I did enough back in the Reagen thread I had the exact same debate about tax cuts as madmartagen is getting at with Colonel.

WHy did Bush oppose the 9/11 commisions at first ? He bummed out the one made by congress then opposed the public commision itself. The white house support of the commision as well has been lacking a lot, deadlones for documents to be submitted to the commision were late and osme never delivred at all. Not to mention the fact that they asked the 9/11 commision to Censor 28 pages of their report. "ever wonder what is on those pages". + as stated in the movie relating to the Bin Laden family, when you investigate any crime such as murder for say, you always question the family. They can give you insight into the crime and person themselves. Valuble information, lost. "Just not to make their lives less complicated, I don't give a fuck who you are 3k + people were just killed by one of your relatives, you better sit you ass in my country and answer some of my questions.

While the whole stole theory isn't exactly 100 % sound, it still has fantastic merit. The state is goverened by Jeff Bush, -The chairmen of Bush Campeign (Katherine Harris) was also the Vote counter for Florida and and hired a company to knock voters off the list that would most likely not vote for Bush (aka such as African Americans.) More backup and proof to this clause of African Americans getting knocked off the list was in joint session of congress and the Senate, African American Congress men and women both stood up to argue and call mis conduct in Florida. They needed backup from a senator but didn't get any. So they were told to shut up and sit down. One of the Congress Women who came up for this stated that in one of the sections alone 16000 blacks were disin franchised (lost right to vote) in Florida. Also numerous independent counts point out the Gore won the state.

http://democrats.com/view.cfm?id=5111

http://slate.msn.com/?id=2058631 (more mainstream news media for your liking)

[quote:60049]
And the controversy has not been confined to the issue of recounts. Gore supporters say that in Palm Beach County many voters were confused by the design of the ballot. As a result, they may have mistakenly voted for Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan when they meant to vote for Gore. To support its position, the Gore campaign pointed to the results in Palm Beach County and similar counties in southeast Florida[/quote:60049]

+ doens't mattter if Clark takes the wrap, such high profile people being allowed to leave is to much of a fuck up. Ever hear the term used in the army, that a commander is responsible for his/her soldiers ? This in comparsion is the same thing. (Of course someone will take the fall or Bush him not taking the hit would mean almost certain thathe would lose this next election or have a huge blow to his poll numbers.

Lets see some examples of terrorists being harbored in Iraq after Spet 11th ? Thats right their were no links of AL queda to Iraq. If you use these weak statemetns to justify the invasion of Iraq and the killing of men women and children, then maybe you should review your own ethics. People do die you know from those bombs that hit citys. There was even use of Napalm in Iraq which of hit Women and Children. Seeing pictures of that kinda gets you to think...

And in closure, yes there is Liberal Bias in Moore's film's , because it is a liberal peice of media, but a conservative media peice would be bias as well, Moore admits his bias in public and states this is his opinion. In all honest respects i think Moore did this one better then the BFC because he tended to keep himself and his interviews out of the picture more often, instead he presented the viewer with a lot more cold harded facts.

You only say this becaue of my Liberal views. More slander on behalf and based on the fact to you that all of Moore's documentarys are Bullshit and that right winged conservatism is always right. I've got news for you.. its not. Get over it. Neither are. It is a good mix of both that keeps things afloat (although i tend to take as Liberalism is more the answer in today's day and age.) We could also take to fact back in the reagen thread you did little as well to fight ay claims made by the article, you simply told me in the end to go write my own report and go make my own internet article. As many of conservatives tend to do here.

-In the end all it seems to me is that you don't see how valuble life is maybe one day if you ever are so unlucky to live threw the hell that is "war" then you might understand. Life is to valueble to be wasting on such falsities such as the War in Iraq. Now commence calling me a retard, it seems to be the main source of ammunition around here to me.

-end rant. nag:

nag: nag:

nice sig static.

[quote:d8cae] Why did Bush oppose the 9/11 commisions at first ?[/quote:d8cae]

I dont know. And neither do you. To say you do is presumptous.

[quote:d8cae] Not to mention the fact that they asked the 9/11 commision to Censor 28 pages of their report. "ever wonder what is on those pages".[/quote:d8cae]

Theres a reason we call certain bits of information classified. This isnt “what library books did so and so check out”, this is information that no doubt compromises, or relates to ongoing investigations. But again thats presumptious to think I know whats on there and you know whats on there. This is not the first, and last, time this will happen.

[quote:d8cae] + as stated in the movie relating to the Bin Laden family, when you investigate any crime such as murder for say, you always question the family.[/quote:d8cae]

You understand dont you, that the FBI reviewed the crew manifest. They KNEW who was on this plane. You understand that dont you.

[quote:d8cae] The state is goverened by Jeff Bush[/quote:d8cae]

Jeb

[quote:d8cae] -The chairmen of Bush Campeign (Katherine Harris) was also the Vote counter for Florida[/quote:d8cae]

No she actually is the secretary of State. She certifies the results, the State Registrars offifce sets up polling places. You do realize that in most of these polling places where votes were “lost” that they were run by democrats.

