Discussion:
Finally, a President willing to dismantle the liberal welfare state
(too old to reply)
topcat
2005-02-08 00:05:41 UTC
Permalink
The Bush budget is exactly what the country needs as a starter in
dismantling the liberal welfare state.

Congress should pass it immediately.

TC
Black Elk
2005-02-08 00:28:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by topcat
The Bush budget is exactly what the country needs as a starter in
dismantling the liberal welfare state.
Congress should pass it immediately.
TC
Congress Passes $210 Billion in New Corporate Tax Breaks

Corporate tax legislation approved by the House and Senate over the Columbus
Day weekend will add $210 billion in new tax breaks, mostly for
corporations, over the next decade. Many of the tax subsidies will further
reward multinational corporate tax avoidance. The measure is expected to be
signed soon by President Bush.

“The bill allegedly will help protect American manufacturing jobs, but it
will almost certainly have the opposite effect,” said Robert S. McIntyre,
director of Citizens for Tax Justice. “Sadly, few of our lawmakers seem to
understand—or care.”

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/corp1004.pdf

-cont.-
--
The number of Americans living in poverty increased by 1.3 million
last year (2003), while the ranks of the uninsured swelled by 1.4 million,
the Census Bureau reported Thursday (August 27, 2004).

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/08/26/census.poverty.ap/
topcat
2005-02-08 00:47:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Black Elk
Post by topcat
The Bush budget is exactly what the country needs as a starter in
dismantling the liberal welfare state.
Congress should pass it immediately.
TC
Congress Passes $210 Billion in New Corporate Tax Breaks
Corporate tax legislation approved by the House and Senate over the Columbus
Day weekend will add $210 billion in new tax breaks, mostly for
corporations, over the next decade. Many of the tax subsidies will further
reward multinational corporate tax avoidance. The measure is expected to be
signed soon by President Bush.
More great news. Corporations pay the productive people in America's
society. They deserve the money instead of some crack-whore with five kids
living off the dole.

TC
Black Elk
2005-02-08 01:02:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Black Elk
Post by Black Elk
Post by topcat
The Bush budget is exactly what the country needs as a starter in
dismantling the liberal welfare state.
Congress should pass it immediately.
TC
Congress Passes $210 Billion in New Corporate Tax Breaks
Corporate tax legislation approved by the House and Senate over the
Columbus
Post by Black Elk
Day weekend will add $210 billion in new tax breaks, mostly for
corporations, over the next decade. Many of the tax subsidies will further
reward multinational corporate tax avoidance. The measure is expected to
be
Post by Black Elk
signed soon by President Bush.
More great news. Corporations pay the productive people in America's
society. They deserve the money instead of some crack-whore with five kids
living off the dole.
TC
Your ignorance is exceeded only by your arrogance.

-----------------------------------------------------

Remember the Poor

Monday, February 7, 2005

BETWEEN 2000 and 2003, the number of people living in poverty rose 14
percent. In 2003, the most recent year for which numbers are available, one
out of every eight Americans was poor, a disproportionate number of them
children. The number without health insurance was the highest on record;
more Americans went hungry. The poorest fell further below the poverty line
while the richest took home a greater share of national income than ever.

-cont.-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3594-2005Feb6.html
--
The number of uninsured Americans increased by 5 million over the past four
years and the government announced last month that Medicare premiums will
increase in January by a record amount in dollar terms of $11.60 per month.

http://tinyurl.com/5alrj

=====================================

The fair use of a copyrighted work:

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site
is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
BÎllary/2008
2005-02-08 12:46:27 UTC
Permalink
You stupidity and complete lack of understanding on how capitalism works is
exactly why you assholes lost so badly over the last few elections. You
socialist bastards still don't get it do you?
Post by Black Elk
Post by Black Elk
Post by Black Elk
Post by topcat
The Bush budget is exactly what the country needs as a starter in
dismantling the liberal welfare state.
Congress should pass it immediately.
TC
Congress Passes $210 Billion in New Corporate Tax Breaks
Corporate tax legislation approved by the House and Senate over the
Columbus
Post by Black Elk
Day weekend will add $210 billion in new tax breaks, mostly for
corporations, over the next decade. Many of the tax subsidies will further
reward multinational corporate tax avoidance. The measure is expected to
be
Post by Black Elk
signed soon by President Bush.
More great news. Corporations pay the productive people in America's
society. They deserve the money instead of some crack-whore with five kids
living off the dole.
TC
Your ignorance is exceeded only by your arrogance.
-----------------------------------------------------
Remember the Poor
Monday, February 7, 2005
BETWEEN 2000 and 2003, the number of people living in poverty rose 14
percent. In 2003, the most recent year for which numbers are available,
one out of every eight Americans was poor, a disproportionate number of
them children. The number without health insurance was the highest on
record; more Americans went hungry. The poorest fell further below the
poverty line while the richest took home a greater share of national
income than ever.
-cont.-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3594-2005Feb6.html
--
The number of uninsured Americans increased by 5 million over the past
four years and the government announced last month that Medicare premiums
will increase in January by a record amount in dollar terms of $11.60 per
month.
http://tinyurl.com/5alrj
=====================================
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site
is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for research and educational
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
topcat
2005-02-08 15:00:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by BÎllary/2008
You stupidity and complete lack of understanding on how capitalism works is
exactly why you assholes lost so badly over the last few elections. You
socialist bastards still don't get it do you?
I was talking to two Polish immigrants the other day. They were saying how
in Poland you can't always get a job, but here in America *IF* you want to
work, you can *always* get a job (they mentioned jobs like waiter, gas
station attendent, etc.). The big word being *IF*. *IF* a person can get
paid by the government and stay home, why work?

We make it far too easy for people to live off the dole here, and liberals
consistently reinforce the welfare state mentality.

TC
MonkeyHawk
2005-02-08 15:39:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by topcat
We make it far too easy for people to live off the dole here, and liberals
consistently reinforce the welfare state mentality.
It's it's "far too easy for people to love of the dole," try living for a
couple of months on what "welfare" provides. If you think it's an "easy"
life, you're a damned fool to work for a living.

"Welfare" in the U.S. is primarily "Aid to Dependent Children." Whether or
not it's "far too easy" to qualify for it, the true victims of cutting off
ADC are the children who didn't have the common sense to pick better
parents.

The true welfare recipients -- the ones getting the mega-bucks -- are
corporations.

If you had a shred of honesty or common decency, you'd be railing against
government handouts to multi-billion dollar corporations.
topcat
2005-02-08 16:17:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by MonkeyHawk
Post by topcat
We make it far too easy for people to live off the dole here, and liberals
consistently reinforce the welfare state mentality.
It's it's "far too easy for people to love of the dole," try living for a
couple of months on what "welfare" provides. If you think it's an "easy"
life, you're a damned fool to work for a living.
Uh...lets see....they could GET A FUCKING JOB instead of sitting home having
kids they can't AFFORD! Duh.
Post by MonkeyHawk
"Welfare" in the U.S. is primarily "Aid to Dependent Children." Whether or
not it's "far too easy" to qualify for it, the true victims of cutting off
ADC are the children who didn't have the common sense to pick better
parents.
The true welfare recipients -- the ones getting the mega-bucks -- are
corporations.
If you had a shred of honesty or common decency, you'd be railing against
government handouts to multi-billion dollar corporations.
So you're saying *I* should pay for other peoples mistakes? Why don't you
give me a portion of your money, I need a new mini-van for my 10 kids.

