Bush Is A Good President

[Balloon guy 158]

ballon guy, which way exactly 'solved' communism?Also EvilGN, our soldiers did cause physical harm to prisoners. So by your defintion that is torturethis is what you wrote "turture is phyical pain in most cases, sure you can mentally torture someone as well, but this still does not apply. "Here is some of what has happened:A thousand pages of evidence from US army investigations released to the American Civil Liberties Union after a long legal battle, and made available to the Guardian...In the dossier, the Iraqi detainee claims that three US interrogators in civilian clothing dislocated his arms, stuck an unloaded gun in his mouth and pulled the trigger, choked him with a rope until he lost consciousness, and beat him with a baseball bat.This is from the GuardianHere from a March 12, 2005 New York Times article The reports, from the Army Criminal Investigation Command, also make clear that the abuse at Bagram went far beyond the two killings. Among those recommended for prosecution is an Army military interrogator from the 519th Battalion who is said to have "placed his penis along the face" of one Afghan detainee and later to have "simulated anally sodomizing him (over his clothes)." The Army reports cited "credible information" that four military interrogators assaulted Mr. Dilawar and another Afghan prisoner with "kicks to the groin and leg, shoving or slamming him into walls/table, forcing the detainee to maintain painful, contorted body positions during interview and forcing water into his mouth until he could not breathe."This is all coming from Army reports, it is clear that we have physically harmed many of the prisoners. You cannot claim that it was all mental torment. Whether this is or is not torture does not really matter, but it is clear that the Bush admin and military leadership, even if they did not explictly authorize this beahivor they set up a system in which the lack of proper training and oversight allowed it to happen.

If the ACLU said that the sky was blue I would doubt it.Any organization that has NAMBLA as a client is not worthy to breath air. They are the place lawyers go when their scummyness is so bad that other lawyers don't like them, then they join ACLU.They steal money from the government under civil rights loopholes and then sue the government for the stupidest reasons. They tried to argue that a man who has child pornography in his home is entitled to keep it since he was not transporting it, or selling it. Child Pornography, these guys are the worst examples of demented liberals there ever was. Don't use the ACLU if you want to make an arguement.For crying out loud...your source for those 'news' stories is the prisoners..the models of truth and honor. No chance they would lie to make AMerica look bad. Next you'll tell me why Clinton never had sex with that woman, Monica Lewinski.Next time you want to read about prison abuses, read about the French prison system, or the Italians. They treat their pickpockets worse then we treat captured terrorist. Yea Bush and Rumsfelt are totally responsible for the way the military houses prisoners. Before they took office the military had no policies. I guess that's why Bush had no plan for occupying Iraq, he wasted all his time working out the details of how often prisoners were to have their excercise time. The guardian is a rag too.

Yeah, you want no piece of me. lol. I consider myself semi-retired from FCP political debates. I chime in here and there, but I've laid the smacketh downeth enough times to be bored of it.

Unless I'm mistaken I still sting from the last time. Thanks for being easy on me.And that avatar is bad dude. That poor women must have been hurt. Why do they have a torture tunnel behind the counter of a jewlery store? Oh wait, is this the Abu Grab Jewlery emporium?

[centris 0]

Ballon guy did you even read it? The ACLU got the army to release its internal investigation, everything that is cited in the articles are things that the United States Army wrote, not that the ACLU, or the new york times or the guardian. The aclu got the army to release their investigation and the news papers are publishing experts from their reports. Just becuase you see 'ACLU' or New York Times does not mean that you can just dismiss everything they write as the 'liberal media.' And you still did not answer my question of which war 'solved' communism

[Balloon guy 158]

Ballon guy did you even read it? The ACLU got the army to release its internal investigation, everything that is cited in the articles are things that the United States Army wrote, not that the ACLU, or the new york times or the guardian. The aclu got the army to release their investigation and the news papers are publishing experts from their reports. Just becuase you see 'ACLU' or New York Times does not mean that you can just dismiss everything they write as the 'liberal media.' And you still did not answer my question of which war 'solved' communism

Cold war.. Soviet Union went bankrupt, that war is still being fought, just quietly in company board rooms and CIA think tanks.I bet I could get those same reports and quote excerpts that will prove everything you said is false. The sourcees, NYT and Gaurdians are not honest in their reporting. People are finally getting fired at NYTs for filing lies, but the Guarding is slow to change. You knew using the ACLU would get my goat just like my pointing out that Bush won every recount and that he will probably get to appoint one more Supereme Court Justice is just to get yours.

