| |
Main
Date: 07 Nov 2006 08:23:14
From: annika1980
Subject: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
http://www.peacecandy.com/gwbush/remindus/
|
|
| |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 09:00:42
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
yongster@hotmail.com wrote:
> annika1980 wrote:
> > http://www.peacecandy.com/gwbush/remindus/
>
> Election day reminder.
>
> Vote and vote often. They want your votes dead or alive.
Who is "they?"
RE-ELECT DIEBOLD.
|
| | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 13:17:49
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1162918842.008245.193760@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> yongster@hotmail.com wrote:
>> annika1980 wrote:
>> > http://www.peacecandy.com/gwbush/remindus/
>>
>> Election day reminder.
>>
>> Vote and vote often. They want your votes dead or alive.
>
> Who is "they?"
>
The crybaby Dems of course. Who else.
|
| |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 08:47:15
From:
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
annika1980 wrote:
> http://www.peacecandy.com/gwbush/remindus/
Election day reminder.
Vote and vote often. They want your votes dead or alive.
|
| | |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 19:38:40
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
John B. wrote:
> How do you know? The US govt is running a network of secret prisons in
> other countries. There have been reports of people dying while in
> captivity.
And give props to Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) who took immediate action when
these secret prisons were revealed. He vowed to quickly hunt down the
source of those leaks.
|
| | |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 16:34:51
From: John B.
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
Larry Bud wrote:
> >> >Of course Democrats believe that. For crying out loud, a vote in the
> >> >house proved it, when they voted that captured terrorists have the same
> >> >Constitutional rights as a US citizen. That clearly means that a
> >> >captured terrorists should be prosecuted just like a regular criminal,
> >> >which means they all get lawyers and go through US criminal court (I
> >> >misspoke and said "civil" court above).
>
> >> That is "accused terrorists". If the state never makes mistakes
> >> then we don't need a justice system, none of us need due process, and
> >> none of us need trials. If it does make mistakes, then all of us
> >> need due process.
>
> > >So in a war situation, it's ask questions first, and NEVER shoot,
> > >right? I mean, cops aren't allowed to shoot first, so why should
> > >anyone on the battlefield? After all we don't know for SURE they're
> > >terrorists, right?
> >
> > Cops can shoot guys who are shooting at them - they aren't allowed to
> > shoot guys who are captured and are in jail.
>
> We haven't shot anybody that has been captured.
How do you know? The US govt is running a network of secret prisons in
other countries. There have been reports of people dying while in
captivity.
>
> But you've made my point. You believe that because the state makes
> mistakes then due process must follow. Due process for terrorists is
> getting them lawyers and having a criminal trial for them. It also
> means that we cannot ever shoot anybody on the battlefield ever,
> because the state DOES make mistakes.
|
| | |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 11:38:19
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
>> >Of course Democrats believe that. For crying out loud, a vote in the
>> >house proved it, when they voted that captured terrorists have the same
>> >Constitutional rights as a US citizen. That clearly means that a
>> >captured terrorists should be prosecuted just like a regular criminal,
>> >which means they all get lawyers and go through US criminal court (I
>> >misspoke and said "civil" court above).
>> That is "accused terrorists". If the state never makes mistakes
>> then we don't need a justice system, none of us need due process, and
>> none of us need trials. If it does make mistakes, then all of us
>> need due process.
> >So in a war situation, it's ask questions first, and NEVER shoot,
> >right? I mean, cops aren't allowed to shoot first, so why should
> >anyone on the battlefield? After all we don't know for SURE they're
> >terrorists, right?
>
> Cops can shoot guys who are shooting at them - they aren't allowed to
> shoot guys who are captured and are in jail.
We haven't shot anybody that has been captured.
But you've made my point. You believe that because the state makes
mistakes then due process must follow. Due process for terrorists is
getting them lawyers and having a criminal trial for them. It also
means that we cannot ever shoot anybody on the battlefield ever,
because the state DOES make mistakes.
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 00:07:25
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
On 8 Nov 2006 11:38:19 -0800, "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com >
wrote:
>> Cops can shoot guys who are shooting at them - they aren't allowed to
>> shoot guys who are captured and are in jail.
>
>We haven't shot anybody that has been captured.
>
>But you've made my point. You believe that because the state makes
>mistakes then due process must follow. Due process for terrorists is
>getting them lawyers and having a criminal trial for them. It also
>means that we cannot ever shoot anybody on the battlefield ever,
>because the state DOES make mistakes.
Sometimes we don't have any choice. When we have an accused in jail,
we are no longer in danger from him. So we can safely use due
process to find out whether he is really a threat.
|
| | |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 11:01:19
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 8 Nov 2006 04:09:34 -0800, "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Do you want the United States to win in Iraq?
>
> We don't play golf (for stakes) without agreeing on what rules we are
> playing by - or else we won't agree on who won.
That's pretty specious Howard. Determining IF we have won is different
from answering the question on whether or not you WANT the US to win.
> Share with us your plan on winning along with the criteria for
> deciding we have won and can go home. Then we can answer the
> question.
The criteria on winning is leaving Iraq when it's own people can govern
themselves instead of turning into a terrorist safe haven, leaving a
free society who votes in their leaders, the way they've done for the
past couple of years.
As to the "how" on accomplishing this goal, I'll leave that up to the
field Generals.
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 00:14:59
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
On 8 Nov 2006 11:01:19 -0800, "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com >
wrote:
>> >Do you want the United States to win in Iraq?
>>
>> We don't play golf (for stakes) without agreeing on what rules we are
>> playing by - or else we won't agree on who won.
>
>That's pretty specious Howard. Determining IF we have won is different
>from answering the question on whether or not you WANT the US to win.
Of course we all want to win. But you knew that before you asked -
so I expanded to find out what exactly you meant.
>> Share with us your plan on winning along with the criteria for
>> deciding we have won and can go home. Then we can answer the
>> question.
>
>The criteria on winning is leaving Iraq when it's own people can govern
>themselves instead of turning into a terrorist safe haven, leaving a
>free society who votes in their leaders, the way they've done for the
>past couple of years.
I think everybody agrees that would be a win.
>As to the "how" on accomplishing this goal, I'll leave that up to the
>field Generals.
The field Generals follow orders given by the politicians.
Unfortunately, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have a game
plan that is likely to achieve this goal.
|
| |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 20:58:18
From: JJVP
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
On Nov 7, 5:51 pm, tiggerspalewife <a...@comments.header > wrote:
> In article <1162938332.692730.193...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
>
> "JJVP" <jjv...@gmail.com> wrote:Stop talking and google the latest GAO report on the chances of our
> financial system reaching critical mass if we maintain the present fiscal
> policies. Tax cuts have burdened the "war" effort even more and families
> making between 30K and 95K a year actually have 3K less real income on
> average than 6 years ago. Don't throw out JFK and think we're going to
> bite on policies that occurred 5 decades ago. I hold people like you
> personally responsible for the mess we are in by voting, probably twice,
> for the very morons that put us there. That's your legacy to kids and
> grandkids in this country to pay a debt accumulated by a fake war, lied
> about by the head jackasses for the only reason being to have an agenda
> and be reelected as a wartime president. Now, go google.
Lower taxes have INCREASED the government revenue. That is a FACT. If
you want to send more of your money to the feds, there is nothing
stopping you. Just keep what you think is right for you and send the
rest to the feds.
JJVP
|
| | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 23:29:09
From: The World Wide Wade
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
In article
<1162961898.264875.231670@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com >,
"JJVP" <jjvp10@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Nov 7, 5:51 pm, tiggerspalewife <a...@comments.header> wrote:
> > In article <1162938332.692730.193...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> >
> > "JJVP" <jjv...@gmail.com> wrote:Stop talking and google the latest GAO
> > report on the chances of our
> > financial system reaching critical mass if we maintain the present fiscal
> > policies. Tax cuts have burdened the "war" effort even more and families
> > making between 30K and 95K a year actually have 3K less real income on
> > average than 6 years ago. Don't throw out JFK and think we're going to
> > bite on policies that occurred 5 decades ago. I hold people like you
> > personally responsible for the mess we are in by voting, probably twice,
> > for the very morons that put us there. That's your legacy to kids and
> > grandkids in this country to pay a debt accumulated by a fake war, lied
> > about by the head jackasses for the only reason being to have an agenda
> > and be reelected as a wartime president. Now, go google.
>
>
> Lower taxes have INCREASED the government revenue. That is a FACT.
So how do you explain the chart at
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/charts_C
/c2.cfm
which shows Bush to be the sole president from 1964 to now under
whom average federal revenue decreased? The comparisons between
Democrats and Republicans here is somewhat amusing.
|
| |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 16:47:43
From:
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 7 Nov 2006 13:09:20 -0800, "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Of course Democrats believe that. For crying out loud, a vote in the
> >house proved it, when they voted that captured terrorists have the same
> >Constitutional rights as a US citizen. That clearly means that a
> >captured terrorists should be prosecuted just like a regular criminal,
> >which means they all get lawyers and go through US criminal court (I
> >misspoke and said "civil" court above).
>
> That is "accused terrorists". If the state never makes mistakes
> then we don't need a justice system, none of us need due process, and
> none of us need trials.
Cool! I'll vote for that.
|
| |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 14:25:32
From: JJVP
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
"And by all means, let's lower taxes even further and bankrupt the
government. "
The only democrat who ever understood that lowering taxes actually
INCREASES the government revenue was John F. Kennedy. Every democrat
continues to proclaim that we will bankrupt the government if we lower
taxes, not matter how many times they have been proved wrong.
JJVP
On Nov 7, 2:42 pm, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com > wrote:
> Larry Bud wrote:
> > > I think you guys would do better if you stuck to what you believed.
> > > But I never hear anything about that.
>
> > Then turn off CNN and pay attention.
>
> > It's simple really: We believe that the war on terror IS in Iraq, and
> > in fact, is proven by the fact that we constantly kill terrorists
> > there... wait, let me back up to make it simple for you, I can't make
> > any assumptions. First, we believe that there are good people, and
> > there are bad people. The bad people are called TERRORISTS, and they
> > want to kill us for no reason, like on 9/11. BTW, we're the good guys,
> > since you seem to be confused about it. Now, many terrorists are
> > located in Iraq, as demonstrated by the fact that we kill and capture
> > them all the time.Do we? How do you know? Do terrorists wear t-shirts that say "I'm a
> Terrorist" on them? Also, were there "terrorists" in Iraq before we got
> there? About two-thirds of a million Iraqi civilians have been killed
> since the US invasion in 2003. Were they all terrorists?
>
> > We also believe that the captured ones shouldn't all be given lawyers
> > and tried in US Civil court, because, well, that would be insane.Democrats don't believe that either, despite what Sean Hannity might
> say.
>
> > We also believe in personal responsibility, and in lower taxes, even
> > for you!Oh, Democrats don't believe in personal responsibility at all. And by
> all means, let's lower taxes even further and bankrupt the government.
>
> >Most of us believe it shouldn't be legal to kill babies 5
> > seconds before they're born, no matter how "depressed" the mother is.Gee, why not? Every Democrat I talk to says it should be legal to kill
> babies right up to 2.5 seconds before they're born. As a liberal I say,
> why stop at birth? I think parents should have the right to kill their
> children up until their 18th birthdays. Lay off those embryos, though.
> Now those are sacred.
