Rummy is OUT! by Eric

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I think same direction, different driver. Rove has a couple of reasons to do this (I would never credit Bush w/ thinking that far ahead. No... let me rephrase that: I would never credit Bush with thinking, period.)

1) It takes Rummy out of the hotseat. I think the WH is looking at losing both House and Senate. That means Rummy could come under serious investigation. Grilled endlessly by the Senate and divulging all kinds of damaging information. Out of office, he's harder to get at.

2) It takes away one thing that the Democrats could do easily and take credit for.

3) It allows Bush to get in a replacement of his choice confirmed by the Senate BEFORE the new Senators take their seats.

One thing about Rove: He claws for every fractional inch of perogative and power. Goes down fighting all the way and never quits. The Dems could take some lessons from him.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 10:08 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

If I drive a stake thru the heart of this so-called deadlock victim, maybe it will never rise again to haunt me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 10:55 AM

America loves a winner!

Rumsfeld will have served longer as SecDef than anyone else. Here's to one tough s.o.b. and a proud American.

Thanks, Rummy!

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 11:20 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Here's to one tough s.o.b. and a proud American.

I guess I apply a slightly higher standard to the term 'proud American'.

He's a disgrace, along all the other neo-cons who hi-jacked our nation. They're war criminals and should be treated as such.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 11:29 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Eric:
Here's one thing at least most of us can agree is a good thing

I think Rumsfeld was a pretty good war secretary, if this had been a conventional war like the original Gulf War or World War II we'd be naming airports after the guy. He just lacked the flexibility or the vision to carry out a 21st Century low-intensity conflict.

But his toughness and his sense of 'going to war with the army (or Defense Secretary) you have' was entirely correct.

Shame about the election. Pelosi said today the Democrats plan is a withdrawl from Iraq by the end of the year (thats what she said, but that may not be an accurate reflection of her views, she was not really responding to direct questions very well at her press conferance, try not to worry that the question 'what specifically are you going to do about whatever' or 'what is your plan for whatever' but don't worry the Democrats are ready to govern...us right over a cliff). Thats not a plan, its surrender. I say the reasons for the war in Iraq are irrelevant. The enemy is there, we should fight them there. We can't afford to hand them a victory, a safe harbor, and a platform from which to take the fight to us. Unfortunately the Democrats seem to believe that winning power is more important then winning the war. More likely they see themselves as fighting Bush long before they fought the terrorists.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 11:33 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Here's to one tough s.o.b. and a proud American.

I guess I apply a slightly higher standard to the term 'proud American'.

He's a disgrace, along all the other neo-cons who hi-jacked our nation. They're war criminals and should be treated as such.

SergeantX

One must wonder how you come to hate your country so much. Why didn't the 'neo-cons' hijack this election too? Simple answer, there was no hijacking in the 1st place. Get over yourself.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 11:37 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
He just lacked the flexibility or the vision to carry out a 21st Century low-intensity conflict.

Hero, is there such a thing as a 'low - intensity conflict' , or was that comment meant to be tongue in cheek? The dude definatly had his view on how things should be run, and damn anyone who asks him to explain it to them.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 11:51 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
The dude definatly had his view on how things should be run, and damn anyone who asks him to explain it to them.

What a marvelous example of a man working within a democratic government.

Quote:
One must wonder how you come to hate your country so much.

Because questioning ze government iz unpatriotic, and vwe have vwayz of ztopping zis.

Quote:
Why didn't the 'neo-cons' hijack this election too? Simple answer, there was no hijacking in the 1st place.

What a triumph for logic ladies and Gentleman! Saddam isn't responcible for the Shi'a ethnic cleansing occuring in Iraq right now, therefore he wasn't responcible for any ever!

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 12:20 PM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
One must wonder how you come to hate your country so much.

...and of course I don't. The fact is that I love my country too much to give it up to the fuckheads trying to run it into the ground. But obscuring real patriotism in favor of simplistic jingoism is the fallback position for morally bankrupt Bush cheerleaders. What else you got?

Quote:
Why didn't the 'neo-cons' hijack this election too?

Simple answer, they don't give a shit. The damage is done. They've pushed us down a road to ruin that will be nearly impossible to avoid. I saw this coming after the '04 election. The neo-cons knew they could only play their game so long and sought to do as much damage as quickly as possible. I'm sure they're more than happy to let the Democrats deal with the nasty results.

These people specifically don't love our country. They love their dreams of international economic supremacy. Our country is merely a tool to them.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 12:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
don't worry the Democrats are ready to govern...us right over a cliff

Like we're not lookin' up from the fall We took at the hands of the Neoconman scum...

You're a partisan fool, Hero.