[quote:d8cae] and and hired a company to knock voters off the list that would most likely not vote for Bush (aka such as African Americans.)[/quote:d8cae]

This “company” is the ChoicePoint corporation. There task was to take the large registered voter list, and to REMOVE CONVICTED FELONS who do not have the right to vote. It is true that 97% were felons and the other 3% of these (which amounts to 3000) were wrongfully excised. HALF of those were minorities (not simply blacks, although I know to some minority is just another term for “blacks”). So you have 1500 people who may or may not have actually gone to the polls, and voted for Al Gore. Funny thing is Al Gore neither protested the so-called “disenfranchisement” nor supported the felons right to regain their vote.

[quote:d8cae] More backup and proof to this clause of African Americans getting knocked off the list was in joint session of congress and the Senate[/quote:d8cae]

First things, congress is the Senate and The House Of Representatives. “Congress” is not a single legislative house.

[quote:d8cae]African American Congress men and women both stood up to argue and call mis conduct in Florida. They needed backup from a senator but didn't get any.[/quote:d8cae]

Perhaps because the Senators respected the decision of the Supreme Court? You realize the Senate ALSO has minorities in it as well, correct? And you do realize that if the Representatives (these are the guys who conduct business in The House, and serve smaller districts than the Senate) had NOT “stood up” for their constituents, they no doubt would have been removed from office? See Reps serve only two years in office, so they are under the gun to serve the constituents whether they want to or not. Again this is conjecture to their motives, but not bringing their constituents “complaints” to the floor of the Senate would have been career suicide.

[quote:d8cae] So they were told to shut up and sit down.[/quote:d8cae]

No, they were told to respect the rules of the Senate floor which do not allow debate. Moore took that to mean “shut up and sit down”, cause what sounds “jucier”.

[quote:d8cae] One of the Congress Women who came up for this stated that in one of the sections alone 16000 blacks were disin franchised (lost right to vote) in Florida.[/quote:d8cae]

Thats a patently false number. I dont even know how to respond to that except to say power of persuasion is a great thing. “Hey they say some folks voted for the wrong person, you think maybe you voted for the wrong person – yea I think I voted wrong too! Damnit I lost my vote”

[quote:d8cae] Also numerous independent counts point out the Gore won the state.[/quote:d8cae]

I already covered this. Depending on the “rules” used, either Gore or Bush would take FL.

[quote:d8cae] doens't mattter if Clark takes the wrap, such high profile people being allowed to leave is to much of a fuck up.[/quote:d8cae]

Already addressed this. I will say though, that theres a real underlying sense of racism going on to assume that all Saudis are by virtue of the nation of birth are “suspect”.

[quote:d8cae] Lets see some examples of terrorists being harbored in Iraq after Spet 11th ?[/quote:d8cae]

You know they werent there? “Oh hey Saddam we know some of Osamas men have been here in the past, training on your soil for various activities, but since they arent here right now we’re gonna go ahead and let you off the hook”. Yea, real good plan. You’re willing to hold the Bin Ladens w/o them having any involvement in 9/11 but dont give a shit that Hussein has a very real history with terrorist groups INCLUDING Al Qaeda? Sweet.

[quote:d8cae] Thats right their were no links of AL queda to Iraq.[/quote:d8cae]

IN regards to 9/11, no there werent.

[quote:d8cae] If you use these weak statemetns to justify the invasion of Iraq and the killing of men women and children, then maybe you should review your own ethics.[/quote:d8cae]

No, I’d like the left to review the “ethics” that allows dictators to murder their own people, and then “stand up for their rights” when we remove these murderers. Where was your righteous indignation then Short Hand when this was happening? Where were the protest when Hussein invaded Kuwait, when the Baath party systematically murdered Kurds? Where were you then?

[quote:d8cae] And in closure, yes there is Liberal Bias in Moore's film's , because it is a liberal peice of media, but a conservative media peice would be bias as well, Moore admits his bias in public and states this is his opinion.[/quote:d8cae]

Moore has a “fact checker team” – hired by him of course – to check his “facts”. This is not an “opinion” piece. Moore is presenting this as “fact”.

[quote:d8cae] In the end all it seems to me is that you don't see how valuble life is maybe one day if you ever are so unlucky to live threw the hell that is "war" then you might understand.[/quote:d8cae]

No I lived through 10 years of “the ghetto” under a democrat and quite frankly didnt see much of the “liberals love education, minorities, and blah blah blah”. I did however see more than a few people close to me get shuffled on off to the afterlife and did see more than a few people get “disenfranchised” by government in general. This is in the most liberal state in the United States also – California.

[quote:d8cae]Life is to valueble to be wasting on such falsities such as the War in Iraq.[/quote:d8cae]

Tell that to Saddam Hussein.