>
> > Now, if you'd like to tell me what you'd do, besides withdrawing from
> > Iraq and allowing millions to be murdered, which would allow Iran to
> > ostensibly take over that country, I'd love to hear it.No, let's hear your solution.
|
| | |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 01:51:59
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
On 7 Nov 2006 14:25:32 -0800, "JJVP" <jjvp10@gmail.com > wrote:
>"And by all means, let's lower taxes even further and bankrupt the
>government. "
>
>The only democrat who ever understood that lowering taxes actually
>INCREASES the government revenue was John F. Kennedy. Every democrat
>continues to proclaim that we will bankrupt the government if we lower
>taxes, not matter how many times they have been proved wrong.
Yep. But at one time Republicans understood that a Deficit budget
was a tax, and that borrowing was the opposite of cutting taxes.
|
| | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 23:51:03
From: tiggerspalewife
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
In article <1162938332.692730.193450@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >
"JJVP" <jjvp10@gmail.com > wrote:
Stop talking and google the latest GAO report on the chances of our
financial system reaching critical mass if we maintain the present fiscal
policies. Tax cuts have burdened the "war" effort even more and families
making between 30K and 95K a year actually have 3K less real income on
average than 6 years ago. Don't throw out JFK and think we're going to
bite on policies that occurred 5 decades ago. I hold people like you
personally responsible for the mess we are in by voting, probably twice,
for the very morons that put us there. That's your legacy to kids and
grandkids in this country to pay a debt accumulated by a fake war, lied
about by the head jackasses for the only reason being to have an agenda
and be reelected as a wartime president. Now, go google.
|
| |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 14:10:28
From: John B.
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
Larry Bud wrote:
> > > > I think you guys would do better if you stuck to what you believed.
> > > > But I never hear anything about that.
> > >
> > > Then turn off CNN and pay attention.
> > >
> > > It's simple really: We believe that the war on terror IS in Iraq, and
> > > in fact, is proven by the fact that we constantly kill terrorists
> > > there... wait, let me back up to make it simple for you, I can't make
> > > any assumptions. First, we believe that there are good people, and
> > > there are bad people. The bad people are called TERRORISTS, and they
> > > want to kill us for no reason, like on 9/11. BTW, we're the good guys,
> > > since you seem to be confused about it. Now, many terrorists are
> > > located in Iraq, as demonstrated by the fact that we kill and capture
> > > them all the time.
> >
> > Do we? How do you know? Do terrorists wear t-shirts that say "I'm a
> > Terrorist" on them?
>
> The fact that Abu Musab Zarqawi and many others have been captured or
> killed in country. Do you not consider Zarqawi a terrorist?
Of course he was, and I'm glad he's dead. But that's one guy. You seem
to think that every person who has been killed in Iraq was a terrorist.
>
> > Also, were there "terrorists" in Iraq before we got there?
>
> Of course.
Bullshit. Before the invasion of Iraq, not one person who was known to
have committed a terrorist act against US citizens or interests was
Iraqi. Not one.
>
> > About two-thirds of a million Iraqi civilians have been killed since the US invasion in 2003.
>
> Ridiculous.
What's ridiculous about it?
>
> > > We also believe that the captured ones shouldn't all be given lawyers
> > > and tried in US Civil court, because, well, that would be insane.
> >
> > Democrats don't believe that either, despite what Sean Hannity might
> > say.
>
> Of course Democrats believe that. For crying out loud, a vote in the
> house proved it, when they voted that captured terrorists have the same
> Constitutional rights as a US citizen. That clearly means that a
> captured terrorists should be prosecuted just like a regular criminal,
> which means they all get lawyers and go through US criminal court (I
> misspoke and said "civil" court above).
What vote was that? I don't remember anything like that.
> > > We also believe in personal responsibility, and in lower taxes, even
> > > for you!
> >
> > Oh, Democrats don't believe in personal responsibility at all.
>
> Few do. Most encourage "treatment" over punishment of criminals, for
> example. Since one of the huge backers of the Democratic party are
> trial lawyers, it's understandable why that is.
That is complete horseshit and I defy you to back it up with evidence.
>
> > And by all means, let's lower taxes even further and bankrupt the government.
>
> The fact that you don't understand that lowering taxes from their
> current levels actually INCREASE funding to the government just shows
> how mixed up you are. If you don't believe me, just go to the US
> treasury website and look at the government receipts from the past 2
> years.
I understand more than you do or ever will. The immediate effect of
reducing taxation is a reduction in revenue to the government. How
could it be otherwise? Some conservatives argue that tax cuts stimulate
the economy which leads in turn to increased tax receipts. But the
evidence of this is circumstantial.
> > >Most of us believe it shouldn't be legal to kill babies 5
> > > seconds before they're born, no matter how "depressed" the mother is.
> >
> > Gee, why not? Every Democrat I talk to says it should be legal to kill
> > babies right up to 2.5 seconds before they're born.
>
> You should move to Kansas. They let you kill them 0.000001 second
> before birth.
>
>
> > As a liberal I say,
> > why stop at birth? I think parents should have the right to kill their
> > children up until their 18th birthdays.
>
> The way some liberal judges treat sex predators, you're on your way.
Yeah, right.
>
> > > Now, if you'd like to tell me what you'd do, besides withdrawing from
> > > Iraq and allowing millions to be murdered, which would allow Iran to
> > > ostensibly take over that country, I'd love to hear it.
> >
> > No, let's hear your solution.
>
> Haven't you been paying attention? I already gave it to you. Your
> turn.
I don't know what the solution is to the Iraq catastrophe. People who
are a lot smarter and better informed than I am don't know what it is,
either. But I do know that there is no possibility of a good outcome
from this adventure, which has been horrendously, I would even say
criminally, mismanaged. Donald Rumsfeld deserves to be hanged right
next to Saddam Hussein.
|
| |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 13:09:20
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
> > > I think you guys would do better if you stuck to what you believed.
> > > But I never hear anything about that.
> >
> > Then turn off CNN and pay attention.
> >
> > It's simple really: We believe that the war on terror IS in Iraq, and
> > in fact, is proven by the fact that we constantly kill terrorists
> > there... wait, let me back up to make it simple for you, I can't make
> > any assumptions. First, we believe that there are good people, and
> > there are bad people. The bad people are called TERRORISTS, and they
> > want to kill us for no reason, like on 9/11. BTW, we're the good guys,
> > since you seem to be confused about it. Now, many terrorists are
> > located in Iraq, as demonstrated by the fact that we kill and capture
> > them all the time.
>
> Do we? How do you know? Do terrorists wear t-shirts that say "I'm a
> Terrorist" on them?
The fact that Abu Musab Zarqawi and many others have been captured or
killed in country. Do you not consider Zarqawi a terrorist?
> Also, were there "terrorists" in Iraq before we got there?
Of course.
> About two-thirds of a million Iraqi civilians have been killed since the US invasion in 2003.
Ridiculous.
> > We also believe that the captured ones shouldn't all be given lawyers
> > and tried in US Civil court, because, well, that would be insane.
>
> Democrats don't believe that either, despite what Sean Hannity might
> say.
Of course Democrats believe that. For crying out loud, a vote in the
house proved it, when they voted that captured terrorists have the same
Constitutional rights as a US citizen. That clearly means that a
captured terrorists should be prosecuted just like a regular criminal,
which means they all get lawyers and go through US criminal court (I
misspoke and said "civil" court above).
> > We also believe in personal responsibility, and in lower taxes, even
> > for you!
>
> Oh, Democrats don't believe in personal responsibility at all.
Few do. Most encourage "treatment" over punishment of criminals, for
example. Since one of the huge backers of the Democratic party are
trial lawyers, it's understandable why that is.
> And by all means, let's lower taxes even further and bankrupt the government.
The fact that you don't understand that lowering taxes from their
current levels actually INCREASE funding to the government just shows
how mixed up you are. If you don't believe me, just go to the US
treasury website and look at the government receipts from the past 2
years.
> >Most of us believe it shouldn't be legal to kill babies 5
> > seconds before they're born, no matter how "depressed" the mother is.
>
> Gee, why not? Every Democrat I talk to says it should be legal to kill
> babies right up to 2.5 seconds before they're born.
You should move to Kansas. They let you kill them 0.000001 second
before birth.
> As a liberal I say,
> why stop at birth? I think parents should have the right to kill their
> children up until their 18th birthdays.
The way some liberal judges treat sex predators, you're on your way.
> > Now, if you'd like to tell me what you'd do, besides withdrawing from
> > Iraq and allowing millions to be murdered, which would allow Iran to
> > ostensibly take over that country, I'd love to hear it.
>
> No, let's hear your solution.
Haven't you been paying attention? I already gave it to you. Your
turn.
|
| | |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 00:42:58
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
In article <1162933760.614651.228190@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com > wrote:
> > > > I think you guys would do better if you stuck to what you believed.
> > > > But I never hear anything about that.
> > >
> > > Then turn off CNN and pay attention.
> > >
> > > It's simple really: We believe that the war on terror IS in Iraq, and
> > > in fact, is proven by the fact that we constantly kill terrorists
> > > there... wait, let me back up to make it simple for you, I can't make
> > > any assumptions. First, we believe that there are good people, and
> > > there are bad people. The bad people are called TERRORISTS, and they
> > > want to kill us for no reason, like on 9/11. BTW, we're the good guys,
> > > since you seem to be confused about it. Now, many terrorists are
> > > located in Iraq, as demonstrated by the fact that we kill and capture
> > > them all the time.
> >
> > Do we? How do you know? Do terrorists wear t-shirts that say "I'm a
> > Terrorist" on them?
>
> The fact that Abu Musab Zarqawi and many others have been captured or
> killed in country. Do you not consider Zarqawi a terrorist?
And that makes everyone who's been killed or captured a terrorist?
That's an interesting logic system you're using?
>
> > Also, were there "terrorists" in Iraq before we got there?
>
> Of course.
Do you think there are more now or less, and why?
>
> > About two-thirds of a million Iraqi civilians have been killed since the US
> > invasion in 2003.
>
> Ridiculous.
>
> > > We also believe that the captured ones shouldn't all be given lawyers
> > > and tried in US Civil court, because, well, that would be insane.
> >
> > Democrats don't believe that either, despite what Sean Hannity might
> > say.
>
> Of course Democrats believe that. For crying out loud, a vote in the
> house proved it, when they voted that captured terrorists have the same
> Constitutional rights as a US citizen. That clearly means that a
> captured terrorists should be prosecuted just like a regular criminal,
> which means they all get lawyers and go through US criminal court (I
> misspoke and said "civil" court above).
"Terrorists" captured where? With what citizenship?
--
'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.'
"It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix'
(Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
|
| | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 14:35:24
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
On 7 Nov 2006 13:09:20 -0800, "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com >
wrote:
>Of course Democrats believe that. For crying out loud, a vote in the
>house proved it, when they voted that captured terrorists have the same
>Constitutional rights as a US citizen. That clearly means that a
>captured terrorists should be prosecuted just like a regular criminal,
>which means they all get lawyers and go through US criminal court (I
>misspoke and said "civil" court above).
That is "accused terrorists". If the state never makes mistakes
then we don't need a justice system, none of us need due process, and
none of us need trials. If it does make mistakes, then all of us
need due process.
|
| | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 21:29:40
From: tiggerspalewife
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
In article <1162933760.614651.228190@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >
"Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com > wrote:
You repugs seem a little edgy over those sexual predators these days.
|
| |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 12:59:29
From: oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
MnMikew wrote:
> "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1162929445.426010.255890@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Once again, a Republican speaks up to tell us what the Dems are
> > thinking.