TC
MonkeyHawk
2005-02-08 18:02:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by BÎllary/2008
Post by MonkeyHawk
Post by topcat
We make it far too easy for people to live off the dole here, and
liberals
Post by MonkeyHawk
Post by topcat
consistently reinforce the welfare state mentality.
It's it's "far too easy for people to love of the dole," try living for a
couple of months on what "welfare" provides. If you think it's an "easy"
life, you're a damned fool to work for a living.
Uh...lets see....they could GET A FUCKING JOB instead of sitting home having
kids they can't AFFORD! Duh.
Your point is taken...except that you choose to punish the kids.

Typical selfish conservatism; you believe in a child's right to life right
up until birth.
Post by BÎllary/2008
Post by MonkeyHawk
"Welfare" in the U.S. is primarily "Aid to Dependent Children." Whether
or
Post by MonkeyHawk
not it's "far too easy" to qualify for it, the true victims of cutting off
ADC are the children who didn't have the common sense to pick better
parents.
The true welfare recipients -- the ones getting the mega-bucks -- are
corporations.
If you had a shred of honesty or common decency, you'd be railing against
government handouts to multi-billion dollar corporations.
So you're saying *I* should pay for other peoples mistakes? Why don't you
give me a portion of your money, I need a new mini-van for my 10 kids.
You're paying for corporations' mistakes with bailouts and tax shelters and
you don't seem to mind. But a child who picks the wrong parents? Let him
starve!
Lucile
2005-02-11 19:25:31 UTC
Permalink
We are only as great as are the weakest of us.
Lucile
2005-02-11 19:25:37 UTC
Permalink
We are only as great as are the weakest of us.
Lucile
2005-02-11 19:25:40 UTC
Permalink
We are only as great as are the weakest of us.
BÎllary/2008
2005-02-08 16:59:27 UTC
Permalink
You monkey, corporations create jobs and wealth. The owners of the
corporation are THE PEOPLE who choose to be owners. I'm dam proud we live
in a society that offers incentives to entities that create jobs, wealth and
a higher standard of living. You still don't get it do you asshole?
Post by MonkeyHawk
Post by topcat
We make it far too easy for people to live off the dole here, and liberals
consistently reinforce the welfare state mentality.
It's it's "far too easy for people to love of the dole," try living for a
couple of months on what "welfare" provides. If you think it's an "easy"
life, you're a damned fool to work for a living.
"Welfare" in the U.S. is primarily "Aid to Dependent Children." Whether
or not it's "far too easy" to qualify for it, the true victims of cutting
off ADC are the children who didn't have the common sense to pick better
parents.
The true welfare recipients -- the ones getting the mega-bucks -- are
corporations.
If you had a shred of honesty or common decency, you'd be railing against
government handouts to multi-billion dollar corporations.
MonkeyHawk
2005-02-08 18:02:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by BÎllary/2008
You monkey, corporations create jobs and wealth. The owners of the
corporation are THE PEOPLE who choose to be owners. I'm dam proud we live
in a society that offers incentives to entities that create jobs, wealth
and a higher standard of living. You still don't get it do you asshole?
In the 1950s, federal revenues came from about 50% indivual taxes and 50%
corporate taxes.

Today, indivuals (that means you) pay over 85% and corporations less than
15%.

If you think corporate welfare is such a bargain, fine.

But don't call it capitalism.

It's corporate socialism.
Post by BÎllary/2008
Post by MonkeyHawk
Post by topcat
We make it far too easy for people to live off the dole here, and liberals
consistently reinforce the welfare state mentality.
It's it's "far too easy for people to love of the dole," try living for a
couple of months on what "welfare" provides. If you think it's an "easy"
life, you're a damned fool to work for a living.
"Welfare" in the U.S. is primarily "Aid to Dependent Children." Whether
or not it's "far too easy" to qualify for it, the true victims of cutting
off ADC are the children who didn't have the common sense to pick better
parents.
The true welfare recipients -- the ones getting the mega-bucks -- are
corporations.
If you had a shred of honesty or common decency, you'd be railing against
government handouts to multi-billion dollar corporations.
Otaku_faith
2005-02-09 18:05:33 UTC
Permalink
It appears you don't get it. Since the government gives the big
corporations it effectivly hurts small buisnesses trying to compete
with them. It truly isn't a free market like this, and since small
buisnesses employ many millions of Americans (remember W's protecting
small-buisnesses's schpiel?) It destorys the very competition our
system is based on.

Why should my tax dollars go to pay for some company's golf-balls?
(True story, some corporations bill our government for just that. They
used them for 'educational purposes')

So it appears you are the one advocating an idea counter to capitalism,
not the Democrats. Corporate welfare is a large problem and we can not
have a free market without changing this.
d***@yahoo.com
2005-02-08 13:43:55 UTC
Permalink
Its not the governments job to wipe your ass for you.
Thom
2005-02-09 21:43:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Its not the governments job to wipe your ass for you.
nor its job to do it for Haliburton either but that's whats happening

THOM
d***@yahoo.com
2005-02-09 13:34:21 UTC
Permalink
apples and oranges. I love how you liberals cry "coporate welfare".
explain to me how the government gives us "prosperity" and jobs?
Post by Thom
nor its job to do it for Haliburton either but that's whats happening
THOM
Topaz
2005-02-08 01:03:46 UTC
Permalink
It's true that most people on welfare should do some work and not
just get a free check. But republicans gripe about helping Americans
while saying nothing about the billions America gives to the Jews:


The Real Cost Of US Support
For Israel - $3 Trillion
By Christopher Bollyn
9-19-3


While it is commonly reported that Israel officially receives some $3
billion every year in the form of economic aid from the U.S.
government,
this figure is just the tip of the iceberg. There are many billions of
dollars more in hidden costs and economic losses lurking beneath the
surface. A recently published economic analysis has concluded that
U.S.
support for the state of Israel has cost American taxpayers nearly $3
trillion ($3 million millions) in 2002 dollars.

"The Costs to American Taxpayers of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict:
$3
Trillion" is a summary of economic research done by Thomas R.
Stauffer.
Stauffer's summary of the research was published in the June 2003
issue of
The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

Stauffer is a Washington, D.C.-based engineer and economist who writes
and
teaches about the economics of energy and the Middle East. Stauffer
has
taught at Harvard University and Georgetown University's School of
Foreign
Service. Stauffer's findings were first presented at an October 2002
conference sponsored by the U.S. Army College and the University of
Maine.

Stauffer's analysis is "an estimate of the total cost to the U.S.
alone of
instability and conflict in the region - which emanates from the core
Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

"Total identifiable costs come to almost $3 trillion," Stauffer says.
"About
60 percent, well over half, of those costs - about $1.7 trillion -
arose
from the U.S. defense of Israel, where most of that amount has been
incurred
since 1973."

"Support for Israel comes to $1.8 trillion, including special trade
advantages, preferential contracts, or aid buried in other accounts.
In
addition to the financial outlay, U.S. aid to Israel costs some
275,000
American jobs each year." The trade-aid imbalance alone with Israel of
between $6-10 billion costs about 125,000 American jobs every year,
Stauffer
says.

The largest single element in the costs has been the series of
oil-supply
crises that have accompanied the Israeli-Arab wars and the
construction of
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. â?To date these have cost the U.S.
$1.5
trillion (2002 dollars), excluding the additional costs incurred since
2001,â? Stauffer wrote.

The cost of supporting Israel increased drastically after the 1973
Israeli-Arab war. U.S. support for Israel during that war resulted in
additional costs for the American taxpayer of between $750 billion and
$1
trillion, Stauffer says.

When Israel was losing the war, President Richard Nixon stepped in to
supply
the Jewish state with U.S. weapons. Nixon's intervention triggered the
Arab
oil embargo which Stauffer estimates cost the U.S. as much as $600
billion
in lost GDP and another $450 in higher oil import costs.

