All your hopeful rhetoric ignores, that DC has one of the highest rates of Gun Violence and Homicide in the Nation.
And since the 1976 gun ban was passed, things have only gotten worse. Meanwhile, states that have passed concealed carry laws have actually seen their crime rates decrease.
And if you think the 2nd amendment is a Constitutional Antiquity with no relevance in a modern America, you need to overwrite it, by passing a new Amendment.
Isn't ignoring the Constitution something the current occupant of the White House does, and the reason why the Democrats want him impeached?
Why is it okay to ignore the Constitution when it suits your goals? posted 02/19/2008 at 11:04:23
"So.... You're agreeing with me? "
No.
I'm pointing out the silliness of "Making" work. It obviously makes more sense to use a Back hoe when digging a ditch, rather than teaspoons.
The value of a ditch is the same whether it was dug for a thousand dollars, or a hundred thousand dollars. So if you spend too much money digging, it will have a negative impact on the GNP. Giving men money, for doing unnecessary work contracts the economy
So what if the thing a rich person spends his money on, is useless? It still employed people when it was manufactured, and it will be counted as part of the GNP.
And putting money in the stock market does a LOT of good. It provides capital for businesses to expand, thus creating more jobs.
posted 02/19/2008 at 18:03:52
"when a company spends money, they are simply making a product, hiring as few people as possible to make that product"
I forget who the Economist was, but he was visiting India, and saw thousands of men digging ditches.
"You know," he suggested to his guide, "if you were to get a Back Hoe, you could get a lot more done, in much shorter time."
The guide laughed at the ignorance of the American, "You don't understand. This isn't just a works project, this helps keep Indians employed. If we brought in heavy equipment, we would have to lay off a lot of men."
"I'm sorry," responded the economist, "I thought you were digging a ditch. If you are just trying to keep a lot of men employed, why not hand out teaspoons, rather than shovels?"
posted 02/14/2008 at 00:12:14
"I guess we could just get rid of all taxes"
I never said that.
There is no way to run a government without some form of taxation.
But to say taxation grows an economy is intellectually dishonest. posted 02/09/2008 at 14:35:25
"Except that the 150 million dollars will still be out there"
Yes, it will always be out there. Kept in the hands of the Private sector, it will be spent contributing to the GNP, growing the economy.
Paying people to do nothing creates inflation, it is the same as just printing money.
And governments rarely shut down the toll booths. In iIllinois, it was promised they would be shut down when the Expressways were completed, but it never happened.
The owner of a private road might also keep charging indefinitely, but at least he responds to market forces. If he raises the price too high, people will seek alternates; too low, and he can't pay for maintenance.
On the other hand, Government toll roads can charge whatever they want.
posted 02/09/2008 at 14:19:26
"When you send a package priority mail, it will likely be shipped by FedEx"
Why is that?
Because the Private Sector can do it BETTER.
Before making the agreement with FedEX, the USPS didn't have a clue on how to get a package somewhere overnight (and often couldn't do it over-week).
So you're paying the Post Office, to hand a package over to FedEx. Why is the Post Office even necessary? That's typical of the economic black hole that is the Government. posted 02/09/2008 at 14:09:07
And if there is evidence that the tax cuts worked, why WOULDN'T you want more of them?
I don't see the contradiction you're trying to cite.
If a dose of penicillin breaks a patients fever, shouldn't you continue the treatment? That's just common sense. posted 02/09/2008 at 11:38:33
"It's like a religion to them."
Excuse me, I'm the one here citing facts. The dogmatic argument, seems to be coming from your side of the aisle. posted 02/09/2008 at 11:12:54
No, the Republican led Congress was responsible for the post September 11th deficit.
Some of it was necessary, some of it was pork. Some of it (like the federalization of airport security workers) was pandering to the minority party. posted 02/09/2008 at 11:10:18
"Government had to sit down and tell industry a thing or two"
No, it was the exact opposite. Government had already been telling industry a thing or two (Google: NRA Title I).
When the war started, the military was woefully unequipped. We needed to get a whole lot of factories up and running pretty quickly.