[quote="Pick Axe":40570][quote=Madmartagen][b] Under Bush's tax cut, the top 2% earners were taxed at a lower percentage than the poorest people[/b], thats what I'm getting at. Should the poorest people in America pay more than the richest? Why do I think the poorer people need more of a tax break? Because generally they spend the rebate immediately, while the top earners in the country are able to save it for later, thats why its called a stimulus. It makes sense to give the spenders the money, rather than the wealthier people who save it.[/quote]


Im sorry, I believe the oppisite is true. Under bush's tax cut, the lowest income brackets got a larger cut.

[img]http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/reports/images/taxplan-chart2.gif[/img]

[quote:40570]Of course the wealthy pay more taxes because they have a higher income. 10% of $100 is $10, 10% of $100,00 is $1,000. Whats wrong with that?[/quote:40570]

Acctually, we have a graduated income tax. The more you make the more you are taxed. The old categories for percent taxed are, 15%, 28%, 31%, 36%, and 39.6%, respectivly, by income. The new categories, under Bush's new plan are; 10%, 15%, 25%, and 33%. I pulled these numbers from
[url:40570]http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/reports/taxplan.html[/url:40570][/quote:40570]

You have that graph, I have this one so we have a difference of opinion.
[url="http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=145"]http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=145[/url]
"Taxpayers making more than $1 million a year get an average cut of nearly $113,000 this year. Such huge cuts at the top tend to pull up the numerical average that the President is fond of citing."

I know we have a graduated income tax, it was just an example i was using. I wish we did have a flat tax rate, but for whatever reason, we dont and no other admin i can think of has every implemented one.

This is me totally agreeing with TGB. GG man. beer:

[quote:1ec71]I wish we did have a flat tax rate, but for whatever reason, we dont and no other admin i can think of has every implemented one.[/quote:1ec71]

Get the fuck out of here. A flat-tax rate sounds great, but the government would be fucked in less than a decade:

Lets say the flat-tax rate was. . .oh 20%. We can assume folks making what less than 20-25K wont be taxed cause that would just kill them. Who benefits? The working schlub? Maybe. Wanna know who REALLY benefits; the small minority who pay nearly HALF of income taxes. Yes folks HALF. The rich would nut their pants over a 20% (or less as I've heard) flat tax. Not suprising who used it on his "campaign platform": Forbes. Yea hes not associated with money.

[quote:0cadc]I dont know. And neither do you. To say you do is presumptous.
[/quote:0cadc]

What possible reason could he have for stoping a 911 commision please tell me ? Or better yet explain that to the 911 victims they will be more then glad to hear any of your reasoning.



[quote:0cadc]Theres a reason we call certain bits of information classified. This isnt “what library books did so and so check out”, this is information that no doubt compromises, or relates to ongoing investigations. But again thats presumptious to think I know whats on there and you know whats on there. This is not the first, and last, time this will happen.
[/quote:0cadc]

How could a fianl report and sum up of the investigation on 911 possibly have nay thing that could hinder the investigations findings when it is already done ?(what possibly in this report on 911 could hinder security of the USA ?) The only reason to censor the information would be because it has incriminating evidence towards the Bush Administration. Thats why they censored the pages. Until they show them this will be my thoughts on those pages. You can assume what you want to as well, but where I come from if you dont want people to see it it obviously has something bad on it. Also how are you so trust worthy of an administratin which has lied so much ? you would think that you would be curious to say the least to know about these pages.



[quote:0cadc]Jeb
[/quote:0cadc]

Talking to gehof (jeff) from cod.org at the time of typing this, mixed up the two names in between typing to him on msn and typing to respond to this thread.

[quote:0cadc]No she actually is the secretary of State. She certifies the results, the State Registrars offifce sets up polling places. You do realize that in most of these polling places where votes were “lost” that they were run by democrats. [/quote:0cadc]

Point being she was Bush's Campeign manager at the time as well. Wow thats not the least bit suspicious...




[quote:0cadc]This “company” is the ChoicePoint corporation. There task was to take the large registered voter list, and to REMOVE CONVICTED FELONS who do not have the right to vote. It is true that 97% were felons and the other 3% of these (which amounts to 3000) were wrongfully excised. HALF of those were minorities (not simply blacks, although I know to some minority is just another term for “blacks”). So you have 1500 people who may or may not have actually gone to the polls, and voted for Al Gore. Funny thing is Al Gore neither protested the so-called “disenfranchisement” nor supported the felons right to regain their vote.[/quote:0cadc]

wrong again. The company at the time (i have no idea of the current company unless it changed etc.) was database Technologies located at 4530 Blue Lake Corporation Center Florida, Trust me those 1500" voters would have put Gore into office. Gore didn't argue any of this and neither did the democratic party itself, it seems they just accepted it. WHich baffels me..



