It's no secret that bush is the most Worldly hated Pres ever ...

[HelloKitty]

Originally posted by Chris
People have short memories Ned, they fail to remember that the US could not keep a largew army sitting in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia forever, which was the way Saddam was being contained. They also seem to have forgotten that Iraq only reluctently allowed inspectors, and only because there was an army nearby.

The worst part of this memory loss is that Saddam had found a way around the sanctions, and they were, in fact, collapsing. The Dulfer report was very clear that no weapons were in Iraq, but it also was clear about something else:
Saddam was fully prepared to begin mass production of chemical and biological agents the minute sanctions vanished.

Yep. He intended to do that. He just didn't have the ability, equipment, or resources.

We didn't invade for that reason anyway. This is revisionist history.

There were and are still many more legit targets that are a threat to the US. Iraq was never one of them until we invaded.

[Koshko]

Originally posted by Shining1
Koshko: Does the U.S have anything like the CPI (Consumer Price Index) in New Zealand?

It's a measure of goods and services that directly affect people's day to day lives, and it's a better measure of 'real' inflation than looking at the simple number for the economy as a whole.


Chris: Yeah that helps a bit. Iraq is still scary as hell, though, and I over time I've come to think that the decision to go there when the threat was so indirect compared to the direct threat from the terrorists was less than ideal.

Yes it does. We've got loads of indexes (or is it indices?).
I'm not sure what we call it here exactly offhand though.

[Angelhorns]

Originally posted by Chris
People have short memories Ned, they fail to remember that the US could not keep a largew army sitting in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia forever, which was the way Saddam was being contained. They also seem to have forgotten that Iraq only reluctently allowed inspectors, and only because there was an army nearby.

The worst part of this memory loss is that Saddam had found a way around the sanctions, and they were, in fact, collapsing. The Dulfer report was very clear that no weapons were in Iraq, but it also was clear about something else:
Saddam was fully prepared to begin mass production of chemical and biological agents the minute sanctions vanished.

Iraq were no threat, N.Korea however....
It was just a big revenge war based on mistruthifications or whatever Bush likes to call it.
I'm not mourning the loss of hussein, but if there was ever a time to depose him it was back in the 80's when his own people rose up and asked for our help.
You can't force democracy on people...its well...undemocratic.

[Chris]

And again, its a short term thing.

Last year, I was hearing how Afghanistan was a useless quagmire also.

They just had their first election since fish walked out of the sea.

It will be the same in Iraq eventually.

As for North Korea horns, what would you suggesty be done?
The US entered a treaty with them in the early 90s, they promised not to build nukes, we paid them not to.

They built nukes anyway.

What is the plan now?

[HelloKitty]

[
The 9/11 report says EXCATLY that Kitty.
It said it could not find an OPPERATIONAL connection TO 9/11, HOWEVER, it did find numerous DIRECT links between Saddam, Al Qaeda as well as Palestian terror organizations.

By direct links you mean "made phone contact or met in the last 20 years.

really?
How many Iraqi petrol dollars are going to terrorists, and how are they getting it?

Now the iraqi petrol dollars are going to our glorious homeland Halliburterica. How many were going before the war?


I'm pro-choice, so this comment is just another misfire on your part.

Who said you weren't? By your logic noone should be concerned though.

Those are accidents?

The freedom fighters in Iraq are killing by accident? Try to worm your way ourt of bad arguements a different way.

Who might they be?
People under 17,000 don't pay income taxes, and the last series of cuts included all levels, the 'tax cut for the rich' is a slogan, not a fact.

Unless you look at how they are distributed. The poor and lower middle class barely had any change, and in fact more people are in poverty now than ever before. But hey, that major tax cut that didn't do anythign for them has to help!

[Shining1]

Even under such conditions, Chris, you have the following choice:

* A nasty guy who *might* start producing things the moment the world is not looking, but who's more likely to use them to prop up his own regime and scare potential invaders.

VS.

* The people responsible for 9/11, who are still free.

I don't think Iraq was a winner for Duyba, I think he dropped the ball almost completely there. Without Iraq, you'd have a president who had more elbowroom in the budget for his educational showpiece, far less discord and anger internationally, and hey, with the extra resource the military might even have found Osama (a dead cert election winner right there and no mistake).