You said yourself that you're an accountant.Why, under the pretense that you're some authority on the matter, would you make those statements?This has nothing to do with accounting.A 10% cut in marginal taxrates for everyone will tend to make the low income earners in society worse off. DUCY? I sure hope you do.

You could give the low income people a 100% tax cut and it will make no difference in their quality of living, the bottom 50% of all wage earners only pay 3.8% of all income taxes.The top 50% pay the other 96.2%The top 1% pay 35% of all income taxesIt is impossible to give a noticable tax cut to people who pay almost no taxes.Whereas if you give me a 50% tax cut I still pay over $40K a year in taxes. What exactly is my fair share?

[centris 0]

ballon guy, the quotes show that US soliders tortured and killed prisoners in their custody. And the reports were written by the United States Army, I don't understand what the ACLU, new york times, or guardian have to do with it.If you think that you can find parts in the reports and quote them to demonstrate otherwise I welcome you to do so.The cold war was not a war, just because it had the word war in it does not make it a war (a chickpea is not a pea, hamburgers have not ham in them). And communism is still around it is governement in China, Cuba and North Korea, as I am sure you are aware, so I don't understand how you can say that war has ended communism.

[Balloon guy 158]

ballon guy, the quotes show that US soliders tortured and killed prisoners in their custody. And the reports were written by the United States Army, I don't understand what the ACLU, new york times, or guardian have to do with it.If you think that you can find parts in the reports and quote them to demonstrate otherwise I welcome you to do so.The cold war was not a war, just because it had the word war in it does not make it a war (a chickpea is not a pea, hamburgers have not ham in them). And communism is still around it is governement in China, Cuba and North Korea, as I am sure you are aware, so I don't understand how you can say that war has ended communism.

Okay, I will give in..there is no ham in hamburger. I'll also give you communism, it will probabnly take a war and we will win because no one is even close to being as powerful as us, but War has only ended Slavery, Fasicm, and Nazism. You win.Cold war wasn't a war? In military activity, you are wrong. From vietnam to cuba, to Nicaragua, to Afganistan the cold war was an underlying reason for most every foriegn policy decision from every president since Truman. To say otherwise is nit picking.

[centris 0]

Oh yeah, I can agree that the cold war was a very important force in determining our forgein policy, I just was telling you that it is was not a war and thus you cannot claim that war ended communism.Also I am not sure if you can claim that the civil war ended slavery. There is still slavery around the world, but no longer in the United States. I do not even know if you can state that the civil war ended slavery, well of course it was a major component, but to claim it was solely responsible would be a little historically irresponsible. Slavery was founded on and perpetuated a very ineffiecent economic system, which along with the war had alot to do with its end.The military activity in nicaruga, cuba etc. were not wars since they were not authorized by congress.

[playingtowin 0]

For crying out loud...your source for those 'news' stories is the prisoners..the models of truth and honor. No chance they would lie to make AMerica look bad. Next you'll tell me why Clinton never had sex with that woman, Monica Lewinski.

There was torture. Soldiers didn't get convicted adn sentenced to lenghthy prison terms solely based on the testimony of prisoners. Other soldiers testified. How do u think the abuse was made public? Many soldiers who were at Abu Ghraib could not tolerate what they were seeing being done and they did not believe it was U.S. or military policy so they reported it.

[Balloon guy 158]

There was torture. Soldiers didn't get convicted adn sentenced to lenghthy prison terms solely based on the testimony of prisoners. Other soldiers testified. How do u think the abuse was made public? Many soldiers who were at Abu Ghraib could not tolerate what they were seeing being done and they did not believe it was U.S. or military policy so they reported it.

by this definition, any 'torture' being carried out was not only not sanctioned by the US, but the US military itself stopped and punished the people responsible. Now why then does it have any bearing whatsoever on the state of the war, the reasons we are there, and the opinion of the world on us? The actions of a few loose cannons isn't the responsibility of Bush, anymore than the actions of the soldiers who stopped the 'torture' and reported the issue to their superiors is to Bush's credit.I guess I'm just annoyed when people try to use the torture issue to pretend that that's who Americans are. And the name ACLU is like rubbing salt into my eyeballs.