[quote:0cadc]First things, congress is the Senate and The House Of Representatives. “Congress” is not a single legislative house [/quote:0cadc]

all I was trying to say was it was a joint session. not elaborate or get into the details of any of that.




[quote:0cadc]Perhaps because the Senators respected the decision of the Supreme Court? You realize the Senate ALSO has minorities in it as well, correct? And you do realize that if the Representatives (these are the guys who conduct business in The House, and serve smaller districts than the Senate) had NOT “stood up” for their constituents, they no doubt would have been removed from office? See Reps serve only two years in office, so they are under the gun to serve the constituents whether they want to or not. Again this is conjecture to their motives, but not bringing their constituents “complaints” to the floor of the Senate would have been career suicide.
[/quote:0cadc]

I laughed at this one.

if you call 3 minorities on the senate something for the Black Congress members to look to for support. This is the only black member on the senate

wow she is very..black...
[img]http://boxer.senate.gov/i/leftmargin.jpg[/img]

and 2 Senators from Hawaii. (Hawain) 2 of these minorities Senators are backbenchers (as we call them in Canada) and 1 is fairly prominent. NOw if you think that 2 senators that are hawain are going to risk their career for a black person from congress, then you got naother thing coming, they might as well be white just like ALL of the other members in the Senate. As for Boxer, that ain't black. SO minorities support in the senate does not seem like its their as you claim, which amazes why you would not look over the ones who are there. If only support had been their, if someone had the balls to maybe even question the disfranchisement. better safe then sorry.



[quote:0cadc]No, they were told to respect the rules of the Senate floor which do not allow debate. Moore took that to mean “shut up and sit down”, cause what sounds “jucier”. [/quote:0cadc]

It is what most minorities would take it as well, to be told to shut up and sit down, you an be told to shut up in polite ways you know. "yes is is jucier" what should he have said in the movie ? to be quiet ? get real.



[quote:0cadc]Thats a patently false number. I dont even know how to respond to that except to say power of persuasion is a great thing. “Hey they say some folks voted for the wrong person, you think maybe you voted for the wrong person – yea I think I voted wrong too! Damnit I lost my vote”
[/quote:0cadc]

put your money where your mouth is and prove her wrong, email her ask her yourself.





[quote:0cadc]Already addressed this. I will say though, that theres a real underlying sense of racism going on to assume that all Saudis are by virtue of the nation of birth are “suspect”. [/quote:0cadc]

the ones on those planes were, not "all" Saudis. your planting racism here because you have no real arguement to really debate, why they just let these guyz go. Or would it have been to racist to have held them in custody and question them about a few things ? again go tell that to the 911 victims and their family's. Im sure they would love to hear you.




[quote:0cadc]You know they werent there? “Oh hey Saddam we know some of Osamas men have been here in the past, training on your soil for various activities, but since they arent here right now we’re gonna go ahead and let you off the hook”. Yea, real good plan. You’re willing to hold the Bin Ladens w/o them having any involvement in 9/11 but dont give a shit that Hussein has a very real history with terrorist groups INCLUDING Al Qaeda? Sweet . [/quote:0cadc]

so why not go invade Saudi arabia for funding them ? why not go to pakistan to root out all the danm facilities that are their as well, Al Queda is everywhere even in Asian countries, yet I have not seen any US soldiers go there. Fact is this happens in any muslim contry this terror cells are every where yet you are only in Iraq. Yes i will hold the bin ladens to question them and ask them about as much as I can. This is not hurting them only causing them a bit of a inconvience, if you consider this to horrible a thing to do "then again go tell that to the people of 9/11. Honestly if you use this to justify the invasion of Iraq you are fucked.



[quote:0cadc]IN regards to 9/11, no there werent.[/quote:0cadc]

so ? Saudi Arabia has tides to Iraq double time as in 9/11 and in all other respects. Hell they even fund millions of dollers into AL Queda, yet you don't seem to be wanting to invade SA. ?




[quote:0cadc]No, I’d like the left to review the “ethics” that allows dictators to murder their own people, and then “stand up for their rights” when we remove these murderers. Where was your righteous indignation then Short Hand when this was happening? Where were the protest when Hussein invaded Kuwait, when the Baath party systematically murdered Kurds? Where were you then?[/quote:0cadc]

The Kurd masscre was a horrid event, 5000 ethnic Kurds were killed in Iraq, But then again thousands more were killed in the invasion of Iraq then all the Kurds killed in the Chemical attacks by Ali (Suddams chemical weapons general). More Iraqi Civilians are supposedly dead after the bombings on baghdad alone. + the civilians killed everyday and the 1000 + US soldiers being killed daily, The prisoner Abuses, The bagging and random house invasion by soldiers into innocent Iraqi's homes. The explosive Kurdish population in the north which may revolt for independence, even after that most likely get into a war (with turkey) cuasing thousands more dead. (Kurd's in Turkey want independence as welL) Don't play the ethics game with me becasue for every action the US has taken has caused thousnads of Civilian casulty's. Not to mention the outrage in the Arab world and the beheading of various people. Ethic's are not on your side, besides is starting a war over oil really ethical ? gimme a break. you have no standing on this. Besides is waging a full scale war, bombing civilian targets really ethical ? Besides their was a mass genocide of millions in fucking Rwanda, North Korea has WMDS and maeans of deploying them + a whole wad of horros going on in other country's. Why is their an invasion of Iraq but not these countries ? now where have those ethics gone again.....