So for the first time in a decade, the Government had to sit down and listen to Industry. posted 02/09/2008 at 11:05:05
"your rather idealized view of corporate efficiency doesn't match the reality I've seen"
Perhaps. Corporate efficiency will never be on par with small business, because the bigger something gets, the easier it is to hide waste.
However" Government Efficiency" is an oxymoron. When the government tries to do something, there is never an attempt to even keep within a budget.
The inefficiency of Government is the reason why UPS turns a profit every year, while the Postal Service runs a deficit. It is the reason why you would rather go to a private hospital than a county or veterans facility. Ultimately, it is the reason why the Soviet Union collapsed.
Which would you rather do, renew your Auto Insurance, or visit the BMV? posted 02/09/2008 at 10:54:35
Not true.
Check out this chart from the CBO: http://www.cbo.gov/docimages/35xx/doc3521/352101.gif
You will note that spending as a percentage of the GDP peaked right before the GOP took over Congress in 1994, and continued downward until 2001 (most probably up till September 11th.)
And since the Congress writes the budget, the responsibility for creating the surplus belongs to the GOP. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=3521 posted 02/09/2008 at 01:34:58
"Then we should put the billionaire in jail."
Fine, whatever.
But you're still not explaining how taxation keeps the money in our economy.
You said if we don't tax billionaires, then they'll put their money in Swiss Bank Accounts outside of our economy. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It is a logical contradiction.
Tax shelters only make sense, when the money saved, far outweighs the risk of going to jail. posted 02/09/2008 at 01:18:22
for all intents and purposes, the depression didn't end until AFTER the war. Money was still tight during the war, it's just that nobody noticed, because they were distracted. posted 02/08/2008 at 23:56:46
The tax cuts took us out of the recession of 2000-2001, and increased revenue to the government.
The deficit was caused by the spending in response to the attack of September 11th.
Had there been no attack, the surplus would have grown. posted 02/08/2008 at 23:54:06
"Bush cuts taxes and we immediately have a deficit that never goes away. But that's not the fault of the tax cuts. Right"
It's not. It's the fault of September 11th. I'm not saying that every expenditure after the attack was justified, but that event gave Congress the green light to spend like drunken sailors in the name of "Fighting Terrorism."
THATS what caused the deficit. posted 02/08/2008 at 20:10:41
The Budget was not balanced until the after the GOP took over the House and Senate.
Presidents don't write budgets, Congress does. (check the Constitution)
It was the Republican Congress that balanced the budget. posted 02/08/2008 at 20:06:10
"Doesn't taxing bring the money INto the economy?"
No. It chases it away. The main reason a billionaire would put his money into a Swiss Bank is to protect it from taxation.
When taxed reasonably, his money would stay here.
Taxing slows an economy, because of the amount of bureaucracy attached to distributing the money. Say for instance we're building a ball park. If a private investor decides to build it, he's going to spend the money frugally. If he spends $100 million, he'll get a ball park worth at least that much, and he will have increased the GNP by that much.
On the other hand, if a municipality builds it, there is no bottom line that needs to be met. So there will be hundreds of no-show patronage jobs connected to the project, and unessential spending and waste connected with the construction. The municipality spends $250 million building a $100 million dollar ball park. So $150 dollars has essentially disappeared from the economy posted 02/08/2008 at 19:30:28
"Government SPENDING is what drives the economy"
I don't think that's true. The government can only spend, if it taxes, inflates, or writes debt. All three work to slow an economy.
Private spending and investment is what really drives the economy. Nobody puts money in a mattress anymore. Left in the hands of the people who earned it, it will find it's way back out into the economy.
If the rich spend it on planes and yachts and mansions, it puts people to work in those industries. If they invest their money, it creates capital for new businesses to open, expanding the economy even further.
If the government gives it to people who are not contributing to the GNP (bureaucrats), it works to contract the economy. posted 02/08/2008 at 18:30:15
The deficit isn't because of decreased revenue, it's because of increased spending. posted 02/08/2008 at 18:18:00
"For a tax action to be a true Tax Cut, it has to be offset by an equal or greater spending cut"
Not necessarily. The Bush Tax Cuts actually INCREASED tax revenue. The taxes collected, since the Bush cuts went into effect, have exceeded even the most optimistic projections.