Oh yeah, I can agree that the cold war was a very important force in determining our forgein policy, I just was telling you that it is was not a war and thus you cannot claim that war ended communism.Also I am not sure if you can claim that the civil war ended slavery. There is still slavery around the world, but no longer in the United States. I do not even know if you can state that the civil war ended slavery, well of course it was a major component, but to claim it was solely responsible would be a little historically irresponsible. Slavery was founded on and perpetuated a very ineffiecent economic system, which along with the war had alot to do with its end.The military activity in nicaruga, cuba etc. were not wars since they were not authorized by congress.

Dude, you are nit picking now. It's just a signature on a poker site

You make a good point there. A few people ive met did actually think that the abuses at Abu Ghraib was under the Army's supervision, and that they were attempting to get info from those prisoners. Anyone should know that that was the result of a few rogue soldiers who thought they were being funny. I seriously question the intelligence of those soldiers. I mean, if your going to be an idiot and do crap like that...DONT TAKE FREAKIN PICTURES right? lol Abu Ghraib since has been a model prison. My father was actually the commander there from last January until July. There were a few major attacks during that time and he has returned home safely, but before he began his command and through today there have been no additional incidents. The soldiers are kept under a tight watch as to prevent anything of course. Abu Ghraib is actually going back into Iraqi control in a few months.

I just reread this post and was amazed I missed the part about your father. Glad he's home safe. I would be interested to hear his feelings about the state of Iraq. My brother-in-law is extremely high up in the military, so high I really can't say, but he doesn't give me squat. I can say when I met General what's his name, the former chairman of the joint chiefs, we talked about my brother in law. I wish he were willing to compromise his career by telling me some juicy stuff about what's going on. I'll just have to settle for Rush giving me all I need to know

[The Nuts 0]

I wish I could edit this topic title to, "Bush *was* a good President". Sorry man, brotha just can't cut it anymore. Take solace with the fact that he isn't Jimmy Carter.Only reason he got re-elected is because the opposing candidate was more of a dumbass than he was. Kerry had that election on a silver platter but the brains behind the campaign organizations and planning were just miserable.I'd take Rambo over either of them. Wouldn't even need a military for the war. Just Rambo.

[mrdannyg 274]

You could give the low income people a 100% tax cut and it will make no difference in their quality of living, the bottom 50% of all wage earners only pay 3.8% of all income taxes.The top 50% pay the other 96.2%The top 1% pay 35% of all income taxesIt is impossible to give a noticable tax cut to people who pay almost no taxes.Whereas if you give me a 50% tax cut I still pay over $40K a year in taxes. What exactly is my fair share?

i'm sorry, but those are terrible economic arguments. what matters is how much in taxes people pay relative to their income, what the cost of living is, and therefore the real disposable wages people have.you pay $80K a year in taxes. your income is over $200K (don't know what the percentages are for the US). do you think losing that $80K hurts you more than someone earning $20K that has to pay $2K in taxes?i mean, she's only paying 2.5% of your combined tax burden, so its really unfair to you.in a free economy, some people "win" and some people "lose." if you don't think the winners should at least pay enough to the losers to keep them alive, then i guess that's your opinion.