I mean, the appriopriate parallel with Iraq is north Korea. A vicious dictatorship being incredibly ruthless and mean to its population, and pursuing the development of nuclear weapons. There's a huge amount of concern, but absolutely no talk of invasion.

Iraq remains a serious, and even suspicious, blot with Dubya for a lot of people.

[HelloKitty]

Originally posted by Chris
And again, its a short term thing.

Last year, I was hearing how Afghanistan was a useless quagmire also.

They just had their first election since fish walked out of the sea.

It will be the same in Iraq eventually.

As for North Korea horns, what would you suggesty be done?
The US entered a treaty with them in the early 90s, they promised not to build nukes, we paid them not to.

They built nukes anyway.

What is the plan now?

We enter treaty, they don't build nukes. Bush comes into office and violates every treaty made in the last 8 years and refuses to negotiate with N Korea. N Korea builds nukes. Bush blames N Korea for his own idiocy.

[Chris]

12 years Ned, 12 years.

When is the 'right time?'

[Chris]

Originally posted by HelloKitty
We enter treaty, they don't build nukes.

They built them during the Clinton years, they only because operational during teh Bush era.
See what I mean by your bombastic comments kitty?

Bush comes into office and violates every treaty made in the last 8 years and refuses to negotiate with N Korea.

Again, there it is again, you just make it up as you go along.
Explain how he 'violated' the traety.

N Korea builds nukes. Bush blames N Korea for his own idiocy.

And we see the perfect example of how you operate Kitty, make it up, add a plausible piece of bullshit in the middle, and a scarcastic and insulting finish.

This was exactly why the left lost the election, people saw through this stuff.

[HelloKitty]

Originally posted by Chris
12 years Ned, 12 years.

When is the 'right time?'

Apparently the "right time" is when you can make up things that will scare the hell out of the public after a major terrorist attack so they won't question you.

Iraq hadn't been a threat to anyone since the gulf war.

Now they are the centerpiece of proof about the goals of the US.

[Shining1]

Perhaps when you've done the utmost possible to depower the overwhelming current threat, THEN you deal with the one over the horizon.

After all, the NK gooks have kinda demonstrated that weapons programs are one thing, actually getting anything right is another. 12 years and Saddam becomes a sad old man with a crumbling regime, who knows what pressure might work then.

Additionally, if you're going to invade a heavily muslim country, it would have been a good idea to invade it AFTER you've done your level best to depower Al Qaeda, not before or during. That way you reduce the level of organised insurgency that springs up immediately after the military victory.

[HelloKitty]

Originally posted by Chris
They built them during the Clinton years, they only because operational during teh Bush era.
See what I mean by your bombastic comments kitty?

Again, there it is again, you just make it up as you go along.
Explain how he 'violated' the traety.

And we see the perfect example of how you operate Kitty, make it up, add a plausible piece of bullshit in the middle, and a scarcastic and insulting finish.

This was exactly why the left lost the election, people saw through this stuff.

You sure have a short term memory. Try to recal the days after bush was appointed. try to remember what happened when Powell had to "correct" himself after talking about continuing working with Korea. Try to remember N Korea's reaction. try to remember S Korea's reaction.

As for why the left lost, it wasn't because people saw through "this stuff" (the facts), it was because they were not able to see through the fear mongering smokescreen.

[Shining1]

Btw, big ups to Chris for single handedly responding to at least 4 different people all at the same time here... =)

[Chris]

Originally posted by HelloKitty
Apparently the "right time" is when you can make up things that will scare the hell out of the public after a major terrorist attack so they won't question you.

Iraq hadn't been a threat to anyone since the gulf war.

Now they are the centerpiece of proof about the goals of the US.

See that is a crystal ball, eh Kitty?

You knew all along Saddam was a poor victim, and Bush was determined to put his presidency in jeopardy to just to get rid of him.

That's the problem with this, talk about rediculous, it doesn't get any better, to believe you, we have to believe Bush didn't care about:
Being re-elected
The economy
The armed forces

It doesn't add up, and befor eyou say 'oil' we had all we wanted through the oil for food scam.

