6th May 2003, 9:57 AM
Now Weltall... you've got to reply to Nintendarse's post and both of mine... get some food? You'll be here a while... :)
Just like you do?
Between me and Nintendarse, we came up with 12 in a few minuites (or did you skip those parts?)... and that's just a fraction of the ones we went into...
Read previous post (reply to N_Man).
Look at Nintendarse's chart then rethink that part.
The tax cuts involve everyone? Well yeah, everyone'll get some miniscule check, sure. While big companies (or, more exactly, their executives) rake in millions of savings. And of COURSE it'll trickle-down! Just like how it (didn't) in the '80s! Everyone knows Reganomics worked...
Now all I can do is watch and be happy as the tax cut gets smaller... $350 billion is many, many times better than $750 billion. Not as good as no tax cut, but since Republicans are in control I can't expect that.
Lets all thank the New England Republicans... I don't agree with them on lots of issues, but if we've got to have a republican, Olympia Snowe is as good as they get (and matches the centrist, more fiscally convervative New England people more)...
You wish... you can deny it as much as you want but its a lot more than cooincedence that gave us a good economy, a rise OUT of deficit spending (one problem Bush sure solved fast), etc. Its not a cooincedence that as soon as Bush came in the recession that had started went steeply downhill, either... and still is...
Once again read my response to N_Man.
Expanding on my comments to N_Man...
The point is that we ARE dominating by force! Iraq was FORCE. Pure and simple. And it sets a precident that, as I explain in depth to N-Man, is very, very dangerous and sets us up for a bleak future. Unless things change soon.
Yeah, we do do that. True. But I'd still LOVE to see higher gas taxes... maybe not to the point of $4 gas, but much higher. It'd be GREAT do so something to stop so many people from getting those stupid SUVs.
What do you mean? Inredibly unlikely? Look. We spend a LOT on foreign aid. That is uncontestable. BUT, as a PERCENT it is lower than most anyone. Since our economy is so huge...
Oh, and its not anywhere near worth a war and everything else that happened to get a secure source of oil... and anyway, it won't be THAT secure. Many of the Iraqis already hate us...
No, of course not. W. would never deal with Sadaam... and sure they are free. So are the Afghanis. But in both cases freeing them is the side effect and other things are the reason for action.
Note how many brutal dictatorships are still in power... will we go kill them all now? Sure it'd make some people feel better, but the overall effect in the future would be bad...
Look at the last few months before the attack. You don't believe me, but I think that they were telling the truth there... the Iraqis were letting the inspectors destroy those missiles that broke the range limit and seemed to desperately be trying to ask how to prove they had destroyed or dumped the weapons when they had "lost" (I'm still dubious about that part) the papers...
Sure, in 1998 they were doing what you say, but, I'd say, not NEARLY as much since the inspectors returned.
Quote:Well, how about from now on, if you're thinking of posting something you can't readily prove, don't post it, because then you're just reaching.
Just like you do?
Quote:Yes, I am saying that we didn't prop up DOZENS. There were a few, granted. But what I am saying is that much of former Communista made the transition from Communism to Democracy without the need for that. Again, see Eastern Europe and other remnants of the USSR, South Korea, etc.
Between me and Nintendarse, we came up with 12 in a few minuites (or did you skip those parts?)... and that's just a fraction of the ones we went into...
Quote:Most of it is. Much of the world is undeveloped, and ruled by sometimes ancient forms of government, those that are even stable. The world has much to learn from our success.
Read previous post (reply to N_Man).
Quote:Well, that's the point I was making. But the Nam war never helped LBJ, as it turned sharply against him once it was discovered that his administration was lying to the public about how successful the war was. But you're right, it didn't get really bad until after the Tet Offensive.
Look at Nintendarse's chart then rethink that part.
Quote:They won't care about that when they realize that *gasp* the tax cut includes mostly everyone!
Hate to break it to you, but your Robin Hood mentality is shared by few. Most people don't hate the rich for being rich. A smart person wouldn't, anyway. They would instead use their resources to acquire similar wealth. That's what fuels a capitalistic society. Even regular people wouldn't mind the tax burden on businesses lightened, since starting a small business is a popular thing.
See, in contrast to your views, most people don't want the rich hurt for their benefit. They'd rather become rich themselves.
The tax cuts involve everyone? Well yeah, everyone'll get some miniscule check, sure. While big companies (or, more exactly, their executives) rake in millions of savings. And of COURSE it'll trickle-down! Just like how it (didn't) in the '80s! Everyone knows Reganomics worked...
