s an obvious answer to their problem and the poor are just blind? MasterP you are a real Messiah. Why don’t you go down and tell them your obvious solution. You won’t, because it really isn’t that simple. Ghettos, traps, poor neighborhoods, all of that are complex issues that can’t be solved with an uplifting of ignorance. Have you ever had to decide on working or school when you were 14 or 15? That’s a decision that a lot of poor kids have to make, a decision that better off kids don’t.
MasterP said:
Facism: “A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.”–Centralization of authority under a dictator: government control of markets, banks, and industry through bailout the program
–stringent socioeconomic controls: Helping the poor and minorities by “redistributing wealth” from the rich
–suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship: Obama is the only candidate to date to kick reporters from newspapers that didn’t support him off his plane, independent studies found that Obama’s press coverage was much more positive than McCain’s and that McCain had nearly 60% negative stories and 15% positive ones while Obama was balanced at ~30% positive/negative/neutral
–policy of belligerent nationalism and racism: Obama played the race card before anyone came close to bringing up his race as a negative
About your cute Fascist points:
– Even if our banks are totally in the hands of the government, that doesn’t mean Obama is the dictator. There are still checks and balances.
-Obama isn’t controlling anything, redistribution (If that is what you want to call it) is a WHOPPING 4-6% increase in taxes for a WHOPPING 5% of the population. Yeah okay that is a REAL control freak.
-So he kicked people off his plane. Anyone who has a plane first off, has the right to kick whoever he wants off. Secondly, the “Obama’s press coverage was much more positive than McCain’s and that McCain had nearly 60% negative stories and 15% positive ones while Obama was balanced at ~30% positive/negative/neutral” point you make, has nothing to do with fear or terror.
-He is part black, it is a monumental achievement for the black community, for Christs sake they only have 1 month out of the year, its about time!
Your whole Fascism spew can be used with any other president. Here I will give you Sir Fascist Bush:
–Centralization of authority under a dictator: government overstepping power, going into a war without approval, manipulating intelligence.
–stringent socioeconomic controls: Giving tax cuts that don’t really do much, banning stem cell research because it’s “inhumane” and “life is too precious”, then turning around and say “collateral damage” is unfortunate but part of war.
–suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship: Terror and censorship? LOL that is bush’s middle name. Did you all forget 9/11? He used fear as a catapult to get us into this mess of Iraq.
–policy of belligerent nationalism and racism: He is from Texas, enough said.
No one is fascist in this country, period. You republicooks will always be around with your ridiculously large guns that most probably compensates for something. If any president truly did in fact step out of the proper line, he would be checked faster than a turban in an airport.
MasterP might have succeeded in an epic trolling, but I found this random thread much more interesting than the majority of the nonsense we post on here. It feels good to try and use the noggin sometimes! lol
There are a ton of ways the rich can avoid being taxed, and they take full advantage of that. Also something to note, business owners like to do a little thing called hand me downs, which they basically give part of their tax burden to their employees. How is that fair? The whole point is, the rich can afford to take on a tax burden, as they should. They have the most money so they should pay the most. Not every poor person is lazy or ignorant. A lot are, but to say that “besides a few rare cases, poor people deserve to be poor” is ignorant within itself. Sure, there are a few bad apples, but there are a lot more genuine single moms and low income families who struggle to get ends meat. They don’t deserve to work 80 plus hours a week, but they have to because that is the only option. It boggles my mind that conservatives can preach to be christian and all that nonsense, then turn around and not give a flying hoot about their neighbor.
