 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / British History / January 2007The Mommy Party
The Mommy Party At a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday, Sen. Barbara Boxer quizzed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Iraq strategy. The New York Post is rightly appalled at what Boxer had to say: "Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price," Boxer said. "My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young." Then, to Rice: "You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family." . . . The junior senator from California apparently believes that an accomplished, seasoned diplomat, a renowned scholar and an adviser to two presidents like Condoleezza Rice is not fully qualified to make policy at the highest levels of the American government because she is a single, childless woman. It's hard to imagine the firestorm that similar comments would have ignited, coming from a Republican to a Democrat, or from a man to a woman, in the United States Senate. Part of the reason this is shocking, of course, is because it breaches feminist etiquette. If Boxer had said this to a male official who had no children, it wouldn't have carried quite the same sting -- though it would still be creepy. We've remarked frequently upon the tendency of war opponents to infantilize American servicemen -- by demanding, for example, to know why President Bush hasn't "sent" his daughters to fight in Iraq, as if he had the power as their father to order them to enlist. In truth, members of the military are adults who have made an adult commitment. They deserve to be respected for their maturity, not patronized as victims. It dishonors them to use their sacrifice as a political cudgel. James Taranto The Wall Street Journal > The Mommy Party > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > the highest levels of the American government because she is a single, > childless woman. LOL. Hines, you have excellent comic potential... Rice is another female failure, like April Glaspie, Hilary Clinton (health care initiative), etc. I'm hoping Nancy will be an exception. from: State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration by James Risen Consider, for example, this striking but typical discussion in the White House in April 2003 just as the Iraq occupation, the vital first step in President Bush's plan "to transform the Middle East," was getting underway. American forces are in Baghdad but the capital is engulfed by a wave of looting and disorder, with General Tommy Franks's troops standing by. The man in charge of the occupation, Lt. Gen. (ret.) Jay Garner, has just arrived "in-country." Secretary of State Colin Powell has come to the Oval Office to discuss the occupation with the President, who is joined by Condoleezza Rice, then his national security adviser. Powell began, writes Woodward, by raising "the question of unity of command" in Iraq: There are two chains of command, Powell told the president. Garner reports to Rumsfeld and Franks reports to Rumsfeld. The president looked surprised. "That's not right," Rice said. "That's not right." Powell thought Rice could at times be pretty sure of herself, but he was pretty sure he was right. "Yes, it is," Powell insisted. "Wait a minute," Bush interrupted, taking Rice's side. "That doesn't sound right." Rice got up and went to her office to check. When she came back, Powell thought she looked a little sheepish. "That's right," she said. What might Kennan, the consummate diplomatic professional, have thought of such a discussion between president, secretary of state, and national security adviser, had he lived to read of it? He would have grasped its implications instantly, as the President and his national security adviser apparently did not. Which leads to Powell's patient-too patient-explanation to the President: ...You have to understand that when you have two chains of command and you don't have a common superior in the theater, it means that every little half-assed fight they have out there, if they can't work it out, comes out to one place to be resolved. And that's in the Pentagon. Not in the NSC or the State Department, but in the Pentagon. The kernel of an answer to what is the most painful and intractable question about the Iraq war-how could US officials repeatedly and consistently make such ill-advised and improbably stupid decisions, beginning with their lack of planning for "the postwar"- can be found in this little chamber play in the Oval Office, and in the fact that at least two thirds of the cast seem wholly incapable of comprehending the script. In Woodward's account, Rice, who was then the official responsible for coordinating the national security bureaucracies of the US government, found what was being said "a rather theoretical discussion," somehow managing to miss the fact that she and the National Security Council she headed had been cut out of decision-making on the Iraq war-and cut out, further, in favor of an official, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, who, if we are to believe Woodward, did not bother even to return her telephone calls. > The Mommy Party > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Then, to Rice: "You're not going to pay a particular price, as I > understand it, with an immediate family." . . . Certain sign that Bush is in real trouble, the price of gasoline is going down and Hines is posting drivel in big batches. Rice is a sock-puppet, she has no emotions of her own, they are just robo-eminations from George Bush. She screwed up 9/11, screwed up any chance to make the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict work for an understanding and she says that "It's bad policy to speculate on what you'll do if a plan fails when you're trying to make a plan work." >> The Mommy Party >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > and she says that "It's bad policy to speculate on what you'll do if a > plan fails when you're trying to make a plan work." We have always had a problem with the politicized people placed in high positions. I went to Egypt on the heels of her statement to Hosni Mubarik that he would have to do more for democracy. If Egypt ever held a wide-open election then the Muslim Brotherhood would win every position and immediately declare Sharia Law, and would look more like Iran than anything else. So much for democracy. But she is not alone. Truman's Secretary of State, Dean Acheson left South Korea off a map of nations we considered in our vital interest, causing North Korean dictator Kim-Il-Sung (the elder) to go to Stalin for support to invade South Korea. The middle-east is a prime place for politicized persons misperceptions, because they only see through sunglasses with either two left, or two right, lenses. >>> The Mommy Party >>> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > because they only see through sunglasses with either two left, or two > right, lenses. That is part of the bigger picture of the psychology of warfare. None is so blind as the Country/Party that believes it holds the moral high ground. And, as such, we - the warmongers - believe most peoples will take "our" side, we will have the greatest resources, and that war will be short, based on our false sense of invincibility. - nilita >The Mommy Party Once again, Heines, who has never had a single original thought in his life, plagiarizes some other idiot's views to substitute for having to think something through for himself. BINGO! The Highlander Faodaidh nach ionann na beachdan anns an post seo agus beachdan a' Ghàidheil. The views expressed in this post are not necessarily those of The Highlander. >>The Mommy Party > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > BINGO! Plagiarizes? How ignorant! How can he plagiarize something he rightly attributes