Now all I can do is watch and be happy as the tax cut gets smaller... $350 billion is many, many times better than $750 billion. Not as good as no tax cut, but since Republicans are in control I can't expect that.
Lets all thank the New England Republicans... I don't agree with them on lots of issues, but if we've got to have a republican, Olympia Snowe is as good as they get (and matches the centrist, more fiscally convervative New England people more)...
Quote:And he did nothing to fix it, and with his tax increases actually did more to harm it. He was just lucky that he happened to be President during the Internet Boom, just as it's Bush's own bad luck to accede the presidency at the end of it.
You wish... you can deny it as much as you want but its a lot more than cooincedence that gave us a good economy, a rise OUT of deficit spending (one problem Bush sure solved fast), etc. Its not a cooincedence that as soon as Bush came in the recession that had started went steeply downhill, either... and still is...
Quote:Of course it's bad to be disliked by everyone else. But if they can't do anything but dislike us, I won't lose sleep over it. Seriously, I only care what other people think if there's a chance that it can affect me. As it stands, they can throw a temper tantrum and they'll get over it.
Once again read my response to N_Man.
Quote:It would also be wrong, because we don't dominate with force. We dominate with our economic prowress, and money can often supercede military might. That we also happen to have the best military in the history of the world is irrelevant, as we never use it to even half of it's true capacity. If we did, it's likely we COULD dominate the world militarily.
And the great empires of the world fell for that reason: They tried to dominate militarily, and overextended themselves. It's safe to say we're not anywhere close to that, nor are we even approaching it.
Expanding on my comments to N_Man...
The point is that we ARE dominating by force! Iraq was FORCE. Pure and simple. And it sets a precident that, as I explain in depth to N-Man, is very, very dangerous and sets us up for a bleak future. Unless things change soon.
Quote:Well, there's that itty bitty fact that Americans rely on the automobile to an exponentially greater extent than Europeans do whcih results in their astronomical gas prices. But keep in mind that oil doesn't just make automotive gas.
Yeah, we do do that. True. But I'd still LOVE to see higher gas taxes... maybe not to the point of $4 gas, but much higher. It'd be GREAT do so something to stop so many people from getting those stupid SUVs.
Quote:Well, as I've never seen that before, I'd like a source for it. Considering that the US funds almost all of the UN military force, I find that incredibly unlikely.
Why can't they get rich? Two reasons. This new source of oil won't start some petroleum-consumption orgy, and if anything will drive prices much lower. The financial gains will be long-term, when we have a large, stable source of oil. It's not so much about getting rich quick, but making sure we don't have an oil crisis down the line. Even if on the off chance this war was for oil, eliminating the chance that middle-eastern nations could inflict an oil shortage on us is definitely worth it.
What do you mean? Inredibly unlikely? Look. We spend a LOT on foreign aid. That is uncontestable. BUT, as a PERCENT it is lower than most anyone. Since our economy is so huge...
Oh, and its not anywhere near worth a war and everything else that happened to get a secure source of oil... and anyway, it won't be THAT secure. Many of the Iraqis already hate us...
Quote:Oh, I see. So what you're saying is that we wouldn't mind Saddam being in power if he gave his oil fields to us? Even if that was true, does it in any way lessen the effect of it? Are they any less free today because that wasn't the main objective?
No, of course not. W. would never deal with Sadaam... and sure they are free. So are the Afghanis. But in both cases freeing them is the side effect and other things are the reason for action.
Note how many brutal dictatorships are still in power... will we go kill them all now? Sure it'd make some people feel better, but the overall effect in the future would be bad...
Quote:If he had destroyed them, why didn't he prove it? Why refuse the demand of proof? Why kick out inspectors? It doesn't make sense for anyone to RAISE suspicions while all the while doing what is asked of you.
I'll tackle what Nintendarse said later, this has already taken me an hour... though I'd pretty much be echoing what N-Man said, there are a few points I want to touch on later.
Look at the last few months before the attack. You don't believe me, but I think that they were telling the truth there... the Iraqis were letting the inspectors destroy those missiles that broke the range limit and seemed to desperately be trying to ask how to prove they had destroyed or dumped the weapons when they had "lost" (I'm still dubious about that part) the papers...
Sure, in 1998 they were doing what you say, but, I'd say, not NEARLY as much since the inspectors returned.