If the ACLU said that the sky was blue I would doubt it.Any organization that has NAMBLA as a client is not worthy to breath air. They are the place lawyers go when their scummyness is so bad that other lawyers don't like them, then they join ACLU.They steal money from the government under civil rights loopholes and then sue the government for the stupidest reasons. They tried to argue that a man who has child pornography in his home is entitled to keep it since he was not transporting it, or selling it. Child Pornography, these guys are the worst examples of demented liberals there ever was. Don't use the ACLU if you want to make an arguement.

this also is faulty. im not a fan of NAMBLA, child porn, or a lot of other weird crap that the ACLU supports. but all that the ACLU really supports is freedom of speech. they support the constitution the same way as your forefathers wrote it. they are no different than the NRA.you say that the ACLU is terrible because of their association with NAMBLA and child pornography users. again, not that i support those people, but why are they bad? can you think of any reason they are bad that is not based on personal opinion, but on facts? no.* it is your opinion that those organizations are wrong. but your opinion is no more valid than anyone elses. slamming the ACLU for supporting those organizations is denying freedom of speech.* most of us believe that those organizations exploit and abuse children. however they believe that that is not what they do, so again it boils down to a difference of opinion.Daniel

[The Nuts 0]

Oooo...Economics discussion! I'm actually feeling giddy now. Really, no joke.Mrdanny:The whole, "Bush doesn't care about the poor" could quite possibly be the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Bush adheres to the trickle down theory for stimulating the economy. What happens is that giving money to the poor really doesn't help the economy. They either A) Save it, whether at a bank or at home. Or B) Spend it on necessities that don't really boost the economy itself, such as food.It's the frivolous spending that boosts the economy. Flow chart:1) Bush gives solid rebates to rich people2) Rich people use their monetary surplus to buy frivolous items3) Sales on products go up, which means demand goes up4) To meet demand, supply must increase5) Manual labor is needed to increase the supply6) Poor and less fortunate people get work and thus get money7) Unemployment rate goes down8) GDP goes up...moreOf course it's far more intricate than that, but that's a generic description.If there's one thing I actually agree strongly with Bush on, it's the economy. The unemployment rate is right around 5%, which is pretty much the natural rate of unemployment (depending upon who you talk to, some economists pin it at 5.5%). Inflation is very stable right now. Our GDP is increasing (as it always should). And this was all done after the .com boom died down and of course one of the worst political, economical and social disasters in history occurred (9/11), which only increased the recession we were already heading towards. And we did a great job in turning it around.And no, the ACLU doesn't defend the Constitution. It bastardizes it and manipulates it for their own agenda.

[Balloon guy 158]

I wish I could edit this topic title to, "Bush *was* a good President". Sorry man, brotha just can't cut it anymore. Take solace with the fact that he isn't Jimmy Carter.Only reason he got re-elected is because the opposing candidate was more of a dumbass than he was. Kerry had that election on a silver platter but the brains behind the campaign organizations and planning were just miserable.I'd take Rambo over either of them. Wouldn't even need a military for the war. Just Rambo.

I know, it's like the republicans after 16 years in control of house and senate still think like they have to capitulate to the demands of Ted Kennedy. They turned from the cut taxes and spend less to the leave taxes medium and spend more. I'm with you about this point.

[Balloon guy 158]

i'm sorry, but those are terrible economic arguments. what matters is how much in taxes people pay relative to their income, what the cost of living is, and therefore the real disposable wages people have.you pay $80K a year in taxes. your income is over $200K (don't know what the percentages are for the US). do you think losing that $80K hurts you more than someone earning $20K that has to pay $2K in taxes?i mean, she's only paying 2.5% of your combined tax burden, so its really unfair to you.in a free economy, some people "win" and some people "lose." if you don't think the winners should at least pay enough to the losers to keep them alive, then i guess that's your opinion.this also is faulty. im not a fan of NAMBLA, child porn, or a lot of other weird crap that the ACLU supports. but all that the ACLU really supports is freedom of speech. they support the constitution the same way as your forefathers wrote it. they are no different than the NRA.you say that the ACLU is terrible because of their association with NAMBLA and child pornography users. again, not that i support those people, but why are they bad? can you think of any reason they are bad that is not based on personal opinion, but on facts? no.* it is your opinion that those organizations are wrong. but your opinion is no more valid than anyone elses. slamming the ACLU for supporting those organizations is denying freedom of speech.* most of us believe that those organizations exploit and abuse children. however they believe that that is not what they do, so again it boils down to a difference of opinion.Daniel

