Posts made by Zooey72

@ncscswitch:

Well, it is January, and that means it is time to receive all of my various tax forms (W-2, 1099, substitute 1099, etc.) in preparation for filling out the dreaded IRS Form 1040.

And, while I am still waiting for the final W-2’s, I have been able to use final 2005 pay stubs to take a preliminary look at where we stand this year.

Out of $20,407.13 paid, we will receive a refund of about $50.00

Forget “soak the rich”, this is "immolate the Middle Class!"Â

I am paying more in taxes than is required to get a family of 4 out of poverty.  Who will keep US out of poverty when we go broke paying taxes???

I could not agree with you more, and you pay a lot more in taxes as I do.

I am used to getting about 1/2 of my taxes back, and that is all fine and good.  NS, you make more, they take more, nothing wrong with that.  But it has gotten to the crazy point.  My GF who made 25k before I came to live with her (has 3 kids - 1 handicaped), got back 2.5k MORE in tax return last year than what she paid in!  WTF is that?  I don’t judge her, if they are giving it away… you should take it.  But isn’t that wealth redistribution?

I have 2 uncles who came from crap.  They grew up in the inner city of chicago and did not have the happiest of upbringings.  That being said each makes over 100k a year now, and they are being punished with these taxes, why?  For doing well for themselves?  That’s a great message for people trying to do better!  Work hard, so that we can tax you more.  My one uncle worked 14 hour shifts for over 5 years to get where he is now.  Because he did now he has to get raped at tax time?

The American dream is a great thing, work hard and you get rewarded.  It is turning into “work hard, and support others who don’t”.

I bust my ass at work so that I can have a better life later on.  I am willing to put my time in as far as that is concerned.  I have a huge problem that when I make the amount of $ that I want to make, it will be taken by uncle Sam for those who don’t put forth the effort I do.

I work with a guy who is 22 years old who has his shiit together.  He enlisted when he was 18, spent last year in Iraq (he made 42k doing that, very not bad for a guy his age).  He got back from Iraq and now is going to college, getting As.  The way the military works is that they want to see proof that you are enrolled, and passing, and they give you $ to cover that in the form of a check given to them.  The kicker is, is that the guy was a straight A student in highshool and has an academic scholarship!  So the $ from the government he gets to keep.

He gets $2400 a month from the government, works a full time job, and goes to school.  I am sure he will do well in whatever it is he decides to do, but the kicker is after all this hard work what does that get him?  Insane taxes because he is “privlaged”?  BS!  He came from a family on food stamps, and he busted his @$$ to improve himself.

I learned this lesson the hard way.  I did not go to college right after HS.  I worked, saved $, and had my first year paid for when I went.  Once getting there I roomed with a 25 year old guy who never had a job in his life and got a free ticket with grants (he flunked out after the 2nd semester because of grades).  The difference between me and him?  I did not claim myself on my taxes.  I talked to my parents and told them to get the easy $ I need to be able to claim myself.

What a fool I was to bust my ass for a year to save when the government does not reward people who actualy try.

Last thing NSC, you like Lieberman, but he is gung ho on the crazy tax on the rich.  He thinks that 70% is a good number as far as taxes go for anyone making over 1 mil a year.  You may not make that much, but I bet he wants to rape you at tax time as well.

@Janus1:

asmodeus: kind of an esoteric reference there, huh?
ralph reid: dont know who he is, and couldnt find out from google.

as far as hillary: my dislike of her has nothing to do with her politics. i know next to nothing about her politics, and the one issue i actually know her position on, i more or less agree with (more than any other politician ive heard). so why do i dislike her? dont know really. something about her gives me one impression: power-hungry manipulative b****. i dont know where i got that, nor do i know why or how. but i greatly dislike her, and it has nothing to do with her politics. that said, if she is elected, im moving to canada.

I can give you a good reason not to like her.  After 911 she charged that the administration should have told the people of Manhatan that the air could be contaminated by the explosions (on 911).  She used it as a mud slinging game with Bush, saying how he doesn’t care about the long term effects of exposure, cover up… all that nonsense.  She is not a stupid woman, she is like you said “a power-hungry manipulative b****”.  She knows very well that telling people on 911 that the air could hurt them would have caused a panic.  Manhattan is an island with only a few bridges.  10s, if not100s of thousands would have died in the ensuing stampede.

