foraker Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 I'd like to know where they are too. You are not allowed to use the surname 'Clinton' in your reply. Anyone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 They're with all that C4 that the insurgents stole from the unsecured Iraqi armories! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 By the way, in this thread YOU are doing what I would like the Press to do when our politicians lie to us or make mistakes of fact. Thanks for holding my feet to the fire here, so I can clarify your misconception that I was "lying." Â Gotta love this! Bush is lying, Matt is not. The press need to go after Bush for lying, but PP needs to give Matt a pass for his "honest mistake". Â Inconsistency and hypocrisy - the hallmarks of liberalism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 They're with all that C4 that the insurgents stole from the unsecured Iraqi armories! Â So they're using up all the C4 but not touching any of the WMD's..... Clever! Very very sneaky..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Inconsistency, hypocrisy and Volvos - the hallmarks of liberalism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Sneaky freedom haters Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Inconsistency, hypocrisy and Volvos - the hallmarks of liberalism. Leaving prevarication, pastiche-populism and pickups to the republicans? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Inconsistency, hypocrisy and Volvos - the hallmarks of liberalism. Â Hypocrisy, Ferraris, and no-bid contracts- the hallmarks of neoconservatism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Inconsistency, hypocrisy and Volvos - the hallmarks of liberalism. Â Hypocrisy, Ferraris, and no-bid contracts- the hallmarks of neoconservatism. Â conservatives drive Ferraris? Â More like Lincoln Navigators, Cadillac Escalades, Lexuses, and H2s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Ok maybe that was a little daydreaming going on over here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 I clearly stated that I didn't know the number, and I bet that is why you went looking for it -- 'cause I tipped you off that you might find I was wrong. Â Â By the way, in this thread YOU are doing what I would like the Press to do when our politicians lie to us or make mistakes of fact. Thanks for holding my feet to the fire here, so I can clarify your misconception that I was "lying." Â You have go to be kidding. You gave a very specific range. I knew your "number" was Bullshit not because of its lack of specificity but because of it. Â By the way since you never mentioned a specific value but did suggest a range of values that the true % would fall in, your claim that you "clearly stated that you didn't know the number" is patent BS. Tighten up! Â I would further add that it was not my contention that you were not telling the truth. I assumed that you were simply thinking wrongly, misinformed or writing in an unclear manner. My hope was that when faced with this truth you might reconsider your contention that Bush was a liar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Does any of this change the fact that Bush is a liar? Um...no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted October 10, 2005 Author Share Posted October 10, 2005 Excellent comparision - chat on internet climber's board with major deception of president on a $5 billion/month war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Does any of this change the fact that Bush is a liar? Um...no. Â You guys throw your shit continuously and think it will stick. Just because you say Bush is a liar over and over again ad nauseum does not make it true, nor does it mean that the American public believes it to be true. What you can't take is that this is the case. Well, it is. You've failed to convince the American public. Deal with it. And no amount of the "press" parroting your accusations will change that. So enjoy your sour grapes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 so, um... have we settled who is driving the Ferraris? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted October 10, 2005 Author Share Posted October 10, 2005 Reality check please!  But page 4 of the report, called the National Intelligence Estimate, deals with terrorism, and draws conclusions that would come as a shock to most Americans, judging from recent polls on Iraq. The CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency and the other U.S. spy agencies unanimously agreed that Baghdad:  had not sponsored past terrorist attacks against America,  was not operating in concert with al-Qaida,  and was not a terrorist threat to America.  "We have no specific intelligence information that Saddam's regime has directed attacks against U.S. territory," the report stated.  However, it added, "Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that only an organization such as al-Qaida could perpetrate the type of terrorist attack that he would hope to conduct."  Sufficiently desperate? If he "feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime," the report explained.  "In such circumstances," it added, "he might decide that the extreme step of assisting the Islamist terrorists in conducting a CBW [chemical and biological weapons] attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him."  In other words, only if Saddam were provoked by U.S. attack would he even consider taking the "extreme step" of reaching out to al-Qaida, an organization with which he had no natural or preexisting relationship. He wasn't about to strike the U.S. or share his alleged weapons with al-Qaida – unless the U.S. struck him first and threatened the collapse of his regime.  Now turn to the next page of the same NIE report, which is considered the gold standard of intelligence reports. Page 5 ranks the key judgments by confidence level – high, moderate or low.  According to the consensus of Bush's intelligence services, there was "low confidence" before the war in the views that "Saddam would engage in clandestine attacks against the U.S. Homeland" or "share chemical or biological weapons with al-Qaida."  Their message to the president was clear: Saddam wouldn't help al-Qaida unless we put his back against the wall, and even then it was a big maybe. If anything, the report was a flashing yellow light against attacking Iraq.  