Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by righturnonred

  1. The strike on Yassin was a mistake because it will do nothing to help the situation on the ground. But I find it disingenuous of you to lambaste Bush for not bringing peace to the conflict. Peace is simply not possible while suicide attacks on Israeli citizens continue. Blown to smithereens. ...By another round of fanatical homocide bombings. How do expect the Israeli's to negotiate in the face of this kind of terror? Regardless of your attempts to make the occupation look like nothing more than front for a land grab, that simply isn't the case. Every clear thinking person knows that the occupation is a direct result of Palestinian terrorism. The new wall is a direct result of Palestinian terrorism. It is simple, if the bombings stopped, so would the occupation, but it has become evident that the radicals among the Palestinians won't be satisfied with a rational two state solution, they want nothing less than the eradication of the state of Israel. You don't get it. Hamas won't allow it, and the only ones who can put an end to Hamas are the moderates among the Palestinian people. But as long as the terrorist Arafat refuses to release his grap of power, there will be no move against the terror organizations and innocent people on both sides will continue to die. A key condition of the road map requires that the PA crack down on and dismantle the terrorist organizations carrying out attacks against Israel. That hasn't even begun to happen. You seem to see the solution so clearly. Please let me in on it.
  2. Yeah, you sound just like Kwiatkowski. Black helicopter conspiracy theories. The first two I have no doubt, but the latter is utterly laughable. This entire five page letter is an eloquent rant by a woman pretending to be an insider who clearly has an ideological axe to grind. She provides no evidence that intelligence was altered or fabricated, but only her staunch opposition to the perfectly sane ideas reflected in the Project for a New American Century. I think she was just a liberal advocating wrong headed foreign policy who was told to screw off when the change of leadership occured. The article is interesting but completely biased. I found one part I almost agreed with: Include in there suspected WMDs, human rights violations, and state sponsored terrorism and that about sums it up. I'm sorry, but I don't think a letter written by one disgruntled former military officer is the smoking gun your looking for. I won't listen to the accusations being thrown around until a hear them coming from a bi-partisan commission.
  3. I'm sorry, I don't have a source for you. You'll just have to take my word for it. Accusations of the Adminstration dragging it's feet on the 9/11 probe is mostly hogwash; Democrat propaganda during an election year. The chairman of the 9\11 commission has stated that he is satisfied with the cooperation he has recieved. They have seen all the classified documents they needed to see, they have had access to all the testimony they need. Don't create a scandal where none exists. You mean, the liberal families of people who died that day? Come on man, the NYT or Newsweek, or who ever the hell is was, obviously found these two or three people in advance, gave them all the same talking points, and prepared them to unleash their criticsm when the Bush ads ran. Have you seen these people make their rounds on all the shows, they all say the same exact garbage almost verbatim. All I'm asking for is some perspective here. Of course there are 9/11 victims who a offended by the images, and there are many who are not and in fact applaud their use. The Media has tried to stick it Bush by portraying this as if this is offensive to all 9/11 families. It's crap politics at it's finest. You may be surprised when this shows up in a Kerry ad down the road. Maybe you'll change your tune then.
  4. It's absolutely ridiculous for anyone to suggest that Bush cannot evoke images of an event that defines his presidency and indeed an event by which he will be judged in November. The message is appropriate precisely because it highlights the fact that the Democrats refuse to acknowledge that 9/11 was a defining event in American history and had a tremendous impact on this country, economicaly as well as in terms of lives lost. The primary difference here is that Bush regards 9/11 as an act of war, while the Democrats view it as a criminal act. This distinction is very important when considering how to combat terrorism. Why don't the Dems invoke 9/11 to show that Kerry could offer better leadership in times of change? The liberal cries of "foul play" are totally unjustified. To show the planes hitting the towers would have been in poor taste, but to show a few seconds of ground zero footage, raising the flag? Come on, let's get real here.