Why should they have to pay the most, essentially you are saying that if someone is on welfare and must work 80+ hours a week, and has 3 kids as a single mom should not have to pay taxes at all since she is poor and works hard…
Poor people do get into college easier, but then again a poor person has had a much harder life than you or me. The problem isn’t walking to a bus because poor people already do that. See, they can’t afford as much time as you or me. You think it’s an obvious answer to their problem and the poor are just blind? MasterP you are a real Messiah. Why don’t you go down and tell them your obvious solution. You won’t, because it really isn’t that simple. Ghettos, traps, poor neighborhoods, all of that are complex issues that can’t be solved with an uplifting of ignorance. Have you ever had to decide on working or school when you were 14 or 15? That’s a decision that a lot of poor kids have to make, a decision that better off kids don’t.
I know plenty of kids that grew up in “ghettos, and poor neighborhoods” that had to decide between school and work, and chose BOTH. With the proper motivation and determination a teenager CAN work an evening job at a grocery store or something and still go to school. Most of my friends all support themselves and have 80+thousand dollars worth of loans but they still go to school and work full time because they want to be successful and not rely on handouts…
About your cute Fascist points:
– Even if our banks are totally in the hands of the government, that doesn’t mean Obama is the dictator. There are still checks and balances.
-Obama isn’t controlling anything, redistribution (If that is what you want to call it) is a WHOPPING 4-6% increase in taxes for a WHOPPING 5% of the population. Yeah okay that is a REAL control freak.
-So he kicked people off his plane. Anyone who has a plane first off, has the right to kick whoever he wants off. Secondly, the “Obama’s press coverage was much more positive than McCain’s and that McCain had nearly 60% negative stories and 15% positive ones while Obama was balanced at ~30% positive/negative/neutral” point you make, has nothing to do with fear or terror.
-He is part black, it is a monumental achievement for the black community, for Christs sake they only have 1 month out of the year, its about time!
Your whole Fascism spew can be used with any other president. Here I will give you Sir Fascist Bush:
–Centralization of authority under a dictator: government overstepping power, going into a war without approval, manipulating intelligence.
–stringent socioeconomic controls: Giving tax cuts that don’t really do much, banning stem cell research because it’s “inhumane” and “life is too precious”, then turning around and say “collateral damage” is unfortunate but part of war.
–suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship: Terror and censorship? LOL that is bush’s middle name. Did you all forget 9/11? He used fear as a catapult to get us into this mess of Iraq.
–policy of belligerent nationalism and racism: He is from Texas, enough said.
WTF does that even MEAN??? I am from Texas, does that mean I am racist?? Have you EVER been to Texas, it is NOT even close to the most racist state in this united states…Why don’t you take a trip to Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansaw, Louisiana or any other part of the true “South” and then continue talking out of your *edited* about stereotypes of people from certain states…
/rant…
oh, and I failed hard at mah quotes there…
MasterP said:
To GameOver: According to our new president, paying TAXES is our patriotic duty. And don’t even get started with CEO salary comparisons, most congressmen make more than doctors. Since congressmen sit in an office all day long or ride around on private jets, why aren’t you *edited*ed at them?Facism: “A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.”
–Centralization of authority under a dictator: government control of markets, banks, and industry through bailout the program
–stringent socioeconomic controls: Helping the poor and minorities by “redistributing wealth” from the rich
–suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship: Obama is the only candidate to date to kick reporters from newspapers that didn’t support him off his plane, independent studies found that Obama’s press coverage was much more positive than McCain’s and that McCain had nearly 60% negative stories and 15% positive ones while Obama was balanced at ~30% positive/negative/neutral
–policy of belligerent nationalism and racism: Obama played the race card before anyone came close to bringing up his race as a negative
Now the real question is whether or not Obama will pick communism or facism as there are fairly strong signs of both in how he plans to run things while in office.
Relist the questions as I don’t feel like looking for them but will be happy to answer.
Once again you have failed to answer my other questions from earlier I want to know…”What I have to ask you is if more then 3/4 of the people who carried out the attacks on 9/11 why did we attack Sadam Hussein and go into Afghanistan? Was it not Saudi Arabia’s fault?”
Why do republicans constantly compare a somewhat socialist agenda to communism. It is no where close to it. Communism is everyone getting the exact same pay for doing whatever job they get.
