Nope, but you are certainly having a hard time excepting it.
That wasn't a counter. That was a fantasy. You are not able to provide any evidence that the economy is still suffering from that single attack three years ago.
Thats correct and if you would read carefully you might understand that it is not suffering NOW from those attacks and I provided both stock market and Fed interest rate data to support the fact that the economy is improving.
The data you provided contradicted that when looking at the latest tax cuts.
No it does not the trend from the Reagan tax cuts is there, you choose to look at only the Bush Tax cuts but refuse to deal with the economic anomalies that effect that data because you want to desperately believe that the government knows how to spend your money better than you do.
Just like any other pseudo-science, when reality doesn't match your claims, claim that other factors that you hadn't mentioned were even more adverse than the one you did mention.
So let me get this straight I've provided you with nearly 30 years of IRS data, Stock market trends and data and government reports that all support my claim( I haven't even mentioned the Mellon and Kennedy tax cuts that had similar effects to the Reagan cuts). You on the other hand use two individually selected pieces of data that if considered complete alone support your claim. You've shown not one shred of evidence other than that to support your claim! And yet I'm the one practicing "pseudo-science"...
No. But if Bush is re-elected, look for 2005 to be worse than 1999.
Nice try side stepping the question. Please mister real science man show me more data that supports this claim, a government report, historical data, something, anything....
Nice try. Now look at the 5 year chart. See the huge drop?
Yup and see how right at the bottom of that drop it starts heading back up. You may not have known this but that graph represents stock prices and the values that the traded at, when those trades happen they are taxed, the more money trading hands the higher the return on the tax rate to the government. So in the 2004 returns I'm willing to wager and the IRS est. previously sited agree with me that we'll see a larger income from the taxes assessed.
No, that's from the data you originally submitted to support your position. Go back and look at it if you need a refresher.
Yep did that and still looks to me like the Reagan tax cuts caused an increase that has quadrupled the size of the federal budget. Now what I did see and you apparently missed is that it is you that tried to site a micro-trend with in the data concerning the bush tax cuts. It was you that refused to remove the data that was effected by economic anomalies, which when you do shows that the trend is still present. And it is you that has not provided one shred of data that supports your position. ( good science always relies on repeatable results, where has your trend been repeated? )
It looks like the federal income went up with Clinton. That is the material you originally sited.
Yup and you have chosen to ignore anything else other than that little piece of the whole puzzle I provided you. Like the report from congress that shows that if Clinton had not increased taxes then government income would have been higher!
It's so far down that it is worse today than it was three years ago.
But its still better than it was five years ago and when we look at back at 3 and 4 years ago we see economic anomalies that will effect the data set. In science when you have anomalies you remove that data from the dataset because you are only interested in repeatable results.
Strange how someone doing the exact opposite of what you claim increases revenue... while someone doing exactly what you cl
Can't you read? The economy is DECLINING. Did you miss the numbers? Did you miss where I pointed out that 2003 is WORSE than 2000?
Yes I can read, very well infact, well enough to tell you that government income is not the economy as your statement implies. You site that there is a decrease in government revenue during the period of 2002 and 2003. I countered with the attacks of 9/11 that were directed against and had massive effect on the economic infrastructure of the US. There is also the burst of the dot.com bubble and its slow down effects on the economy to consider. But I wouldn't want to put to many balls in the air as you appear to have trouble with just two.
By your logic I should be able to ask why 2003 is still better than 1999 when Clinton's tax rates were still in effect? The economy was rolling along the tax rates were higher, and yet we see less income than we did in 2003...please explain to me how your "science" deals with that issue?
As for the economy declining, maybe you'd care to explain how in your "declining" economy this is possible?
Or maybe you'd care to enlighten me as to why the Fed has raised the prime interest rate twice in the past two months (not something they are known to do during a declining economy)?
If you do want to use Clinton's data, that just shows that his management policy resulted in growth over his administration and further illustrates the decline during Bush's regime.
Carville has told you this enough times so it must be true, right???
The 1993 Clinton tax increase appears to having the opposite effect on the willingness of wealthy taxpayers to expose income to taxation. According to IRS data, the income generated by the top one percent of income earners actually declined in 1993. This decline is especially significant since the retroactivity of the Clinton tax increase in that year limited the ability of taxpayers to deploy tax avoidance strategies, temporarily resulting in an increase in their tax burden. Moreover, according to the FY 1997 Clinton budget submission, individual income tax revenues as a share of GDP will be lower during the first four years of the Clinton tax increase, which include the effects of the 1990 tax increase, than under the last four years of the Reagan tax changes (FY 1986-89). Furthermore, according to a study published by the National Bureau for Economic Research,[2] the Clinton tax hike is failing to collect over 40 percent of the projected revenue increases.
The Reagan tax cuts, like similar measures enacted in the 1920s and 1960s, showed that reducing excessive tax rates stimulates growth, reduces tax avoidance, and can increase the amount and share of tax payments generated by the rich. High top tax rates can induce counterproductive behavior and suppress revenues, factors that are usually missed or understated in government static revenue analysis.
So we see that tax cuts can increase government income by stimulation of the economy and in the case of the GW Bush cuts forestalled a major decrease in government income that would have occurred due to the massive negative economic effects that occurred during 2000 and 2001.
So, your statement that cutting taxes increases government income is STILL shown to be incorrect from data in 2002 and 2003.
No its not because you are making the assumptions that you can not prove true. The Reagan data clearly shows an increase in government income. You assume that if the Bush tax cuts had not happened that government income would have at least remained steady, this is easily proved to be a false assumption.
In what is a rare development, partial year data for late summer indicated that return filing volumes in CY 2003 will be lower than those for 2002 for individual income tax returns. Such year-to-year declines in filing volumes have only occurred a few times over the past three decades. We attribute this most recent occurrence to two factors, filing extensions to military personnel overseas, and slow growth in the U.S. economy in 2002.
Data indicate that individual income tax returns received in 2003 will be about 283,000 returns less than the number received in 2002. We believe that the special filing extension granted to our military forces in the Persian Gulf and related war zones is contributing to fewer tax returns filed this year. However, the main cause of the expected drop in individual tax return filings in 2003 is the drop in employment in both 2001 and 2002. Less people employed means fewer people required to file tax returns. However, the recent increase in economic growth and projections for higher growth in the future, will translate into projections for future growth in return filings.