Ad-Homieboy Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 12:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Why didn't the 'neo-cons' hijack this election too?

You can only easily hijack a potentially close election; why are you feigning stupidity here?
You're agendaized, not dumb.

Swinging Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 12:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
One must wonder how you come to hate your country so much.

Because questioning ze government iz unpatriotic, and vwe have vwayz of ztopping zis.

Citizen, sarcasm like that will take away your 'Good Nazi' membership card....

Fascist Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 12:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I'm sure they're more than happy to let the Democrats deal with the nasty results.

And don't forget they make money in the process. Lots of contracts to be had. Lots of pals still in place.
Like they say at OCP, good business is where you find it.

RoboChrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 1:07 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Why didn't the 'neo-cons' hijack this election too? - Auraptor

You can only easily hijack a potentially close election; why are you feigning stupidity here? -Chrisisall

Chris? Uh... I don't think Auraptor is feigning anything. He regurgitates anything and everything that Rushed Limbo feeds him.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 1:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
He regurgitates anything and everything that Rushed Limbo feeds him.

You mean he's politically bulemic?

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 1:17 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
One must wonder how you come to hate your country so much.
...and of course I don't. The fact is that I love my country too much to give it up to the fuckheads trying to run it into the ground. But obscuring real patriotism in favor of simplistic jingoism is the fallback position for morally bankrupt Bush cheerleaders. What else you got?

Great economy, 4.4% unemployment, low interest rates, most home ownership in nation's history,... Yeah, the country's really being run into the ground.

You toss around charges like 'war criminals' with such reckless disregard, , the term loses all meaning.

Quote:

Quote:
Why didn't the 'neo-cons' hijack this election too?
Simple answer, they don't give a shit. The damage is done. They've pushed us down a road to ruin that will be nearly impossible to avoid. I saw this coming after the '04 election. The neo-cons knew they could only play their game so long and sought to do as much damage as quickly as possible. I'm sure they're more than happy to let the Democrats deal with the nasty results.

These people specifically don't love our country. They love their dreams of international economic supremacy. Our country is merely a tool to them.

SergeantX

Riiight. That makes no sense what so ever. I suppose you had to come up with some answer, but this was the best you had ? Didn't top "neocon" Ricahrd Perle recently come out and voice oppositon to Bush's handling of the war in Iraq?

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 1:27 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
citizen wrote:
Wednesday, November 08, 2006 11:51

Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
The dude definatly had his view on how things should be run, and damn anyone who asks him to explain it to them.

What a marvelous example of a man working within a democratic government.

Ya see, citizen, the Secretary of Defense isn't an ELECTED position. One must be appointed to it by the President. Once there, the SecDef can run it as he/she sees best. Unitl the Presidnet fires the SecDef, or said person resigns.

Quote:

Quote:

One must wonder how you come to hate your country so much.

Because questioning ze government iz unpatriotic, and vwe have vwayz of ztopping zis.

Baselessly tossing around terms like 'war criminals' where they have no business being used is, imo, a clear indication that one hates their own country.

Quote:

Quote:
Why didn't the 'neo-cons' hijack this election too? Simple answer, there was no hijacking in the 1st place.

What a triumph for logic ladies and Gentleman! Saddam isn't responcible for the Shi'a ethnic cleansing occuring in Iraq right now, therefore he wasn't responcible for any ever!

No answer given, I see. There's no evidencde any election was hijacked, so it must have been !! Oh, wait...we won this one? HA! It wasn't hijacked!!!

Pathetic beyond comprehension.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 2:13 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Ya see, citizen, the Secretary of Defense isn't an ELECTED position. One must be appointed to it by the President. Once there, the SecDef can run it as he/she sees best. Unitl the Presidnet fires the SecDef, or said person resigns.

The fact that your political system is so screwed up a non-elected individual can control areas of government means nothing to me. You basically just confirmed what I said, Rumsfield does not answer to the people, so as you say doesn't have to listen to nor care about the people he leads. In Britain the head of the MOD is an elected MP, it's called democracy.

But if you think having someone who does not need to answer to the people in charge of a major government department is a good idea, good luck with that.

Quote:
Baselessly tossing around terms like 'war criminals' where they have no business being used is, imo, a clear indication that one hates their own country.

So if an Iraqi supports a trial of Saddam that means they hate Iraq? You don't know what SGX's reasoning is, nor will you ever I suspect. I doubt you'd listen.

Quote:
No answer given, I see. There's no evidencde any election was hijacked, so it must have been !! Oh, wait...we won this one? HA! It wasn't hijacked!!!