So if spending is kept flat, or even indexed to inflation, tax cuts will reduce the deficit. Unfortunately, in an Era where baseline budgeting is the norm, most politicians are reluctant to rein in spending to that extent. posted 02/08/2008 at 16:17:20
Actually, the war caused a HUGE deficit.
The reason the war stopped the Depression, is because FDR had to make nice with the Industrialists.
Before the war, Industry was frightened that Roosevelt was going to Nationalize them, like a lot our European Cousins did. Nobody wanted to invest capital, with that kind of threat looming. posted 02/08/2008 at 15:44:47
Nonesense.
FDR took over in 1933, and the Depression wasn't really over until after the war. When he was DEAD.
He didn't end the Depression, he prolonged it. posted 02/08/2008 at 15:40:22
"Taxes and unions got us out of the depression"
Actually no. Taxes actually perpetuated the Depression. Economies that are allowed to heal themselves usually recover from a recession in a couple years, as we saw recently with the recessions of 1991 and 2001.
When the government tries to tax or inflate it's way out of a recession it tends to chase capital out of the market, and results in a Depression that can last for decades. posted 02/08/2008 at 13:02:49
Actually, the population of New Orleans is still below what it was before Katrina.
So perhaps, the gradual exodus has begun. posted 02/06/2008 at 15:34:40
No real need to plan ahead.
As each storm swell becomes progressively more disastrous, the properties in the path become less desirous. So the people move.
We've got at least a hundred years. That's a lot of time. A population density map from 1908 would be much different from one drawn today. Because people move. posted 02/06/2008 at 15:07:06
"The climate change models HAVE predicted more of these kinds of weather conditions"
Then how do you explain the fact that we're going on almost THREE YEARS without a major hurricane making landfall in the US?
Why are two extremely calm hurricane seasons considered an anomaly, but one night of Tornadoes supports the Theory?
Nice cherries you're picking there mister, you should make a pie! posted 02/06/2008 at 14:18:42
"we had all better get our cooperative acts together before we use up the finite resources of the planet"
You do realize that it is possible to travel a finite distance, for an infinite period of time don't you?
Yes, resources are finite. But that doesn't mean we'll ever run out.
And I don't believe a Government that determines the difference between "wants" and "needs" is acting reasonably. We had names for those kinds of Governments last century, names so evil, that they cannot be spoken in civil discourse (without invoking Godwins Law). posted 02/06/2008 at 14:05:13
And regarding coastal communities:
Scientific consensus is, that we're only going to see 23 inches of ocean rise within the next hundred years.
That's PLENTY of time to build dikes and move inland. posted 02/06/2008 at 13:56:09
" Most environmentalists just believe that human impact on the environment has gotten out of hand"
Yeah, I know. The question is, why? As the population of Earth and Life expectancies increase with every census, there is no indication that what we're doing has any negative impact on humanity.
I just read an interesting article about how increased population makes the treatment of rare diseases more profitable, so that medical science is now exploring cures previously untreatable diseases. Thats great news.
I personally enjoy humans. I like a lot of them around me. I much prefer the company of humans to Polar Bears.
And if the choice is between Humans and Polar Bears, I say: they make really nice rugs. posted 02/06/2008 at 13:54:03
"Timmy, you really are an uninformed idiot"
I LOVE it when you guys descend to the ad hominem attack. It always reminds me of the part of the movie, where the criminals have exhausted all their bullets, and in desperation just throw the gun.
Civilized human beings did not endure planned economies last century either. And if the choice we must face is less Liberty or more Ocean, I'll gladly put on some boots. posted 02/06/2008 at 13:39:39
"probably won't be good for a lot of ecosystems"
Not good for some, great for others. More Ying, less Yang.
The history of ecosystems is filled with adaptation to change. Volcanoes, meteors, solar events, pole shifts, ice ages, and other natural phenomena have kept those ecosystems dynamic since the beginning of time.
To assume that the present day ecosystems, and the climate that supports them, are the ultimate unchanging perfect balance, is as ego-centrist, as claiming the sun, moon and planets all revolve around the Earth. posted 02/06/2008 at 13:20:04
Sure, Global Warming is supported by thermometer readings. Can't dispute that.
When you're saying it is man-made the preponderance starts getting a little slippery. Even most hard core believers, within the scientific community, only put man's contribution at around 40-60%.