She is not fit to be a senator, much less our president.

Because of the way Bush planned on giving amnesty to illegals, this is the issue for me in 06 and 08.  I will vote for the person toughest on this issue at the exclusion of all else.  The Dems could nominate hillary or Satan and I would vote for them if they were tough on Illegals.  I feel this way because I do not think that the majority of Americans have a voice on this issue in our government.  Both sides have been paid off to do as they are told.

God bless the Minutemen for spotlighting this issue and making the government do something about it.

When you come here, you come legaly or you don’t come at all.

As an effort to get the Baltic fleet to safety this plan has merit.  Taken any farther than that it is too costly.

First, the obvious, you have abandon Africa.  You have diverted troops to take GB, which will ensure the safety of your fleet but also spells the end of Africa.  An op. like this for the allies is too good to pass up.  I think I may even be bold enough to build an IC in Egypt turn 1 (bringing in troops from India) and let you have your fleet for the immediate future.  I have the land, the sea gives you nothing (in terms of IPC).  Not to mention there is always the Indian Ocean fleet that could be quite uselful in the Med since I run the canal.

Second, to be a serious threat you will need to have a good portion of the German AF in France so as to be able to attack should the op. arise.  That means no substantial AF against Russia, or any place else for that matter.

Thrid, and most importantly you are playing to the allies strength.  You are attempting a heads up confrontation with them and the Axis will lose that every time.  You say you are not committing all that much?  Yes you are.  16 IPC is not chump change to begin with, but in addition you will also need to put 2 fighters on it.  You will need to waste a valuable resuply in Africa for the meaningless conquest of GB (which if done I would be sure to kick you out of Africa).  You will have to designate a large portion of your AF to the west taking them in many cases out of range for an attack on the soviets.

I stick to my original assesment.  The AC buy is a good one if used in a limited way.  Going heads up with the allies in the ocean, at the expense of Africa is not a good move IMO.  Think of what you are trying to do acomplish by defeating the English in the sea.  Stop reinforcements to Russia, and to conquer Africa (I doubt you harbor any realistic notion of invading the UK or US).  1/2 of what you are trying to do is negated by the UK because you took pressure off of Africa.  The reinforcements to Russia would be halted for a time, but that is evened out by the fact you are not getting extra $ from Africa.

To give credit where credit is due, the AC buy for Germany is a good one because it ensures the safe passage of the German fleet to the med where they can later do some damage.  So good in fact I think it may become a standard turn 1 buy for me now.  The way I look at it it is not buying just an AC for 16, you also get a destroyer, 3 subs, and a transport for 16 (since these will be easily destroyed if left out in the open).

Falk’s freedom of speech

“You can say anything you want as long as you agree with me.”

To not agree with falk, means it is “hate speech”.

Yanny, the Japs were religious loons too.  Their religion of choice was shinto.  There is more similiar with the jap society and extremist muslims than there is difference.  As far as the rebels who fought after the war, and the japs isolated on the islands…  It took 50 years for the last jap to surrender.  Are you suggesting that the majority of Iraqi’s, or muslims for that matter are actively fighting our forces?  Not even close, and you know it.  They estimate the insurgency at being at most 20k people.  So that is less the 1 percent of the population of Iraq.  The Jefferson Davis thing, we captured SH.  SH’s loyalist are still fighting us, sound familiar?  How long did it take for the last state in the south to rejoin (I am not entirely sure on this one, other than it was quite a long time) the union?

Your making things cut and dry, that are not cut and dry.  IL posted about the werewolves who fought for 2 years after the Nazis surrnedered, how was that not an “insurgency” against an occupying force.  You want to romanticize the muslim crazies by making them out to be something unique, and they are not.

@ncscswitch:

Um, I am going to depart from my own ideology here just to play Devil’s Advocate for a moment (or maybe I am simply taking another step in a direction I am already heading, who knows…)

A better example for what we face in the Middle East is not from the great Nation-State wars of the early 20th Century.  Let’s use a much more recent example of a Super Power and a pissant muslim nation.  Of course I mean USSR vs Afghanistan.