"The 1973 oil crisis, all in all, cost the U.S. economy no less than
$900
billion, and probably as much as $1,200 billion," he says.

As a result of the oil embargo the United States created the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to "insulate Israel and the U.S. against the
wielding of a future Arab 'oil weapon'." The billion-barrel SPR has
cost
U.S. taxpayers $134 billion to date. According to an Oil Supply
Guarantee,
which former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger provided Israel in
1975,
Israel gets 'first call' on any oil available to the U.S. if Israel's
oil
supply is stopped.

Stauffer's $3 trillion figure is conservative as it does not include
the
increased costs incurred during the year-long buildup to the recent
war
against Iraq in which Israel played a significant, albeit covert,
role. The
higher oil prices that occurred as a result of the Anglo-American
campaign
against Iraq were absorbed by the consumers. The increase in oil
prices
provided a huge bonus for the leading oil companies such as British
Petroleum and Shell, who are major oil producers as well as retailers.
The
major international oil companies recorded record profits for the
first
quarter of 2003.

The Washington Report seeks to "provide the American public with
balanced
and accurate information concerning U.S. relations with Middle Eastern
states." The monthly journal is known for keeping close tabs on the
amount
of U.S. taxpayer money that goes to Israel and how much pro-Israel
money
flows back to Members of Congress in the form of campaign aid.

The journal's website, www.wrmea.com, has an up-to-date counter at the
top
that indicates how much official aid flows to Israel. While the
counter
currently stands at $88.2 billion, it only reflects the minimum, as it
does
not include the many hidden costs.

"The distinction is important, because the indirect or consequential
losses
suffered by the U.S. as a result of its blind support for Israel
exceed by
many times the substantial amount of direct aid to Israel," Shirl
McArthur
wrote in the May 2003 issue of Washington Report.

McArthur's article, "A Conservative Tally of Total Direct U.S. Aid to
Israel: $97.5 Billion - and Counting" tallies the hidden costs, such
as
interest lost due to the early disbursement of aid to Israel and funds
hidden in other accounts. For example, Israel received $5.45 billion
in
Defense Department funding of Israeli weapons projects through 2002,
McArthur says.

Loans made to Israel by the U.S. government, like the recently awarded
$9
billion, invariably wind up being paid by the American taxpayer. A
recent
Congressional Research Service report indicates that Israel has
received $42
billion in waived loans. "Therefore, it is reasonable to consider all
government loans to Israel the same as grants," McArthur says.

Support for Israel has cost America dearly - well over than $10,000
per
American - however the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been extremely
costly for the entire world. According to Stauffer, the total bill for
supporting Israel is two to four times higher than that for the U.S.
alone -
costing the global community an estimated $6 to $12 trillion

http://www.rense.com/general41/trill.htm

www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
topcat
2005-02-08 14:56:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Topaz
It's true that most people on welfare should do some work and not
just get a free check.
DING! DING! DING! DING!


But republicans gripe about helping Americans
So even if you weren't a anti-Semite, you'd still be against helping the
only true democracy in the middle east? Oh, I forgot you're a liberal, you
hate democracy too.

TC
Rightard Whitey
2005-02-08 16:36:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by topcat
Post by Topaz
It's true that most people on welfare should do some work and not
just get a free check.
DING! DING! DING! DING!
But republicans gripe about helping Americans
So even if you weren't a anti-Semite, you'd still be against helping the
only true democracy in the middle east? Oh, I forgot you're a liberal, you
hate democracy too.
TC
Check out the Israeli constitution. It is based on Marxist-Leninist
principals. About 30 per cent of Israeli GNP is subsidized by the US.
Remember the kibbutz? All the children are taken away form their parents
and raised on rural farms. That sounds a lot like communism to me.

If you are an Arab and live in Israel, you have limited civil rights and
can't vote in Israeli elections because you aren't a Jew. Israel also
has some ultra-conservative Jews who don't work. They spend all day
praying and banging their heads against the Wailing Wall. This sounds
like some sort of a welfare state that the US continues to subsidize
with the bulk of US foreign and military aid.
Topaz
2005-02-09 02:15:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by topcat
Post by Topaz
It's true that most people on welfare should do some work and not
just get a free check.
DING! DING! DING! DING!
But republicans gripe about helping Americans
So even if you weren't a anti-Semite
Jews say that being "anti-Semitic" is a terrible crime. Do they say
being "anti-Arab" is a terrible crime? What about "anti-Christian", or
"anti-German"? Of course the Jews think
they are special. Any other group could be our enemy, but not the
Jews, they say. The Jews tell us the Arabs are our enemies. The
Jewish controlled media tells us that the Jews are America's only
friend in the Middle East. The truth is that before the Jews America
didn't have any enemies in the Middle East.

Americans had a revolution when they were ruled by the British. If
the British accused
them of being "anti-British" would the Americans throw down their guns
and apologize?
Now that America is ruled by the Jews it is no insult to be called
"anti-Semite". The insult is that they think we care about their self
serving verbiage.

The Jewish controlled media said the French were "cheese eating
surrender monkeys". Why can't the French howl "anti-French" like the
Jews howl "anti-Semite"? Because the French don't control the media,
Jews do.

This is what President Nixon said:

http://www.hnn.us/comments/15664.html

"There may be some truth in that if the Arabs have some complaints
about my
policy towards Israel, they have to realize that the Jews in the U.S.
control
the entire information and propaganda machine, the large newspapers,
the
motion pictures, radio and television, and the big companies. And
there is a
force that we have to take into consideration."
Post by topcat
, you'd still be against helping the
only true democracy in the middle east? Oh, I forgot you're a liberal, you
hate democracy too.
September 1, 2003
Realities of Israeli oppression rarely aired in North America
By BILL KAUFMANN -- Calgary Sun
http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/kaufmann.html

..Israeli Defence Force's destruction of a Palestinian
ambulance.

The Fort McMurray Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) said the Israeli
troops knew the vehicle had been given clearance to enter Ramallah,
but launched their grenade through its windshield anyway.

"The 40-mm grenade probably went right into the doctor's chest and
blew up ... three EMTs had 80% burns over their bodies," he told a
Calgary audience last spring.

The more fortunate paramedics are beaten to a pulp by the soldiers,
used as human shields by them, kidnapped or delayed for hours from
reaching patients, Dombrowski reported.

Palestinians on the streets during curfew, even those seeking medicine
or food were shot out of hand, he added.

It's all part of Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine, where kids
throwing stones at tanks are gunned down, schools are destroyed,
clinics ransacked, homes plundered, tank shells lobbed into
marketplaces and missiles hurled into crowds.

After being driven out of what's now Israel in 1948, the Palestinians
are now enduring a second, more gradual expulsion in the West Bank --
ethnic cleansing slow enough as to escape undue world -- read American
public -- attention.

Despite the "road map" to peace, land continues to be confiscated to
build Israeli settlements, which brings the occupation troops and
roads for the exclusive use of settlers that dissects Palestinian
land, making life barely liveable.

Palestinians avoiding the numerous roadblocks on their own land to go
about their daily lives invite a hail of bullets.

While settlers fill their swimming pools, Palestinians go begging for
water; the army destroys wells.

Countless orchards nurtured over generations have been wiped out,
marketplaces bulldozed, civilian infrastructure everywhere trashed,
often for no apparent security reason...

Since the current intifadeh broke out three years ago, nearly 13,000
Palestinians have been rendered homeless by the IDF, which has made a
weapon out of food and withholding other humanitarian aid -- some of
the many war crimes it commits.

The IDF is notorious for killing journalists, aid workers and
targetting human rights activists. This year, activist Rachel Corrie
of Olympia, Wash. was crushed to death by an IDF bulldozer as she
defended a Gaza home.

