Its official... The world hates us...

[0h n0 5.0]

personally if the rest of the world bitches an moans about us gettin in their business, maybe we should let them deal witht their own problems for awhile..
wait, we did that an they still came runnin back...
jessess christ where would you pussy french or dutch be if we hadn't saved yer whiney asses in WW2!!
honest to god... i get sick an tired of people bein hipocrites mad:.. maybe we should jus do it like the Roman empire an we take over a reigon, we rule you whiners like kings.. ya want to abstain when things are good, but as soon as the weather gets a lil rough.. its waaa!!! America Help US!!!

*btw i'm don't actually advocate any of this, its just one of my crazy thoughts i have about foreign diplomacy

[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by Janeofalltrades

Keep this up fellas and we won't have to worry about enemies...Fellas..We live a country that allows a plentitude of opinions...You all are respected for yours; however, this kind of discussion will not have either side change fundamentally 100s of years of development into different philosophical political views.

You're confusing debate with pointless argument and flaming. People who fundamentally agree can differ on specifics and debate finer points of an issue. Your willingness to end all discussion as if it was somehow harmful is not going to achieve whatever it is you hope it will, and Jenn, this is a general discussion board.

This is what we do here. I know, I've used this messageboard for almost six years and I've had many, many similar debates and guess what? The nation didn't fall and no one died as a result of those sometimes contentious discusssions. I typed a lot, too.

With that said, we need to be a UNITED nation to get through our conflicts with the fewest amount of casualties...

Stating the obvious but it needs repeating.

So, everyone is respected for your individual opinion, this is what our nation is founded on, you are entitled to think what you want and discuss it openly, but if I was the enemy reading some of this stuff I'd just sit back and have a beer. You fellas will do each other in, in no time... LOL

Nonsense. You're making the error of equating discussion and some disagreement on specifics as a lack of national unity and that's simply not the case. "The enemy" is still the enemy, no matter our individual opinions on the President or other specifics. Get that straight and don't be so concerned when people disagee. That's human nature.

TRUCE.... We have ladies and gentlemen being deployed to fullfil a duty not many of us would like to have. We sit here and enjoy our cars and houses and children, arguing goverment structure and opinion while people are going to die. For you, to say what you like....

Humble yourselves.... ~Jenn~

So, we cannot argue 'government structure and opinion' here because the world is a dangerous place? Then where can we do it, Jenn? My friend, you need to either ignore political discussions on this board or get used to the idea that people disagree and understand that debate is illuminating and healthy, not dangerous or unseemly. Because our military is about to go to war does not mean all political discussions must cease, here or elsewhere. That's the antithesis of our First Amendment right and using the bravery of our military does not make a very good argument for eliminating political discussion.

Unless the moderator chooses to lock the thread, and why that should happen is beyond me, I will continue to both post and debate and counter whatever I feel is wrong when I see it. I think you mean well Jenn but this board doesn't need a nanny and as adults, we all know how to behave. Thanks anyway.

[Dark_5.0]

I am shocked to see all of the Clinton Leg Humpers.

He was an embarrassment to the country when he was in office. He entire presidency was consumed by scandal.

The whole thing was a big 8 year long joke. Bill Clinton is a man that ducked the draft because he is a coward in every since of the word. He publicly proclaims to hate the military and it showed. He cut military funding back year by year.

The man was and still is a huge national security risk. He was in bed with China from day one. They financed his compaign for president, and then he put a Chinese intern to work in our Nuclear weapons department. The intern stole all of our nuclear missle designs and put China ten years ahead of where they would have been with there nuclear missle program.

Any of you ever read Al Gores book. He believes that all countries should posess weapons of mass destruction because that would bring an end to all war. Funny how everything ties together.

Even now Clinton is a security risk, just a week ago he was on TV fueling the Korean conflict fire saying that he had plans to bomb N. Korea while he was president. Gee I bet that tid bit of info really helped the neggotiations.
_______________________________________

To me George Bush is like a breath of fresh air. He tells it like it is, admits to his mistakes and commands respect as the leader of the free world.