And as such my argument is that the tax cuts, in this case, saved the economy from a further downhill slide.
How many YEARS are you going to hide behind that attack?
Flip-flop Alert: You tell me is the economy improving or not? You can't in one breath tell me how bad the economy is and in the next ask me why tax revenues fell. I take that back you can but in doing so you negate your own argument.
With NO jump up.
Really I haven't seen the actual numbers for the 04 returns yet, have you? I have seen the projections and they say that there will be an increase. How does your argument hold up to that?
No. Stay on your original topic. Tax cuts increase governmental income. Yet the numbers do NOT show that happening. In fact, the CONTINUING trend is over 30x WORSE than with Ronnie.
I'm not the one off topic and looking for micro trends to prove my point. The overall Macro trend from 1980 to today does show a "CONTINUING trend" in government income not the "3X" decrease you site but instead a 4X increase.
Love how you guys always play the "Let's make up data" game.
2000 total collections 2,096,916,925
2001 total collections 2,128,831,182
In most conventionally excepted numbering systems 2.1 billion is larger than 2.0 billion.
Now what could possibly have cause a financial downturn in 2001??? Hmm what could have "attacked" our financial system like that? Its almost like the system shutdown for days and a primary means of moving goods within the country was interrupted for three days!!! But that couldn't cause a down turn in production and GDP and thus effect gross taxable revenue...NO...Never.
Ofcource if you were not so afflicted with selective memory you'd remember and see in the data the exact same decline in 1983 when Reagan's cuts were pasted.
Have you ever even looked at the stock market performance before. The Reagan tax cuts created the most explosive growth of wealth the world has ever seen. Now are we going to see the same levels of growth? No because the rate cuts are not as dramatic but alas that is not the issue at bar here.
There are lots of brutal dictators in the world. When are we going to start invading half of Africa? How about North Korea? I can't wait! Or do we only care about people oppressed in resource-rich nations?
Lets see is todays argument that we don't have enough troops or that we should be saving the whole world at once? ( What is the sound of one flip-flop flopping:-)
Do you honestly believe that China will allow N. Korea to get nukes? If we follow your argument we have not invaded NK because they are not "resource-rich", I'll agree with you that they have very little in the way of natural resources, So where do you think NK will go to get resources if they were to acquire nukes? Several thousand miles over open ocean or right next door in China and Russia?
Also, I don't recall anything about "brutal dictators" or oppressed people in the case made for war.
Maybe you should have removed your head from your ass and checked out a few different news sources. Lord knows your head might explode if you attempted to listen to anything other than Air America. But perhaps you read The New York Times once before. Allow me to quote for you from Febuary 25th 2003:
Saddam Hussein has dragged his people into at least two wars. He has used chemical weapons on them. He has killed hundreds of thousands of people and tortured and oppressed countless others. So why, in all of these demonstrations, did I not see one single banner or hear one speech calling for the end of human rights abuses in Iraq, the removal of the dictator and freedom for the Iraqis and the Kurdish people? If we are going to demonstrate and exert pressure, shouldn't it be focused on the real villain, with the goal of getting him to surrender his weapons of mass destruction and resign from power? To neglect this reality, in favor of simplistic and irrational anti-Americanism, is obfuscating the true debate on war and peace.
Theres plenty more where that came from.
Yeah that seems to have put a real dent in things. Since terrorist acts of violence have actually increased by... A LOT... since Sep 11, 2001.
Please site your source for this! While your at it please site historical evidence that would even begin to make the case that terrorism would decrease if we had allowed the attacks of 9/11 to go unchallenged!
Perhaps if hadn't left the job of pursuing Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban to the Pakistanis so we could invade/occupy Iraq, then they wouldn't be gathering strength in Afghanistan again as we speak.
Theres that damn flip-flop sound again...anyway which is it, we shouldn't be fighting terrorism alone or we should do this ourselves?
Sell out everything in the long-term in exchange for $400 more a year. Who cares if we are ALREADY IN A FUCKING DEFICIT AND EXPENSIVE WAR so that our children will end up paying for your sorry-ass tax cut and they'll get no benefit from it. But who cares! Short-term benefits for ME!
So lets raise taxes to 100% and pay off all government dept? Then we can setup a big government office to redistribute the the money back to those that "need it". I'll tell you what man I can't wait those bread lines look like a real hoot!!!
Could it be that when you cut taxes the amount of money moving in economy increases and therefor the government income actually increases. And before you spout off how theres no evidence to support that please review the IRS Internal Revenue Gross Collections, by Type of Tax, Fiscal Years 1973-2003 which clearly shows that government income doubled in during the 80's and the Reagan Tax cuts.
What is moral...prescription medicine...higher bills than any other indust
Or perhaps you should check out The May 2004 Quarterly UNMOVIC Report that details confirmed Iraq missle engines that have been exposed to radioactive material. I'd love to hear your reasoning that the second most oil rich nation on the face of the earth needs radioactive material for?
3. No peace for Iraqi's
Suggesting that Bush is the reason for the lack of peace, not the extremists that that you side apparently so admires?
4. No direct link between Iraq and Al-qaeda for the american attacks. 5. No Iraqi's involved in the attack
Are we fighting Terrorism or Al-qaeda? Are you attempting to suggest that Iraq has no ties to terrorism?
You are either woefully uninformed, or completely insane. Either way, a rebuttal is pretty much pointless.
My rebuttal is pointless??? You completely ignore the facts I post which clearly state, and allow me to quote it for you:
"...Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative."
Which clearly implies that if circumstances were not favorable, like say getting high explosives dropped on you everytime you stuck your head out of the cave he was hiding in, he would move his operations to Iraq.
But I am in awe of your ability to disprove me, please do the world a favor and go spend your welfare check at walmart, I think they were going to have a price rollback on a clue...
That gives OBL 17 months to move from Afghanistan to Iraq. Why didn't he?
I'm sorry, where is Zawahiri believed to be again???
Better yet: Where is he now?
I'm guessing by that response that you know Osama's location but are saving the knowledge till after the election to keep it from effecting the outcome?
I wonder how many times this will need to be posted before it gets through to some people:
From Page 66 of the 9/11 Commission Report:
"There is also evidence that around this time (1994) Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response.According to one report, Saddam Hussein's efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.
In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Tali-ban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.
Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Tali-ban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."