[Koshko]

To really look at how different you are post-tax restructuring is to do a before and after comparsion of your typical costs. It's math time!
Example: Billy gets a $300 bonus tax refund check from the government this year. During the course of of a week Billy uses 15 gallons of gas driving to work and back and to the stores and back. This is a pretty common weekly total for a person. Let's just say the the avg price of gas was $1.80 in his area for the longest time. That comes out to spending $27 a week on gas for Billy. Now lets say that the price of gas makes a jump to about $2 and then fluxuates around that total for and extended period of time. This now means that Billy is spending $30 a week. In other words, he is now spending $3 more per week for gas. That doesn't sound like much per week, but look at it over an extended period of time ... Let's say that the avg was about $2 for the year and counting days off, Billy worked 50 weeks that year. $3 more a week * 50 weeks = $150 more a year. In other words, HALF of his extra rebate check went into paying for the increase in gas prices. Add that to an increase in the prices at food at the store and things like that, the $300 may easily be wiped out by the increases in costs. Basically getting more back in breaks does not necessarilly mean you have more money to splurge with.

[Chris]

Originally posted by Shining1
Btw, big ups to Chris for single handedly responding to at least 4 different people all at the same time here... =)

It isn't hard Ned, Kitty repeats almost verbatum the left's bullshit, I have heard it all a thousnad times.

Kitty, SHOW US how Bush violated the treaty.
Not that Powell 'corected him' which is just more nonsense, but show me where, and how, the US violated the treaty.

[HelloKitty]

Originally posted by Chris
See that is a crystal ball, eh Kitty?

You knew all along Saddam was a poor victim, and Bush was determined to put his presidency in jeopardy to just to get rid of him.

That's the problem with this, talk about rediculous, it doesn't get any better, to believe you, we have to believe Bush didn't care about:
Being re-elected
The economy
The armed forces

It doesn't add up, and befor eyou say 'oil' we had all we wanted through the oil for food scam.

So the admin didn't think that wartime presidents get a huge boost in aproval ratings?

So you don't think the admin hoped that the cost of the war would generate the industral revenue that would give the economy a boost?

So you think that they give a damn about the common solider or the common person? Everything they have done says they don't.

[HelloKitty]

Originally posted by Chris
It isn't hard Ned, Kitty repeats almost verbatum the left's bullshit, I have heard it all a thousnad times.

Kitty, SHOW US how Bush violated the treaty.
Not that Powell 'corected him' which is just more nonsense, but show me where, and how, the US violated the treaty.

No, Powell was corrected by Bush. Powell made the mistake of saying they would continue working with NKorea.

So, breaking a treaty is not violating it?

Bush stopped the payments and pulled out of talks. Yet it is N Korea who is at fault for restarting their nuke program after bush violated the treaty?

How else can I explain it?

Explain to me how this is not a violation?

[Chris]

Originally posted by Koshko
To really look at how different you are post-tax restructuring is to do a before and after comparsion of your typical costs. It's math time!
Example: Billy gets a $300 bonus tax refund check from the government this year. During the course of of a week Billy uses 15 gallons of gas driving to work and back and to the stores and back. This is a pretty common weekly total for a person. Let's just say the the avg price of gas was $1.80 in his area for the longest time. That comes out to spending $27 a week on gas for Billy. Now lets say that the price of gas makes a jump to about $2 and then fluxuates around that total for and extended period of time. This now means that Billy is spending $30 a week. In other words, he is now spending $3 more per week for gas. That doesn't sound like much per week, but look at it over an extended period of time ... Let's say that the avg was about $2 for the year and counting days off, Billy worked 50 weeks that year. $3 more a week * 50 weeks = $150 more a year. In other words, HALF of his extra rebate check went into paying for the increase in gas prices. Add that to an increase in the prices at food at the store and things like that, the $300 may easily be wiped out by the increases in costs. Basically getting more back in breaks does not necessarilly mean you have more money to splurge with.

Without the tax break, Billy's company folds, billy is thrown out of work, and since the cost of operating is so high, Billy is added to the unemployment rolls, as remains unable to find work, as the economy continues to implode under a severe tax burden (which doesn't hurt the super rich, BTW, ask Tereza, she paid 17% in taxes on her billions). Billy's unemploement runs out, and Billy is homeless.

Desponded, Billy slits his wrists and dies.

[Chris]

Originally posted by HelloKitty
No, Powell was corrected by Bush. Powell made the mistake of saying they would continue working with NKorea.