Apparently not, which is why no one is saying this one was, there was evidence for previous elections, but evidence is not enough for people who don't make up their minds on evidence, rather who they want to believe. You know like some people deny the holocaust.

As for a reply, it was there, you may have missed it but if you read what I wrote instead of inserting stock reply you wouldn't have. My assertion was at aimed at your non existent logic, "it didn't happen this time so it has never happened". I didn't eat Chinese food today, so I have never eaten Chinese food. Run the concept through that head of yours a few times, eventually you'll get it.

Interestingly enough you didn't reply to me, you did reply to some voice in your head perhaps, but your inability to read the words I have written is none of my concern.

Quote:
Pathetic beyond comprehension.

I agree, about 99.999% of your arguments are, so why you keep using them is beyond me.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 2:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Great economy, 4.4% unemployment, low interest rates, most home ownership in nation's history,... Yeah, the country's really being run into the ground. You toss around charges like 'war criminals' with such reckless disregard, , the term loses all meaning.

Statistics, not reality, run your world.
Just look around you- oh, I'm sorry; you can't. You're removed from the humanity.
And real criminals that get peeps KILLED are your heroes.

Someday you're gonna need help. Ya gotta oil the springs that pop that little bird outta your head at the top of every hour.

What a whiner. Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 2:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Shame about the election. Pelosi said today the Democrats plan is a withdrawl from Iraq by the end of the year

She has also already said that she wants to raise taxes on the "rich". (Translation for liberals: What a democrat means when they say "rich" is anyone who works for their paycheck.)

Our beloved, Democratic governor raised taxes in his first term (and was just re-elected yesterday -- I guess it only goes to show that the people of Pennsylvania don't feel like they're giving enough of their money to the government, and want to give more). I'm the poorest person I personally know (I'm a schoolbus driver who barely made 10K last year -- and, that's with no benefits).

Before Rendell was elected governor of PA, I was actually getting nearly all of my state income tax money back every year (tax forgiveness for people under a certain income). When Rendell first became governor, my taxes went up -- way up. Apparently, people who barely make 10K are "rich" by Democratic standards. I can't believe bozos actually voted for this guy again.

Thankfully, Bush has a veto, and I hope he plans to use it quite a bit over the next two years.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 3:13 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
What a whiner. Chrisisall

Pack of whiners would be more appropriate.

Never liked Rummy, his involvement in previous screwery via flu scares and deaths resulted in some ugliness before and his involvement with Tamiflu given the history (look it up, if ya don't believe me) is downright disturbing.

He's a wicked, evil man, and unlike the rest of the neocon slime he's a SMART one, and that makes him dangerous.

I'll be glad to see the back of him, even if I would rather see him swinging from the end of a rope.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 3:45 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Thankfully, Bush has a veto, and I hope he plans to use it quite a bit over the next two years.

I hope so too. That way, it'll be at least 20 years b4 Republicans ever take the WH. I hope he vetoes an increase in the minimum wage the very first thing. The next thing I hope he vetoes is reducing the Medicare pharma bill by having the Feds negotiate prices. The thrid thing I hope he vetoes is implementing the 9-11 Comission recommendations.

And it just gets better from there. I really hope Bush "stays the course".

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 3:48 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Cartoon: you're a self-hating working-poor person w/ a confused identity. You need higher pay AND benefits. Come to the light....

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 5:19 PM

SIRI

Hey - I'm surely enjoying the discussion - this is a place where people can hold VERY different viewpoints and we're still all Browncoats. Shiny! While I tend toward liberal anarchist sometimes libertarian views I hate to be stuck in a category.

I remember hearing a story about a young Rumsfeld and Richard Nixon. Nixon told him "whatever you do stay out of the Middle East." I don't recall the exact words but he went on to say something like "It's a quagmire that will ruin you." Who would have thought Tricky Dicky was a prophet?

Now I am not a fan of George Bush, I like Cheney even less nor is Rummy my man. Still, he did his job as he saw it and I think he and the rest consider themselves patriots and on the right path. I was one of those who thought we should never have gone into Iraq. I had mixed feelings about Afghanistan but see the logic for that. In my humble opinion Bush, etal were arrogant, didn't plan well nor consider the consequences of their actions. I think they believed they were right and right would prevail.

Now as to the Robert Gates - he's been around quite a while - since Jimmie Carter. He is considered "moderate" whatever that means today. I think he's fairly well respected and will listen to other options than simply "stay the course." What the hell does that mean anyway? I have some hope.

Perhaps a Republican Pres and Democratic majority with a few independent thrown in can actually come up with some creative and useful ideas. They might (and I stress might) be able to roll up their sleeves and actually get some things done. People are sick of the bickering. It has happened to both parties - it's the old "throw the bums out" mentality and it just might get their attention.

