Question for the libs on this board.

[ALS]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mnztr:

quote:

---

I have a question for the know it all lib's
WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE TROOPS FIGHTING FOR THE ALLIES IN THE PACIFIC WAR ZONE DURING WW2 WERE NOT AMERICAN? LETS SEE HOW SMART YOU ARE.

---

Er, what is your point. Japan attacked the US and declared war. When did Iraq attack the US? Did I miss something? I'm pretty sure if Iraq attacked the US I would have heard about it.

---

1995 Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.
Hussain Hashem Al-Hussaini a former Iraqi Republican Guardsman whom multiple eyewitnesses identified as McVeigh's elusive accomplice, John Doe 2. Second when Tim McVey was picked up he had a pocket full of Iraqi phone numbers.
There is a book out there called The Third Terrorist.
A reporter from a local Oklahoma TV Station started to realize that there was a huge cover up at the highest levels to make this Terrorist action look like it came from domestic sources and not the MID EAST. Her name is Janna Davis was shut down at every office in Washington when she brought her evidence to them. They were not treating her like a nut they just didn't want to even look at her information. Do you realize that the Oklahoma Bombing case is still OPEN? Yet Louie Freeh FBI director brought up some of this reporters evidence to the 9-11 commission that this woman dug up on her own.
Did you know that Flight 800 over New York was a Shoot down. That also was covered up as a exploding center fuel tank. Yet twice in 2001 John Kerry admitted during interviews that destruction of flight 800 was a terrorist action.
I can't remember the second date but the first was on Larry King September 11th 2001. Even John Kerry who is on the Senate intelligence Commitee knows it was a shoot down. And like the rest of the gutless elected officials nothing was done to protect America at that time.

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Drew99GT:
I guess we could just try and turn the entire middle east into a glass factory and see how that turns out...

---

Hmmm...that might even make the oil even easier to get out of the ground if you don't have to contend with sand storms.

 

[k1xv]

I do not consider myself to be a liberal, though others on this board might. I am a Patron Life member of the National Rifle Association.

I believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, personal freedoms, states rights, fiscal responsibility in government, truthfulness and transparency in Government, and strong international relationships. I also think that a society is often judged by how it treats its weak and vulnerable. Moreover, I am a pragmatist, and recognize that if some public health care costs are not directly funded by the Government, it will be funded through higher hospital fees and charges on those who do pay, thereby driving up the cost of health insurance to employers and employees, adn helping to drive even more jobs overseas.

As I see it, the Bush Administration is against pretty much everything I stand for. So, almost anyone else is better.

The Bush Administration has also damaged our relationship with former strong allies to such an extent that I know they cannot be repaired without a new face in the White House. Any new face will allow doors to re-open that are now closed.

As for the criticism that the Democratic candidates have taken advantage of the opportunities available to them in the tax code, I see nothing wrong with that. We all know the tax code is skewed in favor of the rich, and has been for some time. Even I was able to take advantage of the "SUV writeoff" in 2003. I thought it was a stupid deduction, but it was there, written into the code by the present Administration. Do any of you pay taxes that you don't have to? Didn't think so.

Instead of criticizing someone for taking advantage of the loopholes, your concern is better directed at those who created the loopholes.

 

[dropitby]

Take it from a working mans standpoint since he pays almost all the taxes.

GW Bush wants to take away overtime pay. First firms lay off (and still are )and load the work on whats left over then they want to penalise them for overtime.

How about we lay off half the congress and make those old farts work overtime to take up the slack. Won't happen.

 

[1sttruck]

k1xv said "I believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, personal freedoms........

As I see it, the Bush Administration is against pretty much everything I stand for. So, almost anyone else is better."

Very well said.

 

[Mystic]

I consider myself a liberal and I am a registered Democrat, although I vote for whoever I think is worth voting for. I do NOT consider many people at the top of the Democratic Party to be true liberals. They are elitists, many of them wealthy and living in their own worlds separated from ordinary people. Kerry and his wife make George Bush look like a poor man. Kerry's wife is a billionaire and Bush apparently is worth some 15 million dollars.

I DO NOT support Kerry for president. I have not been able to find out yet what his true views are on various issues. He is a pure politician who bounces around all over the place depending on whatever is in. When it was in to denounce the United States he was sitting before Congress denouncing the country and the soldiers who fought in Vietnam. I am afraid he will probably win the election, however. He now has a higher percentage of support then Bush. And if he does become president then the people who voted for him can live with the consequences.

 

[k1xv]

We are now living with the consequences of those who voted for Bush, and they were in fact a minority of the total voters nationwide.

 

[keith]

quote:

---

Originally posted by k1xv:
We all know the tax code is skewed in favor of the rich...

---

Do you have the data to back that up? How about a table of income versus taxes paid for example? The IRS web site has all the data but it's a lot of work to mine it. Here is year 2000:

Top 5% pay 53.25% of all income taxes.
The top 10% pay 64.89%.
The top 25% pay 82.9%.
The top 50% pay 96.03%
The bottom 50% pay 3.97% of all income taxes.

The top 1% earns 17.53% of all income.
The top 5% earns 31.99%.
The top 10% earns 43.11%.
The top 25% earns 65.23%.
The top 50% earns 86.19%.
The bottom 50% earn 13.81% of all income.

The "rich", however you define it, are paying a lot more tax than the lower income levels, both in absolute terms and in proportion of income.

You can see that just by looking at the 10% level - paying 64.89% of all income taxes, earning 43.11% of total income. That's some great deal for the rich

[No. I don't consider myself among the rich. Neither do I view them as scapegoats to pillage for my benefit].