[quote:0cadc]Moore has a “fact checker team” – hired by him of course – to check his “facts”. This is not an “opinion” piece. Moore is presenting this as “fact”. [/quote:0cadc]

Then if what he is saying is true??? why are you argueing it ? seems you just shut yourself down.

[quote:0cadc]No I lived through 10 years of “the ghetto” under a democrat and quite frankly didnt see much of the “liberals love education, minorities, and blah blah blah”. I did however see more than a few people close to me get shuffled on off to the afterlife and did see more than a few people get “disenfranchised” by government in general. This is in the most liberal state in the United States also – California.
[/quote:0cadc]

I lived for years under the Mulroney Conservative government in Canada, they put this nation into a deficit 42billion to be exact, and for a Country like Canada that hurts. I lived under Mike "The Knife" Harris in Onatrio for most of my older school career, what I saw was education cutbacks and the quality of life in general go from somewhat stable to shit. Welfare which at one point my mom was on was almost denied to her, The Hospital waits are unbareble because Provincial Conservatives were not willing o raise spending onHealthcare from federal cuts. There is a truckload of Conservative fuck ups here as well, point being or "whati m trying to say is, They don't always work out. SOme do some don't. To let you know I lived downtown Toronto for 7 years as a kid in declineing North York area. I know what a ghetto is and have experienced it, so lets not get into all of that, as for people passing away, I've seen many go by my ways as well. God Bless them.


[quote:0cadc]Tell that to Saddam Hussein. [/quote:0cadc]

Tell that to Bush.






(but then again i'm only a trained ape...)

Im done with this thread for now.

[quote:6f1d1]wrong again. The company at the time (i have no idea of the current company unless it changed etc.) was database Technologies[/quote:6f1d1]

Which is ChoicePoint. Thank you for playing.

[quote:6f1d1]Trust me those 1500" voters would have put Gore into office.[/quote:6f1d1]

Again you are assuming you know what they would have done. Why don’t we just bypass elections all together and just go with the Gallup Poll.

[quote:6f1d1] Gore didn't argue any of this and neither did the democratic party itself, it seems they just accepted it. WHich baffels me.[/quote:6f1d1]

Because he felt there was no merit to it?

[quote:6f1d1] and 2 Senators from Hawaii. (Hawain) 2 of these minorities Senators are backbenchers (as we call them in Canada) and 1 is fairly prominent. NOw if you think that 2 senators that are hawain are going to risk their career for a black person from congress, then you got naother thing coming, they might as well be white just like ALL of the other members in the Senate. As for Boxer, that ain't black. SO minorities support in the senate does not seem like its their as you claim, which amazes why you would not look over the ones who are there. If only support had been their, if someone had the balls to maybe even question the disfranchisement. better safe then sorry.[/quote:6f1d1]

What the fuck? Who brought up Barbara Boxer? Are you pulling shit out of your ass? Yes you are, I mean you dont even know that that ChoicePoint is the new name of the company (or for that matter their original name) so why should I expect you to come up with any real facts Shorty. Lets say there WERENT any minorities in the Senate: where are the female Senators to support the poor blakcs? Where were Bob Graham and Bill Nelson? The Senate is not dominated by Republicans – so where were the democrats? “Oh they were just protecting their jobs” – you mean. . .being political? Yea. . .funny how that works out huh.

[quote:6f1d1] put your money where your mouth is and prove her wrong, email her ask her yourself.[/quote:6f1d1]

I don’t need to prove her wrong. She needs to prove herself right, and she was unable to do so. Of course because it was a conspiracy against her that’s why. Of course someone just KNEW Florida would be the battleground state so they went in there and started creating all kinds of trouble.

[quote:6f1d1] the ones on those planes were, not "all" Saudis. your planting racism here because you have no real arguement to really debate, why they just let these guyz go. Or would it have been to racist to have held them in custody and question them about a few things ? again go tell that to the 911 victims and their family's. Im sure they would love to hear you.[/quote:6f1d1]

When all else fails go with sentimentality. I would look each and everyone of those families in the face and tell them “I’m sorry for your loss, but you’re not going to scapegoat people because you want revenge or peace of mind”. That’s not justice. The 142 people allowed to leave were mostly Saudis. Not “mostly” meaning half, mostly meaning MOST of them. Maybe 10-20 werent.