I don't get these guys who kidnap people, terrorize them and cut their heads off. As Jayne said about the Reavers - "Where's the fun in that?" Still in a crazy way it works for them. It has been working for those people who feel the world doesn't listen to them. It gets attention and it gets results of a sort. It worked for the IRA and it worked in South America and it is working in the Middle East.

We can't win against the terrorists. We have to change our policy. I'm not suggesting pulling out but I'm sure sick to death of our young soldiers getting knocked off, killed and wounded, not to mention all the Iraqis that have died. It's easy for someone to sit in a protected environment and say we need to "stay the course" but that doesn't bring back those young people who are giving their blood.

Even when we set up elections or support free elections, if the people choose someone we don't like we refuse to work with them. That's a risk you take with free elections.

As far as how good things are in the US - well yeah, there are some positive numbers. But I'm here to tell you I work with the rural poor - people who suffer mental illness, who have few resources, who have to choose between food and utilities, and have had their Medicaid cut. One guy who had been living independently had his Medicaid cut, lost assistance for his medication so he had to move into an assisted living facility in order to survive. Unemployment is still a major problem in many parts of this county. It's ain't all gravy for the lower middle class and poor.

"Where's the fun in that?

Siri

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 5:24 PM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
He regurgitates anything and everything that Rushed Limbo feeds him.

You mean he's politically bulemic?

Chrisisall

LOL

I think the correct term is deliberately obtuse.

----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 5:55 PM

DREAMTROVE

On the whole Rummy front. He's not an enemy of the people. I'm not even sure this bungle was his fault. But he did fail to demand what he needed to fight this war, and when you fail to ask, or fail to get what you ask, you have to delay the plan until you can get that straightened out. Rummy's main failing was on the armor front. I don't think he was a member of the pro-torture brigade, as witness his willingness to put his own head on the block went it all spilled. It wreaked of "I told them this was going to come out"

I there will be a change of direction. Not because of Rummy's ousting as much as the change in teh shadowmen. the podman has switched colors, and that means the team will have to think blue.

But we're moving up the ranks. I think Cheney is possibly next to go. I expect his resignation at some point next year, to be replaced with Condi Rice.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 6:07 PM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
Auraptor:
Didn't top "neocon" Ricahrd Perle recently come out and voice oppositon to Bush's handling of the war in Iraq?

I'm curious as to your take on that. I'm not a neocon, so I'd probably see it differently. Does Perle have a point, is he a turncoat, just saving his own ass, what's your opinion?

Quote:
Cartoon:
What a democrat means when they say "rich" is anyone who works for their paycheck.

LOL. So true. I'm trying not to be too anti-dem atm, because they're the govt of the US now, and I should wait until they screw up, but this was priceless.

Quote:
Thankfully, Bush has a veto, and I hope he plans to use it quite a bit over the next two years.

THe thought hadn't occurred to me that the dem congress would try to write laws. I don't think they will. I think they'll try to stunt the Bush agenda. If they try over-ruling him, there's going to be some chaos. They should probably fiddle until they get a dem prez in '08, which is looking pretty certain now. I they got building legislation, particularly tax or spending bills, they could very well kill those seemingly locked in '08 chances.

People underestimate the value of nothing. A govt. that does nothing is actually doing quite well. If the dems want to accomplish something, they should work at repealing some of the radical Bush items like the patriot act, homeland security. They shouldn't aim to kill the tax cuts, because that's essentially raising taxes, something to be saved for a president's second term, not before you get a president.

I suspect Barrack Obama is on the hill at this moment saying something very similar.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 6:17 PM

DREAMWALKER

Was visiting my old college today when I heard the news. A woman was talking to someone on the phone and then announced it in the middle of the Student Union. Everyone started cheering and applauding, it was great. Now if only he would take Bush and Cheney with him... Still all in all a great day. Rummy's gone and Democrats took the election. The world gets a little brighter.

Wash: This landing is gonna get pretty interesting
Mal: Define "interesting".
Wash: Oh God, of God, we're all going to die?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 6:24 PM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
Signym:
Cartoon: you're a self-hating working-poor person w/ a confused identity. You need higher pay AND benefits. Come to the light....

No, he has a point. Dem "tax the rich" plans seldom, if ever, hit the rich. They tend to be income or industry related taxes, which almost exclusively hit the working people of america.

The luxury tax, for example, hit the industry of ship-building, which responded by moving over seas, because now the rich were buy non-american boats which were not taxed, and local american shipwrights lost their jobs.

I don't think "stick it to the rich" will ever work, because the rich are far more resourceful than us. If they really think they're going to get got, they'll just leave, and take their money with them.