When you're saying that Human contribution to the warming is going to cause catastrophe, you are now wandering out into the territory of religion. There is very little scientific evidence or consensus supporting the disasters that are predicted. Most of it is pure speculation.
And finally, why is the warming created by man viewed any differently than the warming created by nature? If man is a part of nature, than manmade global warming is natural. The whole separation of Man and Nature has deep religious roots, and absolutley no scientific basis. posted 02/06/2008 at 12:19:46
Actually, I would bet that there will be more Christians and Republicans writing checks and rolling up their sleeves. It's just the nature of the beast.
Liberals on the other hand, think that "helping out" means voting for Obama, and raising taxes on the rich. posted 02/06/2008 at 12:05:35
Actually, the loss of snow on Kilimanjaro has nothing to do with global warming either.
It has been determined that deforestation is the culprit there. Al Gore Lied.
It was caused by humans yes, but not fossil fuel. It was caused by people cutting down trees so they could plant food. (Shame on them, they care more about feeding their greedy bellies, than looking at a picturesque mountaintop.) posted 02/06/2008 at 12:02:47
"The fact that the globe has warmed on average is indisputable"
Well that depends on how far back you go. If you're only looking at the past ten years, temperatures have remained flat. If you go back thirty-five years, they have gotten warmer, go back six hundred they are colder, go back twelve thousand, they are warmer. Climate always changes.
And your rant about "Affluence" only reinforces my speculation, that Global Warming is more about control than climate. In a free society, it is not a proper function of government, to distinguish between wants and needs. posted 02/06/2008 at 11:50:49
"People DO choose their religious beliefs"
Well, obviously you weren't born into a strict faith. Because in many religions you're faith is as much a part of your birth as your race or gender. Catholics baptize and Jews circumcise before the babies can even see, and it is many years before most children even realize there is life outside of their faith. Buy that point it is often too late to alter the course.
Those who do leave the faith, often become devout elsewhere. I believe that the ranks of Evangelical Atheism are filled with defectors from other religions.
It is no accident that the Al Gore Apocalysm Cult follows many of the Judeo-Christian beliefs. The Apocalysts believe that man is separate from nature, and that separation has angered God, forcing him to punish humanity with all the traditional biblical disasters: Flood, Fire, Famine, Plague, Pestilence. Every thing short of a Rain of Frogs, and a River of Blood. posted 02/06/2008 at 11:38:57
"perhaps we should make sure that it's called global climate change?"
Yes, good idea. That way you'll have the bases covered no matter what direction the future temperature trends follow. And maybe people won't catch on, that you really weren't able to predict the future with those Computer Models.
And that way, you can blame American prosperity for ANYTHING that happens. Hot or Cold, Flood or Drought, Rain or Fire, Extinction or Pestilence, Ice or Melt.
It doesn't matter what happens, as long as it's really bad, it MUST be Global Warming.
Oops, I mean: CLIMATE CHANGE.
posted 02/06/2008 at 10:56:41
"Need MORE proff of global warming?"
Yes. As a matter of fact I do.
Because this is turning out to be one of the COLDEST winters on record.
Snow cover has moved further south than it has in at Least a decade. There was even snowfall in Baghdad and Jerusalem.
You Apocalysts like to blame every single disaster on Global Warming, and it's starting to make you look foolish. Kind of like Pat Robertson in Birkenstocks.
posted 02/06/2008 at 10:48:04
"we'd be hearing from Pat Robertson and company about how it was divine punishment "
Yeah, we'd also be hearing from the Algorites, about how it is punishment from Nature for burning Fossil Fuels.
Oh... wait a minute, the religious nuts here ARE saying that. posted 02/06/2008 at 10:41:16
Yeah.
Everyone knows, it was punishment for SUVs, and incandescent light bulbs.
I think the word you were thinking of is "polysyllabic."
And the thing you're advising me against publicizing, is spelled "discomfiture."
I think, if you want to feign eloquence, you should at least know the words you're trying to use. posted 02/04/2008 at 23:12:28
"you'd be terrified by your candidate"
Really? Who is my candidate?
posted 02/03/2008 at 12:42:07
" that doesn't means they're meaningless"
No.
