Zane, did you skip the ENTIRE 6th page...namely the second half of it?!?!??! I made an attempt...albeit may not be perfect....at presenting numerous points. Most of my other posts in this thread were strictly feelings, i can have opinions and feeling about someone. BUT, 6th page i reformed my approach to this thread...so check it out...and take it easy.
I read it. I simply did not wish to waste my time replying to obviously misinformed left wing nonsense.
Exactly what was credible about it?
Richard Clarke? Please.
That man blames the Bush Administration for The events of Sept. 11.
Yeah, that's credible. I believe Mr. Clarke has had enough trouble this year.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/003/894kpvcp.asp
http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/003/916ljzvx.asp
The foreign policy that justifies this rationale is irresponsible, dangerous, and, as suggested by congressman Dr. Ron Paul, even unconstitutional:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul113.html
Yes Mr. Paul would rather "play it safe" and pretend our UN Resolutions were working with Iraq.
Since Iraq was of no threat, it must be coincidence that the US halted Iraq's Nuclear Weapons Program in Operation Desert Storm, or that Iraq does actually have Uranium easily in their grasp.
http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/resources/DeadlyArsenals/chapters%20%28pdf%29/16-Iraq.pdf
http://www.bullatomsci.org/research/collections/iraq.html
Right from the Nuclear Control Institute that there is no evidence of any Iraqi decree to halt their nuclear weapons program, and that Iraq has Uranium within it's borders.
http://www.nci.org/iraq/iraq511.htm
Sarin & Mustard Gas don't count then?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C120137%2C00.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1901043
Oh look, Iraq had Sarin Gas and used it before too!
Gulf War Syndrome ring a bell?
http://www.terrorismanswers.org/weapons/sarin.html
Guess there were a few weapons found huh?
Evidence of surplus presented to Bush, then deficit made by Bush:
http://www.iht.com/articles/109911.html
The numbers on that site appear to be future speculations, rather than many current facts.
Mr. Bush's government spending does reflect a more liberal sytle than a Conservative Style.
Mr. Clinton attempted to balance the budget, not the national debt directly.
It's quite easy to see where Mr. Clinton achieved most of his so called "surplus," with all the Military and Intelligence funds that he slashed.....
http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/89/111/08_1_m.html
among other things.....
http://www.ncpa.org/~ncpa/pi/taxes/taxbook/taxbook8.html
We are at war. War costs money. Armor, Ammo, Food, Water, Cloths, Shelter, Maintenance, Communications, Salary, Equipment, Vehicles, Transportation, etc, etc, etc.
Propaganda. Complete and obvious.
Think about it.
The more money one makes, the more they pay in taxes.
The less money one makes, the less they pay in taxes.
Tax break time:
DUH! The people who pay in the most will obviously recieve the most back.
And Somehow this is called foul?
I'll break this down in simple logic for those who can not folllow:
If 3 people get on a bus, and all are required to pay 10% of their annual income to ride from the exact same current location to the exact same destination.
The first, a wealthy business man with an annual income of $100,000. He pays his 10% or $10,000 to ride.
The second, a middle class woman with an annual income of $10,000. She pays his 10% or $1,000 to ride.
The third, a struggling student with an annual income of $1,000. He pays his 10% or $100 to ride.
They begin their ride, and upon reaching their destination, the bus line says that there is a special this week, and they all are entitled to ride for half of regular price, and the difference will be refunded to them.
The first, a wealthy business man that paid $10,000 to ride. He recieves his half price refund of $5,000.
The second, a middle class woman that paid $1,000 to ride. She recieves her half price refund of $500.
The third, a struggling student that paid $100 to ride. He recieved his half price refund of $50.
The third cries foul, and feels entitled to more. He doesn't understand why he only gets $50 back, when his other traveling companions recieved more.
The second cries found and feels entitled to more. She doesn't understand why she should get less than the wealthy business man.
The first shrugs his shoulders and explains to them both: "Yes, I did recieve more money back from the bus line than either of you did. You must also understand, that I paid $10,000 to ride while you each paid either $1,000 or $100 to ride. Would you like to pay my ride fare next time?"
Tax breaks for the wealthy? Bullsh*t. Why are they not entitled to recieve their fair share back just like the rest of us?
Typical left wing propaganda.
Darn near that whole site is nothing but left wing drivel.
You yourself are using stereotypes and vague generalizations...epsecially when talking about the opposite side of the party than you.
Where?
I think I have been pretty specific in whom I am commenting towards, and more than patient with the liberal propaganda bandwagon.
I've wasted enough time on this matter for the moment.
and
I just finished watching Mr. Edwards get his arse handed to him courtesy of Mr. Cheney tonight for the second time.
God I love America!