Keith.

 

[k1xv]

Well, Keith, then you should have no problem with Kerry and Edwards taking advantage of a few loopholes to bring their heavy tax burdens down to fair and equitable levels.

 

[keith]

quote:

---

Originally posted by k1xv:
Well, Keith, then you should have no problem with Kerry and Edwards taking advantage of a few loopholes to bring their heavy tax burdens down to fair and equitable levels.

---

That doesn't even begin to address the question I posed. Thanks anyway. Nobody seems to want to confront the IRS data, which debunks the "rich pay little tax" HOGWASH.

Keith.

 

[k1xv]

Keith, you started this by saying Kerry and Edwards pay too little tax. They are taking advantage of loopholes available to the wealthy. Now you claim the wealthy are overburdened in taxes compared to the public at large.

Which is it?

 

[k1xv]

Humble apologies Keith, I thought you started this topic. Guess I am getting too sleepy.

 

[keith]

quote:

---

Originally posted by k1xv:
Keith, you started this by saying Kerry and Edwards pay too little tax.

---

Could you provide the quote please.

Still no defense of the "rich pay little tax" nonsense?

Keith.

 

[k1xv]

In any event, I don't know if your data includes FICA taxes, including the employers share, which is in fact the employee's money, as it is part of the total compensation paid by the employer.

In any event, I see no reason why you should be upset. Do you realize that back in the days of Nixon, the marginal tax rate on the highest bracket was something like 70%? And before that, it was even higher?

What tax structure do you propose?

 

[k1xv]

quote:

---

Originally posted by keith:

quote:

---

Originally posted by k1xv:
Keith, you started this by saying Kerry and Edwards pay too little tax.

---

Could you provide the quote please.

Still no defense of the "rich pay little tax" nonsense?

Keith.

---

See my prior post....I had mistakenly thought that you started this topic, and it was someone else.

 

[keith]

quote:

---

Originally posted by k1xv:
In any event, I don't know if your data includes FICA taxes, including the employers share, which is in fact the employee's money, as it is part of the total compensation paid by the employer.

---

Apparently, you can't defend your statement and are inventing ones from me!

Thanks. Goodnight.

Keith.

 

[k1xv]

You never answered whether the data you are presenting includes FICA taxes. From a re-reading of your prior post, it appears it does not. FICA taxes fall most heavily on lower and middle income individuals. For those making millions, they are almost nothing.

I cannot accept any data presented by anyone at face value. You presented it, so you defend it. Does it include FICA taxes?

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

How can you support Kerry?

---

I'll just answer the question.

I can't ..but I think that he's the best bet to keep Hillary out of the Oval Office.

Bush winning almost assures a Democrat in office the next 8 years following him.


Just keep telling yourself it's a chess game ....the 'white knight" may defeat the "black bishop" ..but will the manuver put you in check???

(visions of "Dirty Harry") ..you've gotta ask yourself ..do you feel lucky???

 

[Bugzii]

quote:

---

Originally posted by carrera79:
GW isn't the best, but we all know where he stands. You can't convince me that he lied about WMDs. He was misinformed, as was John Kerry when he voted for authorization to go to war. Furthermore, Kerry has said he would go to Iraq even if he knew the WMDs weren't there. I just don't see what's there to love, and I don't understand the hatred of Bush.

---

Lying is old-school. Ask Clinton. The idea is to trap the media, shape public opinions to his view and change the policy. Even if he's wrong, you can't blame him for lying because everybody felt or thought the same way.

 

[K-Man]

I wish both the SOBs could lose. This election is a bad, bad joke. Even Ralph Nader looks better to me than Bush or Kerry--and I tend(ed) to lean Republican with some exceptions on certain issues.

Kerry is a known quantity: liar, flip-flopper, leftist. But if Bush is relected, here's what I suspect we'll face:

(1) a draft in 2005;

(2) even more erosions of our freedoms and privacy through expanded laws such as "Patriot Act II";

(3) more of our friends and allies abandoning us and our policies;

(4) a continuing quagmire in Iraq that will spread to Iran and who knows where else, which will be the reason for the draft, and which will morph into a war for oil;

(5) further loss of jobs overseas and ever higher pay for the Benedict Arnold CEOs who are responsible;

(6) the deletion of what middle class remains, especially if the tax code gets revised in favor of a consumption tax or whatever;

(7) further terror attacks on US soil in retaliation for US involvement in the Middle East; and ultimately--

(8) martial law.

Keep in mind that this administration floated a trial balloon in July about the possibility of "postponing" the Presidential elections in November if terrorism becomes a threat, even though the Constitution contains no provision for such an action. I recall shrill right-wing hysteria and conspiracy theories that Clinton was going to do the same in 2000. Now here's an administration actually proposing this and no one is saying much about it! And if they are proposing it, then somewhere, somebody in the government is seriously thinking of doing it. I know from research some years ago about government emergency plans--including Presidential executive orders lying in wait for emergency use--that we need to take this issue seriously. No administration has ever publicly talked about "postponing"--that is, suspending--the Presidential elections. Until this one.

All these bogus alerts-of-the-week we keep getting from the Bush administration are designed to soften up the public for eventual suspension of elections and the rest of the Constitution. This isn't meant to be alarmist--just my hunch as to what is really going on.

If that hunch is true, then suddenly Kerry or almost anyone else looks better than Bush. Too bad Kerry is so lousy in his own right.

Let the flame wars begin!