It means you swallowed your Thesaurus. posted 02/03/2008 at 12:30:13
" about the soulless and viscerally repulsive nature of Hillary's cult members"
As opposed to what? The soulful and un-repulsive nature of Obama's cult members? Whether it is a cult of pleasure, or a cult of pain is irrelevant. It is still a cult.
You have to admit, this clip is nothing more than slick propaganda. It looks like a Target ad (If Target were the Nazi Party). Attractive people chanting "Yes We Can!' All that's missing is the one-armed salute.
That doesn't make you the least bit uncomfortable? It scares the Hell out of me. posted 02/03/2008 at 12:01:36
"a new paradigm, utilizing new approaches. They believe in the empowerment of a nation applying itself to the realization of its ideals, in a participatory manner, with transparency"
GREAT POINT!
Obama is using a lot of words, and saying absolutely NOTHING!
And there are a lot of people that find that appealing. posted 02/03/2008 at 11:49:16
Wow, powerful.
And I thought Leni Riefenstahl was dead. posted 02/03/2008 at 11:13:14
"The Democrats took both houses. So that was their "mistake" ???"
No. The mistake was, they assumed that victory gave them a mandate. There was no revolution in 2006, just a shift. The Republicans held the House and Senate by a slim margin. In 2006, that slim margin shifted to the other side. In fact, the Democrats hold a smaller majority now, than the Republicans had before that election.
But you Democrats felt that there was an enormous change in America. You thought the Nation was ready to surrender in Iraq, Impeach the President, and revoke all his tax cuts.
Well, surprise, surprise, surprise!
We're coming up on the end of the 110th Congress, and little or nothing has been changed Legislatively. And as for evidence of my speculation on GOP apathy being responsible for a Democrat victory:
"Kenn George said Tuesday that was a fluke that had more to do with Republican apathy than Democratic skill or demographic inevitability.
He said Republican voters were upset about national issues such as immigration and did not vote.
Total voter turnout on Tuesday was down about 41,000 from 2002. Mr. George said most of the lost voters were from the Republican base." http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/elections/2006/stories/110906dnmetdallasdems.3311036.html posted 02/03/2008 at 15:47:10
"Republicans, who will always claim that if you don't support this administration's policies, you're against the troops and unpatriotic."
Actually, that's not just the Republicans, most of the Nation feels that way. I'm not saying the Republicans haven't capitalized on it, but that position has roots far beyond this administration. To say you support the Troops, but not the mission, makes as much sense as saying, you're for the Giants, just not in the Superbowl®.
Add to that the collective guilt this nation still feels in the wake of Vietnam, and you have a solid majority that isn't about to leave the troops hanging. That majority might wish the Troops weren't in Iraq, but has no intention of pulling them out early, or letting Congress cut the funding.
And do you have links for Obama and Clinton saying they would pull out? It is my understanding that in the debates, only Kucinich would commit to that position. posted 02/03/2008 at 10:31:42
"to be fair, they don't have a veto-proof majority"
Well to be really fair, the Democrats weren't aligned anyway. Even if they HAD a veto-proof majority, there were enough defectors that it wouldn't have passed.
And if the Democrat candidates had any intention of pulling out troops, they would have announced those intentions.
You're just thinking wishfully. posted 02/02/2008 at 23:21:22
Actually, Hillary had the House AND the Senate when she started up the Health Care Expresss.
Americans were so aghast at the Leviathan proposal, that they threw out the Democrats in '94. We narrowly avoided that bullet. While the rest of the world is running away from Socialized medicine there are a few in this country that thinks it works.
Because EVERYTHING the Democrats passed has failed. Social Security is neither social nor secure. The war on Poverty has only increased poverty. I could go on and on. posted 02/02/2008 at 23:16:40
Actually, the weapons inspectors were not allowed to inspect, and after Clinton bombed Iraq, they were thrown out.
Hussein didn't give them permission to return until it was too late. Most intelligence indicated, that he still had them. That was no accident; turns out, he wanted Iran to think he had the weapons, and he Misunderestimated the resolve of President Bush.
But that's only one of a dozen reasons that the President mentioned in his SOTU address. I could even name a couple more that weren't mentioned.