Again, you purposely overlook the FACTS presented to you:

The FBI determined that noone needed to be interviewed. This is the FBI. These are the people who have been tailing the Bin Ladens activities stateside for years. THEY determined they did not need to be held or questioned. What do YOU know that the FBI doesn’t.

The 9/11 commmission THEMSELVES said that the flights were not suspicious nor concealed, nor was their exit out of the country contrary to procedure. Again, what do YOU know that they don’t. Want links can you provide right fucking now that says “Hey heres what they should have done”. Besides referring to a film that wears its bias on its sleeve, what research have you done SPECIFICALLY that runs counter to OFFICIAL findings and reports?

[quote:6f1d1] Hell they even fund millions of dollers into AL Queda, yet you don't seem to be wanting to invade SA. ?[/quote:6f1d1]

Again – give us your evidence. Give us your links. Give us hard numbers that arent bullshit lines taken from movies or “democrat.org”.

[quote:6f1d1] Then if what he is saying is true??? why are you argueing it ? seems you just shut yourself down.[/quote:6f1d1]

Deductive analysis is not your strong point. But you’re right – Moore’s PERSONALLY HIRED, PERSONALLY FUNDED NON INDEPENDENT fact check team is above reproach. Definitely. Uh huh.

As for your recounting the “Mean streets of Canada” – gimme a fucking break. That’s just to hilarious to even bother commenting on.

The rest of the shit I left out because its nothing supported by facts, just sentimentality and meaningless rhetoric. Until you can bring up some FACTS to back these claims. . .we really don’t have much to talk about.

you didnt use pink text, my god.

The people that make more than I do are paying taxes. A lot of taxes. A majority of the taxes. One thing I think we can both agree on is that the economy's health is not just soley a tax issue. I mentioned welfare and you mentioned medicare and social security. I do think that we have an obligation to help others that truely need it, but there are way too many people using and abusing the system at others tax expense. No I don't don't agree with health benefits(medicare/medicaide) for every numbnut who just won't pay health insurance premiums. I do agree that people who are disabled congenitally or by some bad turn of events deserve our support. I do not feel that I owe people who make poor choices in life anything. ( mothers who decide to become sexually active and have 5 kids by the age of 22, high school drop outs that deal drugs, the guy who was laid off from his job for coming to work drunk and used what little money he had to by alcohol and ciggerettes instead of paying for health insurance) the list goes on. It is not our responsibility to support all the baby boomers who can't take care of themselves. Social security is owed to the older folks because they have paid into it. The problem is that it is now so top heavy that it won't work. I do not expect to see a penny of my ss benefits when I retire. So yes , I am all for axing social security if an alternative can be found for the existing retirees. The responsibility lies on us know to plan for our own retirements and not have to rely on the government. That would make SS unneccessary. The whole burden of funding the federal government should not just fall on the hands of the wealthier people in this country. I would like a flat tax also as a fairness issue,but then we would lose massive funding for the goverment and talking about creating deficits.In closing, the issue is much more complex than either of us are saying but I do support tax cuts for the rich because they simple pay most of the taxes period.
I can't really speak specifically on how things differed under Clinton. I was in a totally differnt financial situation then. I do know one thing, when I got married I payed more taxes even though I now had another person to support. Now I get a tax credit for my child biggrin:

I pulled my graph from the whitehouse.gov site, and being that you quoted that site earlier, I suppose you recognize them as a Reliable source?

From factcheck.org:

[quote:6f111]It is true that everybody who paid federal income taxes is getting a cut. But according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center , 35.6 million individuals and families got zero benefit from the Bush cuts because their income was so low they were not paying federal income taxes before the cuts. This number includes 15.1 million workers who are paying federal payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare. That's 15 million "taxpayers" who were left out.[/quote:6f111]

If you didn't pay the tax, no you can't get money back. And everybody pays into Social Security and Medicare, everyone. Hell, last year I made around $1900, not much I know. I didn't have to pay any income Taxes, but I still payed Social Security, everybody does. No, Bush's plan didn't give refunds for social security "taxes", did anybody really expect that??? We pay that money for the benifit of those on Social Security or Medicare, Which we may be on one day ourselves. To give that money back to those 15 million "taxpayers" would be to 'disenfranchise' people who need social security or medicare, and have themselves been paying into it their entire lives.

bush has no pen0r

Man, wow, Then how come all you canadians love him so much?

lmao shorthands fucking essay. god sake

again , nice sig static.

Funny how you failed to comment on the ethic I presented towards the War in Iraq. Seems you have me beat in the political point of the arguement & I have you in the whole war in Iraq part. ohh well.

Thought you were done with this thread oOo: happy: biggrin: ed: annoy: rolleyes:

[quote="Short Hand":6260e]Funny how you failed to comment on the ethic I presented towards the War in Iraq. Seems you have me beat in the political point of the arguement & I have you in the whole war in Iraq part. ohh well.[/quote:6260e]

I'm not here to debate ethics or morality which are at BEST opinion and at worse partisan weapons of stalling. I'm here to debate FACTS, and so far your "FACTS" are conjecture and second-hand repeating of garbage. I'm glad you have an interest in politics Short I am - but you need to take those fucking glasses off and see the big picture.