The Soviet Union marched into Afghanistan, took over, installed a puppet government and “won” the war quickly.

Then the insurgents started to act.  Helicopters shot down, convoys attacked, etc.

After several years of sustained losses, the Soviet Union pulled out.

Yes the radical insurgents took over Afghanistan.

But did the Afghan Rebels follow the Soviets back to Moscow?  Was the hated Red Army under attack in their barracks after they left?  Did any car bombs or suicide bombers threaten the Kremlin or Vladivostok or Stalingrad?

No.  The Soviets left, and the Muslims in Afghanistan said “We beat a Super Power” and went about their business INSIDE Afghanistan.

Is there, perhaps, the potential that Iraq might work the same way?  We leave, they do what they want to within Iraq, and forget all about the hated Americans, just like the Afghani’s forgot all about the hated Russians?

Who knows, maybe, like in Afghanistan, the winning Insurgents will get pissed off at France, Germany or Russia for not helping them ENOUGH and attack THEM 20 years from now by flying planes into one of their buildings; just like happened to the US after we didn’t help Afghanistan “enough” after the Soviet invasion…

You bring up one interesting point.  Why are we not getting hit as hard in Afghan?  I would think that those people would have the bigger beef with us rather than the Iraqis.  First to answer to your question… we supplied the Taliban, that is why they “won” the war.  See how quickly it fell w/o a superpower backing it.

The Taliban was not too popular in Afghan. and we were the ones who made sure they were supplied.  The same equipment that defeated the Soviets was probably used on the Northern Alliance and anyone else who got in their way.  Now we have “given them freedom” from the government we all but installed.

Well, whatever the reason that things are not going as bad in Afghan… keep up the good work.

Wanted to add, if you really want to keep your battleship and transport you could take GB instead of landing troops in Algeria on G1.  This will cripple you in Africa, but will give you the most force up front, like you want.

How exactly are you going to get to SZ7?  Killing the UK battleship is off GB is fine, but than you leave 1/2 your fleet open to a UK attack by air (I would use both fighters and the bomber to ensure the destruction of that fleet, landing the fighters in GB). This also means that you are willing to lose at least one fighter than to take out my destroyer, or leave it in the med which will become a huge pain.  You will be forced to land African reinforcements in Algeria instead of Libya, delaying the conquest of Egypt until at least round 3.

G1 buy for UK would be an AC, destroyer, inf.  2 US fighters than land on the UK carrier for safety.  US buys 2 bombers and a fighter while positioning it’s fleet in SZ9.  Than the whole Atlantic turns into an allied turkey shoot.  If Germany attacks either fleet it will leave itself vulnerable to the other.

I will grant you that this is expensive for the allies to do, but in the end it is well worth it.  You have lost Africa w/o much of any fight.  You have spent $ in the Atlantic that could have gone elsewhere.  And a decent amount of the German AF has been destroyed in the sea battle (that is if there is one).

Of course, you could cut and run into the med when get to S7.  Which is not all together a bad move.  A strong Axis med fleet can be advantagous.

I am reconsidering the AC buy for the Baltic.  Not so much as a threat initialy, but to save the existing boats in the baltic.  They get picked off rather easily if left on their own.  A quick sprint to the med can save that fleet and give you the hitting power you described.

Attempting to link up in SZ7 on G2 I don’t think is a good idea.  The Baltic fleet is strong enough to make the rush on its own, and the med fleet has too many things to do in Africa.  If you don’t make a grab for the UK’s IPC, contesting the Atlantic almost becomes pointless.

Once the fleet is consolidated, than you can move it into the position you described earlier.  After the initial AC buy, just get 1 fighter a turn.  The combined threat of the med fleet and AF can be a great advantage for the Germans.

A lot of rambling, but in the end I can see the 1 AC buy a sound strategy if done carefuly.

@Yanny:

Yes, it was us winning the hearts and minds that defeated the extremism in Germany and Japan.  If you want to see us win, you break the back of the insurgency… you say that will cause more people to take up arms?  Than those people die too.  After the utter defeat of the insurgency… and only than, can you win hearts and minds.  Until than all you are doing is cosmeticaly treating a cancer.

