dave_rhino
Closed Account
A nuclear device could end it in a few seconds.
Just a thought.
Just a thought.
Abizaid: Mideast wars may last 50 years
- Thread starter AFA
- Start date
Please Dave I want you to see 40 and beyond lol.Plus we need the oil on the market desperately or all our economy's would collapse.Nukes are big waste of money cause you can't use them, and if they ever are its over for us.
om3ga
It's good to be the king...
The UK government has condemned a videotape issued by the kidnappers of five British men held captive in Iraq.
A Foreign Office spokesman said the tape would "add to the distress of the men's families and friends".
In the film, dated 18 November, the kidnappers say they will **** one of the men as a "first warning" unless UK ****** leave Iraq within 10 days.
Details:
Premium Link Upgrade
Will we ever see a peaceful Middle East? Between fundamentalists and the machinations of governments - I don't think so......
A Foreign Office spokesman said the tape would "add to the distress of the men's families and friends".
In the film, dated 18 November, the kidnappers say they will **** one of the men as a "first warning" unless UK ****** leave Iraq within 10 days.
Details:
Premium Link Upgrade
Will we ever see a peaceful Middle East? Between fundamentalists and the machinations of governments - I don't think so......
The UK government has condemned a videotape issued by the kidnappers of five British men held captive in Iraq.
A Foreign Office spokesman said the tape would "add to the distress of the men's families and friends".
In the film, dated 18 November, the kidnappers say they will **** one of the men as a "first warning" unless UK ****** leave Iraq within 10 days.
Details:
Premium Link Upgrade
Will we ever see a peaceful Middle East? Between fundamentalists and the machinations of governments - I don't think so......
I'm not sure you have to be a fundmantalist to fight foreign invaders.:dunno:
Few in the US anyway want to accept that this is an occupation. Calling things by their real names is the first step to changing them.
I think a lot of people want to believe all the rhetoric of freedom, God, democracy, because they don't know how to deal with it if shown beyond a doubt the corruption in government that exists here. Very easy to understand the "insurgency" if you try to view the same foreign actions of an occupying army taking place here. Then it would be considered patriotic to fight to the death to keep them out, that is unless some idiot politician succeeds in getting all the guns from law abiding citizens.
om3ga
It's good to be the king...
I rushed my last post...sorry. It should have read:
"Will we ever see a peaceful Middle East? Between fundamentalists, intolerance and the machinations of foreign governments - I don't think so......"
You're right, you don't have to be a fundamentalist, but nowadays when I read or watch about conflicts or disputes or worse done in the name of Allah/God/Jehovah, I just wonder why I bother trying to understand the issue.
Guess I'm getting cynical in my old age....
I rushed my last post...sorry. It should have read:
"Will we ever see a peaceful Middle East? Between fundamentalists, intolerance and the machinations of foreign governments - I don't think so......"
You're right, you don't have to be a fundamentalist, but nowadays when I read or watch about conflicts or disputes or worse done in the name of Allah/God/Jehovah, I just wonder why I bother trying to understand the issue.
Guess I'm getting cynical in my old age....
The cynical in your old age part is a remark I resemble lol.You might like this its a classic cartoon I put up in a xmas thread called "peace on earth".
Premium Link Upgrade
The religious ascpects of these things are usually not the underlining causes but just a vehicle to tell who's aligned with each other.Let me use the conflict in Ireland between catholics and protestants as an example.They are not fighting each other over really religion but it is what determines which side your on.
om3ga
It's good to be the king...
Interesting cartoon - especially the remark about vegetarians fighting meat-eaters...
I rushed my last post...sorry. It should have read:
"Will we ever see a peaceful Middle East? Between fundamentalists, intolerance and the machinations of foreign governments - I don't think so......"
You're right, you don't have to be a fundamentalist, but nowadays when I read or watch about conflicts or disputes or worse done in the name of Allah/God/Jehovah, I just wonder why I bother trying to understand the issue.
Guess I'm getting cynical in my old age....