The Israelis called it an accident, that the driver couldn't see the
23-year-old peaceful demonstrator, but photos tell a different story.

In an e-mail from the bombed-out squalor of Rafah camp, Corrie
described the lot of a people suffering under the world's fourth most
powerful military.

"No amount of reading, attendance at conferences, documentary viewing
could have prepared me for the situation here -- you just can't
imagine it unless you see it."...




www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
g***@eudoramail.com
2005-02-08 01:21:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by topcat
The Bush budget is exactly what the country needs as a starter in
dismantling the liberal welfare state.
Congress should pass it immediately.
So you don't mind the $420+ Billion deficit, huh? That, of course,
doesn't count making Bush's tax cuts permanent, the war in
Iraq/Afghanistan, and any plans he has for privitizing SS (which Cheney
said is NOT a fix for SS).
However, it does include taking the surplus SS money to make the
deficit look smaller than it is.

Passing along debt to your children must be a good thing to you. It
speaks volumes about your "family values" and "self-responsibility".
Martin McPhillips
2005-02-08 01:30:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@eudoramail.com
Post by topcat
The Bush budget is exactly what the country needs as a starter in
dismantling the liberal welfare state.
Congress should pass it immediately.
So you don't mind the $420+ Billion deficit, huh?
At about 4% of GDP, that's not a big number.
Post by g***@eudoramail.com
That, of course,
doesn't count making Bush's tax cuts permanent,
The tax cuts are essential for two reasons: First,
they keep more money in the private sector; second,
they make it easier to go into budget deficits, which
are the only way to keep Congress from spending
more. It is surpluses that are dangerous, because they
encourage more spending.
Post by g***@eudoramail.com
the war in
Iraq/Afghanistan,
Excellent investments. Transformational
investments.
Post by g***@eudoramail.com
and any plans he has for privitizing SS (which Cheney
said is NOT a fix for SS).
Social Security can't be fixed. It's a Ponzi scheme.
Partial privatization doesn't go far enough.
Post by g***@eudoramail.com
However, it does include taking the surplus SS money to make the
deficit look smaller than it is.
That's been happening for, what, 25-30 years?
The money isn't taken, it's internally borrowed.
And that is the safest way to invest it.

Social Security is a rotten system; always has been.
A good retirement system would produce real
wealth for retirement, which would in turn make
a means-tested Medicare eventually put itself
out of business as unnecessary, and the money
would belong to the retirees and would
be heritable, producing wealth for the next
generation.
Post by g***@eudoramail.com
Passing along debt to your children must be a good thing to you. It
speaks volumes about your "family values" and "self-responsibility".
Debt is a more honest thing to pass on than
a Ponzi scheme.
g***@eudoramail.com
2005-02-08 07:03:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by g***@eudoramail.com
Post by topcat
The Bush budget is exactly what the country needs as a starter in
dismantling the liberal welfare state.
Congress should pass it immediately.
So you don't mind the $420+ Billion deficit, huh?
At about 4% of GDP, that's not a big number.
It's a huge number Martin. Governments have fallen from less.
But then that isn't really the number anyway, because huge parts of it
aren't included. If you want to know the real number look at how fast
the federal debt is going up. It is currently at around 6%, which, by
coincidence, is about the number of the current account deficit.
Last year the IMF put out a report that history shows that currency
crises normally happen after the current account deficit surpasses 5%.
IOW, an economic crises is inevitable unless something is done
quickly.
And just as obvious, Bush isn't planning on doing anything about it.
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by g***@eudoramail.com
That, of course,
doesn't count making Bush's tax cuts permanent,
The tax cuts are essential for two reasons: First,
they keep more money in the private sector;
Pumping in more money doesn't help anything if the money is going
straight
overseas. And that is exactly what it is doing. (see current account
deficit again)
Post by Martin McPhillips
second,
they make it easier to go into budget deficits, which
are the only way to keep Congress from spending
more.
Obviously that isn't working since the GOP congress has been on a
spending spree in the last 5+ years that dwarfs anything this country
has ever seen since LBJ.
Post by Martin McPhillips
It is surpluses that are dangerous, because they
encourage more spending.
You are a broken record and horribly misinformed.
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by g***@eudoramail.com
the war in
Iraq/Afghanistan,
Excellent investments. Transformational
investments.
Blowing up nations that aren't threats to us is NEVER a good
investment.
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by g***@eudoramail.com
and any plans he has for privitizing SS (which Cheney
said is NOT a fix for SS).
Social Security can't be fixed. It's a Ponzi scheme.
Partial privatization doesn't go far enough.
SS is almost $1.7 Trillion in surplus.
Obviously SS is not the problem.
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by g***@eudoramail.com
However, it does include taking the surplus SS money to make the
deficit look smaller than it is.
That's been happening for, what, 25-30 years?
The money isn't taken, it's internally borrowed.
And that is the safest way to invest it.
That much I agree with. The problem is that we aren't just borrowing
from
SS. We are almost $3 Trillion in debt to the rest of the world.
Our 2nd largest creditor in the world is Communist China. Russia is
also becoming one of our major lenders. OPEC are also major lenders.
That makes it a national security issue.
Yet for some reason, Bush, the Republicans, and people like you don't
seem to care about national security when it conflicts with domestic
spending priorities.
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by g***@eudoramail.com
Passing along debt to your children must be a good thing to you.
It
Post by g***@eudoramail.com
speaks volumes about your "family values" and
"self-responsibility".
Post by Martin McPhillips
Debt is a more honest thing to pass on than
a Ponzi scheme.
So you feel OK about "honestly" stealing from the next generation.
Good for you.
topcat
2005-02-08 15:02:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by g***@eudoramail.com
Post by topcat
The Bush budget is exactly what the country needs as a starter in
dismantling the liberal welfare state.
Congress should pass it immediately.
So you don't mind the $420+ Billion deficit, huh?
At about 4% of GDP, that's not a big number.
Post by g***@eudoramail.com
That, of course,
doesn't count making Bush's tax cuts permanent,
The tax cuts are essential for two reasons: First,
they keep more money in the private sector; second,
they make it easier to go into budget deficits, which
are the only way to keep Congress from spending
more. It is surpluses that are dangerous, because they
encourage more spending.
Post by g***@eudoramail.com
the war in
Iraq/Afghanistan,
Excellent investments. Transformational
investments.
Post by g***@eudoramail.com
and any plans he has for privitizing SS (which Cheney
said is NOT a fix for SS).
Social Security can't be fixed. It's a Ponzi scheme.
Partial privatization doesn't go far enough.
Post by g***@eudoramail.com
However, it does include taking the surplus SS money to make the
deficit look smaller than it is.
That's been happening for, what, 25-30 years?
The money isn't taken, it's internally borrowed.
And that is the safest way to invest it.
Social Security is a rotten system; always has been.
A good retirement system would produce real
wealth for retirement, which would in turn make
a means-tested Medicare eventually put itself
out of business as unnecessary, and the money
would belong to the retirees and would
be heritable, producing wealth for the next
generation.
Post by g***@eudoramail.com
Passing along debt to your children must be a good thing to you.
It
Post by g***@eudoramail.com
speaks volumes about your "family values" and "self-responsibility".
Debt is a more honest thing to pass on than
a Ponzi scheme.
Excellent post. Especially the Ponzi scheme analogy. I'll just add that if
gjohns doesn't like the deficit, lets see him propose more cuts to social
programs. I'm always for those.