to the proper author? Michelin can't think his way out of a paper bag. > The Mommy Party > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > the highest levels of the American government because she is a single, > childless woman. That's a strawman. That is not the argument Boxer was making. She was saying childless Rice has not kids to lose in the war, and she hasn't. Where did she say tht Rice is not qualified to make policy? James Taranto can't read apparently, and neither can his readers. Cheap shots and nothing but cheap shots built on strawmen. Do better. >>The Mommy Party >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Do better. But she could lose the oil tanker bearing her name in the Straight of Hormuz, no? What's more valuable for her an oil thanker or a child? Only Condy knows it. See her baby here; http://www.aztlan.net/oiltanker.htm > But she could lose the oil tanker bearing her name in the Straight of > Hormuz, no? What's more valuable for her an oil thanker or a child? Only > Condy knows it. Hey, you on the left are in charge now. Fix it, stop bitching. Mark  SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > > But she could lose the oil tanker bearing her name in the Straight of > > Hormuz, no? What's more valuable for her an oil thanker or a child? Only [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Mark Bush and Cheney both resigned? The imperial executive is gone? >> > But she could lose the oil tanker bearing her name in the Straight of >> > Hormuz, no? What's more valuable for her an oil thanker or a child? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Bush and Cheney both resigned? The imperial executive is gone? Bush stopped being Commander-in-Chief? That's the guy in charge of the war, isn't it? The CinC? - nilita > >> > But she could lose the oil tanker bearing her name in the Straight of > >> > Hormuz, no? What's more valuable for her an oil thanker or a child? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > - nilita If you read Mark the Testy he did, but evidence shows that he stands alone with Dick Cheney, also known as the "soon to be indicted", as the only people who think this next hand will win the game. I have heard the whole plan has two goals, making al Maliki admit he is unable to govern al Sadr and making Iran look like an invading force. Al Sadr is, of course, the most anti-Iran Shia leader around so we have to get rid of him, and we have no Army left so we must make Iran declare war. > > >> > But she could lose the oil tanker bearing her name in the Straight of > > >> > Hormuz, no? What's more valuable for her an oil thanker or a child? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > of course, the most anti-Iran Shia leader around so we have to get rid > of him, and we have no Army left so we must make Iran declare war. al sadr will be there when we leave. malaki needs him, the only way to really get rid of sadr is to kill him and then who will support maliki after that? >>> > But she could lose the oil tanker bearing her name in the Straight of >>> > Hormuz, no? What's more valuable for her an oil thanker or a child? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >- nilita I believe that's spelled "The Kink(y)". The Highlander Faodaidh nach ionann na beachdan anns an post seo agus beachdan a' Ghàidheil. The views expressed in this post are not necessarily those of The Highlander. In article <1168715551.515674.44250@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, jacklinthicum@earthlink.net mumbled > > > But she could lose the oil tanker bearing her name in the Straight of > > > Hormuz, no? What's more valuable for her an oil thanker or a child? Only [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Bush and Cheney both resigned? The imperial executive is gone? I'm just curious but why do you chose to refer to them in this manner and not say Mr Clinton or Mr Carter in the same manner ? > In article <1168715551.515674.44250@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > jacklinthicum@earthlink.net mumbled [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I'm just curious but why do you chose to refer to them in this manner > and not say Mr Clinton or Mr Carter in the same manner ? Because neither of them, warts and all, tanked like Bush. Isn't it obvious, or are you one of those who thinks that we are winning in Iraq, "absolutely"? In article <aMbqh.793$E35.20@trnddc02>, temp4@tiglath.net mumbled > > In article <1168715551.515674.44250@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > > jacklinthicum@earthlink.net mumbled [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Isn't it obvious, or are you one of those who thinks that we are winning in > Iraq, "absolutely"? I see, its all the superficial "how he talks" silliness. I'd ask you to visit Serbia and see how popular Mr Clinton is. >> > I'm just curious but why do you chose to refer to them in this manner >> > and not say Mr Clinton or Mr Carter in the same manner ? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I see, its all the superficial "how he talks" silliness. Partly. Add to that the despair-inducing phrases like: "Prime Minister Maliki has pledged ..." > I'd ask you to visit Serbia and see how popular Mr Clinton is. Trying to change the subject? No surprise. >>> > I'm just curious but why do you chose to refer to them in this manner >>> > and not say Mr Clinton or Mr Carter in the same manner ? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Trying to change the subject? No surprise. Tinkerbell is trying to make you believe that he's ever been to Serbia. I wonder if there is a Serbia, Oregon in that case. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users. It has removed 9171 spam emails to date. Paying users do not have this message in their emails. Try SPAMfighter for free now! >>>> > I'm just curious but why do you chose to refer to them in this manner >>>> > and not say Mr Clinton or Mr Carter in the same manner ? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Tinkerbell is trying to make you believe that he's ever been to Serbia. I > wonder if there is a Serbia, Oregon in that case. Tinkerbell you watch again the presidential address Bush gave last Wednesday, and mark in addition to the "how he talks" silliness, the "how he looks" seriousness. Bush looked as broken as his war. With 66% of Americans objecting to the "dribble," I mean the "surge." The unshakable few look like musicians on the Titanic tuning their violins in case melody and harmony will float boats. What will the next dozens of dead young Americans have died for? >>>>> > I'm just curious but why do you chose to refer to them in this >>>>> > manner [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > What will the next dozens of dead young Americans have died for? I support the troops not the policies that have them there. But I do know that we either get Iraq to step up to the plate or let it go into it's ethnic cleansing and THEN step back in and pick up the pieces. Neither side is correct. We do need to be able to pull back into someplace like Kuwait and station a few tens of thousands of troops and wait and get the rest out if the Malaki Government keeps this stupidity going or get those troops into Afganistan and finish the friggin job. But the left side won't have the guts to put those troops back in after the 60% kill the 40%. This, in my opinion, needs to be left on the table. Maybe Malaki and company will actually get things done at this point. But doing a complete withdrawal shouldn't be on the table ever. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users. It has removed 9242 spam emails to date. Paying users do not have this message in their emails. Try SPAMfighter for free now! >>>>>> > I'm just curious but why do you chose to refer to them in this >>>>>> > manner [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >if the Malaki Government keeps this stupidity going or get those troops into >Afganistan and finish the friggin job. Do you seriously think that Kuwait is going to open its doors to "a few tens of thousands of troops" and then wait for Iran to bomb that tiny little state into dust and thereby relieve at least one political problem? You don't have "a few tens of thousands of troops". You sound like Hitler in the Fuehrer Bunker, moving long dead armies around Germany as the Russian advance. If the insurgents manage to capture a bunch of your guys, I can see an endless stream of beheading videos cluttering the Internet for months. The Highlander Faodaidh nach ionann na beachdan anns an post seo agus beachdan a' Ghàidheil. The views expressed in this post are not necessarily those of The Highlander. >>>>>>> > I'm just curious but why do you chose to refer to them in this >>>>>>> > manner [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > tiny little state into dust and thereby relieve at least one political > problem? If we leave things as they are and just pack it up Kuwait is certainly going to get visitors that go bump in the night. More like BOOM. > You don't have "a few tens of thousands of troops". You sound like > Hitler in the Fuehrer Bunker, moving long dead armies around Germany > as the Russian advance. If the insurgents manage to capture a bunch of > your guys, I can see an endless stream of beheading videos cluttering > the Internet for months. No, we have about 160,000 troops. That is a few more than tens of thousands. We keep "Tens of Thousands" on the border between North and South Korea. We keep tens of thousands in what is left of the border of the Iron Curtain. Has this worked? I expect the leader of North Korea, any day now, to stand on a street corner wearing a sign, "Will NOT build a Nuclear Bomb for Food". While the Iron Curtain has long since been torn down. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users. It has removed 9395 spam emails to date. Paying users do not have this message in their emails. Try SPAMfighter for free now! In article <45aafec4$1@news.i70west.com>, dhunt@celticommnospam.com mumbled > We keep "Tens of Thousands" on the border between North and > South Korea. Precious few on the DMZ nowdays daryl... > In article <45aafec4$1@news.i70west.com>, dhunt@celticommnospam.com > mumbled >> We keep "Tens of Thousands" on the border between North and >> South Korea. > > Precious few on the DMZ nowdays daryl... By some recent count quoted hereabouts, 460,000 uniformed US milpers currently serving overseas/outside the US.... TMO In article <45abe373$0$4856$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, tmoliverjrFIX@hot.rr.comFIX mumbled > > In article <45aafec4$1@news.i70west.com>, dhunt@celticommnospam.com > > mumbled [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > By some recent count quoted hereabouts, 460,000 uniformed US milpers > currently serving overseas/outside the US.... Correct, but none on the DMZ other than the ones at the peace talks village. > In article <45abe373$0$4856$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, > tmoliverjrFIX@hot.rr.comFIX mumbled [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Correct, > but none on the DMZ other than the ones at the peace talks village. Last count, there were over 32k in Korea. Newflash, Korea is so small that no one is more than a few hours away from the DMZ. In fact, if you knew Arty like you claim, you would know that Seol is within Artillery Range from the North every second of every day. 32,500 was larger. It used to be 37,500 but 5000 were sent to Iraq recently. All of those 32,500 just a well be standing at the wire. Their purpose is to be the tripwire for all out war with North Korea. Without them NK would have crossed into the South decades ago and had a cakewalk doing it. I suggest you stay behind that desk in Oregon. You are saving lives. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users. It has removed 9493 spam emails to date. Paying users do not have this message in their emails. Try SPAMfighter for free now! In article <45ac12e2$1@news.i70west.com>, dhunt@celticommnospam.com mumbled > > In article <45abe373$0$4856$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, > > tmoliverjrFIX@hot.rr.comFIX mumbled [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Arty like you claim, you would know that Seol is within Artillery Range from > the North every second of every day. As we speak those 32K are or have already been redeployed well south of Seoul. I dare say that those who have actually been there and driven the roads would dispute your silly assertion it is just hours from Pusan to the DMZ. > 32,500 was larger. It used to be 37,500 but 5000 were sent to Iraq > recently. Actually it used to be much much higher. Closer to 50K during my tour there. > All of those 32,500 just a well be standing at the wire. Their purpose is > to be the tripwire for all out war with North Korea. Without them NK would > have crossed into the South decades ago and had a cakewalk doing it. Daryl, you are a much bigger fool than I'd thought previously. The North Korean army would have faltered before they got as far south as Tong-du-chong as they found the ordinary farmers there have equipment and consumer goods that they have never even dreamed of. > I suggest you stay behind that desk in Oregon. You are saving lives. I do the job I'm assigned, didn't you when you were in ? Or were you one of those PX hero's who got in the way of every operation becuase you couldn't be bothered to attend the training beforehand. > I dare say that those who have actually been there and driven the roads > would dispute your silly assertion it is just hours from Pusan to the > DMZ. Express highway 430 km, speed limit 80 kph, time of travel 5 hours. They built some new roads to relieve the congestion, railroad is even faster. In article <1168952143.007149.16180@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, jacklinthicum@earthlink.net mumbled > > I dare say that those who have actually been there and driven the roads > > would dispute your silly assertion it is just hours from Pusan to the > > DMZ. > > Express highway 430 km, speed limit 80 kph, time of travel 5 hours. No military convoy makes that good of time.. > They built some new roads to relieve the congestion, railroad is even > faster. They did. And if NK invaded they would be crowded with refugees just like last time. > In article <1168952143.007149.16180@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > jacklinthicum@earthlink.net mumbled [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > And if NK invaded they would be crowded with refugees just like last > time. That is what is called a self-fulfilling prophecy, it isn't going to work why try it. Eisenhower got his idea for the Interstate system after observing how the German autobahn system enabled the Americans to sweep around German strong points. Want to bet the ROKs don't have a plan that would isolate refugees from even entering the express roads? Reinforced by having them die if they do either through being struck by the vehicles or shot for entering the roadway. South Korea isn't any softer than North Korea, just better fed and better supplied. > > In article <1168952143.007149.16180@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > > jacklinthicum@earthlink.net mumbled [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > after observing how the German autobahn system enabled the Americans to > sweep around German strong points. Eisenhower mostly got his idea for the I.S. from jeeps, But it wasn't until Vietnam that the US Army realized that you need armoured tires, roll bars, ambulances, blood supplies, and something a little quicker than 50 caliber machine guns to make your highways. Want to bet the ROKs don't have a > plan that would isolate refugees from even entering the express roads? > Reinforced by having them die if they do either through being struck by > the vehicles or shot for entering the roadway. South Korea isn't any > softer than North Korea, just better fed and better supplied. > In article <1168952143.007149.16180@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > jacklinthicum@earthlink.net mumbled [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > And if NK invaded they would be crowded with refugees just like last > time. Apart from those extra wide and straight parts with the funny markings and armed soldiers at the checkpoints at either end. 