There have been numerious references I've seen and read in print that Bush AND cabinet have stressed on many occasions that he is doing God's will, that God wants him to do so and so, and that God told him what to do. But I thought God said, "Thou shall not ****", so does he get someone else to do the dirty work? Or is that another one of God's outdated foreign policies that doesn't apply to this administration because this is an alleged war, and they have their lawyers to distort and back them up?
Jim Bakker had a Rolls and gold fixtures in his bathrooms because "God doesn't buy junk".
God told me to build a toll booth in front of my house to try to make some extra money from the traffic that passes, I just haven't gotten around to it. :thumbsup:
Charlie don't read too much into what I'm saying;
Premium Link Upgrade
Premium Link Upgrade
Premium Link Upgrade
Premium Link Upgrade
Premium Link Upgrade
Quite affordable ...
We need to protect the resource for another 25-30 years while we renovate our power grid (assuming we keep refocusing like we have since 2005).
This is the reality now that we've "re-stirred up the hornets nest" in the Middle East, although it's been a war ground for the last 30-40 years in our time anyway.
Read Clinton's own office, the delta on the surplus/deficit was some of the worst in our history starting 1999Q4 through 2001Q1, when Bush got in (sans 2000Q2).
In either case, it's mathematically impossible to give a tax cut in a progressive system to anyone that makes less than you without you getting at least the same tax cut.
Discretionary income creates new private sector jobs, hence why when Clinton increased income taxes in 1993, his own projections showed a far worse debt by 2000 than resulted after the Republicans took back Congress in 1994.
It's called the point of diminishing returns.
Our current federal deficit and debt issues have been created by the Republican-Republican Legislative-Executive well beyond the costs of the war.
Pork spending increased over $500B/year, over double the war costs, as Congressmen/women asked for pork in return for support for the war.
The same happened with the Democrats under LBJ as well, and the Democrats were equally hated by the youth and middle class for it as well.
The only thing the Democrats achieved by taking back Congress was finally causing Bush to veto things, instead of just passing more pork from his party.
But that's still a good thing.
Quite affordable considering the cost of either securing petroleum for ourselves and our 42 allies elsewhere or, even worse, doing without it would be much greater.
We need to protect the resource for another 25-30 years while we renovate our power grid (assuming we keep refocusing like we have since 2005).
This is the reality now that we've "re-stirred up the hornets nest" in the Middle East, although it's been a war ground for the last 30-40 years in our time anyway.
That actually started in 1999, we just starved it off with the housing boom.
Read Clinton's own office, the delta on the surplus/deficit was some of the worst in our history starting 1999Q4 through 2001Q1, when Bush got in (sans 2000Q2).
Do you mean the "top 10% wealth" or "top 10% income?"
In either case, it's mathematically impossible to give a tax cut in a progressive system to anyone that makes less than you without you getting at least the same tax cut.
Discretionary income creates new private sector jobs, hence why when Clinton increased income taxes in 1993, his own projections showed a far worse debt by 2000 than resulted after the Republicans took back Congress in 1994.
It's called the point of diminishing returns.
Our current federal deficit and debt issues have been created by the Republican-Republican Legislative-Executive well beyond the costs of the war.
Pork spending increased over $500B/year, over double the war costs, as Congressmen/women asked for pork in return for support for the war.
The same happened with the Democrats under LBJ as well, and the Democrats were equally hated by the youth and middle class for it as well.
The only thing the Democrats achieved by taking back Congress was finally causing Bush to veto things, instead of just passing more pork from his party.
But that's still a good thing.
Facetious
Moderated
You should stick to engineering Prof. There are many ways to give a tax cut to the lower income brackets without giving it to the higher income brackets. One way would be to give tax credits or deductions to only the lower income earners. For example, a thousand dollar tax credit for those who make less than $400,000. Another way would be to cut the tax rates and have them phased out at $400,000. There are many Premium Link Upgrade already in the tax code. It would make taxes more complicated but it is not mathematically impossible. The variables in the formula just need to be changed. You are pontificating a right wing myth that Bush says over and over. If this is example of your math skills, I am not sure I would drive over a bridge that you designed.
Engineering includes more microeconomics than a great majority of other college majors.