JMO,

[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by ultraflo

I have nothing else to contribute Jim, as I lack the capacity and the initiative to hold an intelligent, logical, coherent debate with you. I will however, throw my $.02 in whenever I see fit, just as you do. Fair enough? I hope so...

Yes, it's certainly 'fair enough' but understand that when you characterize mine - or anyone else's - comments as 'Ultra-Conservtive Gibberish' that's an insult of it's own and you had better be ready to defend that characterization with more than a dictionary definition.

I'm more than willing, as you should know, to discuss conservtive political philosophy with you or anyone else on a civil basis but name-calling and cheesy bumper-sticker slogans like 'regurgitating Ultra-Conservative gibberish' annoy me because they assume I have no real intellectual basis for my political positions and am simply spouting nonsense when in fact, I've spent many years and devoted much thought to forming my political philosophy. I certainly don't get it from radio shows, as is often charged by those who get their opinions from the liberal media or whatever some ultra-liberal college prof taught them. If you wish to debate, don't fall into the trap of using hot-button phrases (as you did) or buzz-words that mean nothing and consider that an argument. It isn't. We all use certain hot-button phrases in political discussions but to let a few cryptic phrases serve as an entire response is akin to simply throwing a rock at a tank. It may make you feel good but the tank driver doesn't even notice you. In short: that kind of 'style' is not effective.

As for Bush 'single-handedly' getting things accomplishe;: It works like this: If the president doesn't propose and/or approve a major government policy, it doesn't happen. This applies to all presidents, whatever party or political bent, liberal or conservative. If George W. Bush hadn't initially decided to go after Saddam Hussein and didn't (for political reasons) stand up in the U.N. General Assembly podium and ask the assembled diplomats if they wanted the U.N. to live up to it's charter or become totally irrelevant (Bush's words) the U.S. would never have gotten U.N. cooperation, with 100% approval of the U.N. Security Council, including France, to go into Iraq. Because he's the President of the United States, Bush could do this and because Bush had the will to do it, we are soon to invade Iraq and get rid of Saddam. Clinton had eight years and could have done the exact same thing, but he didn't. Bush did. That's leadership - and only a U.S. president has that kind of power but he has to also have the will to use it.

Colin Powell can't do it (without Bush's approval). Only the president. George W. Bush had the will and used his power in the United Nations to gain that approval for inspections and military intervention if and when the inspections warrant it, which they will. That's the definition of 'single-handedly' in this instance. Bush did what only he could do, and it worked.

Same with tax cuts, whatever. Congress can kill it but it never gets started without the president deciding to do whatever 'it' may be. Thus, President Bush 'single-handedly' got U.N. approval for our move on Iraq. Of course many other people were involved but President Bush had to demand the U.N. live up to it's own resolutions, and it finally did, 11 years later. Bush brought that about, sinfgle-handedly. Yes, Bush IS the Republican agenda - for the same reason. Republicans like me can 'want' many things from government (or less things in some cases, such as taxes) but unless President Bush is behind it and fights for it, it usually doesn't happen.

Thanks for the compliments, by the way, but in the future, try to think about not using bumper-sticker slogans when addressing serious issues and don't let emotion overcome reason and logic. You'll do fine with me every time.

[Hammer]

Any of you ever read Al Gores book. He believes that all countries should posess weapons of mass destruction because that would bring an end to all war.

That is about the most idiotic thing I've ever heard.
People would fight with sticks and stones if they want to fight.... Guns don't kill people, Nukes don't kill people... PEOPLE kill people.
(Boy, How many times have I said that anyway...)

According to his thinking, the best thing to do after 9/11 would be to give Osama a few ICBMs.
Then he wouldn't feel "threatened"

And to think this talking side-show was one step away from the Presidency.... it scares the livin' bejeezus out of me.

[Eric4Nitrous]

who gives a rat's ***?? as long as they don't take my car i don't give a **** what happens. Let's all have a beer and forget about this ****.