>
> You ever read anything besides lefty blogs?
Yes, for example, the American Conservative which just endorsed
every single democratic candidate that is running for congress.
http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_11_20/feature.html
"It should surprise few readers that we think a vote that is seen-in
America and the world at large-as a decisive "No" vote on the
Bush presidency is the best outcome. We need not dwell on George W.
Bush's failed effort to jam a poorly disguised amnesty for illegal
aliens through Congress or the assaults on the Constitution carried out
under the pretext of fighting terrorism or his administration's
endorsement of torture. Faced on Sept. 11, 2001 with a great challenge,
President Bush made little effort to understand who had attacked us and
why-thus ignoring the prerequisite for crafting an effective
response. He seemingly did not want to find out, and he had staffed his
national-security team with people who either did not want to know or
were committed to a prefabricated answer."
> > You Repugs have nothing to run on except, "The Democrats will do this!"
> > "Nancy Pelosi!"
> >
> As compared to the Dems "Bush is evil" platform?
Bush is incompetent. At least get the quote right.
|
| |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 12:42:04
From: John B.
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
Larry Bud wrote:
> > I think you guys would do better if you stuck to what you believed.
> > But I never hear anything about that.
>
> Then turn off CNN and pay attention.
>
> It's simple really: We believe that the war on terror IS in Iraq, and
> in fact, is proven by the fact that we constantly kill terrorists
> there... wait, let me back up to make it simple for you, I can't make
> any assumptions. First, we believe that there are good people, and
> there are bad people. The bad people are called TERRORISTS, and they
> want to kill us for no reason, like on 9/11. BTW, we're the good guys,
> since you seem to be confused about it. Now, many terrorists are
> located in Iraq, as demonstrated by the fact that we kill and capture
> them all the time.
Do we? How do you know? Do terrorists wear t-shirts that say "I'm a
Terrorist" on them? Also, were there "terrorists" in Iraq before we got
there? About two-thirds of a million Iraqi civilians have been killed
since the US invasion in 2003. Were they all terrorists?
> We also believe that the captured ones shouldn't all be given lawyers
> and tried in US Civil court, because, well, that would be insane.
Democrats don't believe that either, despite what Sean Hannity might
say.
> We also believe in personal responsibility, and in lower taxes, even
> for you!
Oh, Democrats don't believe in personal responsibility at all. And by
all means, let's lower taxes even further and bankrupt the government.
>Most of us believe it shouldn't be legal to kill babies 5
> seconds before they're born, no matter how "depressed" the mother is.
Gee, why not? Every Democrat I talk to says it should be legal to kill
babies right up to 2.5 seconds before they're born. As a liberal I say,
why stop at birth? I think parents should have the right to kill their
children up until their 18th birthdays. Lay off those embryos, though.
Now those are sacred.
> Now, if you'd like to tell me what you'd do, besides withdrawing from
> Iraq and allowing millions to be murdered, which would allow Iran to
> ostensibly take over that country, I'd love to hear it.
No, let's hear your solution.
|
| |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 12:09:11
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
> I think you guys would do better if you stuck to what you believed.
> But I never hear anything about that.
Then turn off CNN and pay attention.
It's simple really: We believe that the war on terror IS in Iraq, and
in fact, is proven by the fact that we constantly kill terrorists
there... wait, let me back up to make it simple for you, I can't make
any assumptions. First, we believe that there are good people, and
there are bad people. The bad people are called TERRORISTS, and they
want to kill us for no reason, like on 9/11. BTW, we're the good guys,
since you seem to be confused about it. Now, many terrorists are
located in Iraq, as demonstrated by the fact that we kill and capture
them all the time.
We also believe that the captured ones shouldn't all be given lawyers
and tried in US Civil court, because, well, that would be insane.
We also believe in personal responsibility, and in lower taxes, even
for you! Most of us believe it shouldn't be legal to kill babies 5
seconds before they're born, no matter how "depressed" the mother is.
Now, if you'd like to tell me what you'd do, besides withdrawing from
Iraq and allowing millions to be murdered, which would allow Iran to
ostensibly take over that country, I'd love to hear it.
|
| | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 17:51:16
From: multi
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
On 7 Nov 2006 12:09:11 -0800, "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com >
wrote:
>We also believe in personal responsibility
LOL. If that were true, you would have impeached Bush and Cheney.
|
| | |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 00:40:33
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
In article <1162930151.814476.149980@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >,
"Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com > wrote:
> > I think you guys would do better if you stuck to what you believed.
> > But I never hear anything about that.
>
> Then turn off CNN and pay attention.
>
> It's simple really: We believe that the war on terror IS in Iraq, and
> in fact, is proven by the fact that we constantly kill terrorists
> there... wait, let me back up to make it simple for you, I can't make
> any assumptions. First, we believe that there are good people, and
> there are bad people. The bad people are called TERRORISTS, and they
> want to kill us for no reason, like on 9/11. BTW, we're the good guys,
> since you seem to be confused about it. Now, many terrorists are
> located in Iraq, as demonstrated by the fact that we kill and capture
> them all the time.
The U.S. kills and captures people in Iraq that it knows for a fact
would have committed terrorist acts in the U.S. if the U.S. weren't in
Iraq? You know this for a fact, do you?
LOL
>
> We also believe that the captured ones shouldn't all be given lawyers
> and tried in US Civil court, because, well, that would be insane.
Right. And it makes it easy to "prove" they're all terrorist, too!
> We also believe in personal responsibility, and in lower taxes, even
> for you! Most of us believe it shouldn't be legal to kill babies 5
> seconds before they're born, no matter how "depressed" the mother is.
>
> Now, if you'd like to tell me what you'd do, besides withdrawing from
> Iraq and allowing millions to be murdered, which would allow Iran to
> ostensibly take over that country, I'd love to hear it.
Tell me: if "allowing millions to be murdered is the standard by which
the U.S. is supposed to discriminate who it treats as friends and who as
enemies, why is the U.S. cozy with China but still embargoing Cuba?
--
'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.'
"It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix'
(Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
|
| | |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 14:35:11
From: David
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq (long)
|
On 7 Nov 2006 12:09:11 -0800, "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com >
wrote:
>> I think you guys would do better if you stuck to what you believed.
>> But I never hear anything about that.
>
>Then turn off CNN and pay attention.
>
>It's simple really: We believe that the war on terror IS in Iraq, and
>in fact, is proven by the fact that we constantly kill terrorists
>there... wait, let me back up to make it simple for you, I can't make
>any assumptions. First, we believe that there are good people, and
>there are bad people. The bad people are called TERRORISTS, and they
>want to kill us for no reason, like on 9/11. BTW, we're the good guys,
>since you seem to be confused about it. Now, many terrorists are
>located in Iraq, as demonstrated by the fact that we kill and capture
>them all the time.
The war in Iraq is about oil. Your god, Bush, even admitted it to
be so. People fighting for control of the land is not necessarily
terrorism. If you wish to use that definition, then our forefathers
were terrorists, as well.
>We also believe that the captured ones shouldn't all be given lawyers
>and tried in US Civil court, because, well, that would be insane.
Due process and innocent until proven guilty obviously have no
meaning to republicans. If it were so, the republicans would not be
reducing the rights of its civilians and rationalizing it with the
"war on terror" that must be won.
>We also believe in personal responsibility, and in lower taxes, even
>for you! Most of us believe it shouldn't be legal to kill babies 5
>seconds before they're born, no matter how "depressed" the mother is.
Again, personal responsibility means allowing individuals to think
for themselve and lving with the consequences of their decisions.
Reducing the rights of americans does not sound like allowing for
personal responsibliity.
Affording the wealthy tax breaks is not the same as reducing taxes.
Catering to corporate america is not in the best interest of
americans. Approximately 2.6 billion dollars was spent for campaigns
during this election--not even a presidential year. Where do you
think the money came from?
Personally, I am pro-choice but would rather that the choice was to
have the baby. The republicans want to make abortion illegal;
however, they never have a solution for the "problem." Will the
republicans take all of the unwanted babies in to their own homes and
raise them? No. They want to make abortion illegal and what happens
with the baby after that is no their probem.
>Now, if you'd like to tell me what you'd do, besides withdrawing from
>Iraq and allowing millions to be murdered, which would allow Iran to
>ostensibly take over that country, I'd love to hear it.
How many years does it take to train a soldier? Well, in the US, a
soldier is ready for battle after 3 months. How is it possible that
iraqi's cannot be trained in the same amount of time? They have had
years to get their para-military in shape, yet, they seem hopelessly
unable to do the job that they signed up to do.
Why is that? Well, as we learned in Vietnam, when the will is not
there, you will not be able to produce good soldiers. The US presence
is there for the sole purpose of protecting the oil supply.
The thing that Bush and the rest of the god fearing republicans
simply don't get is that islam is the government, as well as the
religion of the people. Trying to impose a judeo-christian democracy
on the people is simply never going to work. They believe in
something else. For a bunch of people who adhere to "live and let
live," Bush and the rest of his yokels are getting this one totally
wrong.
Solution? Bring the troops home. We had no business being there in
the first place and this "war on terrorism" will never be won until
intelligent people sit down together and work out a solution to the
specific problems that the people who live there have.
Nearly four years after Bush declared the allied troops "victory" in
Iraq, more than 3000 coalition troops have been killed. On top of
that, nearly 21,000 amercian troops have been wounded in battle, with
32,000 more receiving non-combat wounds. The total count of Iraqi
civilians killed to date is hotly debated, but the fact remains that
their numbers must be in the hundred's of thousands. Pretty crazy
numbers for a war that was "won" so many years ago.
Hypocrites harping on family values while living the exact opposite
also does not sit well with me. The republicans wanted to burn
Clinton at the stake for having voluntary sex with an adult woman.
What are they going to do about the republicans who are having openly
condemning homosexuals and behind the scenes meeting with callboys and
having meth parties, and congressional leaders who are chasing little
boys? Oh, they have already done something--these poor souls are
praying to god for guiidance and forgiveness. All is well there.
This post could go on forever, so I will end it here.
David
|
| | |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 17:43:32
From: The World Wide Wade
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
In article
<1162930151.814476.149980@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >,
"Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com > wrote:
> It's simple really: We believe that the war on terror IS in Iraq,
No, the war on SOME terror is in Iraq - and the terrorism there
was, as was widely predicted beforehand, caused by the US
invasion.
BTW, since the war on terror IS in Iraq in Larry Bud's weird
world, you should call up Bush and tell him there's no need for
homeland security, that the terrorist bombings in London and
Spain were hoaxes, there are no terrorists in Europe, Pakistan,
Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Egypt, Israel, the US, ...
> and
> in fact, is proven by the fact that we constantly kill terrorists
> there...
Good god man, grab hold of some logic. Killing terrorists there
does not imply the war on terror IS in Iraq. There's a genocidal
terrorist war happening right now in Sudan. If we chose to kill
terrorists there, it would not mean the war on terror IS in Sudan.
That there are terrorists in Iraq aplenty is not in dispute. The
vast majority of them are Iraqis, and they are Sunni and Shia,
and now they are killing each other mostly, and they were not
doing this until we invaded.
> wait, let me back up to make it simple for you, I can't make
> any assumptions. First, we believe that there are good people, and
> there are bad people. The bad people are called TERRORISTS, and they
> want to kill us for no reason, like on 9/11.
bin Laden has made his reasons quite clear I think.
> BTW, we're the good guys,
> since you seem to be confused about it.