'What was that? ... 'Don't ask!' SignatureBrian >> In article <45abe373$0$4856$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, >> tmoliverjrFIX@hot.rr.comFIX mumbled [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > I suggest you stay behind that desk in Oregon. You are saving lives. Still not able to find any current doctrine or facts, eh D'ohRyl? > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users. > It has removed 9493 spam emails to date. > Paying users do not have this message in their emails. > Try SPAMfighter for free now! In article <45a9abef$1@news.i70west.com>, dhunt@celticommnospam.com mumbled > >>> > I'm just curious but why do you chose to refer to them in this manner > >>> > and not say Mr Clinton or Mr Carter in the same manner ? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Tinkerbell is trying to make you believe that he's ever been to Serbia. I > wonder if there is a Serbia, Oregon in that case. Making stuff up again I see daryl. Never claimed to have been there myself, just asked the OP if he knew how popular Mr Clinton might be in that country. In article <CShqh.1633$9B6.1348@trnddc07>, temp4@tiglath.net mumbled > >> > I'm just curious but why do you chose to refer to them in this manner > >> > and not say Mr Clinton or Mr Carter in the same manner ? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Add to that the despair-inducing phrases like: "Prime Minister Maliki has > pledged ..." > > I'd ask you to visit Serbia and see how popular Mr Clinton is. > > Trying to change the subject? No surprise. Actually he was part of my post above. >In article <CShqh.1633$9B6.1348@trnddc07>, temp4@tiglath.net mumbled >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> Add to that the despair-inducing phrases like: "Prime Minister Maliki has >> pledged ..." Surely there can't be anyone that naive still helping to "run" the military adventure in Iraq? >> > I'd ask you to visit Serbia and see how popular Mr Clinton is. Why go to Serbia - try the UK, where he is held in great esteem for putting a stop to the IRA receiving money and arms from American citizens to kill British citizens. I imagine that when the US stops killing Iraqi citizens, who ever makes the decision will be held in a certain amount of esteem. A rather human reaction, I would suggest. The Highlander Faodaidh nach ionann na beachdan anns an post seo agus beachdan a' Ghàidheil. The views expressed in this post are not necessarily those of The Highlander. >In article <1168715551.515674.44250@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, >jacklinthicum@earthlink.net mumbled [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >I'm just curious but why do you chose to refer to them in this manner >and not say Mr Clinton or Mr Carter in the same manner ? Mr. is a courtesy title. Some people simply don't qualify. How often have you typed Mr. Hitler or Mr. Stalin? The Highlander Faodaidh nach ionann na beachdan anns an post seo agus beachdan a' Ghàidheil. The views expressed in this post are not necessarily those of The Highlander. >> In article <1168715551.515674.44250@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, >> jacklinthicum@earthlink.net mumbled [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > How often have you typed Mr. Hitler or Mr. Stalin? Actually the use of "Herr Hitler" was and is fairly common. Vince >>> In article <1168715551.515674.44250@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, >>> jacklinthicum@earthlink.net mumbled [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Vince But not meant respectfully; more the remnants of politeness left over from another era. The Highlander Faodaidh nach ionann na beachdan anns an post seo agus beachdan a' Ghàidheil. The views expressed in this post are not necessarily those of The Highlander. In article <qlskq25cuucr7of62ujvat9q8hg9ekbj90@4ax.com>, micheil@shaw.ca mumbled > >In article <1168715551.515674.44250@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > >jacklinthicum@earthlink.net mumbled [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Mr. is a courtesy title. Some people simply don't qualify. I have been trying to be polite.. > How often have you typed Mr. Hitler or Mr. Stalin? Hmm Are you suggesting the two "gentlemen" I mentioned are in the same league as Ol' Adolph and Uncle Joe ? >In article <qlskq25cuucr7of62ujvat9q8hg9ekbj90@4ax.com>, micheil@shaw.ca >mumbled [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >Hmm Are you suggesting the two "gentlemen" I mentioned are in the same >league as Ol' Adolph and Uncle Joe ? No. I merely pointed out what I wrote above; that some people simply don't qualify for courtesy titles. The Highlander Faodaidh nach ionann na beachdan anns an post seo agus beachdan a' Ghàidheil. The views expressed in this post are not necessarily those of The Highlander. [...] > No. I merely pointed out what I wrote above; that some people simply > don't qualify for courtesy titles. > > The Highlander Some may "don't qualify for courtesy titles", but the lack of courtesy is to demonize the 'enemy', not a moral judgment. Bush the elder practiced it by calling Saddam Hussein by his first name, while Bush was allied with Saddam for more than a decade. (I call him Saddam, to show the demonization and propaganda's effect. No one would understand, who I refer to by calling him Hussein). > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the demonization and propaganda's effect. No one would understand, who I > refer to by calling him Hussein). Bush 41's pronunciation of the name was closer to "Soddem" than "Sa-domm" >>[...] >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Bush 41's pronunciation of the name was closer to "Soddem" than > "Sa-domm" I didn't notice that, but the choice were clear. It would have been hard to twist Husseins name to Gomorra. On 1/15/07 11:34 AM, in article 1168882485.822316.239300@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com, "Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthicum@earthlink.net> wrote: >> [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Bush 41's pronunciation of the name was closer to "Soddem" than > "Sa-domm" Bush 41 seemed to me to pronounce it like "Sodom," as in Sodom and Gomorrah, which I rather liked. Grey Satterfield Correct... With that crisp Greenwich, Connecticut accent. That was the idea. Or as the _sodom_ in _sodomite_. DSH > Bush 41 seemed to me to pronounce it like "Sodom," as in Sodom and > Gomorrah, which I rather liked. > > Grey Satterfield On 1/15/07 7:23 PM, in article 5PVqh.624$Sd5.733@eagle.america.net, "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote: > Correct... > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > DSH Yeah, I though about that, too, but this is a family newsgroup (s.m.n, that is, I didn't start the crossposting). Grey Satterfield >> Bush 41 seemed to me to pronounce it like "Sodom," as in Sodom and >> Gomorrah, which I rather liked. >> >> Grey Satterfield > In article <qlskq25cuucr7of62ujvat9q8hg9ekbj90@4ax.com>, micheil@shaw.ca > mumbled [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > >> > > >> Bush and Cheney both resigned? The imperial executive is gone? Dapra, The legislative and judicial branches are in democrat control. If they are serious the dems could withold funding for Iraq, resend the patriot act, invite Bin Ladin to the senate for a spot of tea even. I mean they can do no wrong in your eyes, or the medias. BTW, Bush is going to sign every democrat bill into law....can you say lame duck? So again, stop bitching about the minority party, and bitch about those that are in charge.... Mark Signature"The inherent vice of capitalism is the uneven division of blessings, while the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal division of misery." -- Sir Winston Churchill -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > > In article <qlskq25cuucr7of62ujvat9q8hg9ekbj90@4ax.com>, micheil@shaw.ca > > mumbled [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > -- > Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Last I looked seven of the nine Justices of the Supreme Court were Republican appoinments, do you know anything at all about the government or are you getting all this off one of those radio stations where people call in with stories like yours? Everyone is bitching about those in charge, the Executive branch is George and Dick and the weanies they brought along to write their speeches. I asked once if you thought those two had resigned, the President still gets to exercise his second and sequential vetos if he can remember where the pens are. Wake up, fool, [....] > Dapra, The legislative and judicial branches are in democrat control. Yes, the legislative branch is in the Democrats control, if you ignore Lieberman. To claim that the judicial is under Democrat control is absurd. (2:7 Supreme Court) > If they are serious the dems could withold funding for Iraq, resend the patriot act, > invite Bin Ladin to the senate for a spot of tea even. I mean they can do no wrong > in your eyes, or the medias. Inviting bin Laden to a tea may be a good idea, though I think Bush would still miss him. > BTW, Bush is going to sign every democrat bill into law....can you say > lame duck? You don't know the guy of your fascination. > So again, stop bitching about the minority party, and bitch about those that > are in charge.... You seem to ignore all the posts debunked this theory. Have a good time in your cocoon, Mark. > Mark > [....] > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > To claim that the judicial is under Democrat control is absurd. (2:7 > Supreme Court) 2:7 ??????? Disagree with ya there....not to mention the Federal courts..like those crazies over in the 9th Federal district, that let terrorists walk free. > > If they are serious the dems could withold funding for Iraq, resend the patriot act, > > invite Bin Ladin to the senate for a spot of tea even. I mean they can do no wrong [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Inviting bin Laden to a tea may be a good idea, though I think Bush > would still miss him. See, you think you can talk to our enemies. Would you have had FDR "talked" to Tojo after Pearl Harbor? If you were being sarcastic....nevermind. > > BTW, Bush is going to sign every democrat bill into law....can you say > > lame duck? > > You don't know the guy of your fascination. We'll see. > > So again, stop bitching about the minority party, and bitch about those that > > are in charge.... > > You seem to ignore all the posts debunked this theory. Like the one's where all you do is bad mouth Rove, Bush, and Cheney? > Have a good time in your cocoon, Mark. LOL!....will do, shipmate. Mark SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> In article <qlskq25cuucr7of62ujvat9q8hg9ekbj90@4ax.com>, micheil@shaw.ca >> mumbled [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Bin Ladin to the senate for a spot of tea even. I mean they can do no wrong > in your eyes, or the medias. Technically, only partly correct. Being the legislative, the Congress has been given the power to propose military spending budgets (limited to 1 year duration, thanks be to the Great White Fathers). However, practically, it doesn't matter what they do, Bush can and will decide to SPEND what is allocated (it will not be zero) in any manner he sees fit, no matter how the spending measures are worded, or the amount of Republican support. He may CHOOSE to listen, or he may not. Congress's entire recourse to any disagreement is impeachment... > BTW, Bush is going to sign every democrat bill into law....can you say > lame duck? But a very HEADSTRONG lame duck with lots of "interesting" people advising him. As a lame duck, what does he care. He could as easily choose to veto every bill that comes to his desk, requiring all legislation to have 2/3 majority support (something that should be in place for all Presidential appointments, IMNSHO). > So again, stop bitching about the minority party, and bitch about those that > are in charge.... Ah, but in this country, the President IS in charge, to a very large extent. Dan > > Dapra, The legislative and judicial branches are in democrat control. If > > they [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > or he may not. Congress's entire recourse to any disagreement is > impeachment... I follow what you're saying, BUT Congress writes the military budget, and they can simply withhold the 80 billion for Iraq. The military has to spend the money where it is ear-marked. To my knowledge the President can't counter Congress....without a declaration of war, which he doesn't have. > > BTW, Bush is going to sign every democrat bill into law....can you say > > lame duck? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > majority support (something that should be in place for all Presidential > appointments, IMNSHO). He will not veto a thing.....possibly embryonic stem cell, but even that's not for sure. You see, he actually agrees mostly with the Dems, on min wage, on immigration (AMNESTY for law breakers), and health care. He disagrees with them on taxes, and abortion, that's it. It's because of Bush nothing much conservative got done these last 6 years. > > So again, stop bitching about the minority party, and bitch about those that > > are in charge.... > > Ah, but in this country, the President IS in charge, to a very large extent. Actually, the House is where the power is at.....(IMHO). No one branch is above the others....(Except for those crazy jurists who think they are the one's in charge) Mark SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com [...] > He disagrees with them on taxes, and abortion, that's it. It's because > of Bush nothing much conservative got done these last 6 years. I think, we agree on that one. Bush is not a conservative, but a corporatist, a plutocrat. Tax cuts to the rich, cheap labor are important to him. Abortion, talking about it, is just a bone thrown to the religious right. > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > important to him. Abortion, talking about it, is just a bone thrown to > the religious right. Well, part of being a conservative is taking care of the free market, ....small businesses account for 70 percent of the employment in America. Yet, those same small businesses will get hard when Bush and the Congress raise taxes on those earning over 500K a year. Taking care of business so our economy can thrive sould be the government's number two priority, after defense. BTW, the top 2 percent of America's wealthy already pay over 80 percent of the taxes....how much more do you suggest the government take from them and give to illegals and people who can work, but refuse to do so? That is the difference between me and you, I say keep what you earn and pay your fair share...not take wealth from people and give to others. If you want