You see the Dem's only want you to see that last line all by itself. Because if you read the whole thing in context you can clearly see that when we bombed Osama out of Afghanistan he would have up and moved his training and operations right into Iraq. Bush took care of that and in the process showed the rest of the middle eastern countries what would happen if they thought to support Osama.
"There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response.According to one report, Saddam Hussein's efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.
In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Tali-ban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.
Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Tali-ban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."
You see the Dem's only want you to see that last line all by itself. Because if you read the whole thing in context you can clearly see that when we bombed Osama out of Afghanistan he would have up and moved his training and operations right into Iraq. Bush took care of that and in the process showed the rest of the middle eastern countries what would happen if they thought to support Osama.
"9:25 -- The FAA Command Center in Herndon orders all aircraft in the country grounded, while FAA headquarters executives were still dithering over whether to give the order."
"9:42 -- FAA orders all air traffic in the United States to immediately land at the nearest facility. At this moment, that amounts to about 4,500 airplanes."
Wrong. To try and fail is better than never to try at all.
Bzzz... wrong again. A hasty decision in that instances more than likely would have caused military pilots to shoot down aircraft that had not been hijacked.
Except that there would not be interceptors over Washington till nearly AM. Most available assist were being scrambled toward NYC, and the few that were not received confusing flight plans that placed them 120 from Washington. Also the President doesn't usually jump up and spout orders like that he consults with his advisor's, and Richard Clarke did not recommend the free fire order until 9:30 a mere 8 minutes before the flight 77 hit the pentagon and some 20 minutes after Bush had been informed of the second plane hitting in NYC.
But yet you failed to address the basic question and its the question thats always avoided by those that front this as some point against Bush's character.
What could have been done that would have saved anymore lives in that 7 minutes?
I'll see your blogs, and raise you The 9/11 Commission.
Please if your going to claim to quote the 9/11 report, follow through and actually do it!
From Page 66 of the 9/11 Commission Report:
"There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response.According to one report, Saddam Hussein's efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.
In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Tali-ban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.
Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Tali-ban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."
The Soros' of the world love to use that last line, but often fail to mention the lead in to it. When we bombed Osama out of Afghanistan where do you think he would have gone? If you actually read the report that question is answered clearly.
You need more up to date information. The Iraqi Survey Group concluded that were no stockpiles.
I'm starting to get confused! For updated information you send me to a year old story about leaked information on what the report will contain instead of the actual report???
I don't even know where to start quoting the report as it is so damning to your argument. Please read it for yourself.
Forgive me for dropping the FDR part as I feel it would lead us off the path of discussion. If you'd like we can start another thread just to discuss those issues.
Yeah, lawyers are known to cause sandstorms.
Ah but overly careful lawyers delay missions till they are forced to land in sandstorms. The also withhold heavy air support from troops which lead directly to the death of 19 American soldiers in African countries.
How about: Contact the FAA? Contact the joint chiefs? Contact the CIA? Contact The FBI? Contact Richard Clarke and the counter terrorism team? Contact Gulianni?
Have you read the report??? All those agencies did their jobs on their own, and did so very well considering the scope and information available to them. Did you ever stop to thing that the President felt that the people that were in those positions were capable of doing their jobs without his input. Often in situations like that having all decisions come from one person leads to disaster.
The Bush administration has neglected using the entire power of the United States, but rather focused solely on miltary action. How are they going to get countries to use their internal security apparatuses to help u
And I'll take you up as I like to use facts to back up statements instead of using my literary ability to talk out my ass!
What did Iraq have to do with 9/11?
"* Abdul Rahman Yasin was the only member of the al Qaeda cell that detonated the 1993 World Trade Center bomb to remain at large in the Clinton years. He fled to Iraq. U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, that show that Iraq gave Mr. Yasin both a house and monthly salary."
"* Spanish investigators have uncovered documents seized from Yusuf Galan -- who is charged by a Spanish court with being "directly involved with the preparation and planning" of the Sept. 11 attacks -- that show the terrorist was invited to a party at the Iraqi embassy in Madrid. The invitation used his "al Qaeda nom de guerre," London's Independent reports."
"* An Iraqi defector to Turkey, known by his cover name as "Abu Mohammed," told Gwynne Roberts of the Sunday Times of London that he saw bin Laden's fighters in camps in Iraq in 1997. At the time, Mohammed was a colonel in Saddam's Fedayeen. He described an encounter at Salman Pak, the training facility southeast of Baghdad. At that vast compound run by Iraqi intelligence, Muslim militants trained to hijack planes with knives -- on a full-size Boeing 707. Col. Mohammed recalls his first visit to Salman Pak this way: "We were met by Colonel Jamil Kamil, the camp manager, and Major Ali Hawas. I noticed that a lot of people were queuing for food. (The major) said to me: 'You'll have nothing to do with these people. They are Osama bin Laden's group and the PKK and Mojahedin-e Khalq.'""
"* In 2001, Saudi Arabian border guards arrested two al Qaeda members entering the kingdom from Iraq."
Saddam's economy was in the tank. His infrastructure to reconsititue any weapons program was evicerated and atrophied to the point of being worthless.
Iraq's economy was bad, yes. But Saddam had the money he needed coming from the France and Germany through the oil for food program. One wonders why they were not supportive of US actions when they had such a sweet deal.
The irony is that since there were no weapons, and so Saddam was in complience afterall.
"In his testimony, the head of the Iraq Survey Group noted that the Group continued to look for weapons of mass destruction. He also said he did not believe that the Survey Group had sufficient information and insight at that time to make final judgements with confidence as to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programmes and to determine the truth of their existence."
"Mr. Duelfer's publicly released testimony mentions, as an example of uncertain Iraqi intent, that the Tuwaitha Agricultural and Biological Research Centre had equipment suitable for the production of biological agents and that research work there on the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis would be important to a biological weapon programme."
"The Commission's experts are conducting an investigation...regarding the discovery of items from Iraq...at a scrapyard in the Netherlands....to investigate increased radiation readings...By comparing the serial production number on the engine with information in the UNMOVIC database, the experts were able to confirm that the engine was one from an SA-2 missile that had been tagged by United Nations inspectors in the past and had not been declared as having been fired. Representatives of the scrapyard company indicated that a number of similar engines (5 to 12)
...he is continuing to pledge to reduce taxes further while increasing spending more...his understanding of economics is very poor.