No, Bush is not a good guy. Cheney is not a good guy. Neither is
Rumsfeld. These are deranged, deluded incompetent men who have no
qualms about lying to their countrymen so that they will send
their sons and daughters to kill and bleed in a needless
nightmare of a war, THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TERRORISTS
WHO CAUSED 9/11.
> Now, many terrorists are
> located in Iraq, as demonstrated by the fact that we kill and capture
> them all the time.
We kill a lot people in Iraq. That's what we're known for now,
the world over, thanks to your good guys. Yes we kill terrorists
there, who were not there until we were there. We also killand
maim many, many who are not terrorists. Some are attending
weddings. Some are children. Tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds
of thousands. We don't know because our government does "not do
body counts". Fucking incredible.
|
| | |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 12:59:42
From: JJVP
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
On Nov 8, 1:32 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net > wrote:
> In article <prb4l255vnlunlulmidm05gbts7fs38...@4ax.com>,
> Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 19:22:19 GMT, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > >In article <1163010703.681936.206...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "JJVP" <jjv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> Why don't you look at this chart:
>
> > >>http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/charts_R/R1...
>
> > >> "Government revenue has soared by more than $1.6 trillion since 1960,
> > >> in part because top marginal income, capital gains, and corporate tax
> > >> rates were cut."
>
> > >> JJVP
>
> > >I thought you didn't like OT posts...
> > Wrong Alan. That's John van der Pflum's statement.
> > bkYou mean JJVP isn't John van der Pflum?
Hell no. You are very mistaken.
JJVP
>
> Then I most heartily apologize for confusing them.
>
> --
> 'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.'
> "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix'
> (Edwin on Mac OS X)
>
> '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
> 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
> IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
|
| |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 11:57:25
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
MnMikew wrote:
>> >>
> >> Vote and vote often. They want your votes dead or alive.
> >
> > Who is "they?"
> >
> The crybaby Dems of course. Who else.
Once again, a Republican speaks up to tell us what the Dems are
thinking.
I think you guys would do better if you stuck to what you believed.
But I never hear anything about that. I guess people dying for nothing
in Iraq, promoting torture and taking away people's rights aren't hot
topics right now. But hey, Exxon is making Billions so everything is
great, right?
You Repugs have nothing to run on except, "The Democrats will do this!"
"Nancy Pelosi!"
|
| | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 14:27:59
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1162929445.426010.255890@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Once again, a Republican speaks up to tell us what the Dems are
> thinking.
You ever read anything besides lefty blogs?
>
> You Repugs have nothing to run on except, "The Democrats will do this!"
> "Nancy Pelosi!"
>
As compared to the Dems "Bush is evil" platform?
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 18:28:36
From: David Geesaman
Subject: Re: Golf swing mechanics question
|
Steve wrote:
> Sorry about the OT post about golf but was wondering if someone knew of a
> good website that showed what the hands and wrists should be doing from the
> downswing until after impact or could maybe explain it in detail.
>
> I have seen / heard that you use the wrists like you would if you are
> chopping wood or hitting a nail with a hammer but it seems to me that what
> really is happening is the wrists do not do much but it is more arms /
> forearms rotating.
Both are happening.
I suggest you investigate this for yourself, since the difficulties of
describing it in words has put this newgroup in a wad time after time.
Given how hard some of us have tried to even communicate our ideas, I
suspect that video or other visual means is the only effective way.
It's much easier to discuss in person with a golf club to demonstrate.
Be VERY wary of anyone who is convinced their verbal descriptions are
enough to convey the meaning. It's not that this motion is so
complicated; its that so many of us simply don't agree on how to say
things, in ways we don't even realize.
Dave
|
| | | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 15:46:34
From: Booker Little
Subject: Re: Golf swing mechanics question
|
"David Geesaman" <dgeesamanIHateSpam@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:eir4r40f3s@news2.newsguy.com...
> Steve wrote:
>> Sorry about the OT post about golf but was wondering if someone knew of a
>> good website that showed what the hands and wrists should be doing from
>> the downswing until after impact or could maybe explain it in detail.
>>
>> I have seen / heard that you use the wrists like you would if you are
>> chopping wood or hitting a nail with a hammer but it seems to me that
>> what really is happening is the wrists do not do much but it is more arms
>> / forearms rotating.
>
> Both are happening.
>
> I suggest you investigate this for yourself, since the difficulties of
> describing it in words has put this newgroup in a wad time after time.
> Given how hard some of us have tried to even communicate our ideas, I
> suspect that video or other visual means is the only effective way. It's
> much easier to discuss in person with a golf club to demonstrate.
>
> Be VERY wary of anyone who is convinced their verbal descriptions are
> enough to convey the meaning. It's not that this motion is so
> complicated; its that so many of us simply don't agree on how to say
> things, in ways we don't even realize.
>
> Dave
You are most sensible. A proper coach can only help a student teach
him/herself. Words only confuse that which is really quite simple. He who
truly knows does not speak :-)
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 10:56:33
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
John B. wrote:
> Larry Bud wrote:
> > > > > Do we? How do you know? Do terrorists wear t-shirts that say "I'm a
> > > > > Terrorist" on them?
> > > >
> > > > The fact that Abu Musab Zarqawi and many others have been captured or
> > > > killed in country. Do you not consider Zarqawi a terrorist?
> > >
> > > Of course he was, and I'm glad he's dead. But that's one guy. You seem
> > > to think that every person who has been killed in Iraq was a terrorist.
> >
> > You asked me if we know if there are terrorists in Iraq, I gave you a
> > real life example.
>
> I asked you nothing of the sort. I asked you how you knew that every
> person killed by US forces in Iraq was a terrorist.
Don't be dishonest John. Here's the conversation:
ME:
>>> Now, many terrorists are
>>> located in Iraq, as demonstrated by the fact that we kill and capture
>>> them all the time.
> > Do we? How do you know?
You asked me "how do you know" in regard to my statement that we kill
and capture terrorists all the time. You did NOT ask that EVERY PERSON
KILLED was a terrorist.
> > > > > Also, were there "terrorists" in Iraq before we got there?
> > > >
> > > > Of course.
> > >
> > > Bullshit. Before the invasion of Iraq, not one person who was known to
> > > have committed a terrorist act against US citizens or interests was
> > > Iraqi. Not one.
> >
> > That's not what a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report says,
> > nor does the 9/11 commission report:
> >
> > "The 9/11 Commission Report (p. 66):
> > "In March 1998, after bin Laden's public fatwa against the United
> > States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraq
> > Intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to
> > meet first with the Taliban and then with bin Laden." "
>
> A meeting is not a terrorist act. No Iraqis are known to have committed
> terrorist acts against the US before we invaded Iraq.
So someone has to kill us before we can get them and deem them
terrorists? Your question was whether or not there were terrorists
in country before we invaded, not whether or not they committed acts
against the US.
If we were to use your definition, none of the 9/11 hijackers were
terrorists until they actually hijacked 4 jets and killed 3000 people.
If we were to use your definition, we couldn't ever capture or kill
them until they kill us.
> > > > > About two-thirds of a million Iraqi civilians have been killed since the US invasion in 2003.
> > > >
> > > > Ridiculous.
> > >
> > > What's ridiculous about it?
> >
> > Your numbers. That's what is ridiculous.
>
> They're not my numbers. They are the product of a research project
> undertaken by Johns Hopkins University. Given that we know that Iraqi
> civilians die at the rate of roughly 100 per day, they don't seem all
> that far-fetched today.
365 days * 3 years * 100 per day=100,000, not 670,000.
> > > What vote was that? I don't remember anything like that.
> >
> > The Military Commission Act. Just happened 3 weeks or so ago. The
> > Dems were against it because the law does not give Constitutional
> > rights to captured terrorists.
>
> Wrong. They voted against it because it gives the US military the right
> to torture suspects.
Right, because they believe the suspects have Constitutional rights.
> > > > > > We also believe in personal responsibility, and in lower taxes, even
> > > > > > for you!
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh, Democrats don't believe in personal responsibility at all.
> > > >
> > > > Few do. Most encourage "treatment" over punishment of criminals, for
> > > > example. Since one of the huge backers of the Democratic party are
> > > > trial lawyers, it's understandable why that is.
> > >
> > > That is complete horseshit and I defy you to back it up with evidence.
> >
> > Evidence of trial lawyers giving money to dems? Are you kidding?
> >
> Not that. The assertion that "most" democrats think criminals should
> get treatment, not jail time. That's ridiculous.
No it's not. We see it with the fights against Jessica's law, for
instance, or in other cases of raising minimum sentences.
> > Of course there's a god outcome. We cripple the terrorist network at
> > least to a point so they can't pull off another 9/11, or worse. At
> > that point, if we keep up the fight in more of a "maintenance mode",
> > they become no more than a nuisance. But at least you admit you have
> > no plan, even amidst your blind rage.
>
>
> "Winning" in Iraq cripples the terrorist network?
It certainly doesn't help it. Just like winning the battle of midway
crippled Japan.
> What about all the
> terrorists who aren't in Iraq, like the thousands of al Qaeda and
> Taliban fanatics in western Pakistan? What about all the angry young
> Muslim males who are likely to become terrorists in the future?
What about them? We take care of them in a case by case basis. There
are several different fronts on the war on terror.
You ignored the question: Do you want the United States to win in Iraq?
|
| | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 00:10:05
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
On 8 Nov 2006 10:56:33 -0800, "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com >
wrote:
>If we were to use your definition, none of the 9/11 hijackers were
>terrorists until they actually hijacked 4 jets and killed 3000 people.
>If we were to use your definition, we couldn't ever capture or kill
>them until they kill us.
Don't forget the terrorists who bombed Oklahoma City. We should
attack the most secular country that has similar people to those
involved in that atrocity.
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 10:31:43
From: JJVP
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
Why don't you look at this chart:
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/charts_R/R1.cfm
"Government revenue has soared by more than $1.6 trillion since 1960,
in part because top marginal income, capital gains, and corporate tax
rates were cut."
JJVP
On Nov 8, 1:29 am, The World Wide Wade
<waderameyx...@comcast.remove13.net > wrote:
> In article
> <1162961898.264875.231...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> "JJVP" <jjv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 5:51 pm, tiggerspalewife <a...@comments.header> wrote:
> > > In article <1162938332.692730.193...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
>
> > > "JJVP" <jjv...@gmail.com> wrote:Stop talking and google the latest GAO
> > > report on the chances of our
> > > financial system reaching critical mass if we maintain the present fiscal
> > > policies. Tax cuts have burdened the "war" effort even more and families
> > > making between 30K and 95K a year actually have 3K less real income on
> > > average than 6 years ago. Don't throw out JFK and think we're going to
> > > bite on policies that occurred 5 decades ago. I hold people like you
> > > personally responsible for the mess we are in by voting, probably twice,
> > > for the very morons that put us there. That's your legacy to kids and
> > > grandkids in this country to pay a debt accumulated by a fake war, lied
> > > about by the head jackasses for the only reason being to have an agenda
> > > and be reelected as a wartime president. Now, go google.
>
> > Lower taxes have INCREASED the government revenue. That is a FACT.So how do you explain the chart at
>
> http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/charts_C/c2...
>
> which shows Bush to be the sole president from 1964 to now under
> whom average federal revenue decreased? The comparisons between
> Democrats and Republicans here is somewhat amusing.
|
| | |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 19:22:19
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
In article <1163010703.681936.206820@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"JJVP" <jjvp10@gmail.com > wrote:
> Why don't you look at this chart:
>
> http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/charts_R/R1.cfm
>
> "Government revenue has soared by more than $1.6 trillion since 1960,
> in part because top marginal income, capital gains, and corporate tax
> rates were cut."