to be wealthy, earn it, but stop saying it's alrite to steal it from those who do earn it. Mark Signature"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." --John Gault -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>[...] >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Well, part of being a conservative is taking care of the free market, "taking care of the free market"? What a stupid remark. Not even The Wall Street Journal editorials would use that phrase. Free market supposed to mean, NOT taking care of it, but free! > ....small businesses account for 70 percent of the employment > in America. Do you know the definition of 'small business'? Tell me! >Yet, those same small businesses will get hard when > Bush and the Congress raise taxes on those earning over 500K a year. 500K is 10 times more than the mean salary. > Taking care of business so our economy can thrive sould be the > government's number two priority, after defense. I would say taking care of their people is the first priority of our government. But I agree, our government being an 'occupied territory', is working for business and the military. > BTW, the top 2 percent of America's wealthy already pay over > 80 percent of the taxes....how much more do you suggest > the government take from them and give to illegals and > people who can work, but refuse to do so? Soon they will pay 100%, when the wage slavery accomplished. Did slaves paid any taxes? Of course not. > That is the difference between me and you, I say keep what you > earn and pay your fair share...not take wealth from people and > give to others. If you want to be wealthy, earn it, but stop saying > it's alrite to steal it from those who do earn it. The difference is that you are brainwashed, I am not. > Mark > >>[...] > >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Wall Street Journal editorials would use that phrase. Free market > supposed to mean, NOT taking care of it, but free! OK, fine, protecting it......feel better? > > ....small businesses account for 70 percent of the employment > > in America. > > Do you know the definition of 'small business'? Tell me! Educate me. > >Yet, those same small businesses will get hard when > > Bush and the Congress raise taxes on those earning over 500K a year. > > 500K is 10 times more than the mean salary. So? The point is that that's what a small business owner makes per year. > > Taking care of business so our economy can thrive sould be the > > government's number two priority, after defense. > > I would say taking care of their people is the first priority of our > government. But I agree, our government being an 'occupied territory', > is working for business and the military. Well, provide for defense and well being are in the Constitution, not taxing the sh.t outta us. > > BTW, the top 2 percent of America's wealthy already pay over > > 80 percent of the taxes....how much more do you suggest [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Soon they will pay 100%, when the wage slavery accomplished. Did slaves > paid any taxes? Of course not. Your point? > > That is the difference between me and you, I say keep what you > > earn and pay your fair share...not take wealth from people and > > give to others. If you want to be wealthy, earn it, but stop saying > > it's alrite to steal it from those who do earn it. > > The difference is that you are brainwashed, I am not. So you favor a government that takes from earners and gives to non-earners? Mark SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>>[...] >>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > OK, fine, protecting it......feel better? That's better. But the proper term is 'rigged market'. >>>....small businesses account for 70 percent of the employment >>>in America. >> >>Do you know the definition of 'small business'? Tell me! > > Educate me. There are many definitions of 'small business'. One is under 500 employees. >>>Yet, those same small businesses will get hard when >>>Bush and the Congress raise taxes on those earning over 500K a year. >> >>500K is 10 times more than the mean salary. > > So? The point is that that's what a small business owner makes per year. My point is that they are not small, not mom&pop operations. >>>Taking care of business so our economy can thrive sould be the >>>government's number two priority, after defense. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Well, provide for defense and well being are in the Constitution, not > taxing the sh.t outta us. Prohibiting "taxing the sh.t outta us" is not in the Constitution. "promote the general Welfare" is in the Preamble. >>>BTW, the top 2 percent of America's wealthy already pay over >>>80 percent of the taxes....how much more do you suggest [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Your point? You can't squeeze more juice out of one, when there is none in them anymore. >>>That is the difference between me and you, I say keep what you >>>earn and pay your fair share...not take wealth from people and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > So you favor a government that takes from earners and gives > to non-earners? No. I favor taking money from parasites. > Mark > Well, part of being a conservative is taking care of the free market, > ....small businesses account for 70 percent of the employment [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Taking care of business so our economy can thrive sould be the > government's number two priority, after defense. Actually it's supposed to be more like this, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Ya' know, I don't see anything in there about business in there at all.. > BTW, the top 2 percent of America's wealthy already pay over > 80 percent of the taxes.... Whoa there sport model, got a cite for that? how much more do you suggest > the government take from them and give to illegals and > people who can work, but refuse to do so? Say what? Maybe they should give the Oilco's more.. > That is the difference between me and you, I say keep what you > earn and pay your fair share...not take wealth from people and > give to others. If you want to be wealthy, earn it, but stop saying > it's alrite to steal it from those who do earn it. Hmm, I'm fairly certain theft is against the law, but please tell me more... *Nothing, or no one is as obnoxious as a GATOR with both titles* *T3* > > Well, part of being a conservative is taking care of the free market, > > ....small businesses account for 70 percent of the employment [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." > Ya' know, I don't see anything in there about business in there at all.. How else do you promote general welfare, if not through business? Through government? The Constitution exists to LIMIT government. Oh wait, yeah there is that other way of promoting general welfare, via socialism..... > > BTW, the top 2 percent of America's wealthy already pay over > > 80 percent of the taxes.... > > Whoa there sport model, got a cite for that? Yeah, the NYT's Jan 08 2007: "The top 1% of income earners paid about 36.7% of federal income taxes and 25.3% of all federal taxes in 2004. The top 20% of income earners paid 67.1% of all federal taxes. By contrast, families in the bottom 40% of income earners, incomes below $36,300, typically paid no federal income tax and received money back from the government." So the top 1% pay 35% of income taxes, not 80%....But yeah, they need to pay more! From the Constitution: "Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" Now, how are federal income tax figures uniform? > how much more do you suggest > > the government take from them and give to illegals and > > people who can work, but refuse to do so? > > Say what? Maybe they should give the Oilco's more.. No, don't GIVE them anything, but don't take from