  5. No conservative in their right mind would vote for Nader. He's viewed on the right as an even bigger clown than the Democratic contenders. Nader pulls votes strickly from the Democrats. At the very most, conservatives who are frustrated with Bush will abstain, but will never cast their vote for either Nadar nor the Democratic nominee.
  6. I neither like nor dislike homosexuality. I simply can't understand why anyone would think that having an attraction to a member of same gender is anything but an abnormal impulse, whatever the cause. The plumming just doesn't work. I think homosexuality fits that description. Don't you think reproductive behavior is a vital function?Why do schizophrenics hear voices that aren't there? Why do transsexuals feel they possess the wrong gender? Why are homosexuals uncontrollably attracted to individuals of the same gender? People are born with ambiguous genitalia. Does it seem that unreasonable to you that people could be born with or develop ambiguous gender identity problems. True, but so can a hetero female who suffers from sterility, for example, however sterility is still disorder. Homosexuals can't choose who they're attracted to, it is clearly an uncontrollable impulse. Do you choose to have attraction toward females?Look, I'm not trying to be a hate monger here or tell you that "Jesus says so" or whatever. I'm just looking at it from the most logical standpoint I can, and what I see is that perhaps some of you have been afflicted by political correctness. I'm saying that a person shouldn't be discriminated against just because they have an illness, but we also can't grand nonsensical requests such as two men or two women who want to get married. I think it makes a mockery of the institution of marriage.
  7. That's an interesting point Hardner but I don't see Homosexuals acting in this capacity in our culture, or any culture I can think of for that matter.Was this behavior actually observed, or just theorized? I don't think it was ever classified at all, rather it was ignored and not typically spoken of. Living in a culture that celebrates homosexuality undoubtably makes it easier but I know that many gays suffer psychological trauma associated with their lifestyle. I'm convinced there's a lot of gays out there that, givin the chance, would choose to be normal as opposed to abnormal. Genetics may instill some behavioral predispositions, but in higher mammals, behavior is largely learned. And I don't think that homosexuality is a learned trait, as you can't teach someone to be gay. I find it much more likely that Homonsexuality is a biological anomoly. Perhaps like other diseases, it acts as a form of population control. I don't know, but it is certainly abnormal. Again, why is transexuality consider a mental disorder and homosexuality is not when it's almost impossible to differentiate between the two conditions?
  8. Transexuality is defined as a mental disorder. Seems to me that the differences between that and Homosexuality are so insignificant that one can't help wonder why they are viewed and treated so differently.How do you explain Homosexuality? It provides no natural advantage, in fact it is directly irreconcilable with the prime function of nature, which is to procreate. The only logical conclusion is that Homosexuality is an aberration of nature.
  9. Of course gays aren't gay by choice. You think homosexuality is trendy? Well, maybe it is now but that's still not the reason. My theory is that it's a mental disorder of some sort. Millions of Americans live with all different varieties of mental disorders from depression to OCD to schizophrenia. Homosexuality is just one more, however it's been morphed into a cultural issue instead a clinical one. I believe that if it were approached as a disease instead of an "alternative lifestyle", it could probably be treated effectively, like other mental disorders. That's not to say that those that suffer from diseases aren't good, decent people. But it is not likely that will ever happen so,... no marriages for gays, but civil unions with equal benifits under the law. Marriage is for men and women, children, families, not for Adam and Steve to feel validated by society.
  10. Yes, that's very coy, but you know what I mean.
  11. I will respond. Hang tight, I've been a little swamped.
  12. I don't know about any specific time line but I agree with KK. Over 12 years, the route of diplomacy with Iraq had run it's course. Real, multinational negotiations with N. Korea have just begun. A war with Korea would be hell and will be reserved as a last resort just as in the case with Iraq. He hasn't started any wars but I wouldn't consider him contained. Millions have starved to death as the communist leadership spends nearly a third of the nation's pathetic GDP on military expenditures annually. Additionally, N.Korea is one of the world largest exporters of prohibited missle systems and WMD technology in violation of international treaties. Diplomacy must be given a chance however, just as with Iraq, the problem will not be allowed to continue indefinately.