>
> JJVP
I thought you didn't like OT posts...
>
> On Nov 8, 1:29 am, The World Wide Wade
> <waderameyx...@comcast.remove13.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <1162961898.264875.231...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> > "JJVP" <jjv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 7, 5:51 pm, tiggerspalewife <a...@comments.header> wrote:
> > > > In article <1162938332.692730.193...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> >
> > > > "JJVP" <jjv...@gmail.com> wrote:Stop talking and google the latest GAO
> > > > report on the chances of our
> > > > financial system reaching critical mass if we maintain the present
> > > > fiscal
> > > > policies. Tax cuts have burdened the "war" effort even more and
> > > > families
> > > > making between 30K and 95K a year actually have 3K less real income on
> > > > average than 6 years ago. Don't throw out JFK and think we're going to
> > > > bite on policies that occurred 5 decades ago. I hold people like you
> > > > personally responsible for the mess we are in by voting, probably
> > > > twice,
> > > > for the very morons that put us there. That's your legacy to kids and
> > > > grandkids in this country to pay a debt accumulated by a fake war, lied
> > > > about by the head jackasses for the only reason being to have an agenda
> > > > and be reelected as a wartime president. Now, go google.
> >
> > > Lower taxes have INCREASED the government revenue. That is a FACT.So how
> > > do you explain the chart at
> >
> > http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/charts_C/c2...
> >
> > which shows Bush to be the sole president from 1964 to now under
> > whom average federal revenue decreased? The comparisons between
> > Democrats and Republicans here is somewhat amusing.
--
'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.'
"It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix'
(Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 13:28:43
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 19:22:19 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net >
wrote:
>In article <1163010703.681936.206820@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "JJVP" <jjvp10@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Why don't you look at this chart:
>>
>> http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/charts_R/R1.cfm
>>
>> "Government revenue has soared by more than $1.6 trillion since 1960,
>> in part because top marginal income, capital gains, and corporate tax
>> rates were cut."
>>
>> JJVP
>
>I thought you didn't like OT posts...
Wrong Alan. That's John van der Pflum's statement.
bk
|
| | | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 19:32:48
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
In article <prb4l255vnlunlulmidm05gbts7fs38anl@4ax.com >,
Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net > wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 19:22:19 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <1163010703.681936.206820@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > "JJVP" <jjvp10@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Why don't you look at this chart:
> >>
> >> http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/charts_R/R1.cfm
> >>
> >> "Government revenue has soared by more than $1.6 trillion since 1960,
> >> in part because top marginal income, capital gains, and corporate tax
> >> rates were cut."
> >>
> >> JJVP
> >
> >I thought you didn't like OT posts...
> Wrong Alan. That's John van der Pflum's statement.
> bk
You mean JJVP isn't John van der Pflum?
Then I most heartily apologize for confusing them.
--
'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.'
"It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix'
(Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 07:04:44
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
annika1980 wrote:
> JJVP wrote:
> > >
> > Lower taxes have INCREASED the government revenue. That is a FACT.
>
> How do you figure?
>
> For example, I got my $600 check from one of Bush's tax cuts.
> How does the government recoup that $600?
>
> Do you think that $600 is gonna spur more industry and growth which
> will generate tax revenues of over $600? Hell, no it won't. I
> probably paid bills or bought something silly with it, perhaps paying
> sales tax to the state, but the Federal government ain't gonna see that
> $600 come back.
Don't worry. You'll be paying that 600 bucks back next year...and then
some. They've got lots of social experiements to try...you ready to
move into mixed income high density housing?
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 06:49:50
From: Ken Meltzer
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
frisbieinstein@yahoo.com wrote:
> Ken Meltzer wrote:
> > frisbieinstein@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > > The nerve! If somebody invaded the US and killed 100,000 people and
> > > tortured some more, we'd be a lot more friendly, that's for sure.
> >
> > I'm sure you meant "liberated," not "invaded."
> > Best,
> > Ken
>
> Sorry!
>
> If somebody liberated the US and killed 100,000 people and tortured
> some more, we'd be a lot more friendly, that's for sure.
Much better. Thank-you.
Best,
Ken
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 06:48:54
From: John B.
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
Larry Bud wrote:
> > > > Do we? How do you know? Do terrorists wear t-shirts that say "I'm a
> > > > Terrorist" on them?
> > >
> > > The fact that Abu Musab Zarqawi and many others have been captured or
> > > killed in country. Do you not consider Zarqawi a terrorist?
> >
> > Of course he was, and I'm glad he's dead. But that's one guy. You seem
> > to think that every person who has been killed in Iraq was a terrorist.
>
> You asked me if we know if there are terrorists in Iraq, I gave you a
> real life example.
I asked you nothing of the sort. I asked you how you knew that every
person killed by US forces in Iraq was a terrorist.
>
> Who do you think are blowing up IED in our solider's faces?
>
>
>
> > > > Also, were there "terrorists" in Iraq before we got there?
> > >
> > > Of course.
> >
> > Bullshit. Before the invasion of Iraq, not one person who was known to
> > have committed a terrorist act against US citizens or interests was
> > Iraqi. Not one.
>
> That's not what a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report says,
> nor does the 9/11 commission report:
>
> "The 9/11 Commission Report (p. 66):
> "In March 1998, after bin Laden's public fatwa against the United
> States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraq
> Intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to
> meet first with the Taliban and then with bin Laden." "
A meeting is not a terrorist act. No Iraqis are known to have committed
terrorist acts against the US before we invaded Iraq.
>
>
> > > > About two-thirds of a million Iraqi civilians have been killed since the US invasion in 2003.
> > >
> > > Ridiculous.
> >
> > What's ridiculous about it?
>
> Your numbers. That's what is ridiculous.
They're not my numbers. They are the product of a research project
undertaken by Johns Hopkins University. Given that we know that Iraqi
civilians die at the rate of roughly 100 per day, they don't seem all
that far-fetched today.
>
> > > > We also believe that the captured ones shouldn't all be given
> lawyers
> > > > > and tried in US Civil court, because, well, that would be insane.
> > > >
> > > > Democrats don't believe that either, despite what Sean Hannity might
> > > > say.
> > >
> > > Of course Democrats believe that. For crying out loud, a vote in the
> > > house proved it, when they voted that captured terrorists have the same
> > > Constitutional rights as a US citizen. That clearly means that a
> > > captured terrorists should be prosecuted just like a regular criminal,
> > > which means they all get lawyers and go through US criminal court (I
> > > misspoke and said "civil" court above).
> >
> > What vote was that? I don't remember anything like that.
>
> The Military Commission Act. Just happened 3 weeks or so ago. The
> Dems were against it because the law does not give Constitutional
> rights to captured terrorists.
Wrong. They voted against it because it gives the US military the right
to torture suspects.
>
> > > > > We also believe in personal responsibility, and in lower taxes, even
> > > > > for you!
> > > >
> > > > Oh, Democrats don't believe in personal responsibility at all.
> > >
> > > Few do. Most encourage "treatment" over punishment of criminals, for
> > > example. Since one of the huge backers of the Democratic party are
> > > trial lawyers, it's understandable why that is.
> >
> > That is complete horseshit and I defy you to back it up with evidence.
>
> Evidence of trial lawyers giving money to dems? Are you kidding?
>
Not that. The assertion that "most" democrats think criminals should
get treatment, not jail time. That's ridiculous.
>
> > >
> > > > And by all means, let's lower taxes even further and bankrupt the government.
> > >
> > > The fact that you don't understand that lowering taxes from their
> > > current levels actually INCREASE funding to the government just shows
> > > how mixed up you are. If you don't believe me, just go to the US
> > > treasury website and look at the government receipts from the past 2
> > > years.
> >
> > I understand more than you do or ever will. The immediate effect of
> > reducing taxation is a reduction in revenue to the government. How
> > could it be otherwise? Some conservatives argue that tax cuts stimulate
> > the economy which leads in turn to increased tax receipts. But the
> > evidence of this is circumstantial.
>
> Revenues go up long term after a tax cut. That's not circumstantial,
> it's fact. Compare the revenues for the past 3 years, adjust for
> inflation and population growth, and it's gone up after the tax cuts.
> Happens every time. How could it not? People have more of their own
> money to spend, which spurs consumer spending, which spurs service jobs
> and manufacturing. It's pretty basic economics. Think of it the other
> way, if everyone was taxed 100% (or left enough to just pay their rent
> and buy food), what do you think the economy would do? Everything
> would crumble.
>
> The real question is why do you think the government is smarter at
> spending your money than you are.
>
>
> > > > >Most of us believe it shouldn't be legal to kill babies 5
> > > > > seconds before they're born, no matter how "depressed" the mother is.
> > > >
> > > > Gee, why not? Every Democrat I talk to says it should be legal to kill
> > > > babies right up to 2.5 seconds before they're born.
> > >
> > > You should move to Kansas. They let you kill them 0.000001 second
> > > before birth.
> > >
> > >
> > > > As a liberal I say,
> > > > why stop at birth? I think parents should have the right to kill their
> > > > children up until their 18th birthdays.
> > >
> > > The way some liberal judges treat sex predators, you're on your way.
> >
> > Yeah, right.
> > >
> > > > > Now, if you'd like to tell me what you'd do, besides withdrawing from
> > > > > Iraq and allowing millions to be murdered, which would allow Iran to
> > > > > ostensibly take over that country, I'd love to hear it.
> > > >
> > > > No, let's hear your solution.
> > >
> > > Haven't you been paying attention? I already gave it to you. Your
> > > turn.
> >
> > I don't know what the solution is to the Iraq catastrophe. People who
> > are a lot smarter and better informed than I am don't know what it is,
> > either.
>
> So you want to put them in charge?
>
> > But I do know that there is no possibility of a good outcome
> > from this adventure, which has been horrendously, I would even say
> > criminally, mismanaged. Donald Rumsfeld deserves to be hanged right
> > next to Saddam Hussein.
>
> Of course there's a god outcome. We cripple the terrorist network at
> least to a point so they can't pull off another 9/11, or worse. At
> that point, if we keep up the fight in more of a "maintenance mode",
> they become no more than a nuisance. But at least you admit you have
> no plan, even amidst your blind rage.
"Winning" in Iraq cripples the terrorist network? What about all the
terrorists who aren't in Iraq, like the thousands of al Qaeda and
Taliban fanatics in western Pakistan? What about all the angry young
Muslim males who are likely to become terrorists in the future? What
about the Muslims all over the world who channel money to various
jihadi groups or travel to Pakistan and Afghanistan to teach them how
to build bombs and carry out suicide operations? You think pacifying
Iraq is going to put a stop to all that? I may suffer from rage, but it
certainly isn't blind.
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 06:41:18
From:
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
Ken Meltzer wrote:
> frisbieinstein@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > The nerve! If somebody invaded the US and killed 100,000 people and
> > tortured some more, we'd be a lot more friendly, that's for sure.
>
> I'm sure you meant "liberated," not "invaded."
> Best,
> Ken
Sorry!
If somebody liberated the US and killed 100,000 people and tortured
some more, we'd be a lot more friendly, that's for sure.
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 06:35:07
From: John B.