[quote="TGB!":374ae][quote="Short Hand":374ae]Funny how you failed to comment on the ethic I presented towards the War in Iraq. Seems you have me beat in the political point of the arguement & I have you in the whole war in Iraq part. ohh well.[/quote:374ae]

I'm not here to debate ethics or morality which are at BEST opinion and at worse partisan weapons of stalling. I'm here to debate FACTS, and so far your "FACTS" are conjecture and second-hand repeating of garbage. I'm glad you have an interest in politics Short I am - but you need to take those fucking glasses off and see the big picture.[/quote:374ae]

I say the same to you. We agree to disagree then ?

[quote="Pick Axe":ba0d9]From factcheck.org:

[quote:ba0d9]It is true that everybody who paid federal income taxes is getting a cut. But according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center , 35.6 million individuals and families got zero benefit from the Bush cuts because their income was so low they were not paying federal income taxes before the cuts. This number includes 15.1 million workers who are paying federal payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare. That's 15 million "taxpayers" who were left out.[/quote:ba0d9]

If you didn't pay the tax, no you can't get money back. And everybody pays into Social Security and Medicare, everyone. Hell, last year I made around $1900, not much I know. I didn't have to pay any income Taxes, but I still payed Social Security, everybody does. No, Bush's plan didn't give refunds for social security "taxes", did anybody really expect that??? We pay that money for the benifit of those on Social Security or Medicare, Which we may be on one day ourselves. To give that money back to those 15 million "taxpayers" would be to 'disenfranchise' people who need social security or medicare, and have themselves been paying into it their entire lives.[/quote:ba0d9]

Right, what is this about? If you dont pay taxes (dont make the minimum) you arent going to get a tax break. I dont understand why you put these paragraphs. I quoted the White House ONCE (although I try not to quote any administration using their own statistics) but I quoted it because it is its own budget list and not a stance or claim on any particular issue.

My point is that the poorest people don't pay more than the richest. The rich are taxed at a higher percent than the lower income brackets. The rich pay more because they make more, and also because they are charged more per dollar. This is the way our tax system has been set up for a long time. It's still that way. If you can give me geunuine proff of your statment, "The top 2% earners were taxed at a lower percentage than the poorest people", I would welcome it. Untill then, I will have to believe that our system is set up where the more you make, the more you make, the more you pay (percent).

You know, accross the country, it seems like more and more people are speaking out about politics. More people are taking an interest in our government. I hope this will lead to a more people-founded government.

http://www.imf.org/external/Pubs/NFT/Op/227/index.htm
http://slate.msn.com/id/2093707/
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=139

[quote="Short Hand":fe2eb]watch ferenheit 9/11 they are countless. if you haven't seen it then stfu,.[/quote:fe2eb]
argh! damn canadians, stay out of our affairs. you wannabes dont know shit. the fact on the election is that gore couldn't win no matter how he sliced the votes in florida, he always lost the popular vote. the supreme court eventually had to draw the line on how many recounts would be allowed. micheal moore is, in a short form, full of shit. the people in this fuckin continent are stupid enough to eat his stuff like gospel. please tell me canadians are slightly smarter.

[quote=CoMaToSe]argh! damn canadians, stay out of our affairs. you wannabes dont know shit. the fact on the election is that gore couldn't win no matter how he sliced the votes in florida, he always lost the popular vote.[/quote:9a5d2]
umm actually, Gore won the popular vote, he lost the electoral vote. kind of a big difference there, eh?
[img]http://img11.exs.cx/img11/6444/fugly.jpg[/img]

Madmartagen
I know we can't just pick and choose who recieves benefits, but there should be a way of holding these people accountable for their actions, not just providing a path to less reponsibility. Medicaide is govt. subsidized. Someone is eating the cost of their healthcare. The hospital, healthcare provider, and the govt. all take a hit which results in an increased cost for all. I live in an area of the country where many just don't deem it necessary to have health coverage even if they can afford it.

Investigators and clerks do not solve the problem. It is an overall attitude of apathy with some people. Employing enough investigators to catch these people would cost too much money. These people should not have such an easy path to take. Point is: they should have to take some responsibility and make a contribution.

The "lock box" even untouched is still not a long term solution. SS will eventually not work. With advances in medicine, people are living longer and are more dependant on the system in their golden years. I don't agree
with SS as a long trm solution. Some resposibilty must fall on the working generation of today to plan for their retirement.

I wasn't speaking of a young mother with a child. I was talking about ones that do it over and over and over when there is no way she can support these children. Does she need help? Of course, but should we keep suppoting a system that does not hold these people accountable?

The lower class was not taxed heavily in the first place. Giving a tax cut to wealthier people who pay most of the taxes anyway does not mean that you are taxing the lower class more heavily.