them because they are successful. When would government stop? I mean could we have a windfall profits tax some day on wage earners that earn over $50,000? > > That is the difference between me and you, I say keep what you > > earn and pay your fair share...not take wealth from people and > > give to others. If you want to be wealthy, earn it, but stop saying > > it's alrite to steal it from those who do earn it. > > Hmm, I'm fairly certain theft is against the law, but please tell me more... Taxes are simply a government taking revenues from people. Not BIG oil companies, people. I'm not rich, but would like to be someday, and be able to keep what I earned....IIRC we fought a war over unfair tax practices.....That said, even our founders knew a government had to levy taxes, but in a "uniform" manner. (We survived as a nation for nearly 200 years without the income tax) Mark Signature"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." --John Gault -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> > Well, part of being a conservative is taking care of the free market, >> > ....small businesses account for 70 percent of the employment [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > So the top 1% pay 35% of income taxes, not 80%....But yeah, > they need to pay more! So, I still don't believe it and by the way, quotations do not a cite make! I especially don't believe the part about the "bottom" 40% not paying tax at all, much less the bullshit about getting money back. For instance, I did a 1040ez for a friend just yesterday, she made a little over $17k, had $1855 withheld, another $1075 for SS and $252 for Medicare, of that almost $3200 she recieved a refund of $932, in other words, she paid $2250 tax on $17k! Now I don't know about how you understand math, but that damn sure doesn't jibe so well with your quote, now does it? Though to me it does speak volumes about taxing the sh.t out of those well below the poverty level.. > From the Constitution: > "Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > we have a windfall profits tax some day on wage earners that earn > over $50,000? You just don't get it do you? They don't own (hardly) any of the oil they pump out of the ground (mostly we do)and that $2250 from the chic that made a whole $17K *was* a windfall grab! This country is taxing their poor(people like you claim to be) evidently to keep them poor and multi-national corps rich! Here's a thought, maybe you should stop buying into the bullshit from those idiots on the am radio, or not, whatever... >> > That is the difference between me and you, I say keep what you >> > earn and pay your fair share...not take wealth from people and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Taxes are simply a government taking revenues from people. Not BIG > oil companies, people. WTF? That has *got* to be the most ridiculous statement I've read in quite a while.. I'm not rich, but would like to be someday, and be > able to keep what I earned....IIRC we fought a war over unfair > tax practices.....That said, even our founders knew a government > had to levy taxes, but in a "uniform" manner. I give up. evidently you just can't fathom simple logic and I really have neither the time, or the patience to 'splain it to you. Buh-bye... >>>> Well, part of being a conservative is taking care of the free market, >>>> ....small businesses account for 70 percent of the employment [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > I give up. evidently you just can't fathom simple logic and I really have > neither the time, or the patience to 'splain it to you. Buh-bye... According to the IRS in 2004 (latest year of data): Top AGI Income Tax Paid 10% 45% 68% ($100K+) Next 30% 36% 25% ($40-100K) Lowest 60% 19% 12% (<$40K) The war war NOT fought over unfair taxes, since the colonists paid less tax than the home country. The main thrust of the war was REPRESENTATION in the government. In that regard then, yes, we are in trouble. The top 10% definitely get more representation than the rest of us (and the top 1% WAY more representation. Dan :> Well, part of being a conservative is taking care of the free market, :> ....small businesses account for 70 percent of the employment [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] :do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." :Ya' know, I don't see anything in there about business in there at all.. So what do YOU think it means? :> BTW, the top 2 percent of America's wealthy already pay over :> 80 percent of the taxes.... : :Whoa there sport model, got a cite for that? Go add it up. The numbers are at the Census Bureau. I don't know if he's precisely right, but he's not far wrong (if you count "non-Social-Security taxes"). I went and added up the income tax collections once and it worked out to something like the top 10% pay 90% of the taxes and the top 5% (or 3% - I forget exactly) paid something like 80%. When people talk about how "the rich aren't paying their fair share", they can only say it because of studied ignorance. The 'rich' already pay for almost everything. Even if you DO count Social Security, companies are paying at least half of those (that matching 7.5%). :> That is the difference between me and you, I say keep what you :> earn and pay your fair share...not take wealth from people and :> give to others. If you want to be wealthy, earn it, but stop saying :> it's alrite to steal it from those who do earn it. : :Hmm, I'm fairly certain theft is against the law, but please tell me more... There's a reason the Founding Fathers original prohibited taxation based on income... Signature"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong." -- Thomas Jefferson > BTW, the top 2 percent of America's wealthy already pay over > 80 percent of the taxes Because they have 95% of the wealth. Sounds to me like they don't pay enough taxes. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users. It has removed 9934 spam emails to date. Paying users do not have this message in their emails. Try SPAMfighter for free now! > > BTW, the top 2 percent of America's wealthy already pay over > > 80 percent of the taxes [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Paying users do not have this message in their emails. > Try SPAMfighter for free now! Not quite true: http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6 Who Pays Income Taxes? See Who Pays What For Tax Year 2004 Percentiles Ranked by AGI AGI Threshold on Percentiles Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid tax year 2004 Top 1% $328,049 36.89 Top 5% $137,056 57.13 Top 10% 99,112 68.19 Top 25% $60,041 84.86 Top 50% $30,122 96.70 Bottom 50% <$30,122 3.30 Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income Source: Internal Revenue Service There are numbers for each year back to 2000 >> > BTW, the top 2 percent of America's wealthy already pay over >> > 80 percent of the taxes >> >> Because they have 95% of the wealth. Sounds to me like they don't pay >> enough taxes. > Not quite true: > > http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6 Your own link shows that the lower incomes pay more percentage than the highest one. Top 1% $328,049 36.89 Top 5% $137,056 57.13 And that's all it says. It doesn't say a thing about who has the biggest percentage of the wealth. If what I say is correct then the top 1%, having 95% of the Wealth, is paying the lowest tax of everyone. > Who Pays Income Taxes? See Who Pays What > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > There are numbers for each year back to 2000 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users. It has removed 9934 spam emails to date. Paying users do not have this message in their emails. Try SPAMfighter for free now! >> > BTW, the top 2 percent of America's wealthy already pay over >> > 80 percent of the