So, breaking a treaty is not violating it?

Bush stopped the payments and pulled out of talks. Yet it is N Korea who is at fault for restarting their nuke program after bush violated the treaty?

How else can I explain it?

Explain to me how this is not a violation?

AFTER NORTH KOREA HAD STARTED ENRICHING URANIUM, in violation of the traety.

I knew this before we began Kitty, Bush didn't break the treaty, Kim Ill Jung did, but you are too partisan to see it.

[HelloKitty]

Originally posted by Chris
Without the tax break, Billy's company folds, billy is thrown out of work, and since the cost of operating is so high, Billy is added to the unemployment rolls, as remains unable to find work, as the economy continues to implode under a severe tax burden (which doesn't hurt the super rich, BTW, ask Tereza, she paid 17% in taxes on her billions). Billy's unemploement runs out, and Billy is homeless.

Desponded, Billy slits his wrists and dies.

What percent of our taxes came from buisnesses last year vs individuals?

Why don't you put that information down and see how stupid your arguement comes off?

[Angelhorns]

Originally posted by Chris
And again, its a short term thing.

Last year, I was hearing how Afghanistan was a useless quagmire also.

They just had their first election since fish walked out of the sea.

It will be the same in Iraq eventually.

As for North Korea horns, what would you suggesty be done?
The US entered a treaty with them in the early 90s, they promised not to build nukes, we paid them not to.

They built nukes anyway.

What is the plan now?

I was merely pointing out that North Korea represented more of a clear and present danger than Iraq ever did. I imagine there's set rules for how we proceed with them. Last I heard we were 'in talks'

we have no right to force elections, war, democracy or anything else on other countries. We made it impossible for them to rise up themselves by the mediaeval sanctions we imposed. Bringing democracy by war is impossible. It reminds me of the mantra in 1984 'War is peace'. A classic case of doublespeak.

[Shining1]

Koshko:

I guess it depends on whether giving money to oil barons counts as stimulating the economy or not. Billy's as poor as he ever was, but the government isn't getting his $300 anymore.

I'd want to ask RC or Lurker or at least someone with more than a passing interest in economics about whether this is trickle down in a way that works for an economy or not.

[HelloKitty]

I'll save you the time

Individual income tax [1] 987,209 million
Corporation income tax [1] 194,146 million

As opposed to 40 years ago when iirc 80% of our taxes came from corporations? They seemed to do pretty weel.

[Chris]

Originally posted by HelloKitty

By direct links you mean "made phone contact or met in the last 20 years.

Bin Laden was making phone calls 20 years ago?
Do even you believe this bullshit?

Now the iraqi petrol dollars are going to our glorious homeland Halliburterica. How many were going before the war?

Not an asnwer, just a liberal talking point.
Next

Who said you weren't? By your logic noone should be concerned though.

Really?
How do you figure?

The freedom fighters in Iraq are killing by accident?

"Freedom fighters?"

Try to worm your way ourt of bad arguements a different way.

Talking to yourself here Kitty?

Unless you look at how they are distributed. The poor and lower middle class barely had any change, and in fact more people are in poverty now than ever before.

YTou can't cut the tax of people whom don't pay taxes.

But hey, that major tax cut that didn't do anythign for them has to help!

A non-sequitor.

[Chris]

Originally posted by HelloKitty
What percent of our taxes came from buisnesses last year vs individuals?

Why don't you put that information down and see how stupid your arguement comes off?

Look who's talking.

You are saying they didn't cut the taxes enough of people who don't pay taxes.

It doesn't get and stupider than that.

[Shining1]

Are you really suggesting that the Republicans are totally responsible for corporations not paying nearly enough tax Kitty?

Or just that an individual tax cut doesn't help enough.

And, come to think, it would kinda suck if there was no tax cut AND oil + medical expenses went up more or less by the same amount. How far can the federal government control the circumstance that affect those prices? (Including funding medicare properly and not starting wars in the middle east... :/)

[Shining1]

Bin Laden was making phonecalls 20 years ago. To the CIA...

[Koshko]

Originally posted by Chris
Without the tax break, Billy's company folds, billy is thrown out of work, and since the cost of operating is so high, Billy is added to the unemployment rolls, as remains unable to find work, as the economy continues to implode under a severe tax burden (which doesn't hurt the super rich, BTW, ask Tereza, she paid 17% in taxes on her billions). Billy's unemploement runs out, and Billy is homeless.