TC
g***@eudoramail.com
2005-02-08 17:30:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by topcat
Post by g***@eudoramail.com
Post by topcat
The Bush budget is exactly what the country needs as a starter in
dismantling the liberal welfare state.
Congress should pass it immediately.
So you don't mind the $420+ Billion deficit, huh?
[...]
Post by topcat
Excellent post. Especially the Ponzi scheme analogy. I'll just add that if
gjohns doesn't like the deficit,
Obviously you don't mind passing along debt to your children.
Post by topcat
lets see him propose more cuts to social
programs. I'm always for those.
Here's an idea: how about cutting military spending, since we already
spend as much as the entire rest of the world combined.
How about getting out of Iraq. That should save a few bucks. How
about rolling back all those tax cuts for the rich. Just doing that
would bring in triple the amount the domestic cuts that Bush proposes.
topcat
2005-02-09 14:16:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by topcat
Post by topcat
Post by g***@eudoramail.com
Post by topcat
The Bush budget is exactly what the country needs as a starter
in
Post by topcat
Post by g***@eudoramail.com
Post by topcat
dismantling the liberal welfare state.
Congress should pass it immediately.
So you don't mind the $420+ Billion deficit, huh?
[...]
Post by topcat
Excellent post. Especially the Ponzi scheme analogy. I'll just add
that if
Post by topcat
gjohns doesn't like the deficit,
Obviously you don't mind passing along debt to your children.
I told you, I'm for cutting social programs. I'm for eliminating Social
Security and Medicare entirely. There is all your debt.
Post by topcat
Post by topcat
lets see him propose more cuts to social
programs. I'm always for those.
Here's an idea: how about cutting military spending, since we already
spend as much as the entire rest of the world combined.
How about getting out of Iraq. That should save a few bucks. How
about rolling back all those tax cuts for the rich. Just doing that
would bring in triple the amount the domestic cuts that Bush proposes.
Bad answer. I'd rather be able to counter terrorist attacks likes the ones
BJ Clinton ignored during his term and the one GWB is now combating during
his.

TC
g***@eudoramail.com
2005-02-09 17:10:53 UTC
Permalink
[...]
Post by topcat
Post by g***@eudoramail.com
Obviously you don't mind passing along debt to your children.
I told you, I'm for cutting social programs. I'm for eliminating Social
Security and Medicare entirely. There is all your debt.
First of all you said:
"Congress should pass it immediately."
You can't be for a huge deficit plan, and be against debt.
Secondly, SS and Medicare are both in surplus. Getting rid of them
would make the deficit even worse.
So obviously you don't mind the debt, you are simply against social
spending that the poor might benefit from.
Post by topcat
Post by g***@eudoramail.com
Post by topcat
lets see him propose more cuts to social
programs. I'm always for those.
Here's an idea: how about cutting military spending, since we already
spend as much as the entire rest of the world combined.
How about getting out of Iraq. That should save a few bucks. How
about rolling back all those tax cuts for the rich. Just doing that
would bring in triple the amount the domestic cuts that Bush
proposes.
Post by topcat
Bad answer. I'd rather be able to counter terrorist attacks likes the ones
BJ Clinton ignored during his term and the one GWB is now combating during
his.
First of all you didn't address the point about rolling back the tax
cuts for the rich.
Secondly, the invasion of Iraq has been a dismal failure when it
comes to combating terrorism.
Finally, most money spent on defense has nothing to do with
terrorism.
Judy Teshima
2005-02-08 03:50:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by topcat
The Bush budget is exactly what the country needs as a starter in
dismantling the liberal welfare state.
Congress should pass it immediately.
TC
BÎllary/2008
2005-02-08 12:41:19 UTC
Permalink
Maybe if Klintton ahd spent a billion in the middle east 911 might not have
happened. What's the value of a life? How about 3,000 of them? What's 1
billion divided by 3,000?
Post by topcat
The Bush budget is exactly what the country needs as a starter in
dismantling the liberal welfare state.
Congress should pass it immediately.
TC
topcat
2005-02-08 15:03:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by BÎllary/2008
Maybe if Klintton ahd spent a billion in the middle east 911 might not have
happened. What's the value of a life? How about 3,000 of them? What's 1
billion divided by 3,000?
Any money invested in cleaning up the middle east is money well-invested.

TC
MonkeyHawk
2005-02-08 15:39:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by topcat
Any money invested in cleaning up the middle east is money well-invested.
The only people cleaning up in the Middle East are the stockholders of
Halliburton.
BÎllary/2008
2005-02-08 17:00:49 UTC
Permalink
So what Halliburton is making money? God forbid! Halliburton is one of the
biggest union shops in America. You have a problem with union workers
making a buck?
Post by MonkeyHawk
Post by topcat
Any money invested in cleaning up the middle east is money well-invested.
The only people cleaning up in the Middle East are the stockholders of
Halliburton.
MonkeyHawk
2005-02-08 18:02:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by BÎllary/2008
So what Halliburton is making money? God forbid! Halliburton is one of
the biggest union shops in America. You have a problem with union workers
making a buck?
At least the union members pay their fair share of taxes, unlike their
employers.
Post by BÎllary/2008
Post by MonkeyHawk
Post by topcat
Any money invested in cleaning up the middle east is money
well-invested.
The only people cleaning up in the Middle East are the stockholders of
Halliburton.
g***@eudoramail.com
2005-02-09 17:05:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by BÎllary/2008
So what Halliburton is making money? God forbid! Halliburton is one of the
biggest union shops in America. You have a problem with union
workers
Post by BÎllary/2008
making a buck?
Halliburton is anything but a big union shop.
Brown and Root, the big Halliburton subsidiary is a union-busting shop.
And Halliburton itself is basically an oil industry company, and
they've always been anti-union.
g***@eudoramail.com
2005-02-09 17:16:30 UTC
Permalink
What the Hell does "cleaning up the middle east" mean?
By all accounts we've made a big, f*cking mess there.
topcat
2005-02-09 23:26:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@eudoramail.com
What the Hell does "cleaning up the middle east" mean?
By all accounts we've made a big, f*cking mess there.
It means KILLING the people who would do America harm instead of giving them
a free pass to kill Americans and bomb American interests, like BJ Clinton
did.

TC
g***@eudoramail.com
2005-02-10 05:26:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by topcat
Post by g***@eudoramail.com
What the Hell does "cleaning up the middle east" mean?
By all accounts we've made a big, f*cking mess there.
It means KILLING the people who would do America harm instead of giving them
a free pass to kill Americans and bomb American interests, like BJ Clinton
did.
In case you weren't aware of it, no one in Iraq had anything to do
with 9/11, or any of the terrorist attacks of the late 90's.
We've certainly been killing a lot of people in Iraq, but none of
them were seaking to do America any harm until after we invaded.
topcat
2005-02-10 15:24:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by topcat
Post by topcat
Post by g***@eudoramail.com
What the Hell does "cleaning up the middle east" mean?
By all accounts we've made a big, f*cking mess there.
It means KILLING the people who would do America harm instead of
giving them
Post by topcat
a free pass to kill Americans and bomb American interests, like BJ
Clinton
Post by topcat
did.
In case you weren't aware of it, no one in Iraq had anything to do
with 9/11, or any of the terrorist attacks of the late 90's.
We've certainly been killing a lot of people in Iraq, but none of
them were seaking to do America any harm until after we invaded.
The ENTIRE middle east is a cesspool of Islamo-fundamentalism. The US could
have started just about anywhere in the region with the necessary cleanup
effort.

I know you loved Saddam, but his time is over. Maybe you can cozy up to the
Mullahs in Iran now?