A tax credit is not a tax cut, it is the most basic form of entitlement.
It is a direct, 1:1 "redistribution of wealth" which people like myself call "a hand out."
Which is not a progressive "tax cut" either, but a non-progressive credit or deduction as well.
This often causes people to stop working as the additional time and effort in earning that takes you in a higher tax bracket no longer becomes worth it.
E.g., if taxes are raised 10%+ for my bracket, or taxes are droped 25%+ for a lower bracket, my wife will no longer work, it's not worth it.
That means her productivity is now no longer added to our economy, our spending is reduced, but most importantly, our investments (you know, those things that actually create private sector jobs), are removed.
That's why tax credits and income-based qualified deductions don't help the economy, but hurt, because productivity drops.
Especially when those close to the "break point" where the credit/deduction is offered decided to "slip back under."
Accountants have a field day the more complicated the tax code is, and only those who have good accountants pay less.
Good accountants cost money.
Credits, credits, credits = entitlements, entitlements, entitlements.
How about this?
Why not just eliminate tax for people who make less than $60,000 (or so), create only a minimal number of deductions (like for ****), and then have a "flat tax" above that.
Every $1 of "discretionary income" has the same ability to create jobs.
So whether someone makes $100,000 or $500,000 income doesn't mean their "discretionary income" is any less able to create a job via investment than another.
Credits are not tax cuts!
They are "redistribution of wealth" because you tax others to provide direct 1:1 to another.
I've seen people who get a "tax credit check" because they owe less than their "credit."
It's bad enough we give subsidized housing assistance to people who don't deserve them.
I have a friend who works in HR at a company that makes only 60% of what their bus drivers do, yet those people get housing assistance.
They are not married and don't have 2 **** like my friend, but because of their position, and the lack of consideration for their overtime, they get 60% of their rent paid for.
And they live in apartments that are 2x the size of my house.
I am not a right-winger!
I am a true American Libertarian-Capitalist!
I never, ever voted for Bush, so don't associate me with Bush.
We disagree with Bush's economics (other than tax cuts being necessary because we are beyond the point of diminishing returns).
Stop labeling people as only left or right and think outside that box for once!
Bush is part of the problem, not the solution, and we have overspent on social pork in his first 6 years.
Clinton actually cut many tax credits and gutted federal welfare with the Republican Congress.
YM I give you credit for trying to counter this nonsense.Not only that part is he wrong about but most of the rest of his post is inaccuarate.I won't bother to pick it apart as it really is just a litany of BS from someone with a clear agenda to protect an inequitable tax system.One of the most outlandish claims in the post is this.
"Pork spending increased over $500B/year, over double the war costs, as Congressmen/women asked for pork in return for support for the war."
I say that is nonsense and challenge the prof to provide some evidence of it.It does not even pass the smell test as the entire discretionary domestic amount spent is and has been about 500 billion and he is claiming it has risen that much which would make it a trillion now yearly in discretionary domestic spending.That has not happened.
Just to document what I said here is a link to the proposed 2008 budget as submitted by the president.As you can see total discetionary spending in the budget is 1.1 trillion, of that about 1/2 is for defense and interest on the debt.That only leaves 1/2 a trillion or 500 billion for everything else.So the assertion again that domestic spending grew by another 500 billion is ridiculous.Look at all the other discretionary programs they are chump change (10s of billions) compared to the amount spent on defense and the only big increase in spending will be for the war on ******.
Premium Link Upgrade
Premium Link Upgrade
Well just by looking at these links:
Premium Link Upgrade
Premium Link Upgrade
Premium Link Upgrade
Premium Link Upgrade
You will clearly see is not really a trustworthy country. Amadinejhad is a threat for his neighbours but for others western countries as well. Iran has its own ICBMs which are mproved copies from Russian ICBMs. Amadinejhad lies about the nuclear plant. The nuclear plant should be destroyed.
Premium Link Upgrade
Premium Link Upgrade
Premium Link Upgrade
Premium Link Upgrade
You will clearly see is not really a trustworthy country. Amadinejhad is a threat for his neighbours but for others western countries as well. Iran has its own ICBMs which are mproved copies from Russian ICBMs. Amadinejhad lies about the nuclear plant. The nuclear plant should be destroyed.
