6th May 2003, 11:11 AM
(This post was last modified: 6th May 2003, 11:24 AM by A Black Falcon.)
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Now Weltall... you've got to reply to Nintendarse's post and both of mine... get some food? You'll be here a while... :)
Heh, I even replied to your post against N-Man, because I'm that damn hardcore!
Quote:Just like you do?
I post nothing that I wouldn't try and back up if prompted. With the entire internet at our disposal, there's no reason why I would.
Quote: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...
See part 1 of this illustrious and verbose political novel. :S
Quote:Look at Nintendarse's chart then rethink that part.
I can't. That chart stops either before Tet or right near it, too close to call either way.
Quote: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...
And why is it so evil for them to get a return if we are too? Do you really hate capitalism that much!?
And Reaganomics worked beautifully, it not only defeated Communism where the military could not, it ushered in the most prosperous economic era in our history.
Quote: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...
The rise out of deficit spending came with consequences too, foremost being a gutted intelligence force and a decapitated military, the restoration of both being a huge factor in the deficit now. The recession had begun at the end of the Clinton term, and only fell more because Bush took over as soon as the dotcom bubble truly burst, then 9-11 followed on it's heels. Bush is to blame for neither.
There are many government programs that could be cut to reduce spending. Welfare is a good start.
Quote: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.
We did use force to eliminate Saddam, but we aren't conquering Iraq to keep for ourselves. THAT is the difference. We will rule there only until we can get their new government jumpstarted. Then we back off. The mere use of force in a conflict alone cannot equate us with empires who defeated their enemies and kept the land.
Quote: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.
Well, for one thing, what cars people own is none of your damn business, as it's their money. EXCEPT in the case of poor people who use my tax money to buy Explorers and Lexuses while they can barely afford to feed their families living in slums. That's liberal programs at work, but I'm getting off on a tangent. A higher gas tax would also go a long way to hurting people who DON'T drive SUVs but still commute a lot, or long distance, and those people are often poor and middle-class. No, instead we need to apply the technology that enables 50MPG carburetors into all sorts of vehicles. The LAST thing we need is to take a cue from socialist Europe, because if you think that SUV manufacturers would be the only ones hurt by a gas tax hike, you're more naive than I give you credit for.
Quote: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...
Okay, some proof please? As this pervertedly long series of posts proves, I don't ignore points.
Quote: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...They won't hate us when their quality of life improves.
Quote: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.
But you inferred that this result was insignificant since it wasn't the main reason, and that is not true.
Quote: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...
Only for the dictators.
Quote: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. [/B]
The only reason Saddam even allowed them to return is because of pressure from us. Left to the UN, it never would have happened. Sometimes the threat of force can achieve results.
YOU CANNOT HIDE FOREVER
WE STAND AT THE DOOR
WE STAND AT THE DOOR