Yes I do believe that paying taxes is our patriotic duty otherwise our country would crumble. Your version of the perfect conservative/republican world automatically becomes Anarchy and therefore I win. Peoplle Have to pay taxes there is no question about this. That is how the potholes in your street gets fixed or when it snows your road gets plowed.
And yes there are a lot of people that I am mad at because they make an over satiable amount of money for doing nothing. No matter what you say our country is not how hard you work but who you blow. Those rats sitting in office and congress and senate or even the mayor of your town has most likely taken a bribe or two and weaseled there ways into office.
I acknowledge that there are some genuine people out there that truly do some good but face it once again there is .5% of the country that ruins it for the rest.(I realize that is not an actual stat but you get my point)
Nickname said:
You personally may not have voted for him but guess what, 52% of voters did and now he only has a 34% approval rating, meaning that a whopping 22 million people went “o wait, maybe I DIDNT mean to vote for him”. Also, just because I didn’t vote for Obama does that mean I should automatically disagree with his every action? I mean you said THAT is patriotism so sure why not.I did not disagree with every action Bush has made but I do feel that he is one of the worst presidents we have ever had and I do feel that he did not deserve office. I am glad it was him who was there when 9/11 happened because I do not believe Kerry could have handled it. But I do not believe that he went after the right group of people.
YahooEarth said:
WTF does that even MEAN??? I am from Texas, does that mean I am racist?? Have you EVER been to Texas, it is NOT even close to the most racist state in this united states…Why don’t you take a trip to Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansaw, Louisiana or any other part of the true “South” and then continue talking out of your *edited* about stereotypes of people from certain states…First of all, I go to Texas A&M University, and I was born and raised in a poor section of South West Houston Texas. So I have every right to claim how racist this state is. I am not claiming EVERYONE is racist, but I will tell you FROM MY 22 YEARS OF LIVING HERE, that there are indeed lots of ignorant bigots. So please don’t assume I was just talking out of my butt, because I am not.
And Secondly, I was not totally serious. I was making a point, if you read the rest of my post, you would see that I said it’s simply ridiculous to claim a United States President as anything but a Patriot. The reaction you got when I said what I did about Bush is exactly the same reaction anyone would want to get if they were serious about referring to a President as a Fascist, because it is simply rediculous. I may hate Bush with all my guts, but he still is our President, and although I may disagree with his decision making, I know his intentions are for our country.
And for the questions you asked. Why should the rich have to pay more? Simple. Because the price of living for them impacts them much less than the price of living for a poor person. That is the main reason, although they are getting taxed at a higher rate, they will still have enough money to do whatever the hell it is they want and then some.
So far I have succeeded in staying out of this, but I am being drawn in.
Here is how I feel about Obama. I did not vote for him at all, but until he actually does something which I disapprove of I cannot say that I dislike him or that he is a bad president. With that said, judging by his rhetoric on the campaign trail, it probably won’t be long until he does something that I don’t like.
“What I have to ask you is if more then 3/4 of the people who carried out the attacks on 9/11 why did we attack Sadam Hussein and go into Afghanistan? Was it not Saudi Arabia’s fault?”
Good question. Can I infer from this question that you really don’t see why we had to go to Afghanistan? I will assume that you do, so lets deal with Iraq.
It is a fair question why Saudi Arabia didn’t make the invade list, but I can only assume that the fact that its government and the US are friends and it did not host any terrorist camps was probably one of the reasons we didn’t invade.
Iraq on the other hand was different. Obviously, Hussien was not friendly to the US and unfortunately for him had at least one terrorist camp in Iraq. Unfortunately for him, he also had 14 or 15 UN resolutions calling for him to disarm, which he openly defied. Add on top of this to a failed land grab into Kuwait in 1991 and repeated aggression upon the Kurds with WMDs (VX nerve gas. One of the villages that he wiped out was what they charged him with and executed him for.) and you have a pretty bad guy who claims he has WMDs, who has used WMDs, and starts wars to absorb and terrorize neighboring countries.