TC
g***@eudoramail.com
2005-02-11 19:17:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by topcat
Post by topcat
Post by topcat
Post by g***@eudoramail.com
What the Hell does "cleaning up the middle east" mean?
By all accounts we've made a big, f*cking mess there.
It means KILLING the people who would do America harm instead of
giving them
Post by topcat
a free pass to kill Americans and bomb American interests, like BJ
Clinton
Post by topcat
did.
In case you weren't aware of it, no one in Iraq had anything to do
with 9/11, or any of the terrorist attacks of the late 90's.
We've certainly been killing a lot of people in Iraq, but none of
them were seaking to do America any harm until after we invaded.
The ENTIRE middle east is a cesspool of Islamo-fundamentalism. The US could
have started just about anywhere in the region with the necessary cleanup
effort.
Just bomb countries at random, eh?
No need to justify anything.
Post by topcat
I know you loved Saddam, but his time is over. Maybe you can cozy up to the
Mullahs in Iran now?
Why don't you just call me a Hitler-lover?
Martin McPhillips
2005-02-11 19:17:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by topcat
Post by topcat
The ENTIRE middle east is a cesspool of
Islamo-fundamentalism. The US
could
Post by topcat
have started just about anywhere in the region with the
necessary
cleanup
Post by topcat
effort.
Just bomb countries at random, eh?
No need to justify anything.
Maybe he's referring to Syria and Iran,
two state sponsors of terrorism.
Post by topcat
Post by topcat
I know you loved Saddam, but his time is over. Maybe you
can cozy up
to the
Post by topcat
Mullahs in Iran now?
Why don't you just call me a Hitler-lover?
Because it was for Saddam's cause that
you marched with Stalinists in San Francisco.

Will you answer the call when ANSWER tells
you to hit the street for Kim Jong Il?

They're really good friends with him, too.
topcat
2005-02-12 00:37:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by topcat
Post by topcat
The ENTIRE middle east is a cesspool of
Islamo-fundamentalism. The US
could
Post by topcat
have started just about anywhere in the region with the
necessary
cleanup
Post by topcat
effort.
Just bomb countries at random, eh?
No need to justify anything.
Maybe he's referring to Syria and Iran,
two state sponsors of terrorism.
Post by topcat
Post by topcat
I know you loved Saddam, but his time is over. Maybe you
can cozy up
to the
Post by topcat
Mullahs in Iran now?
Why don't you just call me a Hitler-lover?
Because it was for Saddam's cause that
you marched with Stalinists in San Francisco.
Will you answer the call when ANSWER tells
you to hit the street for Kim Jong Il?
They're really good friends with him, too.
Thank you for saving me some typing Martin.

TC
g***@eudoramail.com
2005-02-12 19:22:43 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Post by topcat
Thank you for saving me some typing Martin.
It may as well come from an AI, because there is little actual
thinking coming from the two of you in this thread.
g***@eudoramail.com
2005-02-12 19:20:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by g***@eudoramail.com
Post by topcat
The ENTIRE middle east is a cesspool of
Islamo-fundamentalism. The US could
have started just about anywhere in the region with the
necessary cleanup
effort.
Just bomb countries at random, eh?
No need to justify anything.
Maybe he's referring to Syria and Iran,
two state sponsors of terrorism.
That's not what he said. He said the ENTIRE middle east. He even
capitalized "entire".
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Yemen, etc.
But then, even if he only meant Syria and Iran, do you guys feel it
necessary to justify wars of aggression anymore?
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by g***@eudoramail.com
Post by topcat
I know you loved Saddam, but his time is over. Maybe you
can cozy up
to the
Post by topcat
Mullahs in Iran now?
Why don't you just call me a Hitler-lover?
Because it was for Saddam's cause that
you marched with Stalinists in San Francisco.
Which only goes to show that you have no idea what the peace movement
stands for, and aren't interested in knowing it.
The war pigs lied to you over and over again and you are perfectly
fine with that. As long as the lies come from Republicans you see no
problem with them.
Post by Martin McPhillips
Will you answer the call when ANSWER tells
you to hit the street for Kim Jong Il?
They're really good friends with him, too.
I will march against every one of these wars of aggression. Meanwhile
you will support the destruction of America.
Martin McPhillips
2005-02-12 20:14:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@eudoramail.com
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by g***@eudoramail.com
Post by topcat
The ENTIRE middle east is a cesspool of
Islamo-fundamentalism. The US could
have started just about anywhere in the region with
the
necessary cleanup
effort.
Just bomb countries at random, eh?
No need to justify anything.
Maybe he's referring to Syria and Iran,
two state sponsors of terrorism.
That's not what he said. He said the ENTIRE middle east.
He even
capitalized "entire".
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Yemen, etc.
But then, even if he only meant Syria and Iran, do you
guys feel it
necessary to justify wars of aggression anymore?
Hmmm. If you're asking me do I think that more
war will be necessary in the Middle East, the
answer is probably. Better chance than not.
But if Iraqi democratization succeeds, it could
begin both a short- and a long-term trend that
would obviate war. I'm optimistic that it will
work, but I don't know if it will happen soon
enough to head off military action against
either Iran or Syria or both.

Both of those states are very dangerous and
very nutty.

The groundwork is being laid now to adjudicate
the Iranian situation, probably with the object
of giving it an international ultimatum.

Syria, a much more oddball sort of place,
from my limited insight into it, I
think could see an ad hoc regime change that
comes on the heels of a strengthening of the
new government in Iraq, *because* the Syrians
will be seen correctly as collaborators with the
terrorists inside Iraq. When I say "ad hoc"
regime change, I mean action that doesn't go
through international channels the way
Iraq did and the way Iran probably will.

As for Saudi Arabia, I think that the long
honeymoon with those clowns has come to an
end, and that the U.S. has told them which
direction they have to move in and fast --
at least what is fast for them. We pulled out
of there, as we needed to do, to give that
government more leverage with its people,
as opposed to being seen as the enablers
of "American occupiers." But that separation
of U.S. forces from Saudi also represented
the beginning of a new relationship.

A lot of people don't understand that Bush
is a foreign policy innovator on the "Grand
Strategy" level.

He, Bush, is the president who said, for
instance, that there needed to be a Palestinian
state, made that acceptable to the Israelis,
and used it to challenge the Palestinians
to clean up that mess they have over there.

It's still a very tough nut, of course.
Post by g***@eudoramail.com
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by g***@eudoramail.com
Post by topcat
I know you loved Saddam, but his time is over. Maybe
you
can cozy up
to the
Post by topcat
Mullahs in Iran now?
Why don't you just call me a Hitler-lover?
Because it was for Saddam's cause that
you marched with Stalinists in San Francisco.
Which only goes to show that you have no idea what the
peace movement
stands for, and aren't interested in knowing it.
I know you aggressively marched with Stalinists,
real ones, and then tried to deny it until it
was rubbed in your face.
Post by g***@eudoramail.com
The war pigs lied to you over and over again and you are
perfectly
fine with that. As long as the lies come from Republicans
you see no
problem with them.
The "war pigs"? Nobody lied to anyone, Garrett. The
intel was thorough for the avenues of access available,
the intel was underlaid with UNSCOM and UNMOVIC
audits, the intel was convincing, the intel
was wrong. Saddam Hussein was playing Russian roullette
and hoping that he could get away with again.
He never did what he needed to do.