Perhaps his is not as bad as your's? You see that he has not pledged to reduce taxes, he's pledged to reduce the tax rate! The tax rate is a government surcharge on transfering capital. When you lower the tax rate its allows money to be transfered from one entity to another more cheaply. And as such more money does move! As that money is moved it is taxed. And even though the tax rate is lower the exponential increase in the amount of capital moved more than makes up for the reducion in the tax rate. And as such the income of the government increases. If money did not move the counrty would grind to a halt.
Does anyone know how to control putty's screen location? I use putty alot and it always starts at the very top of the screen under a toolbar I have there.
"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years , the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped,or turned back, for their private benefit."
- Heinlein's Lifeline
Your argument is flawed! They have continually faced these types of onslaughts. From monks handwriting manuscripts to the printing press, to the copy machine. Live performance to wax phonographs to LP's to tapes and now digital. With each change in technology the cost of production changed just as dramatically then as it has now. Since the cost of production has fallen to the level that is very near free you can not justify a cost to the consumer that is way way above free. And the fact that you business will go under doesn't matter one little bit. If the RIAA and all of its studios went out of business today there would still be lots of music to listen to tomorrow.
Um... they ALREADY manage pay-per-view movies and events, and premium channels like HBO and Showtime.
Um... Exactly his point. You want to pay $3.95 per episode of CSI you watch? Or maybe $12.95 a month for each network? That exactly what the viacoms of the world would demand from you if things went in that direction.
"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years , the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped,or turned back, for their private benefit."
It took most of the Roman Senate to kill Julius Caesar not just one lone nut job.
So let me get this straight, through out all history there's never been an assasination of a ruler by "a lone nut job" that wasn't done with a gun, right? You and the orginal poster seem to think so...but I'm afraid it just ain't true!
Yes, Hitler was elected. What does that have to do with anything?
The orginal post implied that elected rulers could never be a tyrant. Are you implying that Hitler is not a tyrant?
...There was never any significant German resistance in any form against the Nazi's among the German people.
Thats because those that would resist had no means to resist, the guns were gone at that point. And those few that tried were taken out and shot. When you take away the guns what you have are subjects and sheep. I perfer to remain a citizen thank you! At least if I die defending my freedom, I die with honor. Instead of living out my life watching others die and hiding in my house afraid to speak out.
All it took to bring the Wall down was millions of unarmed East Germans in the street.
Ah...NO! it took the leader of the Soviet Union to call off the armed guards.
The Iraqi populace was heavily armed and it didn't change a thing.
Ah..No Again! The Iraqi army was armed, the problem was that its hard to motivate people to fight for a tyrant. So only the bathist and loyalist stuck around to fight the US and they didn't have much of a chance.
...it was largely their unwillingness to recognize what was about to happen...
So I tell you that the army is coming tomorrow to arrest and/or kill every person in you town, what do you do? Whats that, you don't believe me they are coming tomorrow? You can't just pick up and leave everything you've worked for in your life?
Yup thats what the Jews thought too!
...and other countries unwillingness to take them that trapped them until it was too late.
So where exactly are all the americans going to pick up and go to if a tyrant did come to power here?
If you have 50 million+ Americans so opposed to the policies of the government that they would consider open rebellion they'll win anyway. The US military is not filled with robots.
So you are going to lead the unarmed masses againts the those few entrenched Dillon mini-guns that are controlled by the SS style troops of the tyrant in power? Or would you rather have that guy with the rifle make a thousand yard shot and take out that position?
There is a radical difference between the killing power of modern small arms and late 18th and early 19th century weaponry and another radical difference between modern small arms and modern heavy weaponry. Just because 100 is far larger than 1 doesn't mean 1000000 isn't far larger than 100.
But you are still making the same two arguments and they can not live in the same world. The "one lone nut with a gun" which is that the gun makes him more powerful that he deserves to be, and the "you have no chance against an F-16", or you guns are pointless and give you no advantage. So once again I ask you which is it?
JFK and Martin Luther King would probably still be alive today if they had lived at the time of the founding fathers...
Just like Julius Caesar, huh?
JFK and Martin Luther King would probably still be alive today if the weapons available in the 60s were restricted to those that the founding fathers had available at their time.
You mean like Abraham Lincoln?
But your tyrant is my democratically elected president!...That's what a democracy is: discuss it, vote on it, go with the majority.
Hilter was an elected official too! I guess because of that we should have just had a discussion with him and asked him to step down. Whoops... because we had that discussion the SS just took us out and shot us. And guess what we had no means of defense cause we all voted to take away the civilian guns. But not to worry about those millions that died at the Nazi's hands. In your puppy dog's and snowflake world we'll just "start over". I feel so happy:-)!!!
...place would have long lost all appeal to live there, and I'd have started packing.
Good luck getting across that wall that divides east and west Berlin! You know you must be the only smart person in the world cause no one in Iraq ever thought of leaving when they started throwing people into plastic shreaders. And lets not even get started with those "stupid" jews and not leaving Germany.
Besides, your Desert Eagle won't help a lot once the Air Force starts playing...
No my one weapon will hardly make a difference, but the 50 million+ in the hands of my fellow countrymen certainly will make a pretty big dent in the first air force base we come across.
Its interesting how you make a point about the mass killing potential of modern weapons at the start of your post and then totally discount its power in the hands of a large group of people at the end. Can you explain that to me?
Slashdot Mirror
Bad economy == low income.
...
Was that too hard for you?
Nope, but you are certainly having a hard time excepting it.
That wasn't a counter. That was a fantasy. You are not able to provide any evidence that the economy is still suffering from that single attack three years ago.
Thats correct and if you would read carefully you might understand that it is not suffering NOW from those attacks and I provided both stock market and Fed interest rate data to support the fact that the economy is improving.
The data you provided contradicted that when looking at the latest tax cuts.
No it does not the trend from the Reagan tax cuts is there, you choose to look at only the Bush Tax cuts but refuse to deal with the economic anomalies that effect that data because you want to desperately believe that the government knows how to spend your money better than you do.
Just like any other pseudo-science, when reality doesn't match your claims, claim that other factors that you hadn't mentioned were even more adverse than the one you did mention.