Yes i wish we were not in a defict. I do not agree totally with either parties economics 100% On economics alone, a business man could run the economy much better, but at what cost?

I'll let you get the last word biggrin: This debate is wearing out my hunt and peck typing method spank: I'm signing off....

Nooooooo!!!! I signed off first.

Michael moore is full of shit. The whole movie is propaganda, and nothing more. He names only the bad, and blows the bad way out of proportion. When he named the Coalition, he named really small countries, as if an insult them. Then doesnt mention the bigger countries, like Great britain. He is a douche bag, plain and simple

Wrong thread. GG.

Or not, look at comatose quote in his post. Kthx

This thread isnt about Michael Moore or Canadians vs. Americans and all that other bs. You guys seriously fuck up every serious thread with this shit. It was about people listing opinons as to why Bush isnt a good president and rebuttles by people who feel that he is doing a good job. I for one am bored with it all and feel that myself and my counterparts have made our own points and we all left the table agreeing that we need some lunch. If you guys want to debate Canada vs. America or Michael Moores shit, take it outside.

Well, Moore was entered into this thread, so its now being discussed. Oh, the humanity.

ROFL i just beat the game, fun but a waste of time it hink

Fireal go back to the danm art forum and flame a newb. You made just about as much a impact as camatose.

[quote=CoMaToSe]argh! damn canadians, stay out of our affairs. you wannabes dont know shit. the fact on the election is that gore couldn't win no matter how he sliced the votes in florida, he always lost the popular vote. the supreme court eventually had to draw the line on how many recounts would be allowed. micheal moore is, in a short form, full of shit. the people in this fuckin continent are stupid enough to eat his stuff like gospel. please tell me canadians are slightly smarter.[/quote:c1de3]

1. Gore won the popular vote by a pretty large number.

2. More people eat the shit the right wing media puts out and the shit Bush puts out so we can say the same to you.

3. Ill say it once ill say it again, We will never stay out o your affairs because we are attached at the hip to you. What you do effects us greatly. So we will not stand idly by and just let ours selves be shit upon, by flag wavers such as yourself.

[quote="Short Hand":1231d]
1. Gore won the popular vote by a pretty large number.

2. More people eat the shit the right wing media puts out and the shit Bush puts out so we can say the same to you.

3. Ill say it once ill say it again, We will never stay out o your affairs because we are attached at the hip to you. What you do effects us greatly. So we will not stand idly by and just let ours selves be shit upon, by flag wavers such as yourself.[/quote:1231d]

1. that was 3 1/2 years ago...its over...can't be redone...no do-overs/tagbacks/mulligans in elections

2. right wing media such as? cnn? leans left. msnbc? leans left cnbc? leans way left. n/abcbs? about as useful for objectivity as the back of a shampoo bottle. so who does that leave? fox news, and um thats about it besides conservative radio talk show hosts (which are beating the pants off the liberal answer to limbaugh/hannity: air america) the fact of the matter is, left wingers have no answer to the problems facing America, they can only agree on getting Bush out of office, not just wanting him out but hating him with the passion that you obviously hate the man. Becuase they have the corner on the major media markets, its open season on Bush and how terrible of a President he is, you only need turn on cnn for ten minutes to get that impression. That being said, the Democrats are finding that aside from hating Bush, Kerry offers nothing new in the way of platform ideas besides the UN. At least with Bush, he doesn't sound like an arrogant prick as Kerry comes across.

3. I'm glad you are concerned with what is happening here but let's remember one thing. the conservatives who speak up on this forum do not represent every conservative in the US. I'm not trying to piss anyone off but the majority of us do not jump to personal attacks when their positions are challenged. I've had debates with you and I avoid attacking you personally at all costs because I don't know you. I respect your opinion and your right to give it and I only ask the same. Infantile responses have no place in a valid discussion and members of both sides who jump to the standard "please die (insert location and/or method of death here)" prove one of two things 1.) they are too lazy to pick apart the argument presented with facts or 2.) they have nothing with which to pick apart the argument presented.

I can agree to disagree with you short, I just ask that you respect my right to support Bush and maintain that he is doing a good job without being equated with the village idiot.

cheers

fuck this country is so fucked up ..im movin to europe where at least 3rd parties have a voice and are not controlled by a fuckin 2 party system. this is not democracy. it's evolved over time so people are taught there are only 2 parties. fuck this bullshit, all these arguments are pointless

[quote="Old Reliable":57d6b]fuck this country is so fucked up ..im movin to europe where at least 3rd parties have a voice and are not controlled by a fuckin 2 party system. this is not democracy. it's evolved over time so people are taught there are only 2 parties. fuck this bullshit, all these arguments are pointless[/quote:57d6b]


----->

that's the way you should go if you want to go to Europe.

how can you be satisifed with only two parties that don't even provide what they are supposed to?