The Bushies emphasized WMDs and got burned over
it, but WMDs were not the only reason why Saddam
had to be removed.
Post by g***@eudoramail.com
Post by Martin McPhillips
Will you answer the call when ANSWER tells
you to hit the street for Kim Jong Il?
They're really good friends with him, too.
I will march against every one of these wars of
aggression. Meanwhile
you will support the destruction of America.
I don't worry too much about what a whiney
little snot like you thinks about America
or me, Garrett.
g***@eudoramail.com
2005-02-13 03:29:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by g***@eudoramail.com
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by g***@eudoramail.com
Post by topcat
The ENTIRE middle east is a cesspool of
Islamo-fundamentalism. The US could
have started just about anywhere in the region with
the
necessary cleanup
effort.
Just bomb countries at random, eh?
No need to justify anything.
Maybe he's referring to Syria and Iran,
two state sponsors of terrorism.
That's not what he said. He said the ENTIRE middle east.
He even
capitalized "entire".
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Yemen, etc.
But then, even if he only meant Syria and Iran, do you
guys feel it necessary to justify wars of aggression anymore?
Hmmm. If you're asking me do I think that more
war will be necessary in the Middle East, the
answer is probably.
I bet you get a woody over that.
Post by Martin McPhillips
Better chance than not.
But if Iraqi democratization succeeds, it could
begin both a short- and a long-term trend that
would obviate war. I'm optimistic that it will
work, but I don't know if it will happen soon
enough to head off military action against
either Iran or Syria or both.
Both of those states are very dangerous and
very nutty.
Really? How? Have they bombed or invaded any other countries recently?
Post by Martin McPhillips
The groundwork is being laid now to adjudicate
the Iranian situation, probably with the object
of giving it an international ultimatum.
International ultimatum?? You don't honestly think that we will have
any allies for an Iranian attack, do you?
Post by Martin McPhillips
Syria, a much more oddball sort of place,
from my limited insight into it, I
think could see an ad hoc regime change that
comes on the heels of a strengthening of the
new government in Iraq, *because* the Syrians
will be seen correctly as collaborators with the
terrorists inside Iraq. When I say "ad hoc"
regime change, I mean action that doesn't go
through international channels the way
Iraq did and the way Iran probably will.
In other words, an attempted coup or an outright invasion.
Either way we'll be going in without allies again.
Post by Martin McPhillips
As for Saudi Arabia, I think that the long
honeymoon with those clowns has come to an
end, and that the U.S. has told them which
direction they have to move in and fast --
at least what is fast for them. We pulled out
of there, as we needed to do, to give that
government more leverage with its people,
We pulled out because they demanded it.
Post by Martin McPhillips
as opposed to being seen as the enablers
of "American occupiers." But that separation
of U.S. forces from Saudi also represented
the beginning of a new relationship.
A lot of people don't understand that Bush
is a foreign policy innovator on the "Grand
Strategy" level.
Napolean, Hitler, Pol Pot. All of those guys had
Grand Strategy's from the end of a gun too. They all brought death and
destruction instead.
Post by Martin McPhillips
He, Bush, is the president who said, for
instance, that there needed to be a Palestinian
state, made that acceptable to the Israelis,
He's done no such thing.
Post by Martin McPhillips
and used it to challenge the Palestinians
to clean up that mess they have over there.
It's still a very tough nut, of course.
Where do you get your information?
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by g***@eudoramail.com
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by g***@eudoramail.com
Post by topcat
I know you loved Saddam, but his time is over. Maybe
you can cozy up to the Mullahs in Iran now?
Why don't you just call me a Hitler-lover?
Because it was for Saddam's cause that
you marched with Stalinists in San Francisco.
Which only goes to show that you have no idea what the
peace movement
stands for, and aren't interested in knowing it.
I know you aggressively marched with Stalinists,
real ones, and then tried to deny it until it
was rubbed in your face.
You don't know sh*t, Martin. Not about me. Not about the peace
movement.
Not about the middle east.
Your statements here are proof of that.
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by g***@eudoramail.com
The war pigs lied to you over and over again and you are
perfectly fine with that. As long as the lies come from Republicans
you see no problem with them.
The "war pigs"?
Unfamiliar with the concept?
Post by Martin McPhillips
Nobody lied to anyone, Garrett.
Of course there were lies. You, for instance, lie on a steady basis
here Martin.
Post by Martin McPhillips
The
intel was thorough for the avenues of access available,
the intel was underlaid with UNSCOM and UNMOVIC
audits,
For instance, here's a lie.
The UN consistenly contradicted Bush's assertions.
Post by Martin McPhillips
the intel was convincing,
The largest peace movement before a war to ever happen in history.
Why? Because so many people were NOT convinced by the intel. The CIA
has gone through several rounds of firings because the agents there
didn't
believe the intel the Bush Administration was pushing out.
You consistenly called me a liar and fool for not believing the
intel you were pushing. Now it turns out that I was correct all along.
Do you admit that you were wrong? Of course not. That would take a much

bigger man than you will ever be.
Post by Martin McPhillips
the intel
was wrong. Saddam Hussein was playing Russian roullette
and hoping that he could get away with again.
He never did what he needed to do.
He got rid of the WMD almost a decade before we invaded.
He told us so. Republicans refused to believe him simply because you
guys wanted war and didn't matter if there was no justification for it.
Post by Martin McPhillips
The Bushies emphasized WMDs and got burned over
it, but WMDs were not the only reason why Saddam
had to be removed.
There was also the phony connections to al-Qaeda.
Oh, and then there was the temporary closing of the rape and torture
chambers.
There are no reasons left. Iraq wasn't a threat and Iraqis aren't
better off now than before. You guys just wanted to kill.
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by g***@eudoramail.com
Post by Martin McPhillips
Will you answer the call when ANSWER tells
you to hit the street for Kim Jong Il?
They're really good friends with him, too.
I will march against every one of these wars of
aggression. Meanwhile you will support the destruction of America.
I don't worry too much about what a whiney
little snot like you thinks about America
or me, Garrett.
You will care when your psycho agenda leads to America's destruction.
Not before.
Martin McPhillips
2005-02-13 17:24:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@eudoramail.com
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by g***@eudoramail.com
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by g***@eudoramail.com
Post by topcat
The ENTIRE middle east is a cesspool of
Islamo-fundamentalism. The US could
have started just about anywhere in the region with
the
necessary cleanup
effort.
Just bomb countries at random, eh?
No need to justify anything.
Maybe he's referring to Syria and Iran,
two state sponsors of terrorism.
That's not what he said. He said the ENTIRE middle
east.
He even
capitalized "entire".
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Yemen, etc.
But then, even if he only meant Syria and Iran, do
you
guys feel it necessary to justify wars of aggression
anymore?
Hmmm. If you're asking me do I think that more
war will be necessary in the Middle East, the
answer is probably.
I bet you get a woody over that.
No, but I do believe that some conditions
in the world are essentially intractable,
and in the case of a handful of rogue
regimes, the military option must be
at the ready. Much of what happened during
the Cold War, particularly in its closing
decades, from the Vietnam war to the fall
of the Soviet Union, seriously upstaged,
allowed, even promoted, the political
deterioration of the Middle East. That
neglect continued on until 9/11, but on
9/12 the picture dramatically changed --
not in the sense that the picture was
new or altered, just that it came into
principal focus, into the foreground and
out of the background.

Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Libya, in particular,
are/were criminal regimes riding on tickets
that got punched during the U.S.-Soviet
standoff. No more. The Hussein regime has
been removed; Quadaffi seems to be capitulating
and cooperating; Assad is trying to classically
play both sides of the fence (it won't work),
and the Ayatollah's successors in Iran are
finding that the strange looks they are getting
aren't quite the same thing as they used
to be, and that there really is a possibility
that they are going to get one right down
the pipe.