How could we have won against the extremism in WW2 with your plan?  Build up Germany and Japan’s infastructure so that the whack jobs in those countries could attack us with greater strength later on?

Apples and Oranges. We actually had a military end to achieve in WWII. Germany and Japan had centralized command and control. Al-Quaeda and friends are the exact opposite.

Cutting off the head of the hydra does not work when two more heads spring up after each is cut off.

How many of the Native Ameican heads of the Hydra did we cut off?  Or in the philipines for that matter?

The kind of idealistic thinking that comes from your train of thought is not based in reality.  I don’t think the above measures need to be taken, but they could be taken.  They have worked, and will contiune to work.  Is it the lack of a central government that makes this so impossible?  Ok, than how about the die hard rebels that refused to surrender after the civil war?  They had no centralized government, they attacked us (in our own country no less), and they were dealt with severly.

You need to win the war before you can change the society.  There are too many people in the middle east that don’t think that we have won yet, so they get more recruits.  Sherman’s march to the sea, the capture of geranimo, the fall of Berlin, even the 2 A-bombs on Japan were signs of a war that was won.  I have yet to hear of a war where an enemy surrendered because the occupying power built a hospital.  Rebuilding the infastructure comes after you have won the war.

I’m against the whole idea.  A German AC offers little in the way of a detterant against anything the allies are willing to do.  They can’t attack in to the baltic… great… it really is not that big of a deal.  The AC can not attack worth a damn, it offers no attack power… only defense and like I stated above it is defending a sqaure that the English/US really does not need.  The only good I can see from making the AC purchase is if you eventualy get 2 ACs (which is incredibly expensive).  Than when the UK fleet does not have you bottlenecked in the baltic have them come out and constantly get in the way of whatever it is he is trying to do.  Make him destroy your ACs on defense… and you might get some use out of them (however this also means you willl probably lose the 4 fighters on them).  In general, not a good plan IMO.  Esp if the US is going into the Atlantic in any meaningful way (and they almost always do).  If you want to deter the western powers buy up your airforce instead.  This gives you the mobility to attack the fleet where you want w/o leaving anything behind when you do.  Not to mention, your AF can also help against the Russians or in Africa if need be.

A tran in the med?  Bad idea, the 8 IPC for the transport is not what is going to kill you, it is the extra 8 IPC a turn (Inf and a tank)to keep the thing fed.  If you want to build your AC,  Southern is the place to do it.  Once it is bought, that is it (meaning it is not a constant drain on your economy).  The German Med fleet is very important to Germany.  An AC would ensure that a large allied task force would have to be bought just to sink that fleet.  The med is “your turf” and it is hard for the allies to sink the fleet w/o the carrier, with a carrier the allies will have their hands full.  If they don’t kill your fleet, that is fine too.  That is 2 units in Africa every turn unmolested.  If you absolutely must have more troops down there I suggest an IC once you take Egypt.  It costs more, but it is safe.  2 transports with only a battleship protecting them is too tempting a target for the allies, I know I would spend whatever it took to sink something so open.

For the most part I buy no fleet for the Germans.  I am careful with my med fleet, and don’t really care about my baltic fleet.  My threat to allied shipping comes from the $ I spend on my airforce.  My push into Africa can usualy get accomplished by just 2 units a turn going in.  If more units are needed I send some planes down there to tilt the odds in my favor.  Africa never becomes like the eastern front where 3 fighters won’t be a deciding factor.  In Africa 3 fighters is HUGE!

In my game, the German AF is what is the deciding factor most times.  If you get the extra IPC, get long range Aircraft…  IMO it is the best tech the germans can get if played right.

@Yanny:

Terrorism is a tactic. We are not fighting terrorism. We are fighting extremism… That is why torture is so wrong. It violates our ideals. We need to be the Athens of the world, not the Sparta of the world… [we can’t win] unless you win over the hearts and minds of the people we are fighting

Rough quote there… watching the guy on CSPAN right now.