The one rich-tax which I think makes some sense is dividend tax. The downside is that dividend re-investment programs drive stock prices up, and would be trimmed, but those programs could get an exemption, or deferment. But largely dividends are a mechanism for execs to remove money from a company.

Regular capital gains tax is devestating to the market. Sales tax is devestating to commerce and the consumer, income tax is devestating to business and the job market. In general, taxes are bad and should be avoided. The govt. spending money is also bad, because it results in big bureaucratic bungling, which should also be avoided.

Govt. should provide services to the people for cash, and maybe trade bonds and currencies. Other than what it can generate from those, it should try to refrain from spending money.

Sig,

Think of it this way:

95% of non-earmarked income-based taxes at the federal level will go in some way towards defense. Such taxes are a golden cash cow for an endless war machine. Whatever democrats *say* they will do with the money, history has proven that they will use it to launch into serial war, just as Bush has.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 6:37 PM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Thankfully, Bush has a veto, and I hope he plans to use it quite a bit over the next two years.
I hope so too. That way, it'll be at least 20 years b4 Republicans ever take the WH. I hope he vetoes an increase in the minimum wage the very first thing. The next thing I hope he vetoes is reducing the Medicare pharma bill by having the Feds negotiate prices. The thrid thing I hope he vetoes is implementing the 9-11 Comission recommendations.

And it just gets better from there. I really hope Bush "stays the course".

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

I hope he vetoes this junk too. My principle fear is that Democrats will try to pretend that this election is some kind of mandate for old school liberal bullshit. Minimum wage??? gimme a break.

This election was a rejection of the fascist regime that Bush and the neo-cons built. If the Democrats have an ounce of integrity they'll heed the call and dismantle Homeland Security and repeal the Patriot Act. But I'm not holding my breath. They're cut from the same cloth...

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 9, 2006 2:20 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
You basically just confirmed what I said, Rumsfield does not answer to the people, so as you say doesn't have to listen to nor care about the people he leads. In Britain the head of the MOD is an elected MP, it's called democracy.

Our founders, you remember, those pesky rebels, specifically wanted to AVOID making us a democracy, favoring a representitive republic. A democracy is nothing less than mob rule, where 51% of the public gets to tell the other 49% what to do. The SecDef, a CIVILIAN, is in charge of the military. Soldiers don't vote. They're SOLIDERS.

Trying to equate Rumsfeld to Saddam is absurd beyond all reason. Nothing more need be said.

There was no evidence that the election was stolen in the past, only shrill, whiney Democrats who can't stand to lose. And since the holocaust has nothing to do w/ this discussion, I'll ignore that remark. I also ignored your idiotic faux logic statement because it didn't merrit any reply. It was silly, and still is. Democrats love to fan the flames of hysteria and cry wolf. It's their lot in life. Listen to them, everything is a CRISIS!! Living here, you get use to these clowns and their absurd claims. All fuss, no facts.

No big surprise you'd side w/ such folk.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 9, 2006 2:28 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Great economy, 4.4% unemployment, low interest rates, most home ownership in nation's history,... Yeah, the country's really being run into the ground. You toss around charges like 'war criminals' with such reckless disregard, , the term loses all meaning.

Statistics, not reality, run your world.
Just look around you- oh, I'm sorry; you can't. You're removed from the humanity.
And real criminals that get peeps KILLED are your heroes.

Someday you're gonna need help. Ya gotta oil the springs that pop that little bird outta your head at the top of every hour.

What a whiner. Chrisisall

Just look around at WHAT? You're not offering any rebuttle, just the delusion that things MUST be bad. Why ? Because you hate Bush, so this must be the " worst economy in 50 years ". Stop listening to John Kerry and Howie Dean, and FACE REALITY.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 9, 2006 2:39 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
I'm curious as to your take on that. I'm not a neocon, so I'd probably see it differently. Does Perle have a point, is he a turncoat, just saving his own ass, what's your opinion?

Not being a 'neocon' either, I'm left wondering about things my own self. I did read that he wanted a real 'shock and awe ', with a smaller, lighter force ( 40,000 troops) to attack Iraq. I presume that was just the initial attack force, and that more would be needed post war.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 9, 2006 4:05 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Sarge- It's impossible to have political freedom and economic tyranny coexist for more than several decades. Either political freedom leads to economic freedom, or economic tyranny leads to political tyranny. It always amazes me how psuedo-libertarians think that only government can tyrannize. But when one group gains overwhelming economic power you no longer have even the premise of captalism, so stop thinking that the "free market" is going to take care of everything because the "free market" doesn't even exist.

