[guarnere]

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

[TGB!]

[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.

[Short Hand]

[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...)

[Short Hand]

Im done with this thread for now.

[TGB!]

[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.

[elstatec]

you didnt use pink text, my god.

[Snuff]

Originally Posted by Madmartagen

That sucks that you pay so much and I know it can be hard to see all that money disappear out of your check, but why should the people who make even more than you not have to pay anything because they get breaks on dividends, estates and the tax breaks given to them directly? I think it would be better for everyone to pay a flate rate percentage, but I dont know if any administration has ever done that before. How well were you doing under the Clinton admin? Is it better now or was it better then?

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:

[Pick Axe]

Originally Posted by Madmartagen

You have that graph, I have this one so we have a difference of opinion.
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=145
"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 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.

[Maplegyver]

bush has no pen0r

[Pick Axe]

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

[elstatec]

lmao shorthands fucking essay. god sake

[Short Hand]

again , nice sig static.

[Short Hand]

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.

[Pick Axe]

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

[TGB!]

[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.