Who voted for Bush/Cheney in '00 or '04?

[ShawnB]

I've got an opinion on everything, and rarely am I afraid to share it. But after reading the last couple pages of this thread, I have no idea what the fuck this distance pissing contest is trying to settle?.

Yeah, but it didn't start well, really, so why should it improve as it goes?

Can I ask you one thing about what you wrote? I understand most of your statements, but this one remains a bit ephemeral:

[QUOTE=uglymoney]...the balance sheet must be balanced, taxes must be targeted, not eliminated. QUOTE]

I'm not sure what you mean, and there are a number of possible interpretations, skewing a few different ways. Mind giving a quick clarification? Thanks.

[johnnya]

Hey toolbox, wtf is an Iraqian?

Your opinion has been noted, Al Franken is proud.

I dont know..whaddya call em? dirka dirak jihalibadists?

i dont think I was trying to defend any notion similar to that sad man Franken. If I was, shouldnt I be saying that you guys need to pull out and let the people of Iraq sort themselves out. Definetly not trying to say that. I just dont think this war is remotley similar to the Japan situation back then and nukes will make things alot worse.

[Blurred]

So you're saying that were in Iraq for our freedom? Just checkin..

Hussein sponsored terrorism against Israel. 25 grand a pop.

Need I say more?

[Z]

McCain likes to keep the appearance of being a maverick, but he isn't all that he appears. Don't fall for it. He's already starting to pander to the religious right, including Pat Robertson, as he begins his bid for the nomination.

I'm hoping for Obama myself.

I'd vote for Obama. Dudes got it together.

[bagtagley]

Where'd all the neo-cons come from, Epicski?

[johnnya]

Hussein sponsored terrorism against Israel. 25 grand a pop.

Need I say more?

Agreed, so why not take him out all clandestine like? Special ops, or a sponsored coup/revelotionary group?

Sorry for the hypothetical, whats done is done and its has to be dealt with as is of course.

[Blurred]

i dont think I was trying to defend any notion similar to that sad man Franken. If I was, shouldnt I be saying that you guys need to pull out and let the people of Iraq sort themselves out. Definetly not trying to say that. I just dont think this war is remotley similar to the Japan situation back then and nukes will make things alot worse.

Ok, gotcha. Just gotta remember the huge anti-Iraq war sentiment shared by most on this board.

[uglymoney]

[QUOTE=ShawnB]Yeah, but it didn't start well, really, so why should it improve as it goes?

Can I ask you one thing about what you wrote? I understand most of your statements, but this one remains a bit ephemeral:

...the balance sheet must be balanced, taxes must be targeted, not eliminated. QUOTE]

I'm not sure what you mean, and there are a number of possible interpretations, skewing a few different ways. Mind giving a quick clarification? Thanks.

Sure. As a for instance, we spend billions of dollars fighting a war in Iraq and elsewhere in the middle east, in theory this is a hopeful effort to keep the area stable because it is a very important source of oil, which is the basis of our economy at the moment.

Meanwhile, the war is not paid for, and our oil consumption continues to rise. So, in my view, a smart solution would be to raise the tax on gas. This would help pay for the our military efforts (however effective or inneffective), encourage Americans to burn less gas, which would in turn make middle east stability less important, saving us money down the road.

Now, the tax on gas would cost certain people more money than others, and so it might be that other taxes would be lowered or eliminated.

The current Republican view seems to be that we must lower taxes forever, because that encourages growth, blah, blah, blah. I'd like to see a taxation line up with spending. Oil use costs the government money, so use oil, give the government tax money. Buy a windmill, solar panels, give the government no tax money.

Just an example, hope this helps illuminate my positon.

[Yonder_River]

Hussein sponsored terrorism against Israel. 25 grand a pop.

Need I say more?

So your saying it was worth it to invade Iraq because Saddam allegedly gave money to the families of suicide bombers in Israel- not even our own country?


I bet your stoked that an invasion of Iran is in the works. Maybe we'll get some more freedom after we do that.