Bush saw the warning, yet completely ignored it and barreled ahead with the war plans he'd approved a month earlier (Aug. 29), telling a completely different version of the intelligence consensus to the American people. Less than a week after the NIE was published, he warned that "on any given day" – provoked by attack or not, sufficiently desperate or not – Saddam could team up with Osama and conduct a joint terrorist operation against America using weapons of mass destruction.  "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists," Bush said Oct. 7 in his nationally televised Cincinnati speech. "Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving fingerprints." The terrorists he was referring to were "al-Qaida members."  By telling Americans that Saddam could "on any given day" slip unconventional weapons to al-Qaida if America didn't disarm him, the president misrepresented the conclusions of his own secret intelligence report, which warned that Saddam wouldn't even try to reach out to al-Qaida unless he were attacked and had nothing to lose – and might even find that hard to do since he had no history of conducting joint terrorist operations with al-Qaida, and certainly none against the U.S.  If that's not lying, I don't know what is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Nobody has to throw shit. You just have to watch what's going on. Seems to me you guys threw plenty of your own shit anyway. As you say, equal time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Jay, I certainly tend toward favoring progressive tax rates but if you are talking about simple minor tweaks to the current system, I'm not real clear on how your elimination of the mortgage decuction would help anything. It would hit the middle class, that's for sure, but would it cause rich people to pay proportionately more in taxes? How significant in their tax burden is a mortgage interest deduction? Â I have no idea how significant a tax burden mortage interest is for the extremely wealthy, but my understanding is that it only extends to mortgage debt up to $1 million dollars - so most of them probably don't get much mileage out of the current deal. Â However - the fact of the matter is that if you were to group the population into "homeowners" and "non-homeowners" the homeowners would undoubtedly score far higher on any assesment of prosperity and income, yet if you are a homeowner you get a tax deduction on your mortage interest on your primary home and a second home, and the same deduction on home equity loans up to $100K. There's no deduction for credit card interest or short-term loans from outfits like The Money Store - both of which low income people are more likely to rely on than home-equity loans. Â I think the total value of the interest deduction is 61.5 billion dollars - all of which could make quite a contribution to spending on education, social services, etc - and the deduction also favors giant mortgage companies, home builders, etc? Seems like the deduction wonderful candidate for elimination by progressive tax crusaders - yet there is no outcry - very puzzling omission IMO.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Does any of this change the fact that Bush is a liar? Um...no. Â You guys throw your shit continuously and think it will stick. Just because you say Bush is a liar over and over again ad nauseum does not make it true, nor does it mean that the American public believes it to be true. What you can't take is that this is the case. Well, it is. You've failed to convince the American public. Deal with it. And no amount of the "press" parroting your accusations will change that. So enjoy your sour grapes. Â You must generally agree with how your tax dollars are spent. As well as your future tax dollars. Remember, 1/3 of your tax dollars are spent on paying interest. Interest does not go back to the general infrastructure. Who holds a lot of the U.S. debt these days? China. Â That 1/3 of your tax dollars for interest is rising too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Seems like the deduction wonderful candidate for elimination by progressive tax crusaders - yet there is no outcry - very puzzling omission IMO.... http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-fi-taxbreak8oct08,1,2620644.story Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted October 10, 2005 Author Share Posted October 10, 2005 Got a question for the Bush supporters - why do you hate America so much that you would but your blind support for this idiot in front of what is good for the country? One out of 3 think the country is on the right track - how could it be so high? What is this clown doing that rates even a D for a grade? Â Kinda quiet on this issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Seems like the deduction wonderful candidate for elimination by progressive tax crusaders - yet there is no outcry - very puzzling omission IMO.... http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-fi-taxbreak8oct08,1,2620644.story  No worky.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 No worky.... Push Here! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Does any of this change the fact that Bush is a liar? Um...no. Â You guys throw your shit continuously and think it will stick. Just because you say Bush is a liar over and over again ad nauseum does not make it true, nor does it mean that the American public believes it to be true. What you can't take is that this is the case. Well, it is. You've failed to convince the American public. Deal with it. And no amount of the "press" parroting your accusations will change that. So enjoy your sour grapes. Â You must generally agree with how your tax dollars are spent. As well as your future tax dollars. Remember, 1/3 of your tax dollars are spent on paying interest. Interest does not go back to the general infrastructure. Who holds a lot of the U.S. debt these days? China. Â Â Pretty much every major oil exporter is looking for someplace to invest the cash windfall that recent spike in prices has produced - and quite a bit of it is actually ending up underwriting the national debt - and keeping mortgage rates low as they're part of the group of nations buying enough FNMA's and GNMA's to keep demand high and rates low, despite declining credit-quality. Â You are underwriting Al-Quada with your home loan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Good article. Do you think the reforms, if proposed, would get widespread support from the progressive base? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.