Exactly how I feel. We are fighting a massive public relations campaign. Terrorism is both a minimal threat and a massive threat. It is a minimal threat right now. Why? Because despite everyone’s fear of the boogyman in the closet, terrorism is an incredibly minor threat to our individual security. But, by going into Iraq, we’ve opened up a whole new door. Representative Moran talked on C-SPAN about how Europeans and Muslims from all over the world are flowing into Iraq to fight against the United States. Like the Soviet war against Afganistan, Iraq has become a training ground for terrorists. Once trained, the terrorists will wind up in places outside of Iraq.

To put it short, Congressman Moran:

The biggest beneficiaries of the war in Iraq are the terrorists and Iran

Yes, it was us winning the hearts and minds that defeated the extremism in Germany and Japan.  If you want to see us win, you break the back of the insurgency… you say that will cause more people to take up arms?  Than those people die too.  After the utter defeat of the insurgency… and only than, can you win hearts and minds.  Until than all you are doing is cosmeticaly treating a cancer.

How could we have won against the extremism in WW2 with your plan?  Build up Germany and Japan’s infastructure so that the whack jobs in those countries could attack us with greater strength later on?  :?

@F_alk:

Another thing:

Zooey, what again is your stand towards the Patriot Act? Maybe someone denounced you as a terrorist, and you only thought it was a drug-sniffing dog yet instead it was an explosive sniffing dog. ….

If that was the case I would have no problem with them searching my car, or my home, or even a full body cavity search if that warranted it.  Afterwards, when it is discovered I am not a terrorist I would want the person who accused me thrown in jail if it was done purely for malicious reasons (like an old GF getting mad at you).

I’ll do you one better Falk, I bought Mein Kamph (and made sure to pay for it in cash) and if some crazy as hell right wing nut job started blowing up buildings I would hope that the flag that could have been placed on my name would go to the government and I would be “considered”.  Now I am not a right wing nut job, and a quick look into my school records would show that I had many German and WW2 classes which would account for me getting the book.  I do not mind that kind of intrusiveness, because the other people who read that book do not do it for the same reasons I do and the likely could be the ones the government is looking for.

And your turk example is a bad one.  A lot of mexicans invade our country illegaly and would like to become citizens but that does not mean they have a love for the US.  Out of curiousity, do you still have to have german ancestory to become a german citizen?  I know that is what the rule was years ago.  IMO the turks can belly ache all they want about not being citizens, citizenship was not part of the deal when they came to Germany.  As far as their children are concerned it is not the fault of the government over their status in Germany, it is their grandparent’s or parent’s fault.

@F_alk:

@Zooey72:

…  I feel like I am being treated like a criminal for no good reason.Â

Now you know how any foreigner feels on entering your “land of the free”.

Thank you from the man who lives in GERMANY!  Lets not throw stones eh?  I bet the Turks feel right at home over in germany don’t they?

Thanks NS, I think it is a load of crap… but if this is the biggest problem in my life than I am doing pretty good.  I just don’t like the whole idea of “well if you have nothing to hide…”.  Just because I am not breaking the law and do not have anything to hide should not IMO give the government or an employer the right to search my stuff.  I could understand if I was a pilot or doctor beause a drug induced “oops” could cost people their lives.

IMO they should have more probable cause than where I decided to park my car.

So they do have the right to have drug dogs sniffing around my car than because it is on their property?  That seems a bit crazy, the cops even need probable cause.  Why should I be treated like a criminal simply because I work there?  It may be there property, but that is my car and what is in it is my bussiness.  I would think that if I had a ton of coke in the car it would be unadmissable because they searched the car with no probable cause.  Does that also mean they could X-ray my car and see what is inside it because it is on their property?  Point is, where do you draw the line?

At my work today the powers that be brought in a state trooper with a drug sniffing dog.  The dog sniffed around the plant, which I have no problem with, but than took the dog out to the parking lot.  They brought the dog around all of the cars sniffing for drugs.  Now, I don’t do drugs, but this seems wrong as hell to me.  I feel like I am being treated like a criminal for no good reason.  They have no bussiness indiscriminatly sniffing around people’s cars.  If they had probable cause to suspect someone that would be different, than by all means.  As it is I feel like a convict in prison who just had his cell “tossed”.

Any info would be appreciated, and if what they did was wrong… who should I contact?