[Yonder_River]

I dont know..whaddya call em? dirka dirak jihalibadists?

i dont think I was trying to defend any notion similar to that sad man Franken. If I was, shouldnt I be saying that you guys need to pull out and let the people of Iraq sort themselves out. Definetly not trying to say that. I just dont think this war is remotley similar to the Japan situation back then and nukes will make things alot worse.

Just to clarify, Al Franken is not for immediate withdrawl. He thinks that since we're there now, it's our duty to clean our shit up.

[cloudpeak]

Hussein sponsored terrorism against Israel. 25 grand a pop.

Need I say more?

Rumsfeld expressing appreciation for Saddam's activities.

[johnnya]

Rumsfeld expressing appreciation for Saddam's activities.

Whats your arguement? International politics is a complex muther man.

[Blurred]

Agreed, so why not take him out all clandestine like? Special ops, or a sponsored coup/revelotionary group?

Just like the first Bush, because we were afraid someone else who is worse would replace him. Also, assassinating a president/leader is against international law.

Iraq is full of terrorist douchebags, and that's who we're still having a problem with. After 9-11, we couldn't let someone like Saddam who sponsored nation backed terrorism. You take that with Saddam not obeying his orders dictated to him from the first gulf war, and the country had to be taken out. Welcome to the 21st century Iraq. No more oppression from a fascist dictator. Democracy has been proven to be a superb form of government. All you liberal blowhards that cry about human rights, think about the human rights provided to the Iraqi people. MILLIONS of people are now free from oppression.

We don't hear about that though.

[johnnya]

Just to clarify, Al Franken is not for immediate withdrawl. He thinks that since we're there now, it's our duty to clean our shit up.

Thanks for the clarification, dont get any Franken up here, or O'Reilly for that matter.

[Blurred]

Rumsfeld expressing appreciation for Saddam's activities.

People like you annoy me the most.

Politics are a dynamic thing always changing.

If it was up to you, we wouldn't be doing business with Japan or Germany, due to wwII. Are you really that stupid?

[Blurred]

I bet your stoked that an invasion of Iran is in the works. Maybe we'll get some more freedom after we do that.

When you hear on the radio driving to work that Iran has lobbed a nuke at us, I bet your opinions will change. However, it will be too late then.

[johnnya]

All you liberal blowhards that cry about human rights, think about the human rights provided to the Iraqi people. MILLIONS of people are now free from oppression.

We don't hear about that though.

And free from a genocide.

One thing you Americans should explain to me is whole polarization between "liberal blowhards" and "neo-con hunters." There is no debate when its all "us vs. them."

[ShawnB]

Just an example, hope this helps illuminate my positon.

Yep. I read ya.

But doesn't owning a windmill/solar/greywater system or some shit allow you to stay off of--or even sell back to--the grid, and isn't that good enough? Much bucks per year saved directly, without complicating things via arcane and indirect new tax laws, no?

Also, gas tax = consumption tax = greatest financial burden on those least able to afford one. If what you want is to disincentivise petroleum use, wouldn't a fairer way be to tax progressively the owners of increasingly lower-milage vehicles? Not advocating it, but isn't this more likely to do what you're looking for--political feasibility of either of the two options notwithstanding?

[Blurred]

And a genocide.

Saddam killed his own countrymen. Okay?

One thing you American should explain to me is whole polarization between "liberal blowhards" and "neo-con hunters." There is no debate when its all "us vs. them."

Try taking an extra 3 seconds to write a coherent sentence so I can have a chance to understand what you're talking about, okay?

[FNG]

What a stupid fucking thread. Why are we still bashing Bush for the war? It's not just going to disa-fucking-peer if we spout enough stale remarks about Republicans. We went to war in Iraq. We're going to stay there until it's a state stable enough not to collapse on itself when we leave. Gas is more expensive now than it was before the war. No amount of thread-cunting, alias using, Hard Ball wanna-be, talk radio bullshit on some tiny internet message board is going to change any of it. Grow up and move on with your lives.