[ultraflo]

Originally posted by Mr 5 0
Thanks for the compliments, by the way, but in the future, try to think about not using bumper-sticker slogans when addressing serious issues and don't let emotion overcome reason and logic. You'll do fine with me every time.

Jim, I appreciate the clarification with regards to the 'single-handedly' remark... now, define 'ultra-liberal'


FWIW, I feel that Bill, Hillary, and Al are the worst 'thing' to happen to this country. I would be nice if they'd just disappear, but that is a long shot. I laugh when I hear people talk about how much Bush, and the Republican party, has destroyed our economy with tax breaks, among other actions, when it should be obvious that the Democrats have 'raped and pillaged' the economy over the past eight years... which is stating the obvious to some of you.

It would be nice to "forget about this ****," but when it affects ones well-being and financial security, it is very difficult to disregard.

-Ryan

Mr 5.0 Wrote "Jenn but this board doesn't need a nanny and as adults, we all know how to behave. Thanks anyway."

ROFLMAO.....K....

Websters Definition of nanny

n 1: a woman who is the custodian of children [syn: nursemaid, nurse] 2: female goat [syn: nanny-goat, she-goat]

So am I the woman who is custodian of children or a female goat?....

Discussion and exposition are totally different. A discussion leads to an open exhange of ideas where a persons opinion may be changed. The act of expounding or of laying open the sense or meaning of an author, or a passage; explanation; interpretation; the sense put upon a passage; a law, or the like, by an interpreter; hence, a work containing explanations or interpretations; a commentary.

And again, all this can be tied into the theory of Manifest Destiny. Whatever else you want to call it and "discuss" about it is up to you......

Have fun... ~J~

BTW... I guess I'll crack open that beer and enjoying you fellas "discuss" this until your all blue in the face. LOL

[HotRoddin]

Originally posted by Eric4Nitrous
who gives a rat's ***?? as long as they don't take my car i don't give a **** what happens. Let's all have a beer and forget about this ****.

................................... Deep breaths Rod ..................................
.................................................. .......deep breaths .................
I really hope your joking Eric ??? We're talking about things that could melt your mother into her shoes right in front of your eyes. Not a Sat afternoon movie on DVD Eric ... for real dude ... for reeeeeeal.
A bag of radioactive waste dredged up from some old reactor somewhere duct taped to another bag of explosives. Then detonated couple thousand feet up in a nice breeze, somewhere close to Eric's home town, and poof your hands are swollen so badly your skin is splitting like an over ripe watermelon .... no way to open that beer ? Even if you managed to get that beer open Eric, you'd be way to busy trying to dig that huge swollen tongue out of the way enough to get another breath, to even think about taking a sip of that beer.
One of the lessons i learned in a silly little war long ago and far away is, the ones paying no attention to things going on around them, are always the first to go !
I personally would not be the least bit surprised that there are several of those bags of radioactive waste, or anthrax spores, or viles of Small Pox virus, already here. Maybe only a mile or two up the road from you !
What i'm trying to say, albeit in a very graphic way is ... you better give a rat's A** !!

[mustangII460]

I think I'll get drunk tonight.

.ROD WROTE: "................................................. .......deep breaths .................I really hope your joking Eric ??? We're talking about things that could melt your mother into her shoes right in front of your eyes. Not a Sat afternoon movie on DVD Eric ... for real dude ... for reeeeeeal.
A bag of radioactive waste dredged up from some old reactor somewhere duct taped to another bag of explosives. Then detonated couple thousand feet up in a nice breeze, somewhere close to Eric's home town, and poof your hands are swollen so badly your skin is splitting like an over ripe watermelon .... no way to open that beer ? Even if you managed to get that beer open Eric, you'd be way to busy trying to dig that huge swollen tongue out of the way enough to get another breath, to even think about taking a sip of that beer.
One of the lessons i learned in a silly little war long ago and far away is, the ones paying no attention to things going on around them, are always the first to go !
I personally would not be the least bit surprised that there are several of those bags of radioactive waste, or anthrax spores, or viles of Small Pox virus, already here. Maybe only a mile or two up the road from you !
What i'm trying to say, albeit in a very graphic way is ... you better give a rat's A** !!....."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh Man!..that right there is why I love you guys....HOLY CRAP..I was laughing so hard. And not because of the lightness of the subject, but your delivery, Rod, deserves a comedy routine in your name.