So let me get this straight I've provided you with nearly 30 years of IRS data, Stock market trends and data and government reports that all support my claim( I haven't even mentioned the Mellon and Kennedy tax cuts that had similar effects to the Reagan cuts). You on the other hand use two individually selected pieces of data that if considered complete alone support your claim. You've shown not one shred of evidence other than that to support your claim! And yet I'm the one practicing "pseudo-science"...
No. But if Bush is re-elected, look for 2005 to be worse than 1999.
Nice try side stepping the question. Please mister real science man show me more data that supports this claim, a government report, historical data, something, anything....
Nice try. Now look at the 5 year chart. See the huge drop?
Yup and see how right at the bottom of that drop it starts heading back up. You may not have known this but that graph represents stock prices and the values that the traded at, when those trades happen they are taxed, the more money trading hands the higher the return on the tax rate to the government. So in the 2004 returns I'm willing to wager and the IRS est. previously sited agree with me that we'll see a larger income from the taxes assessed.
No, that's from the data you originally submitted to support your position. Go back and look at it if you need a refresher.
Yep did that and still looks to me like the Reagan tax cuts caused an increase that has quadrupled the size of the federal budget. Now what I did see and you apparently missed is that it is you that tried to site a micro-trend with in the data concerning the bush tax cuts. It was you that refused to remove the data that was effected by economic anomalies, which when you do shows that the trend is still present. And it is you that has not provided one shred of data that supports your position. ( good science always relies on repeatable results, where has your trend been repeated? )
It looks like the federal income went up with Clinton. That is the material you originally sited.
Yup and you have chosen to ignore anything else other than that little piece of the whole puzzle I provided you. Like the report from congress that shows that if Clinton had not increased taxes then government income would have been higher!
It's so far down that it is worse today than it was three years ago.
But its still better than it was five years ago and when we look at back at 3 and 4 years ago we see economic anomalies that will effect the data set. In science when you have anomalies you remove that data from the dataset because you are only interested in repeatable results.
Strange how someone doing the exact opposite of what you claim increases revenue
while someone doing exactly what you cl
Can't you read? The economy is DECLINING. Did you miss the numbers? Did you miss where I pointed out that 2003 is WORSE than 2000?
Yes I can read, very well infact, well enough to tell you that government income is not the economy as your statement implies. You site that there is a decrease in government revenue during the period of 2002 and 2003. I countered with the attacks of 9/11 that were directed against and had massive effect on the economic infrastructure of the US. There is also the burst of the dot.com bubble and its slow down effects on the economy to consider. But I wouldn't want to put to many balls in the air as you appear to have trouble with just two.
By your logic I should be able to ask why 2003 is still better than 1999 when Clinton's tax rates were still in effect? The economy was rolling along the tax rates were higher, and yet we see less income than we did in 2003...please explain to me how your "science" deals with that issue?
As for the economy declining, maybe you'd care to explain how in your "declining" economy this is possible?
Or maybe you'd care to enlighten me as to why the Fed has raised the prime interest rate twice in the past two months (not something they are known to do during a declining economy)?
If you do want to use Clinton's data, that just shows that his management policy resulted in growth over his administration and further illustrates the decline during Bush's regime.
Carville has told you this enough times so it must be true, right???
Except that the data and reports don't agree with you, allow me to quote from The 1996 JEC Report on The Reagan Tax Cuts:
The 1993 Clinton tax increase appears to having the opposite effect on the willingness of wealthy taxpayers to expose income to taxation. According to IRS data, the income generated by the top one percent of income earners actually declined in 1993. This decline is especially significant since the retroactivity of the Clinton tax increase in that year limited the ability of taxpayers to deploy tax avoidance strategies, temporarily resulting in an increase in their tax burden. Moreover, according to the FY 1997 Clinton budget submission, individual income tax revenues as a share of GDP will be lower during the first four years of the Clinton tax increase, which include the effects of the 1990 tax increase, than under the last four years of the Reagan tax changes (FY 1986-89). Furthermore, according to a study published by the National Bureau for Economic Research,[2] the Clinton tax hike is failing to collect over 40 percent of the projected revenue increases.
The Reagan tax cuts, like similar measures enacted in the 1920s and 1960s, showed that reducing excessive tax rates stimulates growth, reduces tax avoidance, and can increase the amount and share of tax payments generated by the rich. High top tax rates can induce counterproductive behavior and suppress revenues, factors that are usually missed or understated in government static revenue analysis.
So we see that tax cuts can increase government income by stimulation of the economy and in the case of the GW Bush cuts forestalled a major decrease in government income that would have occurred due to the massive negative economic effects that occurred during 2000 and 2001.
So, your statement that cutting taxes increases government income is STILL shown to be incorrect from data in 2002 and 2003.
No its not because you are making the assumptions that you can not prove true. The Reagan data clearly shows an increase in government income. You assume that if the Bush tax cuts had not happened that government income would have at least remained steady, this is easily proved to be a false assumption.
From Calendar Year Projections for the United States and IRS Centers 2003 - 2010
In what is a rare development, partial year data for late summer indicated that return filing
volumes in CY 2003 will be lower than those for 2002 for individual income tax returns. Such year-to-year declines in filing volumes have only occurred a few times over the past three decades. We attribute this most recent occurrence to two factors, filing extensions to military personnel overseas, and slow growth in the U.S. economy in 2002.
Data indicate that individual income tax returns received in 2003 will be about 283,000 returns less than the number received in 2002. We believe that the special filing extension granted to our military forces in the Persian Gulf and related war zones is contributing to fewer tax returns filed this year. However, the main cause of the expected drop in individual tax return filings in 2003 is the drop in employment in both 2001 and 2002. Less people employed means fewer people required to file tax returns. However, the recent increase in economic growth and projections for higher growth in the future, will translate into projections for future growth in return filings.
And as such my argument is that the tax cuts, in this case, saved the economy from a further downhill slide.
How many YEARS are you going to hide behind that attack?
Flip-flop Alert: You tell me is the economy improving or not? You can't in one breath tell me how bad the economy is and in the next ask me why tax revenues fell. I take that back you can but in doing so you negate your own argument.
With NO jump up.
Really I haven't seen the actual numbers for the 04 returns yet, have you? I have seen the projections and they say that there will be an increase. How does your argument hold up to that?
No. Stay on your original topic. Tax cuts increase governmental income. Yet the numbers do NOT show that happening. In fact, the CONTINUING trend is over 30x WORSE than with Ronnie.