You are obviously in a socialist leaning country if you think people should be taxed based on economic climates.Governments are not entitled to my money, they take it and misuse it. That's why as a free people we should do our best to restrict them from as much of our money as possible. The United States Government is the largest employer in the entire world. The retirement and health packages the government employees get will break us, just like it's destroying the US auto makers. $1800 of every car sold by GM goes towards retirement benefits for people that don't work there anymore. They agreed to this and the workers are deserved this, but the ramifications are being seen now and there will be a point that the house of cards collapses.Make no mistake, the only reason European countries can give such silly benefits to it's workers is because the government is trusting the USA to keep the wolves at bay. They spend tiny bits of money on armies and border protection, freeing it up for failing social policies. We become isolationist and in a decade the borders of Europe will be battlefields again.As far as my personal position, your examples were crazily slanted. No one who makes under $35k pays even close to $1K in taxes, which is fine. But I would could employ 3 more workers for what I pay in taxes, people that would buy products and continue the money cycle that keeps the economy going. Instead 3 people collect unemployment and I gie it to the government that feels paying schools $10K per student will get you good teachers, even though it's getting worse. In California I am in an over 50% tax bracket, 36% federal and 17% or something. no government should be getting half your money.

[Eclypse 0]

Balloon Guy, you are a nutcase. Please stop writing all this insane drivel. You are embarrassing yourself.Nearly everything you write is complete fantasy, right down to your 36% federal tax. No US citizen pays 36% in federal taxes. NOBODY! If you’re going to make things up, at least try something that isn’t so easily proven wrong by any moron with enough sense to look at their 1040 tax tables.Please.

[mrdannyg 274]

You are obviously in a socialist leaning country if you think people should be taxed based on economic climates.Governments are not entitled to my money, they take it and misuse it. That's why as a free people we should do our best to restrict them from as much of our money as possible. The United States Government is the largest employer in the entire world. The retirement and health packages the government employees get will break us, just like it's destroying the US auto makers. $1800 of every car sold by GM goes towards retirement benefits for people that don't work there anymore. They agreed to this and the workers are deserved this, but the ramifications are being seen now and there will be a point that the house of cards collapses.Make no mistake, the only reason European countries can give such silly benefits to it's workers is because the government is trusting the USA to keep the wolves at bay. They spend tiny bits of money on armies and border protection, freeing it up for failing social policies. We become isolationist and in a decade the borders of Europe will be battlefields again.As far as my personal position, your examples were crazily slanted. No one who makes under $35k pays even close to $1K in taxes, which is fine. But I would could employ 3 more workers for what I pay in taxes, people that would buy products and continue the money cycle that keeps the economy going. Instead 3 people collect unemployment and I gie it to the government that feels paying schools $10K per student will get you good teachers, even though it's getting worse. In California I am in an over 50% tax bracket, 36% federal and 17% or something. no government should be getting half your money.

Well, I think you make some difficult implications.Most notably, you say that European countries (or Canada, where I live) can keep such small armies because the US will protect us. Well, I don't see anyone attacking us. The US protects itself better than other countries, and yet you guys get attacked. The very reason you get attacked is because of your free market policies. They are very obviously directly related. I don't think the "terrorists" are correct, but the wars the US are involved in are either due to their goal of expansion, or in response to attacks directly related to your free market system.Even though Marxism, communism and socialism have never been accurately tested, I think we can agree that governments are less efficient users of money than individuals. That is why you choose to live in a country where the government is least entitled to your money than other countries. If you lived in Canada for instance, with your income, your average tax rate would likely be over 50%. not marginal, but average. because we have certain beliefs that you may not share.for instance, i am going to school in hopes of getting a high-paying job. even though i'll end up paying half my income in taxes. because i don't mind giving half my income away, since the income others have given away have allowed me to live my first 20 years getting free or highly subsidized education, live healthily, and have great freedoms. in reciprocation, i will help others, even though i could find ways of contributing less, or continuing to leech as opposed to contribute.the US gives such great benefits as an example to other employers. it does to try and raise benefits of competing employers, and raising the overall standard of living for americans. in offering significantly better compensation packages than other companies, this is somewhat contradicting the free market system of the US. however, you can't be a completely free market, so where to draw the line is questionable.General Motors is just an extremely inefficient company. for many complicated reasons, most of which not attributable to the government, it has continued to operate despite obviously being far less efficient than its competitors. this is also contrary to the free market system, but as i said, you have to draw a line. if GM went bankrupt, tens (hundreds?) of thousands would lose their jobs, which would have a terrible effect on the economy. therefore some government intervention positively affects efficient money use - by not allowing this bankruptcy, avoiding the economic problems it would cause, which in turn would lead to inefficiencies.so while i'll admit some of the government actions are contrary to a completely free market system, it is impossible to run a country as a complete free market. the degree of free market a country then employs is dependent on its citizens, and the general size of government they believe is efficient and also philosophically correct.