I know the "No WMDs" meme makes a great Democrat talking point, but it's intellectually dishonest.
And why don't you tell the families of the million or so victims of the Khmer Rogue that we left too late. They might choose to disagree. posted 02/02/2008 at 16:58:47
"The same underestimation was made by the Republicans in '06"
Not really. Republicans are pretty aware that this Nation is split 50/50. In '06, they just didn't care.
The Republicans in office, had been acting just like Democrats. Budget deficiting, earmarking, NEA pandering, entitlement writing, illegal alien coddling, Global Warming Democrats.
So a lot of Republicans either stayed home, or voted for the Pro Gun Democrat, US veteran, that Rahm Emanuel picked to run against the Republican.
The biggest mistake the Democrats made, was assuming that the Nation swung Left. It didn't. It just couldn't find a reason to vote Republican. posted 02/02/2008 at 16:43:00
Democrats=Universal Failure posted 02/02/2008 at 15:05:40
"Most of the neo-conmen, like most true conservatives, have already called Iraq 'a disaster'."
Even so, that doesn't mean they want Obama or Clinton to win.
And there isn't going to be any pressure from the electorate. Pelosi would not have caved, if there was any popular support for withdrawal.
The blogosphere Left has so isolated themselves from the rest of the world, they have effectively convinced themselves that theirs is a Majority opinion.
It's not
0 posted 02/02/2008 at 15:00:09
"Do you really believe that none of us care about the troops, or security, or the budget, or our image in the world?"
No. I'm sure you do care about those things. But if you think you're going to get a withdrawal out of the Democrat Party, you're just fooling yourself.
Look how Pelosi caved after she took office. Is her seat threatened in November? Is there even a realistic candidate challenginging her for it?
And do you really think either of the Presidential candidates are going to be any different? They've both ADMITTED that they won't guarantee a pullout by the end of their terms.
posted 02/02/2008 at 14:38:09
"THEY want the shameful withdrawal implemented by the opposition party"
Doubtful. For that to be true, you would have to assume that that the Neo-cons want an opposition victory in November, and I just don't see it.
Anyway, neither of the remaining Democrat candidates are planning a withdrawl. They've pretty much committed to staying the course for the duration of their terms.
Now what? Third Party? posted 02/02/2008 at 14:29:00
"Is that line of reasoning beyond [their] capacity?"
Probably. But that doesn't matter to these guys. Wanting to end the war has nothing to do with the Troops, or our security, our budget, or our image in the World. Those things are all just straw men, conjured up to give the illusion of "concern" on the Left.
The truth is, they want to see an embarrassing retreat on the scale of Vietnam pinned on this President. The war protests were never about the war, they were all about politics. (Where was Code Pink, when Clinton bombed Iraq?)
They hope that failure in Iraq could mean a Democrat victory in November. I guarantee: all the clamor for a withdrawal will completely evaporate if (god forbid) a Democrat wins the White House this November. posted 02/02/2008 at 13:55:30
"we all now know that there wasn't"
No, WE don't all know that. Unless the "8" is starting to use the Royal "We."
And if we learned anything from Veitnam, it is that a premature retreat isn't good for anybody.
posted 02/02/2008 at 13:43:12
So you're telling me, that we should never use the military, when there is a chance of casualties?
That anytime the enemy fires back, we should leave?
Not much sense in having a military then, is there? posted 02/02/2008 at 11:14:20
Because I'd want us to WIN.
It would make as much sense to send me to war in Venezuela, as it would to bring a Barco-Lounger. posted 02/02/2008 at 11:09:47
Oh yeah.
Hussein laughed all the way to the end of the rope. posted 02/02/2008 at 11:06:12
no.
did you?
posted 02/02/2008 at 11:04:52
Yeah, but I think they would rather have their mission decided by the commander in chief, rather than some ornery blogger who refers to them as "jarheads." posted 02/02/2008 at 11:04:11
Yes, but once a war is started, the Commander in Chief is the final authority.
We tried letting Congress run a War once, we called that humiliation: "Vietnam."
And we promised the Troops we would never disgrace them like that again. posted 02/02/2008 at 11:02:18
The war casualties would have to continue at this rate for another Seventy Years, before they even came close to Vietnam.