I agree: ending the Patriot Act and going after warrantless wiretapping and other important erosions of our political freedom should be on the Democratic plate. But from sheer political practicality, the Dems have to get results right out of the gate on issues that MOST people respond to. And most of those are, at the moment, economic: Jobs, wages, health care, education. Most people - like Auraptor and Hero - don't mind so much having their phone records looked at. Freedom is an abstract thing to them- neither here nor there.

I think this belongs in another thread, tho.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 9, 2006 4:11 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

DT- It seems that you have a very poor memory. Clinton, for his many faults, did several things well economically and one of them was maintaining a more progressive tax structure and the other was raising the minimum wage. That led to a near-decade of broad-based prosperity.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 9, 2006 4:31 AM

TPAGE

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
On the whole Rummy front. He's not an enemy of the people. I'm not even sure this bungle was his fault. But he did fail to demand what he needed to fight this war, and when you fail to ask, or fail to get what you ask, you have to delay the plan until you can get that straightened out.

I'd just like to point out, as a soldier, that when the shit hits the fan and you're told to go to war you have to go with what you've got.

In World War II after D-Day there were two main invasion strategies (Patton and Montegomery). Anyone who has studied WWII will have heard about their rivalry for gas to make their push.

You can ask, you can demand, you can beg but once your nation has declared war you go. If you don't get what you asked for, you still go. Because that's the job you've promised to do.

Truth is the soldiers rarely get what they want or need, and since WWII when the soldiers return home they rarely get a warm welcome (The Forgotten War: Korea, Vietnam, ... not to mention all the other smaller conflicts).

Quote:
Originally posted by Auraptor:
Soldiers don't vote. They're SOLIDERS.

What are you trying to imply here? Soldiers are lower life forms that don't know how to choose a politician? I may not know the situation in America, but in Canada our soldiers vote the same as everyone else (even when deployed). They, we, are citizens and compatriots just the same as civilians (if not more so as we put our lives on the line for our country and often give it).

And if someday on some little piss-ant moon/My hand is a little too slow, or my aim a little bit off/At least I’ll go down fighting, not lying abed surrounded by quacks - "Sir Warrick" by Geezer

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 9, 2006 4:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Siri:
Unemployment is still a major problem in many parts of this county. It's ain't all gravy for the lower middle class and poor.

Siri, it's always nice to see new and intelligent shiny Browncoats pop up here, welcome!
Don't mind some of the severe snark that flies in here; some of us have been here quite a while, and have longstanding grudges, of a kind. You'll find AURaptor and Hero especially appologetic for the Alliance, er, I mean the Administration. I think it's nice of you to believe that Bush is only doing the best he can; I won't try to persuade you otherwise (I'd like to believe it myself), as long as you see that he's botching the job- we mainly agree.
And thank for the reality check I highlighted above- we need to see that there's still work to be done. Some here would have us believe that our country is right on track, with less to fix now than ever. They've bought into the statistics, and have little contact with real folk that can't afford their own Firefly-class transport.

Again, good to have you aboard!

You'll be here when I wake up Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 9, 2006 4:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Quote:
Cartoon:
What a democrat means when they say "rich" is anyone who works for their paycheck.

LOL. So true.

I have all of my tax records going back to the beginning (of when I started paying them, not when President Taft instituted them).

The least amount of federal taxes I've ever paid were for the years 1987, 1988, 1989 -- the last two years of Reagan's term, and first of the elder Bush's term. Both Republicans.

The least amount of state taxes I've ever paid were for the years 1996, 1997, 1998 -- during the Ridge administration (a Republican). The worst years (with the highest taxes) have been the last 4 -- under Rendell (a Democrat).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 9, 2006 4:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Just look around at WHAT? You're not offering any rebuttle, just the delusion that things MUST be bad. Why ? Because you hate Bush, so this must be the " worst economy in 50 years ". Stop listening to John Kerry and Howie Dean, and FACE REALITY.

What reality are you in, DISruptor?
(laugh SO hard every time I type that...

To be fair, you can call me Chrisisass or something if it tickles ya)
I deal with different economic levels of peeps all day every day. I SEE a bit of the world, and I'm in an affluent part of a tri-college area, not a slum, and poor folks are everywhere. Homeless KIDS walk the streets at night. It wasn't this bad here even 5 years ago.
Financially, I'm getting by, but I SEE how far my dollar goes. Or doesn't. Are you rich, is that it? Don't notice inflation, or cuts in social services? Don't see the increased dependence on food stamps? Just read the 4% and conjure everything's okay? Why? Because you LOVE Bush so this must be the " best economy in 50 years ". Stop listening to partian spin doctors and removed-from-real-life statistics, and FACE REALITY.