I'm not the one off topic and looking for micro trends to prove my point. The overall Macro trend from 1980 to today does show a "CONTINUING trend" in government income not the "3X" decrease you site but instead a 4X increase.
Love how you guys always play the "Let's make up data" game.
2000 total collections 2,096,916,925
2001 total collections 2,128,831,182
In most conventionally excepted numbering systems 2.1 billion is larger than 2.0 billion.
Now what could possibly have cause a financial downturn in 2001??? Hmm what could have "attacked" our financial system like that? Its almost like the system shutdown for days and a primary means of moving goods within the country was interrupted for three days!!! But that couldn't cause a down turn in production and GDP and thus effect gross taxable revenue...NO...Never.
Ofcource if you were not so afflicted with selective memory you'd remember and see in the data the exact same decline in 1983 when Reagan's cuts were pasted.
Have you ever even looked at the stock market performance before. The Reagan tax cuts created the most explosive growth of wealth the world has ever seen. Now are we going to see the same levels of growth? No because the rate cuts are not as dramatic but alas that is not the issue at bar here.
There are lots of brutal dictators in the world. When are we going to start invading half of Africa? How about North Korea? I can't wait! Or do we only care about people oppressed in resource-rich nations?
:-)
... A LOT ... since Sep 11, 2001.
Lets see is todays argument that we don't have enough troops or that we should be saving the whole world at once? ( What is the sound of one flip-flop flopping
Do you honestly believe that China will allow N. Korea to get nukes? If we follow your argument we have not invaded NK because they are not "resource-rich", I'll agree with you that they have very little in the way of natural resources, So where do you think NK will go to get resources if they were to acquire nukes? Several thousand miles over open ocean or right next door in China and Russia?
Also, I don't recall anything about "brutal dictators" or oppressed people in the case made for war.
Maybe you should have removed your head from your ass and checked out a few different news sources. Lord knows your head might explode if you attempted to listen to anything other than Air America. But perhaps you read The New York Times once before. Allow me to quote for you from Febuary 25th 2003:
Saddam Hussein has dragged his people into at least two wars. He has used chemical weapons on them. He has killed hundreds of thousands of people and tortured and oppressed countless others. So why, in all of these demonstrations, did I not see one single banner or hear one speech calling for the end of human rights abuses in Iraq, the removal of the dictator and freedom for the Iraqis and the Kurdish people? If we are going to demonstrate and exert pressure, shouldn't it be focused on the real villain, with the goal of getting him to surrender his weapons of mass destruction and resign from power? To neglect this reality, in favor of simplistic and irrational anti-Americanism, is obfuscating the true debate on war and peace.
Theres plenty more where that came from.
Yeah that seems to have put a real dent in things. Since terrorist acts of violence have actually increased by
Please site your source for this! While your at it please site historical evidence that would even begin to make the case that terrorism would decrease if we had allowed the attacks of 9/11 to go unchallenged!
Perhaps if hadn't left the job of pursuing Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban to the Pakistanis so we could invade/occupy Iraq, then they wouldn't be gathering strength in Afghanistan again as we speak.
Theres that damn flip-flop sound again...anyway which is it, we shouldn't be fighting terrorism alone or we should do this ourselves?
Sell out everything in the long-term in exchange for $400 more a year. Who cares if we are ALREADY IN A FUCKING DEFICIT AND EXPENSIVE WAR so that our children will end up paying for your sorry-ass tax cut and they'll get no benefit from it. But who cares! Short-term benefits for ME!
So lets raise taxes to 100% and pay off all government dept? Then we can setup a big government office to redistribute the the money back to those that "need it". I'll tell you what man I can't wait those bread lines look like a real hoot!!!
Could it be that when you cut taxes the amount of money moving in economy increases and therefor the government income actually increases. And before you spout off how theres no evidence to support that please review the IRS Internal Revenue Gross Collections, by Type of Tax, Fiscal Years 1973-2003 which clearly shows that government income doubled in during the 80's and the Reagan Tax cuts.
What is moral...prescription medicine...higher bills than any other indust
1. Osama is still on the loose
This is very true, but does he have anywhere near the support infastructure that he had on Sept 11th?
If we had captured Osama on Sept 10th would that have stopped the attacks?
If we had captured him on the 12th would that have destoryed Al-qaeda?
2. No WMD found
I suggest you read Iraq Survey Group Report on WMD in Iraq - congressional testimony as there has been a considerable amount of evidence that shows that Iraq did have both biological and chemical weapons capabilities.
Or perhaps you should check out The May 2004 Quarterly UNMOVIC Report that details confirmed Iraq missle engines that have been exposed to radioactive material. I'd love to hear your reasoning that the second most oil rich nation on the face of the earth needs radioactive material for?
3. No peace for Iraqi's
Suggesting that Bush is the reason for the lack of peace, not the extremists that that you side apparently so admires?
4. No direct link between Iraq and Al-qaeda for the american attacks.
5. No Iraqi's involved in the attack
Are we fighting Terrorism or Al-qaeda? Are you attempting to suggest that Iraq has no ties to terrorism?
You are either woefully uninformed, or completely insane. Either way, a rebuttal is pretty much pointless.
My rebuttal is pointless??? You completely ignore the facts I post which clearly state, and allow me to quote it for you:
"...Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative."
Which clearly implies that if circumstances were not favorable, like say getting high explosives dropped on you everytime you stuck your head out of the cave he was hiding in, he would move his operations to Iraq.
But I am in awe of your ability to disprove me, please do the world a favor and go spend your welfare check at walmart, I think they were going to have a price rollback on a clue...
That gives OBL 17 months to move from Afghanistan to Iraq. Why didn't he?
I'm sorry, where is Zawahiri believed to be again???
Better yet: Where is he now?
I'm guessing by that response that you know Osama's location but are saving the knowledge till after the election to keep it from effecting the outcome?
I wonder how many times this will need to be posted before it gets through to some people:
From Page 66 of the 9/11 Commission Report:
"There is also evidence that around this time (1994) Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response.According to one report, Saddam Hussein's efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.
In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Tali-ban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.
Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Tali-ban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."
You see the Dem's only want you to see that last line all by itself. Because if you read the whole thing in context you can clearly see that when we bombed Osama out of Afghanistan he would have up and moved his training and operations right into Iraq. Bush took care of that and in the process showed the rest of the middle eastern countries what would happen if they thought to support Osama.