As bad as I may have came across...This is my point to the discussions we are having.....I personally care very much about the historical significance of the conflicts we have been in. Most of us can agree that what we have not learned from our history, we are doomed to repeat. Unfortunately, time and new generations lose respect for the significance of the historical precedents set during war/conflicts and how they affect our future.

I am scared of the situation with North Korea more than the issue with Iraq. However, burning oil fields, nuclear detonations/exposure and biological weapons would create repercussions in life, economic stability and have environmental impacts to where it would affect every one of our lives.

I can only hope and pray that this will not play out, but if history is on track to pinpoint the future... We have arrived, Hammer's New Year's "predictions" will come true, but unfortunately, he won't be able to collect his fame because his face will be melting off!..... LOL

Love,

Jenn

[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by ultraflo

Jim, I appreciate the clarification with regards to the 'single-handedly' remark... now, define 'ultra-liberal'

Sure. Senator Edward "Teddy' Kennedy and quite a few other Senators, like Carl Levin and Patrick Lehey pretty well sum it up. Look at what they vote for and against and you'll see ultra-liberialism writ large. Sadly, they get re-elected by large margins and are actually respected in the Senate.

[Eric4Nitrous]

well i look at it like this. If it's gonna happen, it'll happen. no sense getting all worried about it. Besides if it attacks my neighborhood, it just might get my neighbor across the street that i can't stand.

[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by Janeofalltrades

Websters Definition of nanny....

You can be as literal as you want Jenn but we all know what the term nanny and discussion means in the context in which I used them. No need to run to the dictionary for help. Just consider the context and you'll better understand meanings. It's easy, really.

And again, all this can be tied into the theory of Manifest Destiny. Whatever else you want to call it and "discuss" about it is up to you.

That's a tad incoherent, Jenn. Manifest Destiny was a phrase used by leaders and politicians in the 1840s to explain continental expansion by the United States. It does not apply to anything happening now with Iraq or North Korea so I fail to see the point of your use of the phrase or how the United States blocking aggression and possession of nuclear weapons by unstable dictators relates to this phrase. Manifest Destiny simply doesn't apply here in any way.

Anyway, thanks for your input and yes, what we discuss and debate certainly is up to the users of the board along with the consent of the moderator. You may join in or not, as you please. I simply contend that the very discussion and debate is crucial to a better understanding of the vital issues confronting us, as a nation and a people. I also attempt to enlighten, when possible. You apparently prefer to quote the dictionary. So be it.

Mr 5 0, Yes, Sir.

With all due respect, I do quote factual documentation, including dictionaries, sometines in an effort to be funny and sometimes to try to make a point.

I will make this one final thought and then, regardless of your response, sir, I am finished. I accept your opinion and appreciate it. You are a very intelligent man that I would enjoy having a quality discussion with. I try to remain open to all ideas and enjoy listening to all yours. When they are articulated in a coherent manner. Mr. 5.0 you do this very well... My mind has been changed in the past.

However, in accepting and understanding the theory of Manifiest Destiny, you have to understand the significance of the metamorphasis that this idea has taken over the years.

I would like to quote Mr. Bush's inaugral speech. January 20, 2001. Link provided:

http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/gwb43/...es/gwbush1.htm

Friend, this is the absolute doctrin of manifest destiny. Used today in a "Brave New World". It is Mr. Bush who stipulated his intent in his speech and it is his sworn mission to ensure he does not fail. God Bless him and good luck. Although I was not a fan or Mr. Bush when he took office, I can say today that I am surprised by his aptitude to adequately do his job, and grateful that he is doing his job in a competant manner, considering the situations he has been handed.