My message to the Arab and Islamic world would
be that it's time for the pragmatists to step
forward, because a little while down the
road a whole load of shit is due to hit
the big fan.

topcat
2005-02-12 22:26:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@eudoramail.com
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by g***@eudoramail.com
Post by topcat
The ENTIRE middle east is a cesspool of
Islamo-fundamentalism. The US could
have started just about anywhere in the region with the
necessary cleanup
effort.
Just bomb countries at random, eh?
No need to justify anything.
Maybe he's referring to Syria and Iran,
two state sponsors of terrorism.
That's not what he said. He said the ENTIRE middle east. He even
capitalized "entire".
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Yemen, etc.
But then, even if he only meant Syria and Iran, do you guys feel it
necessary to justify wars of aggression anymore?
I meant the ENTIRE middle east, but Martin was kind enough to point out the
most recent likely candidates for American military aggression (Syria and
Iran).

Should other states in the middle take the same tact as Syria and Iran, they
too will become clean-up projects.

After 9/11 there is little reason to justify action. For over twenty years
terrorist attacks on America and American interests have emanated from the
middle east. It's a cesspool of Islamo-fascism and in dire need of reform.
The sooner the better.

<snip>

TC
g***@eudoramail.com
2005-02-13 03:14:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by topcat
After 9/11 there is little reason to justify action.
[...]

Boy, you've hit the nail on the head with that one!
We no longer have to justify any foreign policy action, even when it is
harmful to America's interest.
Piss off all our allies? Who cares! No need to justify that.
Go deeply into debt to our potential enemies and rivals? Why not!?!
Bomb countries for the Hell of it? Of course! Justification is no
longer necessary.
Permanent war? Is there any other kind?

Because of 9/11 we can kill innocent people by the tens of thousands
and we don't have to justify anything at all.

Of course your kind will burn in Hell for eternity, but you don't
have to worry about justifying yourself until after you die.
Otaku_faith
2005-02-09 18:01:39 UTC
Permalink
Except for the overcharges of $160 Million by Haliburton, the recent
audit in which $9 Billion is unaccounted for. Or worse the Billions
spent by Reagan tto train Osama and the Mujahideen/Future Taliban. Or
the billions in "assistance" we gave Saddam under... Reagan!

Any questions?
ed
2005-02-08 03:54:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by topcat
The Bush budget is exactly what the country needs as a starter in
dismantling the liberal welfare state.
Congress should pass it immediately.
TC
You admit that is their intention, but why won't they? Why does everything
they do have to be on the sly? Why not come clean and tell us straight that
they want to dismantle S.S. because it runs counter to their ideological
beliefs? I'll tell you why - because they know damned well that there
wouldn't be a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding if their true agenda
were exposed to public scrutiny.

These are OUR PUBLIC SERVANTS, OUR PROPERTY (not the other way around), and
as such should be open and up-front about their ambitions. Instead, this
administration is looking more and more each day like some sort of
nightmarish Jim Jones-like cult, as we're being forced to drink the poisoned
Kool-Aid via the fiscal, environmental and social dismantling of our
country.
Black Elk
2005-02-08 04:10:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by ed
Post by topcat
The Bush budget is exactly what the country needs as a starter in
dismantling the liberal welfare state.
Congress should pass it immediately.
TC
You admit that is their intention, but why won't they? Why does everything
they do have to be on the sly? Why not come clean and tell us straight that
they want to dismantle S.S. because it runs counter to their ideological
beliefs? I'll tell you why - because they know damned well that there
wouldn't be a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding if their true agenda
were exposed to public scrutiny.
These are OUR PUBLIC SERVANTS, OUR PROPERTY (not the other way around), and
as such should be open and up-front about their ambitions. Instead, this
administration is looking more and more each day like some sort of
nightmarish Jim Jones-like cult, as we're being forced to drink the poisoned
Kool-Aid via the fiscal, environmental and social dismantling of our
country.
Amen.
--
The greater the leader, the greater the follower. Personalities who as
individuals are particularly narcissistic are the most qualified to fit this
function. The narcissism of the leader who is convinced of his greatness,
and who has no doubts, is precisely what attracts the narcissism of those
who submit to him. The half-insane leader is often the most successful one
until his lack of objective judgment, his rage reactions in consequence of
any set-back, his need to keep his image of omnipotence may provoke him to
make mistakes which lead to his destruction. But there are always gifted
half-psychotics at hand to satisfy the demands of a narcissistic mass.

Erich Fromm

'The Heart of Man - It's Genius for Good and Evil'
BÎllary/2008
2005-02-08 12:43:45 UTC
Permalink
Why should we? You liberals created a welfare state on the sly. You used
your majority in congress to ram spending down the nation's throat.

Still Mr. Bush is not hiding anything. Starving the beast has, and will
always be the agenda. Where the fuck have you been? The fact that you
don't understand that, demonstratess why you assholes lost so bad on
election day. You just DON'T GET IT
Post by ed
Post by topcat
The Bush budget is exactly what the country needs as a starter in
dismantling the liberal welfare state.
Congress should pass it immediately.
TC
You admit that is their intention, but why won't they? Why does everything
they do have to be on the sly? Why not come clean and tell us straight that
they want to dismantle S.S. because it runs counter to their ideological
beliefs? I'll tell you why - because they know damned well that there
wouldn't be a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding if their true agenda
were exposed to public scrutiny.
These are OUR PUBLIC SERVANTS, OUR PROPERTY (not the other way around), and
as such should be open and up-front about their ambitions. Instead, this
administration is looking more and more each day like some sort of
nightmarish Jim Jones-like cult, as we're being forced to drink the poisoned
Kool-Aid via the fiscal, environmental and social dismantling of our
country.
Otaku_faith
2005-02-09 17:53:10 UTC
Permalink
Always been the agenda, like the unprecedented spending/deficits under
him. He made Clinton look sdaintly with an attempt to at least balance
the budget.

It appears it is you who doesn't get it. Please retract the statement
that cutting spending has been Bush's plan since it obivously hasn't if
you've even looked at his budgets and then asking for more for the
war's. He is spending worse than a libera.
Lucile
2005-02-11 19:32:23 UTC
Permalink
We didn't create a welfare state. The crash of 29 started it.
Wallstreet with its big investors. That will soon happen again with the
stupid president we have now. It appears we are heading in that
direction. China will own our country in five years.
topcat
2005-02-12 00:38:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lucile
We didn't create a welfare state. The crash of 29 started it.
Wallstreet with its big investors. That will soon happen again with the
stupid president we have now. It appears we are heading in that
direction. China will own our country in five years.
You get a 7 for originality for this post Lucile. I hadn't heard this
liberal excuse for way things are today.

TC
ronin
2005-02-08 10:37:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by topcat
The Bush budget is exactly what the country needs as a starter in
dismantling the liberal welfare state.
Congress should pass it immediately.
TC
Topcat loves the largest deficit in recorded history.

He must be a Red China plant.
d***@yahoo.com
2005-02-08 13:48:33 UTC
Permalink
ronin would love if we just pulled out of afghanastan and Iraq and
rolled over for the terrorists.
ronin
2005-02-09 00:21:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
ronin would love if we just pulled out of afghanastan and Iraq and
rolled over for the terrorists.
Like Bush did on Aug. 6,. 2001?

Or like he did when he read the goat book while your citizens were dying?
topcat
2005-02-08 15:05:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by ronin
Post by topcat
The Bush budget is exactly what the country needs as a starter in
dismantling the liberal welfare state.
Congress should pass it immediately.
TC
Topcat loves the largest deficit in recorded history.
He must be a Red China plant.
Topcat loves to see radical Islam crushed like the bugs they are.

TC
ronin
2005-02-09 00:19:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by topcat
Post by ronin
Post by topcat
The Bush budget is exactly what the country needs as a starter in
dismantling the liberal welfare state.
Congress should pass it immediately.
TC
Topcat loves the largest deficit in recorded history.
He must be a Red China plant.
Topcat loves to see radical Islam crushed like the bugs they are.
TC
Definitely a Red China plant.

Commie.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...