Iraq, again

@alamein:

oh and F_alk- how could you use gen paulus as an example. he was a trophy.

Any general was a trophy…. and generals treated each other well, because they knew that they could lose the next battle and go into captivity… then it’s better when you have a “gentlemans agreement”.

@StrongBad1988:

gassing the kurds was just his way of expressing his feelings.

The US didn’t say anything the time it happened. Saddam was a too important ally at that time.

@EmuGod:

It is cold blooded murder to fire a missle into a residential area, killing 1 terrorist and 26 innocents. It is cold blooded murder to fire a bomb at a car in the street, killing 1 terrorist and almost a dozen people just driving by. In the US, had a commander ordered those attacks, he/she’d be put in jail, possible given the death penalty.

Unless it was a retaliation action by the army…… which have about the same results…

@Anonymous:

When the Iron curtain came down, the countries behind it were no farther ahead than when it went up. They were pretty much in the same economic state as they post WW2. Than does not sound like mankind moving forward to me.
Communism breeds one to a total lack of motavation and innovation, with out which, evolution suffers.

In a perfect world, which its never going to be, Communism would be fine.
However, humans, by nature, are selfish.
Nearly everything you do is, in a sense, selfish.
Even when you do things for other people, giving present, time, money whatever is done because it makes you feel good. Which is, again, selfish.

In honor of TG Moses VI…

Do not equate Russia with communism. The dream was there, but the results were warped by bad leaders.

Bad people do bad things because it makes them feel good, too. How selfish! I’ll settle for good selfish over bad selfish all the time. More often than not… ‘good selfish benefits the majority, whereas, bad selfish benefits the minority.’

Hahaha, but you have to comprehend how lucky the original 13 States were to be blessed with such enlightened thinkers as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. George Washington could’ve easily become “King Washington” and our founding fathers could’ve been much more centered toward their own political and economic gain. :) Perhaps if Russia had had such a fine set of rulers instead of Stalin?

@Yanny:

Falk, watch the replies

Ohm…. will you install a multi-reply button for me then, so that i don’t have to copy and paste everything into one :)… or could you get the others to post in my time zone, so that the appearance of me bunch-replying is washed out by others posting in between ;)…

Or did i break any other of the rules (and i must say, some of them are pretty harsh… two consenting adults should be allowed to have a flame-war ;) ) ?

I"ll have a flame-war with ya’ F_alk. After all, i can smell you from here. You need a bath.

F_ALK, we have just the opposite proplem her, the lower 50% of the people pay no tax (and many still get “refunds” from our government). yet still get to vote. while the upper 10% pay most of the taxes- slanting downward amoungt the other 40%. so in your case I can see your point. “yes”- no vote for rich germans. I think everyone should be responsible for taxes, it makes the government more accountable. but by breaking up taxes the way they do here, they create a strong liberal (communist) voting base. more later lunch is over.

@Yanny:

A huge amount of the money we pay is wasted by the Government. Get rid of the waste, and stop going so far into debt

So if we stop funding PBS, Planned Parenthood, new offices for
ex(?)-KKK US Senators, eliminate the Dept. of Education (which hasn’t educated a single child) and the Dept. of Health and Human Services (which spends more on bureacracy than on H.&H.S.)[and hand all these programs back to the states, which would have more interest in solving their problems] we’d have a good start on reducing waste!

@TG:

…George Washington could’ve easily become “King Washington”…

If I remember my history lessons… the Founding Fathers did offer the title of “King George.” Washington refused, recognizing that it would be a repetition of England’s ‘King’ which split off from France.
He learned from history …unlike liberals who want to throw more money at problems. It didn’t solve the problems of FDR’s time… it just made new ones…and it didn’t solve the problems of LBJ’s time… it just made them worse and created new ones.

Even today the Liberals are howling because BUSH has only allowed a 4% increase in the 2003 budget!

We are a little off topic aren’t we?

Are you gonna wipe the slate clean and have us start over?

On Iraq…
Liberals, moderates (read ‘liberals’), and progressives (read ‘liberals’) have no grounds to stand on in this argument anymore!
They said, “Get UN approval.”
and President Bush did.
Then they said, “Get Congressional approval.”(although he already had it)and Pres. Bush did.
Then they said, “Get a coalition.”
and Bush 43 did.
Then they said, “Get evidence.”
and Bush did.
Then they said, “Show all of us the evidence.” (even though this would endanger informants and reveal US technology…something LIBERALS never asked of FDR [after Pearl Harbor] nor of William Jefferson Blythe Clinton [after he bombed an aspirin factory in Sudan or launched 400 cruise missles at Yugoslavia to distract us and Congress from the Lewinski hearings] and W said, “Up yours!”