I believe that Manifest Destiny has no end. It is perpetual and everlasting. Without Manifest Destiny the world would be flat and the earth would be the center of the solar system. Expansion is inevitable and without limit. Yes, land is a finite commodity...on earth; therefore, we must protect it and ensure that some psyco does not ruin it. We are linked by an environment and an evergrowing global economy. The doctrin of Manifest Destiny, all though fundamentally the same today, had to develop along with the changing world. In 1840s we used guns and knives, today we use outrageous technological vehicles of destruction and death.

Thanks for the discussion and Good Luck.

Jenn

[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by Janeofalltrades

Mr 5 0, Yes, Sir.

I wish people would stop calling me 'Sir'. I feel like some old guy with a white beard, which I'm not by a long shot.

With all due respect, I do quote factual documentation, including dictionaries, sometines in an effort to be funny and sometimes to try to make a point.

Jenn, thanks for the 'due respect' but quoting the dictionary isn't very funny and you apparently missed the point of my use of the terms nanny and discussion entirely, but never mind. Too late now.

I will make this one final thought and then, regardless of your response, sir, I am finished.

There's that 'sir' stuff again. I feel like we're in the 1890's having tea or something - but I digress. Your last post. Final thought. Got it.

I accept your opinion and appreciate it. You are a very intelligent man that I would enjoy having a quality discussion with. I try to remain open to all ideas and enjoy listening to all yours. When they are articulated in a coherent manner. Mr. 5.0 you do this very well... My mind has been changed in the past.

Well Jenn, this is going much better than I expected. Didn't realize you read my stuff, what little there is these days, but please: continue.

However, in accepting and understanding the theory of Manifiest Destiny, you have to understand the significance of the metamorphasis that this idea has taken over the years.

I would like to quote Mr. Bush's inaugral speech. January 20, 2001.

I'm familiar with President Bush's inaugural speech and a re-reading of it (thanks for the link) showed me that he looked forward to a better future for America, building on the past and rooted in civility and inclusion. The President mentioned our history: where we came from and how we got here but I see nothing that reflects the Manifest Destiny sentiment you allude to.

Friend, this is the absolute doctrin of manifest destiny. Used today in a "Brave New World". It is Mr. Bush who stipulated his intent in his speech and it is his sworn mission to ensure he does not fail. God Bless him and good luck. Although I was not a fan or Mr. Bush when he took office, I can say today that I am surprised by his aptitude to adequately do his job, and grateful that he is doing his job in a competant manner, considering the situations he has been handed.

I believe that Manifest Destiny has no end. It is perpetual and everlasting. Without Manifest Destiny the world would be flat and the earth would be the center of the solar system. Expansion is inevitable and without limit. Yes, land is a finite commodity...on earth; therefore, we must protect it and ensure that some psyco does not ruin it. We are linked by an environment and an evergrowing global economy. The doctrin of Manifest Destiny, all though fundamentally the same today, had to develop along with the changing world. In 1840s we used guns and knives, today we use outrageous technological vehicles of destruction and death.

Well now. I don't know who you're quoting here but I see Manifest Destiny being used as a catch-phrase, not a doctrine or a government policy. The United States is the world leader and has been since the end of World War 2. Old news. We certainly have a duty to lead responsibly and we're doing so in ridding the world of terrorism and attempting to relieve dictators like Saddam Huessin of his WMD. You can call it 'Manifest Destiny' if you care to but it's really a misnomer and somewhat misleading, in my opinion. The one you said you appreciated and accept.

Thanks for the discussion and Good Luck.

Jenn

That's it? Well, I don't quite see what this all has to do with my original message to you but O.K. Jenn, thanks for your comments, too, and while I don't believe much in luck, I accept your wishes and send them back to you.

[rbatson2]

Originally posted by Mr 5 0
There's that 'sir' stuff again. I feel like we're in the 1890's having tea or something

Exactly how old are you?? LOL!! Just kidding Jim. I agree, we are all adults here and I don't see anyone getting too terribly upset. We just have a differing opinion, no big deal.. welcome to the USA. Most of us have known each other for many many years and I don't see a little opinion changing the fact that we are still friends.