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
JJVP wrote:
> On Nov 7, 5:51 pm, tiggerspalewife <a...@comments.header> wrote:
> > In article <1162938332.692730.193...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> >
> > "JJVP" <jjv...@gmail.com> wrote:Stop talking and google the latest GAO report on the chances of our
> > financial system reaching critical mass if we maintain the present fiscal
> > policies. Tax cuts have burdened the "war" effort even more and families
> > making between 30K and 95K a year actually have 3K less real income on
> > average than 6 years ago. Don't throw out JFK and think we're going to
> > bite on policies that occurred 5 decades ago. I hold people like you
> > personally responsible for the mess we are in by voting, probably twice,
> > for the very morons that put us there. That's your legacy to kids and
> > grandkids in this country to pay a debt accumulated by a fake war, lied
> > about by the head jackasses for the only reason being to have an agenda
> > and be reelected as a wartime president. Now, go google.
>
>
> Lower taxes have INCREASED the government revenue. That is a FACT. If
> you want to send more of your money to the feds, there is nothing
> stopping you. Just keep what you think is right for you and send the
> rest to the feds.
Facts are provable via the provision of incontrovertible evidence. Why
don't you provide that here ===== >
>
>
> JJVP
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 06:34:18
From: Ken Meltzer
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
frisbieinstein@yahoo.com wrote:
> The nerve! If somebody invaded the US and killed 100,000 people and
> tortured some more, we'd be a lot more friendly, that's for sure.
I'm sure you meant "liberated," not "invaded."
Best,
Ken
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 06:30:39
From:
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
Larry Bud wrote:
> > > > Do we? How do you know? Do terrorists wear t-shirts that say "I'm a
> > > > Terrorist" on them?
> > >
> > > The fact that Abu Musab Zarqawi and many others have been captured or
> > > killed in country. Do you not consider Zarqawi a terrorist?
> >
> > And that makes everyone who's been killed or captured a terrorist?
>
> The fact that they're shooting at our guys is a pretty good clue.
>
The nerve! If somebody invaded the US and killed 100,000 people and
tortured some more, we'd be a lot more friendly, that's for sure.
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 06:25:25
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
JJVP wrote:
> >
> Lower taxes have INCREASED the government revenue. That is a FACT.
How do you figure?
For example, I got my $600 check from one of Bush's tax cuts.
How does the government recoup that $600?
Do you think that $600 is gonna spur more industry and growth which
will generate tax revenues of over $600? Hell, no it won't. I
probably paid bills or bought something silly with it, perhaps paying
sales tax to the state, but the Federal government ain't gonna see that
$600 come back.
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 04:09:34
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
> > > Do we? How do you know? Do terrorists wear t-shirts that say "I'm a
> > > Terrorist" on them?
> >
> > The fact that Abu Musab Zarqawi and many others have been captured or
> > killed in country. Do you not consider Zarqawi a terrorist?
>
> And that makes everyone who's been killed or captured a terrorist?
The fact that they're shooting at our guys is a pretty good clue.
> > > Also, were there "terrorists" in Iraq before we got there?
> >
> > Of course.
>
> Do you think there are more now or less, and why?
Of course there are more because that's where the fight is. Just like
there were more Japanese Kamakazi pilots as WW2 went on. Using your
logic, we shouldn't have fought Japan.
> > Of course Democrats believe that. For crying out loud, a vote in the
> > house proved it, when they voted that captured terrorists have the same
> > Constitutional rights as a US citizen. That clearly means that a
> > captured terrorists should be prosecuted just like a regular criminal,
> > which means they all get lawyers and go through US criminal court (I
> > misspoke and said "civil" court above).
>
> "Terrorists" captured where? With what citizenship?
Captured all over the place, but mostly on the battlefield. Who cares
what their citizenship is? This isn't a declared war against a nation.
Do you want the United States to win in Iraq?
|
| | |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 13:04:26
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
On 8 Nov 2006 04:09:34 -0800, "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com >
wrote:
>Do you want the United States to win in Iraq?
We don't play golf (for stakes) without agreeing on what rules we are
playing by - or else we won't agree on who won.
Share with us your plan on winning along with the criteria for
deciding we have won and can go home. Then we can answer the
question.
|
| | |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 19:20:54
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
In article <1162987774.647202.58200@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >,
"Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com > wrote:
> > > > Do we? How do you know? Do terrorists wear t-shirts that say "I'm a
> > > > Terrorist" on them?
> > >
> > > The fact that Abu Musab Zarqawi and many others have been captured or
> > > killed in country. Do you not consider Zarqawi a terrorist?
> >
> > And that makes everyone who's been killed or captured a terrorist?
>
> The fact that they're shooting at our guys is a pretty good clue.
So now you're claiming that every single person killed or captured in
Iraq was shooting at a U.S. soldier?
> > > > Also, were there "terrorists" in Iraq before we got there?
> > >
> > > Of course.
> >
> > Do you think there are more now or less, and why?
>
> Of course there are more because that's where the fight is. Just like
> there were more Japanese Kamakazi pilots as WW2 went on. Using your
> logic, we shouldn't have fought Japan.
Ummm...
Japan declared ward and attacked the U.S. There is no evidence that Iraq
did the same.
>
> > > Of course Democrats believe that. For crying out loud, a vote in the
> > > house proved it, when they voted that captured terrorists have the same
> > > Constitutional rights as a US citizen. That clearly means that a
> > > captured terrorists should be prosecuted just like a regular criminal,
> > > which means they all get lawyers and go through US criminal court (I
> > > misspoke and said "civil" court above).
> >
> > "Terrorists" captured where? With what citizenship?
>
> Captured all over the place, but mostly on the battlefield. Who cares
> what their citizenship is? This isn't a declared war against a nation.
What about in the U.S.?
>
> Do you want the United States to win in Iraq?
That is a loaded question. How do you define win and what if I disagree
with your criteria?
--
'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.'
"It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix'
(Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 04:06:15
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
> > > Do we? How do you know? Do terrorists wear t-shirts that say "I'm a
> > > Terrorist" on them?
> >
> > The fact that Abu Musab Zarqawi and many others have been captured or
> > killed in country. Do you not consider Zarqawi a terrorist?
>
> Of course he was, and I'm glad he's dead. But that's one guy. You seem
> to think that every person who has been killed in Iraq was a terrorist.
You asked me if we know if there are terrorists in Iraq, I gave you a
real life example.
Who do you think are blowing up IED in our solider's faces?
> > > Also, were there "terrorists" in Iraq before we got there?
> >
> > Of course.
>
> Bullshit. Before the invasion of Iraq, not one person who was known to
> have committed a terrorist act against US citizens or interests was
> Iraqi. Not one.
That's not what a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report says,
nor does the 9/11 commission report:
"The 9/11 Commission Report (p. 66):
"In March 1998, after bin Laden's public fatwa against the United
States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraq
Intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to
meet first with the Taliban and then with bin Laden." "
> > > About two-thirds of a million Iraqi civilians have been killed since the US invasion in 2003.
> >
> > Ridiculous.
>
> What's ridiculous about it?
Your numbers. That's what is ridiculous.
> > > We also believe that the captured ones shouldn't all be given
lawyers
> > > > and tried in US Civil court, because, well, that would be insane.
> > >
> > > Democrats don't believe that either, despite what Sean Hannity might
> > > say.
> >
> > Of course Democrats believe that. For crying out loud, a vote in the
> > house proved it, when they voted that captured terrorists have the same
> > Constitutional rights as a US citizen. That clearly means that a
> > captured terrorists should be prosecuted just like a regular criminal,
> > which means they all get lawyers and go through US criminal court (I
> > misspoke and said "civil" court above).
>
> What vote was that? I don't remember anything like that.
The Military Commission Act. Just happened 3 weeks or so ago. The
Dems were against it because the law does not give Constitutional
rights to captured terrorists.
> > > > We also believe in personal responsibility, and in lower taxes, even
> > > > for you!
> > >
> > > Oh, Democrats don't believe in personal responsibility at all.
> >
> > Few do. Most encourage "treatment" over punishment of criminals, for
> > example. Since one of the huge backers of the Democratic party are
> > trial lawyers, it's understandable why that is.
>
> That is complete horseshit and I defy you to back it up with evidence.
Evidence of trial lawyers giving money to dems? Are you kidding?
> >
> > > And by all means, let's lower taxes even further and bankrupt the government.
> >
> > The fact that you don't understand that lowering taxes from their
> > current levels actually INCREASE funding to the government just shows
> > how mixed up you are. If you don't believe me, just go to the US
> > treasury website and look at the government receipts from the past 2
> > years.
>
> I understand more than you do or ever will. The immediate effect of
> reducing taxation is a reduction in revenue to the government. How
> could it be otherwise? Some conservatives argue that tax cuts stimulate
> the economy which leads in turn to increased tax receipts. But the
> evidence of this is circumstantial.
Revenues go up long term after a tax cut. That's not circumstantial,
it's fact. Compare the revenues for the past 3 years, adjust for
inflation and population growth, and it's gone up after the tax cuts.
Happens every time. How could it not? People have more of their own
money to spend, which spurs consumer spending, which spurs service jobs
and manufacturing. It's pretty basic economics. Think of it the other
way, if everyone was taxed 100% (or left enough to just pay their rent
and buy food), what do you think the economy would do? Everything
would crumble.
The real question is why do you think the government is smarter at
spending your money than you are.
> > > >Most of us believe it shouldn't be legal to kill babies 5
> > > > seconds before they're born, no matter how "depressed" the mother is.
> > >
> > > Gee, why not? Every Democrat I talk to says it should be legal to kill
> > > babies right up to 2.5 seconds before they're born.
> >
> > You should move to Kansas. They let you kill them 0.000001 second
> > before birth.
> >
> >
> > > As a liberal I say,
> > > why stop at birth? I think parents should have the right to kill their
> > > children up until their 18th birthdays.
> >
> > The way some liberal judges treat sex predators, you're on your way.
>
> Yeah, right.
> >
> > > > Now, if you'd like to tell me what you'd do, besides withdrawing from
> > > > Iraq and allowing millions to be murdered, which would allow Iran to
> > > > ostensibly take over that country, I'd love to hear it.
> > >
> > > No, let's hear your solution.
> >
> > Haven't you been paying attention? I already gave it to you. Your
> > turn.
>
> I don't know what the solution is to the Iraq catastrophe. People who
> are a lot smarter and better informed than I am don't know what it is,
> either.
So you want to put them in charge?
> But I do know that there is no possibility of a good outcome
> from this adventure, which has been horrendously, I would even say
> criminally, mismanaged. Donald Rumsfeld deserves to be hanged right
> next to Saddam Hussein.
Of course there's a god outcome. We cripple the terrorist network at
least to a point so they can't pull off another 9/11, or worse. At
that point, if we keep up the fight in more of a "maintenance mode",
they become no more than a nuisance. But at least you admit you have
no plan, even amidst your blind rage.
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 03:49:53
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 7 Nov 2006 13:09:20 -0800, "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Of course Democrats believe that. For crying out loud, a vote in the
> >house proved it, when they voted that captured terrorists have the same
> >Constitutional rights as a US citizen. That clearly means that a
> >captured terrorists should be prosecuted just like a regular criminal,
> >which means they all get lawyers and go through US criminal court (I
> >misspoke and said "civil" court above).
>
> That is "accused terrorists". If the state never makes mistakes
> then we don't need a justice system, none of us need due process, and
> none of us need trials. If it does make mistakes, then all of us
> need due process.