Now, you may ask how does this affect us? He actually has no WMDs, and even if he did, he wouldn’t use them on us, right? Ignore the obvious humanitarian crisis afflicting his country. Ignore the training camp. The US has allies in that region. As mentioned earlier Saudi Arabia is one, Kuwait is another, Qatar, Israel, etc. Saddam, you could argue, posed no threat to us, but he did pose a huge threat to these others. The threat to Kuwait is obvious, as seen in 1991. Also in 1991, he shot as many SCUD missles as a he had at Israel during the Gulf War. He was going to go after Saudi Arabia next, if the US hadn’t intervened. You can argue about the importance of these allies, whether it be to ensure a stable oil supply or to provide us with intelligence on terrorists, but they are our allies. Ignoring the threat posed by Saddam would be like ignoring the threat of Germany in WWI. The US protects its friends and keeps the peace. The war to remove Saddam was not without mistakes, to be sure, but it needed to be done.
For further proof, look to Bill Clinton. Why would he of all people bomb Saddam unless it was a threat? (Or to divert attention from Monica.)
Osoma’s been hiding weapons of mass destruction in my pants, send Sarah Palin to come find them, she may need backup, send her daughter with her just in case
Pink Monkey #16 said:
So far I have succeeded in staying out of this, but I am being drawn in.Here is how I feel about Obama. I did not vote for him at all, but until he actually does something which I disapprove of I cannot say that I dislike him or that he is a bad president. With that said, judging by his rhetoric on the campaign trail, it probably won’t be long until he does something that I don’t like.
“What I have to ask you is if more then 3/4 of the people who carried out the attacks on 9/11 why did we attack Sadam Hussein and go into Afghanistan? Was it not Saudi Arabia’s fault?”
Good question. Can I infer from this question that you really don’t see why we had to go to Afghanistan? I will assume that you do, so lets deal with Iraq.
It is a fair question why Saudi Arabia didn’t make the invade list, but I can only assume that the fact that its government and the US are friends and it did not host any terrorist camps was probably one of the reasons we didn’t invade.
Iraq on the other hand was different. Obviously, Hussien was not friendly to the US and unfortunately for him had at least one terrorist camp in Iraq. Unfortunately for him, he also had 14 or 15 UN resolutions calling for him to disarm, which he openly defied. Add on top of this to a failed land grab into Kuwait in 1991 and repeated aggression upon the Kurds with WMDs (VX nerve gas. One of the villages that he wiped out was what they charged him with and executed him for.) and you have a pretty bad guy who claims he has WMDs, who has used WMDs, and starts wars to absorb and terrorize neighboring countries.
Now, you may ask how does this affect us? He actually has no WMDs, and even if he did, he wouldn’t use them on us, right? Ignore the obvious humanitarian crisis afflicting his country. Ignore the training camp. The US has allies in that region. As mentioned earlier Saudi Arabia is one, Kuwait is another, Qatar, Israel, etc. Saddam, you could argue, posed no threat to us, but he did pose a huge threat to these others. The threat to Kuwait is obvious, as seen in 1991. Also in 1991, he shot as many SCUD missles as a he had at Israel during the Gulf War. He was going to go after Saudi Arabia next, if the US hadn’t intervened. You can argue about the importance of these allies, whether it be to ensure a stable oil supply or to provide us with intelligence on terrorists, but they are our allies. Ignoring the threat posed by Saddam would be like ignoring the threat of Germany in WWI. The US protects its friends and keeps the peace. The war to remove Saddam was not without mistakes, to be sure, but it needed to be done.
For further proof, look to Bill Clinton. Why would he of all people bomb Saddam unless it was a threat? (Or to divert attention from Monica.)