I must admit, I was pulling your chain a bit the other night, Jim. I've never been in a political discussion with you but I've read a few and I knew what would push your buttons... heeh.

No way do I believe the Presidency is to be taken lightly. I don't think Bush(jr) was really ready for the office but he had good guidance. Cheney was alot of help, I'm sure, as was his father. His father being in his late 70s doesn't discredit him in the least, in my eyes. My grandpa was handing me great advice right up to his dying day(a week before his 84th birthday)... * sigh*

If you want to 'discuss' something... let's discuss this tax break thing that Bush wants to push through. I know you spend alot of time researching and thinking about this sort of thing and I personally have a few unresolved issues with it. I enjoy the tax breaks and refunds, don't get me wrong but... how is that supposed to stimulated the economy? It seems to me that there needs to be more jobs to accomplish this feat. The free trade agreement that handed alot of our jobs over to the mexicians, people that don't even pay tax in this country.. I think that should be dealt with. Companies moving thier facilities to other countries to save on labor cost and then bringing the product back here for a greater profit. Seems to me that if there were a greater import tax some of these companies would quit contracting out 'our' work.

Bush's latest plan is to give us a tax break but Daschle says, upon further investigation, that a person making $1 million a year will see a return of $24,000 extra while someone making $30-40k will notice a big $76... Who is getting the benifit here?? I know I said I don't listen to political propaganda but... where do you get your info from Jim?

In times like these its real easy to get sidetracked by the war at hand. Easy to change the subject, if you know what I mean. I'm lucky enough to have a secure job but I see my brothers falling around me.. Repo houses going up on the market and folks that can't find a job to pay the rent. Is a tax break and extended unemployment the answer? I don't think so.

Your friend(no matter the differences of opinion),
Rick

[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by rbatson2

Most of us have known each other for many many years and I don't see a little opinion changing the fact that we are still friends.

Of course it won't, Rick. I understand that everyone won't concur with me on every issue and the fact that they don't doesn't make them my enemy or cause me to get hostile, assuming that the person who differs remains civil, as you have. That's the key: disagreement without antagonism.

I must admit, I was pulling your chain a bit the other night, Jim. I've never been in a political discussion with you but I've read a few and I knew what would push your buttons... heeh.

Was it good for you, too?

No way do I believe the Presidency is to be taken lightly. I don't think Bush (jr) was really ready for the office but he had good guidance. Cheney was alot of help, I'm sure, as was his father. His father being in his late 70s doesn't discredit him in the least, in my eyes. My grandpa was handing me great advice right up to his dying day(a week before his 84th birthday).

Frankly, I don't believe anyone is ever truly 'ready' to be president. Bill Clinton was 46, a Governor of a small, poor state and had zero foreign policy experience when he took office in January, 1993. At least President Bush has the good executive sense to surround himself with people who know more than he does on specific areas, such as foreign policy. He isn't afraid to admit he doesn't know everything about everything and I believe that humility is a part of his appeal to average Americans.

If you want to 'discuss' something... let's discuss this tax break thing that Bush wants to push through. I know you spend alot of time researching and thinking about this sort of thing and I personally have a few unresolved issues with it. I enjoy the tax breaks and refunds, don't get me wrong but... how is that supposed to stimulated the economy?

The simple answer is that when government takes more money out of your paycheck you have less to spend and that - multiplied by a few hundred million paychecks - puts less money into the economy, which hurts everyone. When your taxes are cut back, you keep more of what you earn, you have more money to spend and this eventually puts more money into the general economy which helps everyone. When you and I have more cash to spend (because of our taxes being lower) we tend to either save it (giving banks more money to lend for new homes and cars, etc) or we simply buy stuff, making more work for those who make stuff.

It seems to me that there needs to be more jobs to accomplish this feat. The free trade agreement that handed alot of our jobs over to the mexicians, people that don't even pay tax in this country.. I think that should be dealt with. Companies moving thier facilities to other countries to save on labor cost and then bringing the product back here for a greater profit. Seems to me that if there were a greater import tax some of these companies would quit contracting out 'our' work.