So in a war situation, it's ask questions first, and NEVER shoot,
right? I mean, cops aren't allowed to shoot first, so why should
anyone on the battlefield? After all we don't know for SURE they're
terrorists, right?
|
| | |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 13:00:19
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
On 8 Nov 2006 03:49:53 -0800, "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com >
wrote:
>So in a war situation, it's ask questions first, and NEVER shoot,
>right? I mean, cops aren't allowed to shoot first, so why should
>anyone on the battlefield? After all we don't know for SURE they're
>terrorists, right?
Cops can shoot guys who are shooting at them - they aren't allowed to
shoot guys who are captured and are in jail.
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 20:57:16
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
Larry Bud wrote:
>
> You STILL ignored the question: Do you want the United States to win
> in Iraq?
We've already won. Now let's get the fuck out.
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 20:17:35
From: JJVP
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
On Nov 8, 1:11 pm, "Larry Bud" <larrybud2...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> annika1980 wrote:
> > JJVP wrote:
>
> > > Lower taxes have INCREASED the government revenue. That is a FACT.
>
> > How do you figure?
>
> > For example, I got my $600 check from one of Bush's tax cuts.
> > How does the government recoup that $600?
>
> > Do you think that $600 is gonna spur more industry and growth which
> > will generate tax revenues of over $600? Hell, no it won't.Of course it does.
>
> > I
> > probably paid bills or bought something silly with it, perhaps paying
> > sales tax to the state, but the Federal government ain't gonna see that
> > $600 come back.Of course they are. You buying a new driver allows Nike or Titleist to
> spend money on R&D, or hire new sales people. Of course, Nike paid
> someone for their raw materials, graphite, carbon, titanium. Someone
> had to supply that from them. Every step of the way the government
> gets a piece of that. Nike has to pay their employees. The more you
> spend with Nike, the more people they hire, which means more income
> taxes are paid to the government.
>
> There's a sweet spot in which income tax rate vs. revenue peaks. We're
> still WELL above that sweet spot.
>
> Ask yourself this: How much growth would Nike have if you were taxes
> at 100% rate, only having enough money for shelter and food?
You are wasting your time. Liberals are too stupid to understand
economics and taxes.
JJVP
|
| | |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 22:21:19
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
On 8 Nov 2006 20:17:35 -0800, "JJVP" <jjvp10@gmail.com > wrote:
>
>
>On Nov 8, 1:11 pm, "Larry Bud" <larrybud2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> annika1980 wrote:
>> > JJVP wrote:
<clip >
>You are wasting your time. Liberals are too stupid to understand
>economics and taxes.
>
>
>JJVP
LLLLarry has a clone.
___,
\o
|
| | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 13:03:30
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
On 8 Nov 2006 20:17:35 -0800, "JJVP" <jjvp10@gmail.com > wrote:
>You are wasting your time. Liberals are too stupid to understand
>economics and taxes.
We haven't had a chance to see what economic conservatives would do
with economics and taxes. A deficit budget is a tax.
|
| | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 06:53:48
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
In article <1163045855.683151.42350@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >,
"JJVP" <jjvp10@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Nov 8, 1:11 pm, "Larry Bud" <larrybud2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > annika1980 wrote:
> > > JJVP wrote:
> >
> > > > Lower taxes have INCREASED the government revenue. That is a FACT.
> >
> > > How do you figure?
> >
> > > For example, I got my $600 check from one of Bush's tax cuts.
> > > How does the government recoup that $600?
> >
> > > Do you think that $600 is gonna spur more industry and growth which
> > > will generate tax revenues of over $600? Hell, no it won't.Of course it
> > > does.
> >
> > > I
> > > probably paid bills or bought something silly with it, perhaps paying
> > > sales tax to the state, but the Federal government ain't gonna see that
> > > $600 come back.Of course they are. You buying a new driver allows Nike
> > > or Titleist to
> > spend money on R&D, or hire new sales people. Of course, Nike paid
> > someone for their raw materials, graphite, carbon, titanium. Someone
> > had to supply that from them. Every step of the way the government
> > gets a piece of that. Nike has to pay their employees. The more you
> > spend with Nike, the more people they hire, which means more income
> > taxes are paid to the government.
> >
> > There's a sweet spot in which income tax rate vs. revenue peaks. We're
> > still WELL above that sweet spot.
> >
> > Ask yourself this: How much growth would Nike have if you were taxes
> > at 100% rate, only having enough money for shelter and food?
>
> You are wasting your time. Liberals are too stupid to understand
> economics and taxes.
>
>
> JJVP
And comments like that, of course, exemplify your withering
intelligence. Yup, a real credit to the right.
William Clark
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 12:03:05
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
John B. wrote:
> Larry Bud wrote:
> > John B. wrote:
> > > Larry Bud wrote:
> > > > > > > Do we? How do you know? Do terrorists wear t-shirts that say "I'm a
> > > > > > > Terrorist" on them?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The fact that Abu Musab Zarqawi and many others have been captured or
> > > > > > killed in country. Do you not consider Zarqawi a terrorist?
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course he was, and I'm glad he's dead. But that's one guy. You seem
> > > > > to think that every person who has been killed in Iraq was a terrorist.
> > > >
> > > > You asked me if we know if there are terrorists in Iraq, I gave you a
> > > > real life example.
> > >
> > > I asked you nothing of the sort. I asked you how you knew that every
> > > person killed by US forces in Iraq was a terrorist.
> >
> > Don't be dishonest John.
>
> Fuck you Larry. I'm not dishonest. You're losing the argument. Iraq was
> not a source of terrorism before we invaded it.
And here I thought I was having a reasonble discussion. You obviously
changed your "question" trying to make it look like I answered a
different question. That's dishonest. Thanks to google, we can all
see the Q&A. I answered your question. You didn't like the answer, so
you changed the question.
> > > > > Bullshit. Before the invasion of Iraq, not one person who was known to
> > > > > have committed a terrorist act against US citizens or interests was
> > > > > Iraqi. Not one.
> > > >
> > > > That's not what a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report says,
> > > > nor does the 9/11 commission report:
> > > >
> > > > "The 9/11 Commission Report (p. 66):
> > > > "In March 1998, after bin Laden's public fatwa against the United
> > > > States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraq
> > > > Intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to
> > > > meet first with the Taliban and then with bin Laden." "
> > >
> > > A meeting is not a terrorist act. No Iraqis are known to have committed
> > > terrorist acts against the US before we invaded Iraq.
> >
> > So someone has to kill us before we can get them and deem them
> > terrorists? Your question was whether or not there were terrorists
> > in country before we invaded, not whether or not they committed acts
> > against the US.
>
> A question you have failed to answer.
I already told you, and proved, that terrorists existed in Iraq. The
fact that you don't think that a meeting can be a terrorist act is the
problem.
> > If we were to use your definition, none of the 9/11 hijackers were
> > terrorists until they actually hijacked 4 jets and killed 3000 people.
> > If we were to use your definition, we couldn't ever capture or kill
> > them until they kill us.
>
> So, we invaded Iraq on the assumption that some people there might
> become terrorists if we didn't?
Not at all. I'm just applying your logic that one must actually commit
terrorist acts against the US to be terrorists and using it in a real
life example.
We invaded Iraq based on poor intelligence provided by the CIA, MI-6,
and Russian intelligence service. All of those intelligence agencies
were in agreement about WMD, and they were all wrong. We can't go back
in time, so now the question is what do we do now? What's in the best
interest of the United States at this point in time?
But that ignores the obvious outcome of the way you want to handle the
bad guys. Using your methods, we couldn't kill the bad guys planning
on killing us, because, as you say "a meeting is not a terrorist act".
It's scary that you believe that, seriously. Hell, if you applied
that to US law, it wouldn't be illegal to plan to murder somebody, or
plan to rob a bank. The actual act would have to be committed before
it could be acted upon.
> > > > > > > About two-thirds of a million Iraqi civilians have been killed since the US invasion in 2003.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ridiculous.
> > > > >
> > > > > What's ridiculous about it?
> > > >
> > > > Your numbers. That's what is ridiculous.
> > >
> > > They're not my numbers. They are the product of a research project
> > > undertaken by Johns Hopkins University. Given that we know that Iraqi
> > > civilians die at the rate of roughly 100 per day, they don't seem all
> > > that far-fetched today.
> >
> > 365 days * 3 years * 100 per day=100,000, not 670,000.
>
> I'll tell you what, Larry. I'll pass this on to the people at Johns
> Hopkins. I'm sure they'll revise their numbers when they see it. And of
> course, 100,000 civilian deaths is perfectly acceptable.
I'm sorry I'm calling you out on the numbers you're using, but you're
the one claiming that 2/3 of a million were killed, then when we do the
math using your numbers, it's 100,000. I'm not debating the morality
of the number killed, I'm questioning your initial number, which now
apparently you're backing away from. I'm sorry your numbers don't add
up.
> > > > The Military Commission Act. Just happened 3 weeks or so ago. The
> > > > Dems were against it because the law does not give Constitutional
> > > > rights to captured terrorists.
> > >
> > > Wrong. They voted against it because it gives the US military the right
> > > to torture suspects.
> >
> > Right, because they believe the suspects have Constitutional rights.
>
> ALL people, according to the UN Declaration on Human Rights, which the
> United States ratified, have the right not to be tortured.
Alright, I'll call your bluff. What do you want to do with the people
we capture?
> > What about them? We take care of them in a case by case basis. There
> > are several different fronts on the war on terror.
> Well, isn't that glib. You said earlier that the war in Iraq IS the war
> on terror.
No, I said the Iraq war is A war on terror. What do you think it is?
A picnic? There are all sorts of things going on, such as freezing
bank account, covert ops, etc.
> Winning in Iraq, which is probably impossible at this point,
> does not insulate the US from terrorism, as you earlier suggested and
> now admit is wrong.
Don't put words in my mouth. I never said it insulates. It's a battle
among many. Do you think it would HELP the US avoid terrorism if Iraq
falls to the insurgents?
You STILL ignored the question: Do you want the United States to win
in Iraq?
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 11:41:39
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
> > > > Lower taxes have INCREASED the government revenue. That is a FACT.So how do you explain the chart at
> > >
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/charts_R/R1.cfm
> The Heritage Foundation is not the arbiter of all that is factual.
> Their chart is based on a number of assumptions that are debatable at
> best. The Congressional Budget Office, which unlike Heritage is
> non-partisan, does not take the view that lowering taxes increases
> revenue.
You clearly didn't even look at the chart.
All the chart is is revenue broken into corporate taxes and individual
taxes, and total taxes, by year. No assumptions made. Actual CBO
numbers, in handy chart form. As you can see, revenue increased after
the '03 tax cuts.
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 11:32:22
From: John B.
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
JJVP wrote:
> Why don't you look at this chart:
>
> http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/charts_R/R1.cfm
>
> "Government revenue has soared by more than $1.6 trillion since 1960,
> in part because top marginal income, capital gains, and corporate tax
> rates were cut."
>
> JJVP
>
> On Nov 8, 1:29 am, The World Wide Wade
> <waderameyx...@comcast.remove13.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <1162961898.264875.231...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> > "JJVP" <jjv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 7, 5:51 pm, tiggerspalewife <a...@comments.header> wrote:
> > > > In article <1162938332.692730.193...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> >
> > > > "JJVP" <jjv...@gmail.com> wrote:Stop talking and google the latest GAO
> > > > report on the chances of our
> > > > financial system reaching critical mass if we maintain the present fiscal
> > > > policies. Tax cuts have burdened the "war" effort even more and families
> > > > making between 30K and 95K a year actually have 3K less real income on
> > > > average than 6 years ago. Don't throw out JFK and think we're going to
> > > > bite on policies that occurred 5 decades ago. I hold people like you
> > > > personally responsible for the mess we are in by voting, probably twice,
> > > > for the very morons that put us there. That's your legacy to kids and
> > > > grandkids in this country to pay a debt accumulated by a fake war, lied
> > > > about by the head jackasses for the only reason being to have an agenda
> > > > and be reelected as a wartime president. Now, go google.