Desponded, Billy slits his wrists and dies.

Billy's tax break was a personal one, not a company one. Billy is just your avg employee. Basically what I was getting at is that is even if a person's taxes are lowered, they can still be (or at least feel) potentially worse off than before due to increases in thier day-to-day living costs. Sure we are greatful to get a bonus amount back, but if it's all being used for necessities, it doesn't feel like we are better off than we are before.

[Chris]

Originally posted by Shining1
Are you really suggesting that the Republicans are totally responsible for corporations not paying nearly enough tax Kitty?

Or just that an individual tax cut doesn't help enough.

And, come to think, it would kinda suck if there was no tax cut AND oil + medical expenses went up more or less by the same amount. How far can the federal government control the circumstance that affect those prices? (Including funding medicare properly and not starting wars in the middle east... :/)

BOTH sides are guilty with the tax code Ned, not the GoP.

The corporate tax laws are horrible, but raising the rate isn't an answer, as the rate is not going to where the money is.

The top .05 is where it needs to be raised, not at the $200,000 mark, this was a major sticking point with me, this level killed small business, over $5 million is where it can be upped.

The problem is, bothparties draw their funds from the top .05.

[HelloKitty]

Originally posted by Chris
Bin Laden was making phone calls 20 years ago?
Do even you believe this bullshit?

Who said Bin Laden? You listed several terrorist groups.


Not an asnwer, just a liberal talking point.
Next

"next", because you can't win your arguement if you answer the question.


Really?
How do you figure?

Ok you need a logic class AND a stats class. YOU compared accidents with killings in Iraq. I compared accidents to killings in other places. You argue that you can't compare those because they are accidents. Are you an idiot?

"Freedom fighters?"

Yes. The "terrorists" in Iraq are freedom fighters. They are fighting an illegal occupying army.

Talking to yourself here Kitty?

Nope, just waiting for you to address the actual points.


YTou can't cut the tax of people whom don't pay taxes.
A non-sequitor.

So because people well below the poverty line don't pay taxes the tax burden for the country is lifted? WOOO!!!

[HelloKitty]

Originally posted by Chris
Look who's talking.

You are saying they didn't cut the taxes enough of people who don't pay taxes.

It doesn't get and stupider than that.

No you idiot. I am saying they didn't cut the taxes of the people who need it. You keep bringing it back to only the people who make less than 17k.

They only seriously cut the taxes of the people who need it the least, thile the poor and lower middle class (not the destitute) were completely fucked.

[Shining1]

Yes. The "terrorists" in Iraq are freedom fighters. They are fighting an illegal occupying army.

By, uh, blowing up their own people all the time?

I have no idea what the civilian bodycount in Iraq is. Certainly the 'freedom fighters' are giving the Americans a great run for their money in Iraqi casualties though...

[HelloKitty]

Originally posted by Shining1
Are you really suggesting that the Republicans are totally responsible for corporations not paying nearly enough tax Kitty?

Or just that an individual tax cut doesn't help enough.

And, come to think, it would kinda suck if there was no tax cut AND oil + medical expenses went up more or less by the same amount. How far can the federal government control the circumstance that affect those prices? (Including funding medicare properly and not starting wars in the middle east... :/)

No, both parties are to blame for the change int eh tax laws.

The tax laws are arranged now at the expense of the citizens and average workers for the benefiet of profits.

By the standard republican arguement raising or not further lowering corporate taxes would destroy companies and force everyone to go out of buisness. Well then how the hell did all those corporations last? How did they make enough money to buy the parties to get the laws changed?

[Shining1]

Chris: Yeah that was my information too. The infamous big corporate mock-ads from last election, along the lines of 'whoever you vote for, WE win!'

Corporate tax and campaign finance reform seem untouchable subjects at the moment. A worry.


Edit: Hey, agreement then! =)

[Koshko]

Originally posted by Shining1
By, uh, blowing up their own people all the time?

I have no idea what the civilian bodycount in Iraq is. Certainly the 'freedom fighters' are giving the Americans a great run for their money in Iraqi casualties though...