Some of mine

“I have altered the deal, pray I do not alter it further” GW… er I mean Darth Vader  :wink:
“what do you have a team of monkey’s working on this around the clock?” The usual suspects.
“Yes maddam, I am drunk… however you are ugly, but in the morning I shall be sober”.  Winston Churchill
(from a mad woman) “Sir if you were my husband I would put poison in your tea!”, “Maddam, if I were your husband I would drink it” Winston Churchill
“Deep in your soul a quiet ember, knows it’s you against you, the paradox that drives us all” Bad 80s song
“I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French Division behind me”.  Patton
“Victory?  We’re French, we don’t even have a word for that!” Homer Simpson
“The mark of the immature man is that he wants to die valliantly for some cause.  The mark of the mature man is that he wants to live humbly for one.”  Catcher in the Rye (Salinger got the quote from some shrink I think)
“If you look for the evil in men you shall surely find it”  Lincoln

@ncscswitch:

“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things.  The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is far worse.  The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”
John Stewart Mill

And hence this is why liberals are able to speak their mind, because better men them came before them and fought for it.

Or as Falk’s cute little statement so eloquently said “soldiers are murders”.

CC, we argue a lot, but I doubt it was me that had much to do with you making this choice.  Personaly, my only problem I had with you as a mod was the personal attacks.  I don’t think as much of personal attacks coming from people other than mods, whatever… that was my only beef with you.

Hope this does not mean you won’t be posting!  I always need a commie from the great white north to keep me on my toes!  (the sarcasm should be obvious)

I am going to be playing Axis and Allies!

@ncscswitch:

In 1994 the World Trade Cetners were bombed.  Truck bomb in the parking garage that was well positioned, but not quite strong enough, to topple one tower into the other.

President Clinton’s administration acted within the law, aprehended, tried and convicted Yusef for the crime.

It would be seven years before the United States was hit within our borders a second time with an act of foreign terrorism.

To date, only 4 years and a few months have passed since 9-11.

Is this lack of an attack “proof” that what Bush is doing is working?  Or is it just that they are waiting a few years to hit us again (like they waited from 94 to 01?)

If we constitute “success” based on absense of attack within the US, the Clinton’s method of treating Terrorism as a law enforcement issue and prosecuting the offenders within the confines of the law is STILL a superior method, since his method worked from 1994 to 01 while Bush’s method only has 60% of the same time of success to date.

If we say that ANY act of terrorism constitutes a breach of success of a given method of countering terrorism, then Clinton is WAY out ahead, since we only had 3 other foreign events from 94 to 2001 (Kobar Towers, African Emabassies, USS Cole).  Bush has had London Subways, Spanish Transit, 2 blasts in Bali, a blast in Jordan, not to mention how many hundreds of IED’s in Iraq…  all tied to the “War on Terror” and all occuring in 4 years after 9-11.

Youir logic is flawed Jennifer.

They have broken up cells and stopped attacks, there is hard proof of that.  How do you know this wiretapping was not the reason why?  And far as clinton goes, how many cells did he break up after the 94 attacks?

Exactly when did Bush become president of the WORLD?  What your list shows me is that Bush is doing a good job as OUR president because he has stopped attacks here even though the terrorist have stepped up their pace.  They are looking for “soft” targets.  That is too bad for the countries being hit, and real attempts should be made to help our allies from getting hit… but the fact remains that we haven’t been hit.

A large part of it is Bush.  There is one thing that the terrorist know for certain, he is not playing games.  I think they could probably mount another attack in the US similiar in scale to 911, but they don’t dare do it.  This “cowboy” regime changed 2 countries after we lost 3 BUILDINGS.  They know the military power of the US and it has the ability to crush them utterly.

Here is a scenerio for you.  A plane crashes into a nuclear power plant in the US.  The US response after 100,000s dead is to do whatever is nec.  With the full backing of the US people and congress the military would be ordered to go into every country in the middle east from its bases in Iraq and “pacify” them, much the same way the Indians were “pacified” a few centuries ago.

After 100k dead Americans, you would see the end of terrorism against the US one way or another.  Even if that meant genocide, and the terrorists know it.