They did not have terrorist camps however they did fund terrorism and there are blatant showings of it. They also harbored terrorist throughout the last 25+yrs. I hate bringing up 9/11 but because this is a discussion on obama and bush and whoever else I will bring it up again. 11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. 11. Terrorists. Saudi Born. And Bred. You can’t tell me that they are not a threat.
I am Israeli and have lots of family over there. If we wanted Saddam dead you don’t think we would have done it ourselves? We quarantined his housing unit for over a week before and we’ve done this several times.
We didn’t do anything until 1916 and the war was over in 1918. You can not compare an evil of that time to an evil of this time. Yes I agree there are a lot of similarities but you can not compare it.
YouWinGameOver said:
They did not have terrorist camps however they did fund terrorism and there are blatant showings of it. They also harbored terrorist throughout the last 25+yrs. I hate bringing up 9/11 but because this is a discussion on obama and bush and whoever else I will bring it up again. 11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. 11. Terrorists. Saudi Born. And Bred. You can’t tell me that they are not a threat.I am Israeli and have lots of family over there. If we wanted Saddam dead you don’t think we would have done it ourselves? We quarantined his housing unit for over a week before and we’ve done this several times.
We didn’t do anything until 1916 and the war was over in 1918. You can not compare an evil of that time to an evil of this time. Yes I agree there are a lot of similarities but you can not compare it.
I am definitely not saying that the Saudis are without blame, because you are right, they fund terror, they produce terrorists, etc. But you have to divorce the actions of the citizens from the actions of the government. Blaming their government for 9/11 would be like blaming Kansas for the OKC Bombing because McVeigh was from there. I obviously don’t see all intelligence data about this situation, so maybe their government is not without blame as well, but I personally think that the House of Saud is more interested in oil than terrorism.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/16…ration-history/
Inauguration ceremony is coming up soon, PPPAAARRRTTTEHHH!! lol
It’s going to be something ridiculous, like over forty thousand people. The above website shows some historical inaugurations including:
*In 1789, George Washington pronounced the words, “So help me God” after taking the oath; other presidents have followed this example.
*William McKinley’s 1897 inaugural was the first to be recorded by movie camera.
and my personal favorite:
*In 2001, George W. Bush inauguration was interrupted by two naked protesters.
.cb new_rayz said:
That seems a little low to me. We were a trillion dollars in the hole BEFORE the bailout came to be. The number is close to 2.4 trillion dollar deficit. Of that Bush is responsible for half, because half of that came from his war. Also to note, the CBO is flawed, and Obama is well aware of this.http://www.heritage.org/research/budget/wm2019.cfm
From the above website:
Conservatives have few grounds for agreement with Obama’s agenda, but on these points we should be in complete agreement:
* The CBO revenue baseline is wrong;
* Preserving current law is not a policy to cut taxes; and
* Allowing any of the current law tax provisions enacted in 2001 or 2003 to expire is a tax hike.
I’m not talking about “in the whole” as that’s not what a deficit is. A deficit is the shortfall of a budget in a SINGLE year. Our overall national debt is closer to $9 Trillion and has gone up by the amount predicted by the CBO for the past 2 decades. It has NOT gone up over $1 Trillion per year, EVER.
I find it curious though that you liberals sung praises for the CBO when it was used as a source against Bush but now that it’s being used against Obama it must be a flawed system with a “wrong baseline.” Can you guys really not come up with anything new? Obama has been pulling this flip-flip, idea-stealing garbage for months now but I thought his online following was supposed to be more creative.
.cb new_rayz said:
There are a ton of ways the rich can avoid being taxed, and they take full advantage of that.There isn’t a limit on using these tax deducations that says only the rich can do it. Everyone can.
.cb new_rayz said:
Also something to note, business owners like to do a little thing called hand me downs, which they basically give part of their tax burden to their employees. How is that fair?Perfectly fair because this tax evasion, does in fact, not exist. Who are you getting this information from and how biased a website do they run? Since you’re reading the Huffington Post I can only assume it’s biased to say the least.