Creating jobs isn't that simple, Rick. Free Trade does take away some jobs but the majority of those jobs are low-level, not highly skilled, and with our high minimum wages (compared to other countries) and tons of restrictions on everything from parking spaces for the handicapped to enviromental controls, it's way cheaper for comanies to move outside the U.S. Unions (with high wages) and other factors also drive up prices on American-made goods. We all want that nice new TV or DVD player for $150. but we get it for that price mostly because it cost a lot less to manufacture outside of the U.S. Made-in-U.S.A. is a great concept but so many factors have made manufacturing here expensive and thus, uncompetitive for plant owners who have to compete with companies outside the U.S. that can sell their goods much cheaper. It isn't - as the anti-capitalist liberals always say - all about 'greed'. It's also about survival for American companies.

Bush's latest plan is to give us a tax break but Daschle says, upon further investigation, that a person making $1 million a year will see a return of $24,000 extra while someone making $30-40k will notice a big $76... Who is getting the benifit here?? I know I said I don't listen to political propaganda but... where do you get your info from Jim?

Apparently not where you get yours. The Bush economic plan has not been made public as yet. Daschle and the Democrats are simply playing politics and making wild assumptions in order to make Bushs' plan look 'unfair' before he even reveals it, thus putting Bush on the defensive right off the bat. It's a political trick.

Rick, understand this if nothing else. The top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of the income taxes in this country so they will always (and rightfully) get the biggest benefit when taxes are cut. That's a progressive tax system for you. As you earn more, you pay more in taxes. When taxes are cut accross the board, as they should be, you get a bigger benefit in that you'll now pay less taxes (than a lower-income taxpayer) because you're in a much higher bracket. No mystery. Rich people have been demonized for so long by the Democrats as they try, again, to play the class-envy card and make a across-the-board tax cut seem somehow 'unfair' when wealthy people benefit, as if the wealthy didn't already pay the lions share of all income taxes. Daschle is blowing smoke to hide the fact that cutting taxes is good for the economy, period. He tries to make it appear that if a citizen already paying very high taxes gets a break, it's somehow wrong. Why? The wealthy are the ones who own the companies and help create jobs. When they have more to spend (due to less taxes) it's good for the economy.

In times like these its real easy to get sidetracked by the war at hand. Easy to change the subject, if you know what I mean. I'm lucky enough to have a secure job but I see my brothers falling around me.. Repo houses going up on the market and folks that can't find a job to pay the rent. Is a tax break and extended unemployment the answer? I don't think so.

Is having more money in your paycheck every week going to help? I think so. Unemployment benefits are a band-aid and I have no problem with them being extended but that won't solve anything, granted. It's political. No one is really distracted by the War on Terrorism or Iraq as the Democrats pound Bush on the economy every day and the media help them. Fortunately, the public doesn't blame President Bush for the weak economy, and they are correct. He didn't cause it. The point is that the President doesn't control the economy, whether it's Bush, Clinton or anyone else. He can cut taxes which always helps the economy and do other things to help business - which the Democrats always try to paint as somehow evil. Who do they think supplies all the 'good jobs' they claim to want...not government, but 'business'. Cutting corporate taxes isn't evil, it's a way to help stimulate the economy.

All I can say Rick is that I don't have time to refute every Democrat politician's lies and distortions here but just don't believe everything you see and hear from any politician, especially on the major networks who are 100% liberal in their outlook and show it, every night. Belive me whan I tell you that paying less taxes is always a good thing, whether it's you, me or Bill Gates. Don't fall victim to the liberal's class-envy game. It's bogus.

[tireburner163]

Originally posted by Janeofalltrades
.

Oh Man!..that right there is why I love you guys....HOLY CRAP..I was laughing so hard. And not because of the lightness of the subject, but your delivery, Rod, deserves a comedy routine in your name.

HAHAHA....people dieing a slow and painful death....haha

Wake up, Hot Roddin was being serious