[johnnya]

Saddam killed his own countrymen. Okay?



Try taking an extra 3 seconds to write a coherent sentence so I can have a chance to understand what you're talking about, okay?

No, I was merely adding the point that if American troops leave, a genocide could probably occur.


Sorry, i thought it made sense to me. My question to everyone is about the "us vs. them" mentality in America of liberals vs. conservatives and vice versa. Capice?

[Yonder_River]

When you hear on the radio driving to work that Iran has lobbed a nuke at us, I bet your opinions will change. However, it will be too late then.

Word on the street is that Iran LOVES the fact that we invaded Iraq. The fucked up leader there has this freakin mess to point at to his people and prove that we Americans can't mind our own business. Do you realize that although Iran has an extreme government, a majority of the people are secular in nature and are relatively pro-American. They love our culture. You invade their country after how we look to the Muslim world right now and expect those same people to love us. Fuck no, they're going to side with the Iranian gov. Those people need to stay moderate so they can eventually demand change in their leaders.


BlurredElevens wrote: Iraq is full of terrorist douchebags, and that's who we're still having a problem with.

Our occupation created those terrorists, think about it.

[ill-advised strategy]

Grow up and move on with your lives.

discussing mistakes, how and why they were made, and who made them is a grown up way of learning from them so as not to repeat them. A particularly important thing to do being as how we're flirting with making the same mistake with Iran.

you grow up: it's a self-governed country, talking about politics is part of being a functioning adult in a democracy.

[uglymoney]

Yep. I read ya.

But doesn't owning a windmill/solar/greywater system or some shit allow you to stay off of--or even sell back to--the grid, and isn't that good enough? Much bucks per year saved directly, without complicating things via arcane and indirect new tax laws, no?

Good point, and the answer is murky at the moment with the cost of electricity being so cheap. The government has already mandated that utilities rebate a certain portion of their income for efficient appliances, and this has proved highly effective. Obviously, I was just using say a windmill as an example, but do you have a problem with say waving sales tax on windmills in order to encourage people to buy them? I don't.

Also, gas tax = consumption tax = greatest financial burden on those least able to afford one. If what you want is to disincentivise petroleum use, wouldn't a fairer way be to tax progressively the owners of increasingly lower-milage vehicles? Not advocating it, but isn't this more likely to do what you're looking for--political feasibility of either of the two options notwithstanding?

Politically feasible? Probably. In fact we are already seeing rebates for hybrid-electric cars - a very easy sell. Gas tax is a very unpopular idea in this country at the moment, mostly I think because it is misunderstood.

Yes, it would effect the poor, the most, and this would have to be addressed elsewhere in the tax system for a gas tax to have any chance at all of passing.

Let me put it another way, I'd be in favor of an increased gas tax that was revenue nuetral. I pay more for my gas, but get a bigger rebate every year from uncle sam on my income tax. I buy a more efficient car, which will be easier to find, since everybody is going to demand a nice car that is functional and efficient, and I pay less income tax.

Our country's reliance on the middle east decreases, our green house gas emissions decrease, and I have more money in my pocket every April to buy skis with.

Oil is so cheap, so effective, such an amazing commodity, that the only feasible way to use less of it, is to tax it in one way or the other so that other fuels/conservation become more attractive.

Everybody wins, except for the oil barrons.

[ShawnB]

[QUOTE=FNG]What a stupid fucking thread...We went to war in Iraq. We're going to stay there until it's a state stable enough not to collapse on itself when we leave. QUOTE]

Honestly, FNG, even that simple idea isn't necessarily going to happen, and isn't that f@cked up?

So whether it does or not depends on which way the political winds blow. And since this is, for the moment, a democracy, ideally that means that what we-all think matters some, and at some point gets reflected in what our reps do. So I'm of the mind that it sorta helps to talk to your fellow citizens and find out what they think. Like dialogue and all. Just friendly banter among friends. No big shit.

But yeah, the yelling and recriminations are a little silly, probably.