I haven't found any clearcut answers to that. I've heard of anywhere between 10-30k civilian casulties to as much as 100k casulties depending on the source. I've also heard of anywhere between 80% of the casulties being killed by us to 80% of casulties being killed by feloow Iraqis.

[Chris]

Who said Bin Laden? You listed several terrorist groups.

So you deny Al Zaqawi was in iraq?
Abu Nadal?

"next", because you can't win your arguement if you answer the question.

You didn't pose a question, you made a ludicrous comment.
Would you prefer to be called a moonbat for making such an inane commenty instead?

Ok you need a logic class AND a stats class. YOU compared accidents with killings in Iraq. I compared accidents to killings in other places. You argue that you can't compare those because they are accidents.

Obviously, you need a dictionary, as I said you needed PERSPECTIVE, and its obvious you still do.

Are you an idiot?

Are you?

Yes. The "terrorists" in Iraq are freedom fighters.

No, they are terrorists, and in fact, a great many are there illeagally, and aern't Iraqis.

They are fighting an illegal occupying army.

Hmm, you are just wrong a lot today Kitty, they are fighting the US, not an illeagal occupying army.

Nope, just waiting for you to address the actual points.

Make some, and I will be happy too, keep repeating nonsense Liberal talking points, and we will continue to travel in circles.

So because people well below the poverty line don't pay taxes the tax burden for the country is lifted? WOOO!!!

Nonsequitor part two.

[HelloKitty]

Originally posted by Shining1
By, uh, blowing up their own people all the time?

I have no idea what the civilian bodycount in Iraq is. Certainly the 'freedom fighters' are giving the Americans a great run for their money in Iraqi casualties though...

Doesn't change what they are.

Imagine the US was invaded and taken over. Do you think our freedom fighters wouldn't hit targets where americans were working with and supporting the invading army?

In WW2 did none of the freedom fighters ever kill anyone of their own nationality?

[Chris]

Originally posted by HelloKitty
No you idiot.

losing your cool Kitty?
No smart assed remark, just something insulting?
Further proof you are full of shit.

I am saying they didn't cut the taxes of the people who need it. You keep bringing it back to only the people who make less than 17k.

Name the level it wasn't cut.

They only seriously cut the taxes of the people who need it the least, thile the poor and lower middle class (not the destitute) were completely fucked.

They were?
So, they were better off paying higher taxes, and having the marrige penalty, then getting a cut????

Please, only an imbecile would sugest that.

[Chris]

Originally posted by HelloKitty
Doesn't change what they are.

Imagine the US was invaded and taken over. Do you think our freedom fighters wouldn't hit targets where americans were working with and supporting the invading army?

In WW2 did none of the freedom fighters ever kill anyone of their own nationality?

There was a strange lack of people in WWII that fought armies by going to someone else's country and blowing them up in the name of Allah.

[Koshko]

Well when you do tax cuts across the board, the weathiest will benefit the most because they are being taxed more money per each 1% in the first place. You lower a middle class families taxes by 1% and they can save a few hundred. You lower richer families taxes by 1% and they can save a few thousand.

[HelloKitty]

Originally posted by Chris
So you deny Al Zaqawi was in iraq?
Abu Nadal?

And these two had how mcuh contact, influence, etc with the Iraqi gov't?


You didn't pose a question, you made a ludicrous comment.
Would you prefer to be called a moonbat for making such an inane commenty instead?

Would you prefer to go up and read it instead of having me quote the quetion making you look like a bigger fool? The question is the sentence with the question mark at the end.


Obviously, you need a dictionary, as I said you needed PERSPECTIVE, and its obvious you still do.

And using youe "PERSPECTIVE" I demonstrated how stupid your comparison was. I also demonstrated how insanely wrong the numbers you were using as an example.


Are you?

Only one of us seems to be able to make a coherent arguement. The other is making up numbers, making illegitamate comparisons, and avoiding facts.

No, they are terrorists, and in fact, a great many are there illeagally, and aern't Iraqis.

You can call them what you want, to you naturally they are "terrorists". They are fighting back an illegal invasion and occupation.


Hmm, you are just wrong a lot today Kitty, they are fighting the US, not an illeagal occupying army.

US=illegal occupying army.


Make some, and I will be happy too, keep repeating nonsense Liberal talking points, and we will continue to travel in circles.