.cb new_rayz said:
The whole point is, the rich can afford to take on a tax burden, as they should. They have the most money so they should pay the most.So you’re saying that living the American Dream and being successful in life means I should be punished? How is THAT fair? How can you sit there and tell me that taking taking money away from some people and giving it to others because “they have more money” is a fair system. Go back to communist Russia, I think they’re missing their dictator.
.cb new_rayz said:
Not every poor person is lazy or ignorant. A lot are, but to say that “besides a few rare cases, poor people deserve to be poor” is ignorant within itself. Sure, there are a few bad apples, but there are a lot more genuine single moms and low income families who struggle to get ends meat. They don’t deserve to work 80 plus hours a week, but they have to because that is the only option. It boggles my mind that conservatives can preach to be christian and all that nonsense, then turn around and not give a flying hoot about their neighbor.It’s quite simple really, you are punished for mistakes you make in life. If you decide to have a baby when you’re 16, that’s YOUR fault and you will suffer for the next 18 years for it. It is not fair to make innocent people pay you money because you decided to have sex and get got pregnant as a consequence. If you waited until later in life to have kids, good for you but it still doesn’t change the fact that the kids are yours, they do not belong to the nation or the people and as such should not be supported by the people. I can sympathize with poor people working to try to make ends meet but having grown up in public school I can tell you exactly why that cycle perpetuates and it all boils down to laziness, ignorance, or blowing money on “big boy” toys. Maybe you didn’t pay attention in high school, I don’t know, but if you had you would have a much different perspective because EVERYONE has the same potential in the public school system. Those who spent their their every waking moment playing paintball, video games, and building hotrods are the ones who are stuck without a proper education and turn around and blame it on the system. It’s their fault they didin’t apply themselves. It’s their fault they didn’t get take harder classes. It’s their fault they didn’t study. It’s their fault they didn’t get the grades for college.
My sister went to one of the top charter schools in NC and spent pretty much every waking moment studing or doing homework. All students, in every class tier, had just as much work as her and as a consequence those who didn’t really care about school failed or dropped out back to public schools. Her graduating class had 100% placement in colleges. Where I went to public school that number was closer to 30% and NOTHING about that number boiled down to money or status in life. Want proof? Around half her graduating class had to work to pay for gas money to get to school.
.cb new_rayz said:
Actually Bush’s tax cuts expire in 2 year ONLY for people who make over 250,000. Obama intends to keep all the cuts for everyone below that number, and add a couple more.So what that article says is that every time Obama cuts taxes for one group of people he raises them on another to offset it. How is that even remotely close to fair? All that does is punish the rich for being successful. That’s not what this country was founded on.
.cb new_rayz said:
Poor people do get into college easier, but then again a poor person has had a much harder life than you or me. The problem isn’t walking to a bus because poor people already do that. See, they can’t afford as much time as you or me. You think it’s an obvious answer to their problem and the poor are just blind? MasterP you are a real Messiah. Why don’t you go down and tell them your obvious solution. You won’t, because it really isn’t that simple. Ghettos, traps, poor neighborhoods, all of that are complex issues that can’t be solved with an uplifting of ignorance. Have you ever had to decide on working or school when you were 14 or 15? That’s a decision that a lot of poor kids have to make, a decision that better off kids don’t.See my previous comments. Everyone is equal in public schools and even successful students work their way through high school. The problem is that it’s much easier to blame the system and allow yourself to fail than it is to buck tradition and actually be successful. There are just too many examples of poor, ghetto, “trapped” kids “breaking free” to believe your world-view. In fact, I’d go so far to say that if we actually indulged your world-view on this that not a single black person decendant of a slave would be college educated or wealthy. If you disagree with that statement then you also agree that working hard, regardless of living conditions or place in society, will make you successful.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.