[Steppin Razor 0]

Take off the ideological blinders and he isn't as bad as you think.

Ideological blinders? Where did I even mention an ideology? I would like to note that I said a President could be responsible for what you wrote. I did not say a President was entirely responsible for anything.

Daniel do you know how the war process works in the US? The house has to vote in favor of declaring war. Most DEMOCRATS voted in favor of the war based upon the false inteligence that Bush and the house recieved. Its not Bush's fault the inteligence was wrong. And we found out after the fact that it was wrong. So how can you just except him to pull the troops after Iraq is in disarray from our attacks. The least we can do is help them rebuild their country.

The core issue is that being 'wrong' about starting a bloody war is pretty f'ing bad. The Intelligence community has also proven that they gave the administration plenty of information that showed they were nowhere near certitude regarding Saddam's weapons programs.

Come on Daniel. An "innocent country?" Give me a break. How many people should die before we give a damn? I'm glad when we were fighting for our independence from British tyranny we had the French and others willing to help us. What would have happened had we been ignored by the world during our struggle? Freedom...it's all about freedom. And freedom doesn't come cheaply nor without controversy.

How many people should die before we give a damn? I don't know, ask the Rwandans. Ask the Bosnians. Ask the Sudanese. Or did you mean how many people that we give a damn about should die before we act?

[chrozzo 19]

oooo, i have a feeling the clear-cut winner of this brutal debate will soon emerge....until then we will all watch, and wait

[Steppin Razor 0]

When Bush 'lied' about the WMDs, he had good company:Clinton, Kennedy, Gore, Daschel, Kerry, Israel, Germany, Saudi, Turkey, Pakistan, Russia, Great Britain, Mossad, French, CIA, United Nations, Peru, the guy on Subway commercials...so basically everyone. Read Tommy Franks book and you'll have a different take on this.

You mean, there were lots of people who saw the same intelligence report as Bush, but not all of the intelligence reports that Bush saw? Frankly I don't give a sh!t whether he lied or was wrong. Either way, that's pretty f***ing stupid to go to war and lose Americans' lives on a goof.

As far as the economy the budget etc. Last time I read the constitution..okay I never actually read the whole thing, but you didn't either so lets pretend, Congress controls the purse strings. So Clinton didn't balance any budget, the Republican house and senate did. And Bush didn't outspend every president before him, the Republican house and senate did. I'll sign the petition to shoot them all. They are two steps beneath car salesmen and pit bosses.

I actually have read the Constitution. You may not know this, but the President submits a budget to Congress for approval. Clinton actually did balance the budget. Bush actually did outspend his predecessors. Congress must apporve the budget, but they don't write their own.

BTW. Democrats hate too much..they hate Bush, Rush, tax cuts, Christians, the military, Fox news, truth. Their party is the party of; "vote for us..we hate___" Republicans are screwed up, but at least they say what they believe in and follow through. (Except for the government spending thing in the last 6 years) You can keep Cindy SHeehan and Michael Moore and Dean as your spokespeople, we'll stick with Rush.

Democrats hate too much !?!?!?!? Did you miss the Clinton years altogether? The vitriol Republicans plastered all over the Clintons was vicious.