ALl the ones I have made you either don't answer or respond to in a way completely unrelated.


Nonsequitor part two.

If you have a reading comprehension problem.

[Shining1]

Hmm, you are just wrong a lot today Kitty, they are fighting the US, not an illeagal occupying army.

Uhhhh....

Not to be a nut but that sounds really fucked up, Chris. The U.S is by definition NOT an illegal occupying army? :/

I can kinda get what you're saying but putting it like that won't work for more than a few people here I think.

[HelloKitty]

Originally posted by Chris
losing your cool Kitty?
No smart assed remark, just something insulting?
Further proof you are full of shit.

As opposed to making illogical insane arguements. That wins elections!


Name the level it wasn't cut.

Sorry, forgot the word "significantly"

They were?
So, they were better off paying higher taxes, and having the marrige penalty, then getting a cut????

They aren't better off at all. The tax cut for the rich helped fuck our economy even further. They are more poor now that they were.

[Chris]

And these two had how mcuh contact, influence, etc with the Iraqi gov't?

Zarqawi seems to have had a pass signed by Qusay, and Nidal was living there at the invitation of Saddam. so I would say fairly high.

Would you prefer to go up and read it instead of having me quote the quetion making you look like a bigger fool? The question is the sentence with the question mark at the end.

Oh, you are so clevber, I have to provide an asnwer for the assinine comment that Haliburton now recieves petro-terror dollars.
You are insane if you think that a legit question.

And using youe "PERSPECTIVE" I demonstrated how stupid your comparison was. I also demonstrated how insanely wrong the numbers you were using as an example.

Not at all, the war isn't nearly as bad as the press makes it out to be, not even close.

Only one of us seems to be able to make a coherent arguement. The other is making up numbers, making illegitamate comparisons, and avoiding facts.

I'm hoping at some point you try to also make a coherrant argument, I have yet to see it.

You can call them what you want, to you naturally they are "terrorists". They are fighting back an illegal invasion and occupation.

Because you say so?
Sorry, but no.

US=illegal occupying army.

Perhaps you would like to show me the 'law' that was broken.

ALl the ones I have made you either don't answer or respond to in a way completely unrelated.

You have yet to make an argument Kitty, you just repeated loony left slogans.
"War for haliburton'
'Illeagal occupiers'
'Terrorits are really freedom fighters'

Those aern't arguments, they are lunatic fringe talking points.

If you have a reading comprehension problem.

maybe you will improve if you keep trying.

[Koshko]

Again like the preception of 'how much better we are doing now than before', the definition of the US forces in Iraq would vary by preception too. Some people will view the troops as liberators because they went in and liberated Iraq from Saddam while others will view the troops as invaders because they invaded Iraq to remove Saddam.

[Chris]

As opposed to making illogical insane arguements. That wins elections!

Actually it doesn't, just ask John Kerry.

Sorry, forgot the word "significantly"

So, you want a larger cut, yet you supported the candidate that was for raising taxes.
Got it.

They aren't better off at all. The tax cut for the rich helped fuck our economy even further. They are more poor now that they were.

Oh, I see, they have more money now, but the economy is fucked.

Would that be the economy that is nearing record highs since Kerry lost?

That has been surging every month for the past year?

Go ahead, show some NYT table that claims we aern't doing well, as the DOW continues to blow the roof off.

[Koshko]

I know the stuff I've been saying is being lost in the shuffle, but I really need to remember what i've said for the next tax-related arguement.

[Chris]

Originally posted by Shining1
Uhhhh....

Not to be a nut but that sounds really fucked up, Chris. The U.S is by definition NOT an illegal occupying army? :/

I can kinda get what you're saying but putting it like that won't work for more than a few people here I think.

Ned, Iraq was in violation of the 1991 ceasefire, by definition, that war never ended, the US had every leagal right to resume hostilities, as Iraq failed to comply with the provisions of the ceasefire.

If people here don't understand that, they are just wrong.

[Debaser]

Originally posted by Chris
'Illeagal occupiers'
'Terrorits are really freedom fighters'

Those aern't arguments, they are lunatic fringe talking points.

Quite a lot of people consider the war unjust & illegal Chris, so there's nothing "lunatic" or "fringe" about it.