Despite the fondest wishes of all the nostalgic hippies on the Left, Iraq is nothing like Vietnam. posted 02/02/2008 at 10:55:49
We've had troops in Iraq since 1991.
That war never ended, since Hussein never surrendered. He agreed to a cease fire, but the terms of that agreement were not kept. So we went into Baghdad.
Don't you know your history? What are YOU smoking? posted 02/02/2008 at 10:41:58
"a military base filled with Christian troops"
Don't you read Al Franken?
"My Jewish Father died defending ... religious freedom, and he is NOT burried under a cross."
Lies And The Lying Liars Who Tell Them (p. 219) posted 02/02/2008 at 10:33:09
I believe that people like you, will think Americans are stupid, regardless of what we do in Iraq.
Opinions like that don't bug me. Having enemies that think we are a nation of Code Pink sissies, would keep me awake at night. posted 02/02/2008 at 10:22:16
"I admire your bravery, and your willingness to take up arms yourself, not just expect it of others"
Here's something I don't understand, maybe you can clarify it for me:
If it's wrong for me (who has never been to war) to support the effort, why is it okay for another (who has also never been to war) to demand surrender?
It seems to me, that if my lack of service disqualifies my opinion, than all lack of service disqualifies every opinion.
So the only people who are allowed to decide whether we stay in Iraq are the soldiers in Iraq, and from what I've seen, the overwhelming majority want to stay the course.
posted 02/02/2008 at 10:17:49
Yeah, but it's VENEZUELA.
Their entire navy is like two bass boats.
We could probably activate the Boy Scouts and it would be enough. posted 02/02/2008 at 09:59:39
"the president has 90 days after which he MUST, by law, seek such a declaration"
And what do you call Congressional approval to go to war with Iraq, other than a Declaration of War?
Are you saying that a Declaration of War must be published in Newspaper headlines for it to be official? The Constitution does not specify how a Declaration needs to be worded.
Anyway, I don't think 43 even needed Congressional approval to attack Iraq, since this war is just a continuation of the War against Iraq that 41 started. I don't think each new President is required to apply for new declaration, for every war in progress when he takes office. Nixon was allowed to finish Vietnam, even though it was started by Kennedy. Truman was allowed to finish WWII after he took over from Roosevelt, and Eisenhower was allowed to finish that Korean thing that Truman started.
posted 02/02/2008 at 01:35:27
You Write: "they don't get Killed every single day in those countries!"
Isn't running away from casualties usually called a "Retreat?"
Seems to me that's more reason for staying in Iraq, than any of those other places. To demonstrate that Americans are not cowards. posted 02/02/2008 at 01:22:08
Why can't he? posted 02/02/2008 at 01:18:00
great point.
If it's all about the oil, I say we head down to Venezuela.
I'd love to see Chavez crawling out of a spiderhole. posted 02/02/2008 at 00:56:48
Why is everyone so concerned about when the Troops will leave Iraq?
When are US troops going to be out of Yugoslavia? I think (President Clinton promised he would bring them home by Christmas.)
When are the Troops coming home from Korea? From Japan and Germany? Why I think we've had troops in the Philippines ever since the Spanish American War in 1899.
I'm all for bringing the Troops home.
I just don't understand why leaving Troops in Iraq is any worse than leaving them at the other 700 bases in 130 countries around the world. posted 02/02/2008 at 00:53:05
" Reagan's tax did NOTHING except make the rich richer."
Nonsense. That's just a talking point. It made everybody richer. posted 02/04/2008 at 08:07:53
$7 gas an $12 beer were from a different article.
So, $7 gas is no big deal, but $9 gas is outrageous?
Well if I actually OWNED all the oil under me, I think someone charging me $2 for that gas would seem like a ripoff.
Just goes to show the big lie of Socialism. The people actually own nothing, the government has it all.It's why it is always destined to failure. Civilization cannot exist without private property. posted 02/04/2008 at 08:05:58
Oooh Mother Jones. There's a reliable source.
According to the Watchtower, you Liberals are going to pay for your Sins after the second coming posted 02/03/2008 at 11:05:48
"trickle down has not worked for this nation"
Define: "Not Worked"
Reagan's economic plan has brought prosperity to this Nation than the Earth has ever know. He almost single handedly turned around the double digit inflation and economic stagnation he inherited from Jimmy Carter.