From Page 66 of the 9/11 Commission Report:
"There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response.According to one report, Saddam Hussein's efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.
In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Tali-ban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.
Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Tali-ban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."
You see the Dem's only want you to see that last line all by itself. Because if you read the whole thing in context you can clearly see that when we bombed Osama out of Afghanistan he would have up and moved his training and operations right into Iraq. Bush took care of that and in the process showed the rest of the middle eastern countries what would happen if they thought to support Osama.
False. The FAA ordered airplanes grounded at 09:08, when "My Pet Goat" was just warming up.
Bzzz...
From 9/11 timeline
"9:25 -- The FAA Command Center in Herndon orders all aircraft in the country grounded, while FAA headquarters executives were still dithering over whether to give the order."
"9:42 -- FAA orders all air traffic in the United States to immediately land at the nearest facility. At this moment, that amounts to about 4,500 airplanes."
Wrong. To try and fail is better than never to try at all.
Bzzz... wrong again. A hasty decision in that instances more than likely would have caused military pilots to shoot down aircraft that had not been hijacked.
Except that there would not be interceptors over Washington till nearly AM. Most available assist were being scrambled toward NYC, and the few that were not received confusing flight plans that placed them 120 from Washington. Also the President doesn't usually jump up and spout orders like that he consults with his advisor's, and Richard Clarke did not recommend the free fire order until 9:30 a mere 8 minutes before the flight 77 hit the pentagon and some 20 minutes after Bush had been informed of the second plane hitting in NYC.
But yet you failed to address the basic question and its the question thats always avoided by those that front this as some point against Bush's character.
What could have been done that would have saved anymore lives in that 7 minutes?
I'll see your blogs, and raise you The 9/11 Commission.
Please if your going to claim to quote the 9/11 report, follow through and actually do it!
From Page 66 of the 9/11 Commission Report:
"There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response.According to one report, Saddam Hussein's efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.
In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Tali-ban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.
Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Tali-ban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."
The Soros' of the world love to use that last line, but often fail to mention the lead in to it. When we bombed Osama out of Afghanistan where do you think he would have gone? If you actually read the report that question is answered clearly.
You need more up to date information. The Iraqi Survey Group concluded that were no stockpiles.
I'm starting to get confused! For updated information you send me to a year old story about leaked information on what the report will contain instead of the actual report???
Iraq Survey Group Report on WMD in Iraq - congressional testimony
I don't even know where to start quoting the report as it is so damning to your argument. Please read it for yourself.
Forgive me for dropping the FDR part as I feel it would lead us off the path of discussion. If you'd like we can start another thread just to discuss those issues.
Yeah, lawyers are known to cause sandstorms.
Ah but overly careful lawyers delay missions till they are forced to land in sandstorms. The also withhold heavy air support from troops which lead directly to the death of 19 American soldiers in African countries.
How about: Contact the FAA? Contact the joint chiefs? Contact the CIA? Contact The FBI? Contact Richard Clarke and the counter terrorism team? Contact Gulianni?
Have you read the report??? All those agencies did their jobs on their own, and did so very well considering the scope and information available to them. Did you ever stop to thing that the President felt that the people that were in those positions were capable of doing their jobs without his input. Often in situations like that having all decisions come from one person leads to disaster.
The Bush administration has neglected using the entire power of the United States, but rather focused solely on miltary action. How are they going to get countries to use their internal security apparatuses to help u
And I'll take you up as I like to use facts to back up statements instead of using my literary ability to talk out my ass!
What did Iraq have to do with 9/11?
"* Abdul Rahman Yasin was the only member of the al Qaeda cell that detonated the 1993 World Trade Center bomb to remain at large in the Clinton years. He fled to Iraq. U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, that show that Iraq gave Mr. Yasin both a house and monthly salary."
"* Spanish investigators have uncovered documents seized from Yusuf Galan -- who is charged by a Spanish court with being "directly involved with the preparation and planning" of the Sept. 11 attacks -- that show the terrorist was invited to a party at the Iraqi embassy in Madrid. The invitation used his "al Qaeda nom de guerre," London's Independent reports."
"* An Iraqi defector to Turkey, known by his cover name as "Abu Mohammed," told Gwynne Roberts of the Sunday Times of London that he saw bin Laden's fighters in camps in Iraq in 1997. At the time, Mohammed was a colonel in Saddam's Fedayeen. He described an encounter at Salman Pak, the training facility southeast of Baghdad. At that vast compound run by Iraqi intelligence, Muslim militants trained to hijack planes with knives -- on a full-size Boeing 707. Col. Mohammed recalls his first visit to Salman Pak this way: "We were met by Colonel Jamil Kamil, the camp manager, and Major Ali Hawas. I noticed that a lot of people were queuing for food. (The major) said to me: 'You'll have nothing to do with these people. They are Osama bin Laden's group and the PKK and Mojahedin-e Khalq.'""
"* In 2001, Saudi Arabian border guards arrested two al Qaeda members entering the kingdom from Iraq."
Please read the rest for your self here
And yet more evidence here
Saddam's economy was in the tank. His infrastructure to reconsititue any weapons program was evicerated and atrophied to the point of being worthless.
Iraq's economy was bad, yes. But Saddam had the money he needed coming from the France and Germany through the oil for food program. One wonders why they were not supportive of US actions when they had such a sweet deal.
The irony is that since there were no weapons, and so Saddam was in complience afterall.
Hmm the UN doesn't seem to agree with you on that one. Please read The May 2004 Quarterly UNMOVIC Report which states:
"In his testimony, the head of the Iraq Survey Group noted that the Group continued to look for weapons of mass destruction. He also said he did not believe that the Survey Group had sufficient information and insight at that time to make final judgements with confidence as to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programmes and to determine the truth of their existence."
"Mr. Duelfer's publicly released testimony mentions, as an example of uncertain Iraqi intent, that the Tuwaitha Agricultural and Biological Research Centre had equipment suitable for the production of biological agents and that research work there on the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis would be important to a biological weapon programme."