And get off the Halliburton bought the presidency. There is a very short list of companies that are capable of doing the rebuilding in Iraq, it's not a conspiracy that the biggest one got the contract. Man you guys are reaching for anything that will get you an impeachment like your buddy Clinton got. Second one in the history of the country, but you know when you lie to a federal judge while under oath about anything, you get punished.If Bush gets impeached for actively spying on Al Queada then we deserve to get hit again. Bunch of head in the sand losers who think you can reason with terrorist. Worked well with the french, bad mouthed us for years about the war, then they got riots. Ungrateful terrorist. You bone heads who think that this is even remotely going to transform into the government recording how often you use the internet to look at porn are crazy. Give me a bust some heads guy like Jack Bauer over the ACLU lawyers who defend the rights of child molestors to own child pornagraphy if it is only in their private homes.Kick butt for a couple years, then we can all get back to worring about the rights of the rapist getting his Miranda rights properly read in his native language. You guys are pathetic if you think we can fight a war while giving enemy combatants lawyers to defend thier rights to shoot at our troops from hospitals and mosques. And if putting a guys underwear on his head and taking pictures is torture, then lets arrest every fottball team in this country for hazing week.Supreme Court....2 down one to go.....

Wow. That's the most unAmerican spewing of rhetoric I've seen in a while. If you want to suspend freedom and rights every time they are inconvenient, then you might be happier under a dictator. I was going to address the Halliburton issue but I can see it would be a waste of time.

maybe...but it works :icon_biggrin:i dont give a rats behind what they do to the prisoners at gitmo...if it leads to major arrests and assasinations of top Al Qaeda leaders to prevent further deaths of American, it is worth it...thats cold, but I love my country more than the comfort of the prisoners

Apparently you don't love your country, because this country stands for an individual's rights. What you are talking about is Saddam's version of government.

[HurricaneKyle 0]

mrdannyg. Gotta disagree on taxes man. How you can support a 'progressive' tax and be a poker player? There are winners and losers in life just like in poker,and a tax system that punishes the successful more does little if nothing to promote the general welfare of the less successful.The perfect system is to tax everyone around 13% of their total income with no deductions. Sadly, a system that would see everyone as equal will likely never come to pass.

[mrdannyg 274]

mrdannyg. Gotta disagree on taxes man. How you can support a 'progressive' tax and be a poker player? There are winners and losers in life just like in poker,and a tax system that punishes the successful more does little if nothing to promote the general welfare of the less successful.The perfect system is to tax everyone around 13% of their total income with no deductions. Sadly, a system that would see everyone as equal will likely never come to pass.

that is absurd. firstly, it would mean people like balloon guy are still paying 10x more than others, so they would not be happy. secondly, it would mean people with tiny incomes are paying taxes, yet also receiving them, which is obviously inefficient.poker has nothing to do with progressive taxation. there is only a vague and not pertinent relationship.the bolded statement is simply untrue. a tax system that "punishes" the successful more does promote the welfare of the less successful. the punishment is taking more dollars. dollars which are then used for less successful people. there is a direct, and almost exact relationship between how much successful people are punished and how much less successful people's welfare is promoted.

[HurricaneKyle 0]

Let me give you an example of how fair the progressive tax is through a poker example. Lets say you were playing at your local casino/card club and they have decided to institute a progressive rake based on how much you have won and lost at the club over the past year. The revenue generated from this rake will be used to give more freebies to the losing players. This sounds good to players who don't win in theory but in reality it will do nothing to help them improve and become better poker players. Of course that would suck balls and would punish those who are actually good at the game.

[Steppin Razor 0]

Let me give you an example of how fair the progressive tax is...

Fair? What does fair have to do with anything? 'That's not fair' is a bit of a... naiive statement.A progressive tax makes sense. I may not agree with the levels as they are, especially as they are changed by the Bush plan, but a progressive tax is both logical and necessary.

[bocablkr 0]

He isAnti-environment.anti-abortion.anti-universal health care.anti-stem cell research.anti-social security.anti-most social programs.anti-gay rights.anti-conservation.he is pro-big business.he is pro-religious right.he is pro-tax cuts for the rich.He does not believe global warmning is real or a threat.He wants to privatize some of our National parks and forrests.He gives lip service to alternative energy but doesn't fund it properly.He gives lip service to education reform but doesn't fund it properly.He trusts his inner circle of advisors instead of his own government scientists.