> >
> > > Lower taxes have INCREASED the government revenue. That is a FACT.So how do you explain the chart at
> >
> > http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/charts_C/c2...
The Heritage Foundation is not the arbiter of all that is factual.
Their chart is based on a number of assumptions that are debatable at
best. The Congressional Budget Office, which unlike Heritage is
non-partisan, does not take the view that lowering taxes increases
revenue.
> >
> > which shows Bush to be the sole president from 1964 to now under
> > whom average federal revenue decreased? The comparisons between
> > Democrats and Republicans here is somewhat amusing.
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 11:28:32
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
> > Lower taxes have INCREASED the government revenue. That is a FACT. If
> > you want to send more of your money to the feds, there is nothing
> > stopping you. Just keep what you think is right for you and send the
> > rest to the feds.
>
> Facts are provable via the provision of incontrovertible evidence. Why
> don't you provide that here =====>
This isn't black magic Federal tax collections since the 2003 tax cut
have gone UP, not down, due to stronger economic growth. The more
money you and I have to spend, the more money companies have to hire
people and give larger wages, which allow people to spend even more
money, which boost those companies that are selling more goods.
If you had 0 dollars extra to spend (after rent & food) due to a 100%
effective tax rate, what do you think would happen to economic growth?
How many golf balls would Titleist sell?
Federal tax collections for 2006 jumped by 11.8 percent, climbing from
$2.15 trillion in FY2005 to $2.41 trillion in FY2006. This $254 billion
increase was more than three times faster than needed to keep pace with
inflation. Federal tax revenues reached 18.4 percent of gross domestic
product (GDP), above the post-World War II average of 18.3 percent.
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 11:18:59
From: John B.
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
Larry Bud wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> > Larry Bud wrote:
> > > > > > Do we? How do you know? Do terrorists wear t-shirts that say "I'm a
> > > > > > Terrorist" on them?
> > > > >
> > > > > The fact that Abu Musab Zarqawi and many others have been captured or
> > > > > killed in country. Do you not consider Zarqawi a terrorist?
> > > >
> > > > Of course he was, and I'm glad he's dead. But that's one guy. You seem
> > > > to think that every person who has been killed in Iraq was a terrorist.
> > >
> > > You asked me if we know if there are terrorists in Iraq, I gave you a
> > > real life example.
> >
> > I asked you nothing of the sort. I asked you how you knew that every
> > person killed by US forces in Iraq was a terrorist.
>
> Don't be dishonest John.
Fuck you Larry. I'm not dishonest. You're losing the argument. Iraq was
not a source of terrorism before we invaded it.
Here's the conversation:
>
> ME:
> >>> Now, many terrorists are
> >>> located in Iraq, as demonstrated by the fact that we kill and capture
> >>> them all the time.
>
> > > Do we? How do you know?
>
> You asked me "how do you know" in regard to my statement that we kill
> and capture terrorists all the time. You did NOT ask that EVERY PERSON
> KILLED was a terrorist.
>
>
> > > > > > Also, were there "terrorists" in Iraq before we got there?
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course.
> > > >
> > > > Bullshit. Before the invasion of Iraq, not one person who was known to
> > > > have committed a terrorist act against US citizens or interests was
> > > > Iraqi. Not one.
> > >
> > > That's not what a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report says,
> > > nor does the 9/11 commission report:
> > >
> > > "The 9/11 Commission Report (p. 66):
> > > "In March 1998, after bin Laden's public fatwa against the United
> > > States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraq
> > > Intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to
> > > meet first with the Taliban and then with bin Laden." "
> >
> > A meeting is not a terrorist act. No Iraqis are known to have committed
> > terrorist acts against the US before we invaded Iraq.
>
> So someone has to kill us before we can get them and deem them
> terrorists? Your question was whether or not there were terrorists
> in country before we invaded, not whether or not they committed acts
> against the US.
A question you have failed to answer.
>
> If we were to use your definition, none of the 9/11 hijackers were
> terrorists until they actually hijacked 4 jets and killed 3000 people.
> If we were to use your definition, we couldn't ever capture or kill
> them until they kill us.
So, we invaded Iraq on the assumption that some people there might
become terrorists if we didn't?
>
> > > > > > About two-thirds of a million Iraqi civilians have been killed since the US invasion in 2003.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ridiculous.
> > > >
> > > > What's ridiculous about it?
> > >
> > > Your numbers. That's what is ridiculous.
> >
> > They're not my numbers. They are the product of a research project
> > undertaken by Johns Hopkins University. Given that we know that Iraqi
> > civilians die at the rate of roughly 100 per day, they don't seem all
> > that far-fetched today.
>
> 365 days * 3 years * 100 per day=100,000, not 670,000.
I'll tell you what, Larry. I'll pass this on to the people at Johns
Hopkins. I'm sure they'll revise their numbers when they see it. And of
course, 100,000 civilian deaths is perfectly acceptable.
>
> > > > What vote was that? I don't remember anything like that.
> > >
> > > The Military Commission Act. Just happened 3 weeks or so ago. The
> > > Dems were against it because the law does not give Constitutional
> > > rights to captured terrorists.
> >
> > Wrong. They voted against it because it gives the US military the right
> > to torture suspects.
>
> Right, because they believe the suspects have Constitutional rights.
ALL people, according to the UN Declaration on Human Rights, which the
United States ratified, have the right not to be tortured.
>
> > > > > > > We also believe in personal responsibility, and in lower taxes, even
> > > > > > > for you!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Oh, Democrats don't believe in personal responsibility at all.
> > > > >
> > > > > Few do. Most encourage "treatment" over punishment of criminals, for
> > > > > example. Since one of the huge backers of the Democratic party are
> > > > > trial lawyers, it's understandable why that is.
> > > >
> > > > That is complete horseshit and I defy you to back it up with evidence.
> > >
> > > Evidence of trial lawyers giving money to dems? Are you kidding?
> > >
> > Not that. The assertion that "most" democrats think criminals should
> > get treatment, not jail time. That's ridiculous.
>
> No it's not. We see it with the fights against Jessica's law, for
> instance, or in other cases of raising minimum sentences.
>
> > > Of course there's a god outcome. We cripple the terrorist network at
> > > least to a point so they can't pull off another 9/11, or worse. At
> > > that point, if we keep up the fight in more of a "maintenance mode",
> > > they become no more than a nuisance. But at least you admit you have
> > > no plan, even amidst your blind rage.
> >
> >
> > "Winning" in Iraq cripples the terrorist network?
>
> It certainly doesn't help it. Just like winning the battle of midway
> crippled Japan.
>
> > What about all the
> > terrorists who aren't in Iraq, like the thousands of al Qaeda and
> > Taliban fanatics in western Pakistan? What about all the angry young
> > Muslim males who are likely to become terrorists in the future?
>
> What about them? We take care of them in a case by case basis. There
> are several different fronts on the war on terror.
Well, isn't that glib. You said earlier that the war in Iraq IS the war
on terror. Winning in Iraq, which is probably impossible at this point,
does not insulate the US from terrorism, as you earlier suggested and
now admit is wrong.
>
> You ignored the question: Do you want the United States to win in Iraq?
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 11:13:32
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
annika1980 wrote:
> JJVP wrote:
> > >
> > Lower taxes have INCREASED the government revenue. That is a FACT.
>
> How do you figure?
>
> For example, I got my $600 check from one of Bush's tax cuts.
> How does the government recoup that $600?
>
> Do you think that $600 is gonna spur more industry and growth which
> will generate tax revenues of over $600? Hell, no it won't. I
> probably paid bills or bought something silly with it, perhaps paying
> sales tax to the state, but the Federal government ain't gonna see that
> $600 come back.
BTW, any of you who believes they are undertaxed, you're more than
welcome to give the money directly back to the US Treasury. They WILL
take it.
I just can't help but wonder why you think the government can spend
your money more wisely than you can, especially with all the
anti-government sentiment I read here.
And on a larger note, why should more money, which means more power, be
given to the government anyway?
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 11:11:36
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
annika1980 wrote:
> JJVP wrote:
> > >
> > Lower taxes have INCREASED the government revenue. That is a FACT.
>
> How do you figure?
>
> For example, I got my $600 check from one of Bush's tax cuts.
> How does the government recoup that $600?
>
> Do you think that $600 is gonna spur more industry and growth which
> will generate tax revenues of over $600? Hell, no it won't.
Of course it does.
> I
> probably paid bills or bought something silly with it, perhaps paying
> sales tax to the state, but the Federal government ain't gonna see that
> $600 come back.
Of course they are. You buying a new driver allows Nike or Titleist to
spend money on R&D, or hire new sales people. Of course, Nike paid
someone for their raw materials, graphite, carbon, titanium. Someone
had to supply that from them. Every step of the way the government
gets a piece of that. Nike has to pay their employees. The more you
spend with Nike, the more people they hire, which means more income
taxes are paid to the government.
There's a sweet spot in which income tax rate vs. revenue peaks. We're
still WELL above that sweet spot.
Ask yourself this: How much growth would Nike have if you were taxes
at 100% rate, only having enough money for shelter and food?
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 11:07:07
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
tiggerspalewife wrote:
> In article <1162938332.692730.193450@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> "JJVP" <jjvp10@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Stop talking and google the latest GAO report on the chances of our
> financial system reaching critical mass if we maintain the present fiscal
> policies.
Well no shit. But it doesn't have to do with tax cuts, it has to do
with runaway spending. For chrissake, there's 2 trillion dollars going
into the treasury every year. That's not enough? CUT SPENDING. I
mean a REAL cut, not the bullshit "they're not raising spending as much
as we want so we'll call it a cut".
Why you guys can't look at the real dollars going into the treasury and
understand that number is going UP, not down, is beyond me.
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 11:04:47
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
frisbieinstein@yahoo.com wrote:
> Larry Bud wrote:
> > > > > Do we? How do you know? Do terrorists wear t-shirts that say "I'm a
> > > > > Terrorist" on them?
> > > >
> > > > The fact that Abu Musab Zarqawi and many others have been captured or
> > > > killed in country. Do you not consider Zarqawi a terrorist?
> > >
> > > And that makes everyone who's been killed or captured a terrorist?
> >
> > The fact that they're shooting at our guys is a pretty good clue.
> >
>
> The nerve! If somebody invaded the US and killed 100,000 people and
> tortured some more, we'd be a lot more friendly, that's for sure.
With all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about. The
vast majority of people who are shooting at us are Syrian and Iranian
invaders, they are not the general Iraqi people.
The problem with so many of you is that you put radical terrorists on
the same moral plane as the US. You're idealogy blinds you from being
able to identify the good guys and the bad guys.
|
| | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 00:16:08
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: An Election Day Reminder: Why we are in Iraq
|
On 8 Nov 2006 11:04:47 -0800, "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com >
wrote:
>> The nerve! If somebody invaded the US and killed 100,000 people and
>> tortured some more, we'd be a lot more friendly, that's for sure.
>
>With all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about. The
>vast majority of people who are shooting at us are Syrian and Iranian
>invaders, they are not the general Iraqi people.
That's what we get from believing the administration.
|
|
