greyscale or even colors Why, that's tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show talk. /end joke
Hey! You're either FOR the PATRIOT Act, or AGAINST it. Got that, commie?
The Wall Street Journal says: "These numbers represent only people who have a positive adjusted gross income. In 1999, there were 127 million tax filers, 94.5 million of whom showed an income tax liability. That is, 26% had no liability at all. The actual number of people filing without paying comes to 16 million (after subtracting those getting earned income tax credits and thus, presumably, still somewhat sensitive to tax rates). So almost 1
One of the original points in the thread, which has been lost in the ensuing name-calling, is that "welfare" and non-entitlement social programs are *not* a major portion of government spending. If you want to reduce the deficit in a big way, you have to do some combination of: 1) Raise taxes 2) Cut military 3) Cut popular entitlements (Social S
Wait... if the argument is that the war is to personally enrich Bush, then isn't all this stuff about oil exports versus cost of war completely irrelevant? Bush isn't personally paying for the war.
*sigh* The war was partially sold on inflated estimates of Iraq's potential pumping capacity. Note: POTENTIAL pumping capacity. Since no one really knew the state of Iraq's oil fields and infrastructure, and Iraq's production for the past decade has not been subject to market conditions (due to the oil-for-food program), this is NOT something you can just look up on google. It was also sold by underestimating the cost (SOP for the Bus
This really points to the divisions in the Republican party. You've got neocons versus realists, libertarians versus theoconservatives, budget balancers versus tax-cutters, etc. The only thing all Republicans have in common is disliking Democrats.
Islam was a more peaceful, advanced, civilized religion than Christianity up until about 1800. When Christian nations finally embraced seperation of Church and State, Christianity became much more peaceful. Muslim nations, for a variety of historical and religious reasons, have trouble with church-state seperation.
It's a well-accepted scientific theory. "Global warming" is a misleading name. Scientists prefer "climate change." Basically what happens is that climate change hurts the *transport* of heat upward from the equator. So the poles see net cooling (so glaciers advance), and the equator sees net warming. There's pretty good evidence that this happened in the past. *However* it wouldn't happen overnight like it did in the movie.
heat of the moment I'd agree, but Cheney has said he doesn't regret it at all.
It does seem kind of silly, but I don't see where all the outrage is coming from here. What's the big deal? Smartaz's point about importing bullets is well taken.
Then when you consider the fact that there was a chance of having another Clinton-esque Democrat in the WHite House in 2005, the odds of sactions outliving Hussein were nil Funny, since Clinton was the one who kept those sanctions in place. Another Democrat,
So what about Europe's Jews? The Muslims of the Balkans? Not European? More importantly (in terms of numbers), what about European atheists? There are a whole *lot* of them, far more than Jews or Muslims.
We account for almost 50 percent of the worlds GDP Actually around a quarter. I don't understand why Americans bash Canada so much. Sure it's got a weak military, but for crying out loud, it's got tenth of the US's population. There's no reason for it to have a military comparable to ours.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
Darkhawke: do you seriously think that if America had put the time, effort, resources, and money into reforming sanctions that he ultimately ended up putting into the war, that it couldn't have been done? We're spending over $100 billion in Iraq, and we've barely been there a year. I'm sure we could have bribed r!Russia and friends with a small fraction of that. <TABLE cellpadding=8 width="95%" align=center bgColor=#FFF394 class="mb-Body-Quote
Yes. This is something that many people on both sides like to ignore. Hawks like to pretend that America's choices were between war and letting Hussein do whatever he wanted. Doves like to pretend that the choice was a simple "war or no war." Both like to ignore the issue of sanctions, which we now know were successfully containing Hussein. Many hawks like to ignore it because it meant there was a credible alternative to war that would have been effect
You can post here through politicalmachine.com, which is a game site...
Certainly. I was a rather vocal hawk on Iraq, partly for that reason. I guess the real question now is what ought to be done now about the awesome incompetence of the CIA--either their prewar incompetence in predicting these vast stockpiles, or their postwar incompetence in being unable to find them.
Look, the evidence is: No one has spoken up about WMD. We've interviewed most of Iraq's top scientists, military and poltiical officials, offered rewards, etc. No one has led us to any sort of stockpile, even though there are large incentives to do so. No paperwork has been found. Why? Either there really are no weapons stockpiles, or there is a mindbogglingly vast conspiracy of silence encompassing at least hundreds, probably thousan
So we sold WMDs to Hussein and people are denying that there were WMDs in Iraq Most, in my opinion almost all, of the WMDs we sold him were destroyed. Some by Hussein, some by inspectors, some by the passage of time. To my ear, the arguments that there's still a stockpile "somewhere" are even l
Judging from the posts here ("commie"), I'm going to guess that there was some really serious peer pressure on the neighbors to support the flag. I don't even know that it's possible to judge their true intentions based on what's available on the web... I wouldn't be surprised if many neighbors complained privately, but didn't want to express that publicly. ShadowWar, most of the people supporting the association in this thread are conservativ
It won't change any minds. The people who complained that it was "all about oil" will argue that since the US controls the Iraqi government, and the Iraqi government controls the oil, then really, the US controls the oil. (Let me emphasize that I do not agree with this people.)
A "battleground state" is a state which both major candidates have a chance of winning. (Most states are Republican-dominated or Democrat-dominated.) The candidates spend almost all of their time and money in battleground states. There's no point in campaigning in solidly Republican or solidly Democratic states, because the electoral college system is "wi
There is no such thing. You side on one side of an issue, or on the other, OR you have no oppinion at all, but siding on the "moderate" side is just other way to say, "I have a view on this, but I am ashamed of it OR I am a waffler (aka Mr. Kerry). Uh, no. There are more than two sides to many issues. T
PolMach Forums
JoeUser Forums