And for a final nail in the ANTI-AMERICA anti-war movement
check the website printed in reverse below…

moc.ecaeprofetabrutsam

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEUCK!!!
(I’m abiding by the rules.)

The reason the Government is forced to tax the rich more is their own fault. A huge amount of the money we pay is wasted by the Government. Get rid of the waste, and stop going so far into debt, and we’d be able to charge a flat rate for taxes without going further into debt. Less Gov’t spending is the key.

Wow, I actually agree with Yanny. Good job. :P

On Iraq…
Liberals, moderates (read ‘liberals’), and progressives (read ‘liberals’) have no grounds to stand on in this argument anymore!
They said, “Get UN approval.”
and President Bush did.
Then they said, “Get Congressional approval.”(although he already had it)and Pres. Bush did.
Then they said, “Get a coalition.”
and Bush 43 did.
Then they said, “Get evidence.”
and Bush did.
Then they said, “Show all of us the evidence.” (even though this would endanger informants and reveal US technology…something LIBERALS never asked of FDR [after Pearl Harbor] nor of William Jefferson Blythe Clinton [after he bombed an aspirin factory in Sudan or launched 400 cruise missles at Yugoslavia to distract us and Congress from the Lewinski hearings] and W said, “Up yours!”

You’ve got a good point, the liberals are acting very hypocritical when it comes to the Iraq situation. :(

yanni, if you work and make under 32,000 a year you have no tax burden, unless you are single. the top ten percent of wage earners pay by far the lion’s share of taxes, how is this fair or their own fault?
how can a single parent who pays no taxes all year get a refund for 5,000 dollars? yet she didn’t even pay anything into federal withholding??? proof - my mother in law. how is earned income credit fair? I have a child too, but because I pay my bills and work hard, I don’t qualify. so I pay tax, while she works at her minumum labor job, gets public assistance and a big fat refund of my tax money!
and according to conservative interpritations of government statistics 50 % of americans earn 32,000 or less. at theast that’s what rush says. and I have read in my state of the industry magazines articles that put you in the top ten percent if you make as little as 80,000. but even at 100,000 per year you are not rich. why should you shoulder the burden of most of the taxes???
I believe it’s to strengthen the liberals power base. poor unedjucated sloths, who druel over themselves all day whilst they watch shows like jerry springer. since they have no tax burden anyway- if another social program comes along that will benefit them- of course they’ll vote to raise my taxes. who wouldn’t. they don’t pay for it, yet they benefit from it. conversely I pay for these programs yet get no benefit from them, why should I pay- well, because they’ll put me in jail if I don’t.
now before you argue with me on who pays what, go to sean hannity’s website. there is a very cool, yet simple illustration of the tax system. I think it’s called the tax story. I don’t know how to do the links, http://hannity.com/index.cfm/bay/content.ontheshow2.htm so before you start telling me how screwed up I am please read MY ACTUAL INFORMATION not my opinion. I at least do the same before arguing with you.

sorry about the misspellings, I just switched to msn, and haven’t figured out how to use their spell checked yet. and it seems that I never find the errors when I proof read. again I am sorry.

yeah that was me, and I’ve already told you what my solution was. eliminate social programs (like unemployment). I got laid off last year on a friday, the following monday I had a job. I could have set down on unemployment and let the government take care of me, but I didn’t. it’s a matter of personal responsibility. I read your thread on nuclear energy- and commented on it as well. in short- if we had a more efficeint way to collect that energy I would say it was worth the risk. but right now I’d compare nuclear power to:
starting a bonfire in your back yard- then, after it has burned out, bringing the smoldering ashes into your home to heat it. we need to develope it far more before we depend on it.
I’ll check out your other links as well, but remember I’m just left of being all the way to the right, so I may not agree. (have I ever??)
you had said “the reason the government is forced to tax the rich is their own fault”- i thought you meant the rich. but eliminating entitlements would be a good start to turning this around.

and my mother in law doesn’t live with me. she still lives at her father’s house with my wife’s younger illegitimate half sister. she makes min. wage, pays no tax and got a refund check for almost five thousand. she claims this was thanks to earned income credit, I cried foul.
no I, like you, own my own home and try to legitamately support my wife and kid. I don’t like working for 65% of what I make. I don’t like the Idea that if I was taxed on what I brought home I could qualify (almost) as low income. meanwhile those at the high end of low income, pick up enough benefits to move passed me in the social class spectrum. (does that make any sense). I don’t know whether I’m mad or insanely jealous or both.
how can you not be mad? I assume since you own a home you pay taxes. do you think paying someone for a year to “look” for work is a good Idea. personally I think that once you realized you were going to starve to death you’d find a job real quick. and it wouldn’t take a year.

at least we both agree in the trickle down theory. I was afraid to express that around all the anti reaganites. :wink: - i just read the thread