"The Commission's experts are conducting an investigation...regarding the discovery of items from Iraq...at a scrapyard in the Netherlands....to investigate increased radiation readings...By comparing the serial production number on the engine with information in the UNMOVIC database, the experts were able to confirm that the engine was one from an SA-2 missile that had been tagged by United Nations inspectors in the past and had not been declared as having been fired. Representatives of the scrapyard company indicated that a number of similar engines (5 to 12)
...and tax revenues--surprise!--lowered also
...but no (or incredibly few) serious economists believe that reducing marginal tax rates increases tax revenue.
Bzzz wrong answer, but thanks for playing the "lets make up data game"... I like to rely on more useful data like say the IRS Internal Revenue Gross Collections, by Type of Tax, Fiscal Years 1973-2003 which clearly shows that tax revenue doubled from 1980 to 1989!
Believe as they might the data shows otherwise.
...he is continuing to pledge to reduce taxes further while increasing spending more...his understanding of economics is very poor.
Perhaps his is not as bad as your's? You see that he has not pledged to reduce taxes, he's pledged to reduce the tax rate! The tax rate is a government surcharge on transfering capital. When you lower the tax rate its allows money to be transfered from one entity to another more cheaply. And as such more money does move! As that money is moved it is taxed. And even though the tax rate is lower the exponential increase in the amount of capital moved more than makes up for the reducion in the tax rate. And as such the income of the government increases. If money did not move the counrty would grind to a halt.
Thanks... found AutoHotKey while searching for Macro Express and it can be setup to do just what I need.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!!!
Does anyone know how to control putty's screen location? I use putty alot and it always starts at the very top of the screen under a toolbar I have there.
"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years , the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped ,or turned back, for their private benefit."
- Heinlein's Lifeline
Your argument is flawed! They have continually faced these types of onslaughts. From monks handwriting manuscripts to the printing press, to the copy machine. Live performance to wax phonographs to LP's to tapes and now digital. With each change in technology the cost of production changed just as dramatically then as it has now. Since the cost of production has fallen to the level that is very near free you can not justify a cost to the consumer that is way way above free. And the fact that you business will go under doesn't matter one little bit. If the RIAA and all of its studios went out of business today there would still be lots of music to listen to tomorrow.
Um... they ALREADY manage pay-per-view movies and events, and premium channels like HBO and Showtime.
Um... Exactly his point. You want to pay $3.95 per episode of CSI you watch? Or maybe $12.95 a month for each network? That exactly what the viacoms of the world would demand from you if things went in that direction.
"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years , the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped ,or turned back, for their private benefit."
- Heinlein's Lifeline
I believe you're talking about the Touchscreen that is made buy a company called Massworks.
http://www.massworks.com/
But alas they seem to have stopped producing them!
It took most of the Roman Senate to kill Julius Caesar not just one lone nut job.
...There was never any significant German resistance in any form against the Nazi's among the German people.
...it was largely their unwillingness to recognize what was about to happen...
...and other countries unwillingness to take them that trapped them until it was too late.
So let me get this straight, through out all history there's never been an assasination of a ruler by "a lone nut job" that wasn't done with a gun, right? You and the orginal poster seem to think so...but I'm afraid it just ain't true!
Yes, Hitler was elected. What does that have to do with anything?
The orginal post implied that elected rulers could never be a tyrant. Are you implying that Hitler is not a tyrant?
Thats because those that would resist had no means to resist, the guns were gone at that point. And those few that tried were taken out and shot. When you take away the guns what you have are subjects and sheep. I perfer to remain a citizen thank you! At least if I die defending my freedom, I die with honor. Instead of living out my life watching others die and hiding in my house afraid to speak out.
All it took to bring the Wall down was millions of unarmed East Germans in the street.
Ah...NO! it took the leader of the Soviet Union to call off the armed guards.
The Iraqi populace was heavily armed and it didn't change a thing.
Ah..No Again! The Iraqi army was armed, the problem was that its hard to motivate people to fight for a tyrant. So only the bathist and loyalist stuck around to fight the US and they didn't have much of a chance.
So I tell you that the army is coming tomorrow to arrest and/or kill every person in you town, what do you do? Whats that, you don't believe me they are coming tomorrow? You can't just pick up and leave everything you've worked for in your life?
Yup thats what the Jews thought too!
So where exactly are all the americans going to pick up and go to if a tyrant did come to power here?
If you have 50 million+ Americans so opposed to the policies of the government that they would consider open rebellion they'll win anyway. The US military is not filled with robots.
So you are going to lead the unarmed masses againts the those few entrenched Dillon mini-guns that are controlled by the SS style troops of the tyrant in power? Or would you rather have that guy with the rifle make a thousand yard shot and take out that position?
There is a radical difference between the killing power of modern small arms and late 18th and early 19th century weaponry and another radical difference between modern small arms and modern heavy weaponry. Just because 100 is far larger than 1 doesn't mean 1000000 isn't far larger than 100.
But you are still making the same two arguments and they can not live in the same world. The "one lone nut with a gun" which is that the gun makes him more powerful that he deserves to be, and the "you have no chance against an F-16", or you guns are pointless and give you no advantage. So once again I ask you which is it?
JFK and Martin Luther King would probably still be alive today if they had lived at the time of the founding fathers...
:-)!!!
...place would have long lost all appeal to live there, and I'd have started packing.
Just like Julius Caesar, huh?
JFK and Martin Luther King would probably still be alive today if the weapons available in the 60s were restricted to those that the founding fathers had available at their time.
You mean like Abraham Lincoln?
But your tyrant is my democratically elected president!...That's what a democracy is: discuss it, vote on it, go with the majority.
Hilter was an elected official too! I guess because of that we should have just had a discussion with him and asked him to step down. Whoops... because we had that discussion the SS just took us out and shot us. And guess what we had no means of defense cause we all voted to take away the civilian guns. But not to worry about those millions that died at the Nazi's hands. In your puppy dog's and snowflake world we'll just "start over". I feel so happy
Good luck getting across that wall that divides east and west Berlin! You know you must be the only smart person in the world cause no one in Iraq ever thought of leaving when they started throwing people into plastic shreaders. And lets not even get started with those "stupid" jews and not leaving Germany.
Besides, your Desert Eagle won't help a lot once the Air Force starts playing...
No my one weapon will hardly make a difference, but the 50 million+ in the hands of my fellow countrymen certainly will make a pretty big dent in the first air force base we come across.
Its interesting how you make a point about the mass killing potential of modern weapons at the start of your post and then totally discount its power in the hands of a large group of people at the end. Can you explain that to me?