[Balloon guy 158]

Balloon Guy, you are a nutcase. Please stop writing all this insane drivel. You are embarrassing yourself.Nearly everything you write is complete fantasy, right down to your 36% federal tax. No US citizen pays 36% in federal taxes. NOBODY! If you’re going to make things up, at least try something that isn’t so easily proven wrong by any moron with enough sense to look at their 1040 tax tables.Please.

You're right, I am an idiot. the correct rate is 35%http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TF...e.cfm?Docid=367I feel so bustedThis may be a surpise to you, but I don't actually do my own taxes.

He isAnti-environment.anti-abortion.anti-universal health care.anti-stem cell research.anti-social security.anti-most social programs.anti-gay rights.anti-conservation.he is pro-big business.he is pro-religious right.he is pro-tax cuts for the rich.He does not believe global warmning is real or a threat.He wants to privatize some of our National parks and forrests.He gives lip service to alternative energy but doesn't fund it properly.He gives lip service to education reform but doesn't fund it properly.He trusts his inner circle of advisors instead of his own government scientists.

Exactly, that's what I said when I said he was a good president.Hope they start the drilling in Anwar soon, my SUV is thirsty

Well, I think you make some difficult implications.Most notably, you say that European countries (or Canada, where I live) can keep such small armies because the US will protect us. Well, I don't see anyone attacking us. The US protects itself better than other countries, and yet you guys get attacked. The very reason you get attacked is because of your free market policies. They are very obviously directly related. I don't think the "terrorists" are correct, but the wars the US are involved in are either due to their goal of expansion, or in response to attacks directly related to your free market system.Even though Marxism, communism and socialism have never been accurately tested, I think we can agree that governments are less efficient users of money than individuals. That is why you choose to live in a country where the government is least entitled to your money than other countries. If you lived in Canada for instance, with your income, your average tax rate would likely be over 50%. not marginal, but average. because we have certain beliefs that you may not share.for instance, i am going to school in hopes of getting a high-paying job. even though i'll end up paying half my income in taxes. because i don't mind giving half my income away, since the income others have given away have allowed me to live my first 20 years getting free or highly subsidized education, live healthily, and have great freedoms. in reciprocation, i will help others, even though i could find ways of contributing less, or continuing to leech as opposed to contribute.the US gives such great benefits as an example to other employers. it does to try and raise benefits of competing employers, and raising the overall standard of living for americans. in offering significantly better compensation packages than other companies, this is somewhat contradicting the free market system of the US. however, you can't be a completely free market, so where to draw the line is questionable.General Motors is just an extremely inefficient company. for many complicated reasons, most of which not attributable to the government, it has continued to operate despite obviously being far less efficient than its competitors. this is also contrary to the free market system, but as i said, you have to draw a line. if GM went bankrupt, tens (hundreds?) of thousands would lose their jobs, which would have a terrible effect on the economy. therefore some government intervention positively affects efficient money use - by not allowing this bankruptcy, avoiding the economic problems it would cause, which in turn would lead to inefficiencies.so while i'll admit some of the government actions are contrary to a completely free market system, it is impossible to run a country as a complete free market. the degree of free market a country then employs is dependent on its citizens, and the general size of government they believe is efficient and also philosophically correct.

Danny, this a a very well thought out and smartly expressed argument. I will say that I respect your opinion, and other than the part about communism , marxism, and socialism not being "accurately" tested, I find I agree with you more than disagree.Beware of the young man's facsination with Marx and Lenin, the romance has a death count of about 500 million in the 60 years since it was formed.I'm sure if you smoke cigars we would get along well, while you take most most my money heads up.

[wheatrich 0]

I just love the don't buy into the liberal spin topic then he immediately proceeds to go into mostly conservative spin.Unfortunately, most people never get to hear the real truth or if they ever heard it would immediately dismiss it. They want and love their spin. There's so much that's wrong for a lot of you in this very topic already and even if someone or even I did debunk all of it everyone would just immediately dismiss it because it isn't what they "know" so I just advise all of you to try to catch the whole story about everything and then maybe some of the misconceptions will finally go away.Don't believe what one person says or everything you hear. Listen to everyone and you should be able to figure out what can't be accurate and dismiss that and go on from there.I do like the passion about everyone's viewpoints however. Just remember somebody may know something that you don't.