  13. Well as I've said before, Bush was not responsible for the recession and for the most part he's not responsible for getting us out of it, however I believe the tax cuts are helping to reduce the severity of the recession caused by many external, internal, and cyclical factors outside the control of government in general including but not limited to 9\11, the war on terror, corporate scandals, the internet stock market bubble, and the natural business cycle. The deficits are of concern in the long term, but they have absolutely no effect on job creation or economic growth in the short term. BMG would have you blame Bush on everything from world hunger to the Africa AIDS epidemic. Unlike other leftist on this forum who gather data and facts to debate ideas, Bushmustgo contributes absolutely nothing to any discussion. Here, Here! I have challenged BMG pointedly to describe how Bush is responsible for the recession. I'm still waiting to hear his response. Surly he has an impressive justification for something he feels so strongly about.
  14. Bushmustgo, You're a lunatic with no argument, just Democratic talking points clap trap. I'm no longer responding to your posts. Leave.
  15. I am aware of the installation of the Shah by both America and British intelligence agencies. However, I don't have time to scour the net for declassified CIA documents. Point me to them and I will read them. If you've read them, you should know where they are.Even if your claim is true, it hardly constitutes raping another country for resources. That's quite a leap. And you think that's innappropriate? Maybe if you guys would research the history of Haliburton you 'd find out that they have a close relationship with the US military dating back to the Vietnam war. Haliburton is one of only a handful, if not the only company in the world, that can undertake the rebuilding of infrastructure on a massive scale. Clinton used Haliburton for no-bid contracts in Bosnia for example. You are extrapolating a conspiracy theory where no evidence of one exists. Dick Cheney's history with the company may be suspect to you, but that's a far cry from the evidence needed to make such seemingly concrete determinations. The CIA payments are well known, but where's the rape? Noriega was a US ally because he supported pro-American forces in El Salvador and Nicaragua. However, like Saddam Hussein who was initially an ally of the US, Noriega's actions became more and more unpalatable to the US government with the increased drug activity and killing of political opponents. He was indicted on federal drug charges in 1984 but it all culminated in 1989 when his forces fired on US Marines stationed in Panama City, killing one of them. This was in additon to incidents of harassment against US school children and other US citizens. Noriega declared war on the United States and he was ousted the same year in Operation Just Cause, brought back to the US and sentanced to 30 years on drug trafficing and racketeering. He's eligable for parole in 2006 I believe. In Panama the Americans re-instated democratic rule. Guillermo Endara Galimany was elected president in the 1989 elections and was confirmed by the Catholic Church, Jimmy Carter and other electoral observers. In 1999 the Panamanian government sought the extradition of Noriega to face murder charges in Panama. He had been found guilty in absentia in 1995. So what about Noriega? He was another mad man who flipped his lid when US support went to his head.
  16. The tax code, over time, has placed a larger tax burden on the most wealthy while reducing the burden on lower incomes. The data clearly shows this.The tax rates for the rich may have declined but they end up paying a larger proportion of total federal income taxes. This is exactly how is should work, everybody wins. I disagree, the tax code remains solidly progressive, but that's alright as long as individual higher income earners are not taxed to the point in which investment is stiffled and instead shelters are sought after. BMG, you're right, there needs to be much more job creation than is currently occuring. But as I said, you need to have patients as explosive job growth doesn't happen overnight. Job are a lagging indicator remember? Here's what Greespan says: It's clear, BMG, that you want the economy to do poorly because you don't like bush and instead want a Democrat elected. The Democrat's motivation for attacking Bush is purely political for the most part, they want power and they'd trash Mother Teresa to get it.
  17. I know. As I understand it, the top 1% of income earners pay about 10% of total federal income taxes. Likewise, the top 10% pay about 50% of the total incomes taxes. I'm not saying whether thats appropriate, but it's certainly not unfair to those in the lower tax brackets. No, thats ridiculous of course, but I might suggest that everyone pay the same percentage of their incomes respectively. I don't think thats likely to happen though.