Workin' man Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 9, 2006 4:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:

The least amount of federal taxes I've ever paid were for the years 1987, 1988, 1989 -- the last two years of Reagan's term, and first of the elder Bush's term. Both Republicans.

Point accepted, however, it's not how much you pay that gets me, it's what I do or don't get for it. A tax cut that buys me a national deficit and war is no tax cut I want.
If I gotta PAY for peace and a balanced budget, I got no problem with that.
I'm patriotic that way.
Why do you economically hate your country?
If you don't like paying taxes, why don't you just go to....(thinking)....umm....a desert island or something?

Taxpayer Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 9, 2006 5:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Point accepted, however, it's not how much you pay that gets me, it's what I do or don't get for it. A tax cut that buys me a national deficit and war is no tax cut I want.
If I gotta PAY for peace and a balanced budget, I got no problem with that.
I'm patriotic that way.
Why do you economically hate your country?
If you don't like paying taxes, why don't you just go to....(thinking)....umm....a desert island or something?

Taxpayer Chrisisall

Hi, Chrisisall.

Check the figures for federal tax revenue generated over the years, particularly as comparable to the tax rates for those same years. In years when the federal tax rate has been lowered, the federal government has actually (for the most part) brought in more revenue, than in years when the tax rate was higher.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 9, 2006 5:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:

In years when the federal tax rate has been lowered, the federal government has actually (for the most part) actually brought in more revenue, than in years when the tax rate was higher.

More peeps spend more, 'cause they have more to spend, and tax revenue goes up. I get it, I think.
I didn't put in an 'evil' emoticon in my post, thanks for takin' it kinda funny (not angry); that's how I meant it.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 9, 2006 6:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I didn't put in an 'evil' emoticon in my post, thanks for takin' it kinda funny (not angry); that's how I meant it.

Don't lose any sleep over how I take things.

For one thing, I learned a long time ago that #1) I'm not always right (I haven't kept a running tally, but it's even feasible that I'm wrong more often than I'm right

) and #2) It doesn't matter, either way, because most things over which people debate really don't have much of a bearing on the universe, so why get one's knickers in a bunch over them.

Just this morning I listened to several of the students on my bus arguing over which way to park a car in a garage. They nearly came to blows, and really, in the scope of eternity, does it really matter? (Heck, I don't even have a garage, so the entire debate was inapplicable to me, anyhow.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 9, 2006 7:36 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Our founders, you remember, those pesky rebels, specifically wanted to AVOID making us a democracy, favoring a representitive republic. A democracy is nothing less than mob rule, where 51% of the public gets to tell the other 49% what to do. The SecDef, a CIVILIAN, is in charge of the military. Soldiers don't vote. They're SOLIDERS.

Soldiers aren't people with the same rights to vote? What so to you Soldiers are like the non-land owners of way back when? Theirs is to do or die and not have an opinion on it? I'll pass that round my colleagues (you know the soldiers that aren't entitled to vote) tomorrow, they're sure to think your as big a wanker as most people who hear your comments.

Funny, you drag Kerry through the mud for saying soldiers are stupid, then say they are less than other people, less deserving of an opinion, less deserving of the vote. I'd say you were a hypocrite, but your characterisation of the people to fight the wars you arm chair saber rattlers haven't got the balls to pony up for is much much worse than Kerry's, so I really don't think hypocrite is a strong enough word.

And yep, Democracy is mob rule, if you take mob rule as the majority of people deciding, which is far from perfect but better than a minority enforcing their will, which is obviously what you would like. You're down with dictatorships, good luck with that.

Quote:
Trying to equate Rumsfeld to Saddam is absurd beyond all reason. Nothing more need be said.

No dear, it's an analogy and it had little to do with saddam, just pointing out it's not unpatriotic to question the government in a free democracy, I realise you don't understand that concept, so it's probably best we move on.

Quote:
There was no evidence that the election was stolen in the past, only shrill, whiney Democrats who can't stand to lose.

Like I said, blind men can not see...

Quote:
And since the holocaust has nothing to do w/ this discussion, I'll ignore that remark.

Just another example of people taking ideology over evidence, again if you are incapable of working that out I'll go with the words and pictures tack next time.

Quote:
I also ignored your idiotic faux logic statement because it didn't merrit any reply. It was silly, and still is.

You don't understand logic, that's cool, good luck with that. Doesn't make your original assertion any less false because you are incapable of recognising nor admitting it.

Quote:
Democrats love to fan the flames of hysteria and cry wolf. It's their lot in life. Listen to them, everything is a CRISIS!!

Where of course everything is fine because nothing is wrong within the walled enclaves (of reality or your mind, either or, not that I'd want to insinuate that your mind bears any relation to reality, of course it does not).