taxes [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > There are numbers for each year back to 2000 OK, now what are the wealth distributions? In article <vMUrh.12914$yx6.12821@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, JAntero45@map.com mumbled > >> > BTW, the top 2 percent of America's wealthy already pay over > >> > 80 percent of the taxes [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > OK, now what are the wealth distributions? Who cares ? Unless you are a communist. > In article <vMUrh.12914$yx6.12821@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > JAntero45@map.com mumbled [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > Who cares ? > Unless you are a communist. Considering what's being discussed, unless your dumb, you would care. Do you know the difference between wealth (net worth) and income? >> In article <vMUrh.12914$yx6.12821@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, >> JAntero45@map.com mumbled [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > Do you know the difference between wealth (net worth) and income? Tinkerbell is just a troll that thinks he knows more than everyone else or that everyone else knows less than he does. He's a fruitcake. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users. It has removed 10143 spam emails to date. Paying users do not have this message in their emails. Try SPAMfighter for free now! In article <45b288ca$1@news.i70west.com>, dhunt@celticommnospam.com mumbled > >> In article <vMUrh.12914$yx6.12821@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > >> JAntero45@map.com mumbled [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > Tinkerbell is just a troll that thinks he knows more than everyone else or > that everyone else knows less than he does. He's a fruitcake. I own you boi In article <Ahvsh.13435$w91.2070@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, JAntero45@map.com mumbled > > In article <vMUrh.12914$yx6.12821@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > > JAntero45@map.com mumbled [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > Do you know the difference between wealth (net worth) and income? Yes, I do. And we have been discussing income taxes not the grand wealth redistribution scemes I know some liberals dream of at night. > In article <Ahvsh.13435$w91.2070@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > JAntero45@map.com mumbled [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > And we have been discussing income taxes not the grand wealth > redistribution scemes I know some liberals dream of at night. No mumbles, you got that wrong, too. About 8 posts up in this part of the thread: >> BTW, the top 2 percent of America's wealthy already pay over >> 80 percent of the taxes >Because they have 95% of the wealth. Sounds to me like they don't pay >enough taxes. < The whole point of progressive taxation is to limit the accumulation of wealth by a few, which destabilizes democracies. Rush Limbaugh has a reason to not want progressive taxation - you don't. >> In article <Ahvsh.13435$w91.2070@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, >> JAntero45@map.com mumbled [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > > Rush Limbaugh has a reason to not want progressive taxation - you don't. It's not just Limbaugh. It's also the Hienz's, Fords, Waltons, it's all of them. Can you imagine if they had to pay what they acutally should? That 5th Yaght would have to be smaller. Imagine the humanities on that one. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users. It has removed 10285 spam emails to date. Paying users do not have this message in their emails. Try SPAMfighter for free now! In article <45b3d7f4$1@news.i70west.com>, dhunt@celticommnospam.com mumbled > >> In article <Ahvsh.13435$w91.2070@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > >> JAntero45@map.com mumbled [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > them. Can you imagine if they had to pay what they acutally should? That > 5th Yaght would have to be smaller. Imagine the humanities on that one. Why not take all income and wealth from all individuals ? >>> In article <Ahvsh.13435$w91.2070@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, >>> JAntero45@map.com mumbled >>>> >>>> > In article <vMUrh.12914$yx6.12821@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, >>>> > JAntero45@map.com mumbled >>>> >> > Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid tax year 2004 >>>> >> > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >>>> >> > Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income >>>> >> > Source: Internal Revenue Service The US wealth distribution is available from the Federal Reserve back to 1983. It follows the percentage of income taxes paid fairly closely, but is a bit more unequal. The data is here: http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/scfindex.html >>>> In article <Ahvsh.13435$w91.2070@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, >>>> JAntero45@map.com mumbled [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/scfindex.html I see where certain age groups are quite in trouble. Not even breaking even and certainly not equalling inflation. My income also follows the same trend. When you factor in an average of 3.7% inflation each year almost all groups lost ground while one group (not age group) gained substantially. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users. It has removed 10386 spam emails to date. Paying users do not have this message in their emails. Try SPAMfighter for free now! In article <MmMsh.13716$yx6.176@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, JAntero45@map.com mumbled > > In article <Ahvsh.13435$w91.2070@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > > JAntero45@map.com mumbled [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > No mumbles, you got that wrong, too. About 8 posts up in this part of the > thread: So you are not dreaming of taking from those who have just to give to others you deem more worthy ? > >> BTW, the top 2 percent of America's wealthy already pay over > >> 80 percent of the taxes [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The whole point of progressive taxation is to limit the accumulation of > wealth by a few, which destabilizes democracies. Pregressive taxation is unconstitutional. > Rush Limbaugh has a reason to not want progressive taxation - you don't. Why don't I ? He was once a poor DJ on some midwestern station. He worked hard and built a profitable buziness. Just like anyone else who wishes to work hard and build one. Why would I want progressive confiscation ? Is it just out of envy that you favor it ? > In article <MmMsh.13716$yx6.176@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > JAntero45@map.com mumbled [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > > Pregressive taxation is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court doesn't agree. >> Rush Limbaugh has a reason to not want progressive taxation - you don't. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > want progressive confiscation ? > Is it just out of envy that you favor it ? I already told you why. Go back and read. >> In article <MmMsh.13716$yx6.176@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, >> JAntero45@map.com mumbled [quoted text clipped - 96 lines] > > I already told you why. Go back and read. tinkerbell uses question, question, question as he looks for a weakness. When what he feels is a weakness found (often, just in his mind) he goes to trolling work and invites his buddies to join in. Just ignore the stupid son of a bitch and keep with open discussions. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users. It has removed 10302 spam emails to |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message