And the Bush tax cuts are responsible for ending the 2001 recession that HE inherited from the previous administration.
posted 02/03/2008 at 11:02:01
No big deal?
Then how do you explain THIS:
"Norwegians have long accepted high taxes to finance their social welfare state, but a new survey indicates rising dissatisfaction and, in some cases, outright hatred of some taxes that are viewed as way too high and unfair" http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1891543.ece posted 02/03/2008 at 10:56:49
I think you misunderstood my point.
Synoia said that taxing a pint of beer up to twelve bucks is a justifiable use of Government, because of the health consequences of beer; and labeled it a SIN tax.
I pointed out the Irony, of a secularist allowing a Government to determine sin.
It is an Irony I find delightful. Liberals abhor moral judgement, unless it is the morality of things like: smoking, drinking, SUVs, and Trans-Fat.
posted 02/03/2008 at 10:49:52
Actually one beer a day is beneficial to health.
And why should a "Secular" nation be allowed to decide what is sinful?
Don't they have a separation of Church and Statet in Norway? posted 02/02/2008 at 17:11:45
You're right.
Well, ... as long as you don't qualify for the AMT. And that assumes that the company pays dividends rather that reinvesting the profits, which will eventually have to be paid as capital gains.
posted 02/02/2008 at 17:09:25
"I suspect that their effective tax rate is less than 1%"
I suspect you're quite wrong. posted 02/02/2008 at 11:17:36
A majority in Congress assures nothing, especially when that majority is slim. This fact could be verified by the failed Impeach and Surrender wing of the Democrat Party.
I do know that there was a push to eliminate both the capital gains tax, and the corporate profits tax, but those of you who believe that all money belongs to Washington, screamed bloody murder. If the Republicans had a veto proof majority, and a real Conservative in the White house, perhaps.
And if the people of Norway own the oil, why do they pay close to seven bucks for a gallon of gas? Which is a bargain really, when you consider that a pint of beer costs around twelve bucks. Ah the joy of living in Socialist Europe!
No wonder their suicide rate is so high. posted 02/02/2008 at 00:23:21
"Exxon pays 13% tax on its profits"
Yes, but gasoline is already taxed at a rate of roughly 17%.
And when those profits are distributed to share holders they are taxed again as income.
So what's the problem with being "Liberal?" Why do Democrats always run away from that term? Usually at a Hollywood cocktail party, it is much more of an insult to be called "Conservative."
Yet, the Republican Candidates argue over who is the MOST Conservative.
If America is swinging Left, as many suggest, being the most Liberal candidate should be a asset, not something that Jason would have to waste bandwidth denying.
It must be difficult, knowing that the only way you can get elected, is to hide who you really are. Perhaps that's why you tend to attack homosexual Republicans so viciously. posted 02/01/2008 at 10:37:51
No, it's not. Gasoline has been around this price for over a year now, and the recession just started.
The reason why we're in a recession, is that the sub-prime crisis has taken a lot of investment capital out of the economy.
Anyway, who said that the war in Iraq was supposed to lower gas prices? The whole "Blood for Oil" meme, was just a Democrat talking point, with no basis in reality. posted 02/01/2008 at 20:53:46
Flagged as fan!
And what the editors who picked this headline fail to understand: this "obscene" profit ends up in the pockets of average Americans who were smart enough to buy Shell stock, and in the pensions of retirees.
Anyone who thinks oil profits are obscene, needs to buy oil stock. posted 01/31/2008 at 16:47:39
All your hopeful rhetoric ignores, that DC has one of the highest rates of Gun Violence and Homicide in the Nation.
And since the 1976 gun ban was passed, things have only gotten worse. Meanwhile, states that have passed concealed carry laws have actually seen their crime rates decrease.
And if you think the 2nd amendment is a Constitutional Antiquity with no relevance in a modern America, you need to overwrite it, by passing a new Amendment.
Isn't ignoring the Constitution something the current occupant of the White House does, and the reason why the Democrats want him impeached?
Why is it okay to ignore the Constitution when it suits your goals? posted 02/19/2008 at 11:04:23