Quote:
Living here, you get use to these clowns and their absurd claims.

Yes, but for some reason you continue to listen to Rush Limbaugh. Must be the hate mongering, you go in for that in a big way I've noticed.

Quote:
All fuss, no facts.

Yes, but of course we are used to that from you.

Quote:
No big surprise you'd side w/ such folk.

Not really dear, I just think it's great that the republicans haven't got their virtual dictatorship any more which you loved so much. But you not getting your own way all the time is going to make any peace and freedom loving person happy, so that's hardly news.

I've not really got a horse in that race, from my perspective their both arseholes when in power. They both treat their allies like commodities and slaves. They both expect free trade to the world and offer nothing back. Clinton's international policy was crap too, the only difference is Clinton helped with reducing terrorism, for instance helping the peace process in Ireland, George Bush merely attempted to 'pacify' people.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 9, 2006 8:05 AM

DAYVE

What is it that divides us so? As citizens of the same country, with the same basic guarantee of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, how can we be so far apart in ideology? Is it the ideology itself that is flawed, or is there another, darker reason for the gulf that separates us.
Could it be as simple as the classic good vs. evil reasoning that has been drilled into our brains from the time we were old enough to have cognizant thought, the same old prejudices that have plagued mankind forever, or just the ignorance of past generations perpetuating itself as opposed to the enlightenment of logical reasoning.

I have a theory or two, but stating them would just fuel debate. It’s difficult to find the underlying cause of this national derision, but to say that there is genuine dislike between members of one group of people, call them liberals, and another, the self proclaimed conservatives, is certainly no stretch of the imagination.

Why is it then, that when given an opportunity to unite in an effort to enrich every person’s life – with the vast cultural diversity of this entire planet and with the potential for such great strides in all things that can indeed make this world sustainable for many generations to come, why is it that we continue to denigrate one another? Ok, so maybe I’m coming off like Rodney King when he uttered that infamous line, “why can’t we just all get along…”, but, in all seriousness, I feel that this ruinous path that we’ve let ourselves be put upon will eventually lead to a very real and very disastrous result. And we haven’t even started building the ships to ferry us to that safer world just beyond the horizon.

It’s almost funny, (if it weren’t so sad), that so often the truth is stranger than fiction. I would be willing to bet that there are more than a few writers of science fiction who would not have thought that their works of just a few years past could indeed, become fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 9, 2006 8:18 AM

TPAGE

Quote:
Originally posted by Dayve:
What is that divides us so? As citizens of the same country, with the same basic guarantee of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, how can we be so far apart in ideology? Is it the ideology itself that is flawed, or is there another, darker reason for the gulf that separates us.
Could it be as simple as the classic good vs. evil reasoning that has been drilled into our brains from the time we were old enough to have cognizant thought, the same old prejudices that have plagued mankind forever, or just the ignorance of past generations perpetuating itself as opposed to the enlightenment of logical reasoning.

I have a theory or two, but stating them would just fuel debate. It’s difficult to find the underlying cause of this national derision, but to say that there is genuine dislike between members of one group of people, call them liberals, and another, the self proclaimed conservatives, is certainly no stretch of the imagination.

I realise I don't get much say in this discussion, being a Canadian and all. However, from what I have learned of American History the country has rarely been truly united.

In the war of independence there were varying sides (from outright hostility to peaceful negotiation to loyalty).

The American Civil War (or you might just call it The Civil War)... well obviously not united.

The Second World War there were the isolationists and those that wanted to 'join the fray.'

The Vietnam war... well we all know about that.

And lastly, the current Iraq War (War on Terror, Invasion of Iraq, Rebuilding of Iraq; whichever name is being applied right now).

Canada has a similar problem: Québec. The difference between the struggles is that Québec has not openly rebelled (except the FLQ, which were considered Terrorists even by Québecois). The closest they came was a referendum (a democratic vote). Not to mention the fact that it is a distinct society within a specific territory.

My opinion as to the reason... well I don't really have one. With America as a Confederation I would've assumed it would be drawn along state lines but it does not seem to be so.

I got nothing...

And if someday on some little piss-ant moon/My hand is a little too slow, or my aim a little bit off/At least I’ll go down fighting, not lying abed surrounded by quacks - "Sir Warrick" by Geezer

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 9, 2006 10:59 AM

REDLAVA

You can't please everybody all of the time.

Gotta love Bush's appointments. We have a horse breeder as the leader of FEMA. And now we have the president of Texas A&M as the Defense Secertary.

Everybody always has the advantage over us, but that's what makes us special...and Browncoats.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 9, 2006 12:30 PM