  18. When Reagan reduced taxes in the 1980's, clearly the rich recieved the most benefit in terms of dollars, but obviously because they paid the greatest amount in. However, as the top tax rate was reduced to 28% in 1988 from the high rate of 70% in 1980, the total tax burden for the rich increased dramatically while the tax burdern for lower incomes shrunk an equaly impressive amount. Taxes rates were reduced, along with the elimination of shelters and the result was increased government revenues, increased burden on the rich, and decreased burden on lower income earners. The Bush tax cut works under the same principle. I don't see the tax cut as being unfair or inequitable. Claiming "tax cuts for the rich" is misleading. They did it to Reagan and they're doing it to Bush. Certainly not, but the only way to curb growth in government is to restrict tax revenue to reduce waste and to finance only what is needed. There is a happy medium and taxing the life out of people is not it. I don't expect to see another round of tax cuts. Your question suggests you lack understanding of how tax cuts benefit society at large.
  19. I think that's an over simplification. The Government can't buy jobs. However, the government can spend money which can help create jobs. Albiet the deficit it high, but the federal government is suppose to run a deficit during economic downturns. In that case, creating jobs and stimulating the economy is more important than maintaining a balanced budget because when the economy eventually grows, the deficit will shrink. This is how it happens historically. Furthermore, budget deficits have never been shown to negatively influence interest rates. Right now for example, IR are at 40 year lows with the biggest deficit (present value) on record. Granted, deficits are never good, but they're more of a symbolic political football than anything else. That prediciton may be off but no one can argue that the economy is headed in the right direction.
  20. I can't believe your making a reference to "Gulf newspapers" here. The press is free in that part of the world is it? So, if Bush loses the election, does that mean he's going to dictate himself into office? Get serious. Not at all. I think the tax cuts unquestionably helped make the recession shorter in duration, but as I made the point in previous posts, economic cycles are largely uncontrollable by the government. In 2000, around the time that the recession began, the economy had been experiencing growth for 8-10 years. The economy could not sustain that level of growth indefinately so a natural correction occured. Now it is basically "time" for the economy to begin expanding at a faster rate again. This happens about every ten years like clockwork. Fiscal policy enacted by the President and Congress, such as tax cuts, spending etc., has a negligible effect on the economy when compared to the influence of monetary policy controlled by the Federal Reserve and Greenspan, such as interest rates (cost of money). A President's control over the economy is severely overrated and he recieves far too much credit or criticism that he deserves. Actually both are indicators. But employment is a lagging indicator, meaning that businesses typically milk productivity for as long as possible and invest in new equipment and infrastruture before hiring new labor. The labor market is starting to come on line now. Monster.com is even starting to advertise again.Corporations employ millons of Americans. High profits mean higher wages and new jobs. Profit is good for everyone, not just CEOs. Ofcourse, if CEOs abuse their power, they should be stripped of everything and thrown in prison. Since you didn't answer my last question, here's another one: What is it you think the President has done to cause the recession? Explain how what he did caused the recession.
  21. You really think Cheney will bow out? Who do you see as his replacement?
  22. You look like a fool when you use terms like Dictator to describe Bush. I don't even know why I respond to your posts. Then again, why are you even allowed to post here? Shouldn't you be out on a street corner with a sandwich board getting laughed at? The economy is coming back on line after a recession caused by mostly cyclical factors among other things. You understand nothing about business. Friedman by the way, who has a first graders understanding of economics, doesn't realize the obvious benefits of stimulating activity by reducing the tax burden on consumers and businesses. Government doesn't create jobs, businesses do. Here's a challenge for you BMG: explain to me why tax cuts don't stimulate economic activity. And don't give me the "tax cuts for the rich" BS. All Americans recieve tax cuts that are proportional to the amount of taxes they pay to the federal government.
  • Create New...