Facetious
Moderated
Back to the top for a moment •
MOO
due to the abolition on forestry management, years ago. Why ? Pseudo Environmental entities (not a condemnation of all Environmentalists) and their bank of attorneys cleverly forecasted that when an immense amount of dead dry vegetation was "allowed" to layer, rather large blazes would result in short order. They were correct ! However it's rather cruel to think that mankind is the sole detriment to the world . . just think about all the wildlife which perishes . . burned to death actually, just to make a future political point. As for now, the rank and file "foresters" of today are nothing than political operatives pushing pens, fomenting more nonsense ! The useful idiots !
again, an interior mgmt issue, again likely calculated for the use of future political leverage. Why, I ask, are fringe environmentalists out to break the walls of every man made dam in the country ? For the good of nature ? For / as political leverage ?
MOO
Actually the Iranian's have missles that are only capable of less than a 1000 miles in range.These are not what people would call Intercontinental ballistic missles or ICBM's.And you must have missed my thread about the just released US intelligence report stating they beleive Iran stopped any nuke weapon progam in 2003.
What the Iranian report showed ...
But the reports also stated it was the sheer pressure from the US and EU that resulted in them stopping.
I.e., the report states that it was only the Bush administration that stopped them, as Iran had been working on them during the Clinton administration as well.
Iran is still refining uranium to weapons-grade purity though, and they refuse to fully disclose and submit to inspections.
Let's see here, here are countries that have fully disclosed in the last 20 years and fully allow inspections ...
- Egypt
- Libya
- South Africa
And those who have never fully disclosed and played games ...
- India
- Iraq
- Iran
- North Korea
Do you see what I see? 2 nuclear powers in that list. If you want to be certified as not having a nuclear program, you fully disclose!
It's up to Iran to do this, but they refuse to. Now the US pressure from 2001 on-ward ****** both North Korea and Iran to choose. North Korea decided to admit and just continue (even though the Bush administration fully abided by the 1994 Clinton agreement), Iran decided to deceive. They have stopped for now, but they have still gained an active enrichment program under the guise of "peaceful purposes."
You can have a "peaceful program" as long as you fully disclose and submit to inspections. When the Russians started working with the Iranians on their reactors, that was the deal. That's why the Russians do side on any sanctions, because it's their deal that the Iranians continue to cross.
The good news is that our human intelligence is getting better again, after having been gutted since 1991 (I blame Bush Sr. for this as much as Clinton).
The Iranians do have sea-launch capability, although it would be hard to sneak it near the US with our Navy.
Yes, indeed!
But the reports also stated it was the sheer pressure from the US and EU that resulted in them stopping.
I.e., the report states that it was only the Bush administration that stopped them, as Iran had been working on them during the Clinton administration as well.
Iran is still refining uranium to weapons-grade purity though, and they refuse to fully disclose and submit to inspections.
Let's see here, here are countries that have fully disclosed in the last 20 years and fully allow inspections ...
- Egypt
- Libya
- South Africa
And those who have never fully disclosed and played games ...
- India
- Iraq
- Iran
- North Korea
Do you see what I see? 2 nuclear powers in that list. If you want to be certified as not having a nuclear program, you fully disclose!
It's up to Iran to do this, but they refuse to. Now the US pressure from 2001 on-ward ****** both North Korea and Iran to choose. North Korea decided to admit and just continue (even though the Bush administration fully abided by the 1994 Clinton agreement), Iran decided to deceive. They have stopped for now, but they have still gained an active enrichment program under the guise of "peaceful purposes."
You can have a "peaceful program" as long as you fully disclose and submit to inspections. When the Russians started working with the Iranians on their reactors, that was the deal. That's why the Russians do side on any sanctions, because it's their deal that the Iranians continue to cross.
The good news is that our human intelligence is getting better again, after having been gutted since 1991 (I blame Bush Sr. for this as much as Clinton).
Similar threads
