The Heisman Pose

#101
#101
exactly dude,

we should cut the taxes of the poor, then we'd have nothing to show for it and many more of the middle class would join the ranks, because the wealthy would fire them to pay taxes.

that's the democratic plan and it's pure genius.
 
#104
#104
Come on Ice, he is actually trying to imply that attacking a guy like Saddam Hussein is a inherently worse than taking $94 out of every $100 that some people earn.
 
#105
#105
therealUT said:
Come on Ice, he is actually trying to imply that attacking a guy like Saddam Hussein is a inherently worse than taking $94 out of every $100 that some people earn.
Click to expand...

Going to war on false pretenses is much worse than any tax rate.

As for specifically the 94% tax rate, it was obviously a reaction of WWII. All Americans had to sacrifice to stop fascism. Those sacrifices, from the top tax bracket down, from civilians to soilders, defined "The Greatest Generation" and pulled the country together at the time.
 
#106
#106
The Dude said:
Going to war on false pretenses is much worse than any tax rate.

As for specifically the 94% tax rate, it was obviously a reaction of WWII. All Americans had to sacrifice to stop fascism. Those sacrifices, from the top tax bracket down, from civilians to soilders, defined "The Greatest Generation" and pulled the country together at the time.
Click to expand...


Is that your major quarrel with Bush?
 
#107
#107
The Dude said:
Going to war on false pretenses is much worse than any tax rate.

As for specifically the 94% tax rate, it was obviously a reaction of WWII. All Americans had to sacrifice to stop fascism. Those sacrifices, from the top tax bracket down, from civilians to soilders, defined "The Greatest Generation" and pulled the country together at the time.
Click to expand...
Is there a big difference in going to war with Germany after first after Japan attacked us and going to war with Iraq a couple years after we were attacked by the al Qaeda?

Ok, so the 94% tax rate was a reaction to WWII...What of the 81% prior to WWII?
 
#108
#108
The Dude said:
Going to war on false pretenses is much worse than any tax rate.

As for specifically the 94% tax rate, it was obviously a reaction of WWII. All Americans had to sacrifice to stop fascism. Those sacrifices, from the top tax bracket down, from civilians to soilders, defined "The Greatest Generation" and pulled the country together at the time.
Click to expand...

Not really, as he raised taxes to fund "The New Deal" which was to pay for all his social programs, to stem the tide of the depression. Which in the end he made worse. As I stated earlier, in todays time, he would have been considered a war monger. He was elected in a landslide on the notion that he would reverse the depression, in an ironic twist the war made him one of greatest leaders, but in specualtion, he may never have gotten another term due to his social policies, in specualtion.
 
#109
#109
therealUT said:
Is there a big difference in going to war with Germany after first after Japan attacked us and going to war with Iraq a couple years after we were attacked by the al Qaeda?

Ok, so the 94% tax rate was a reaction to WWII...What of the 81% prior to WWII?
Click to expand...

You have to pay for those government projects some how!

It was for the collective good!
 
#110
#110
Those false pretenses were reconized by every one in the world intelligence community, including the Clinton regime, Saddam bluffed to keep other regimes out of Iraq and it cost him, big time.
 
#112
#112
iceman9 said:
Those false pretenses were reconized by every one in the world intelligence community, including the Clinton regime, Saddam bluffed to keep other regimes out of Iraq and it cost him, big time.
Click to expand...
How many times do I have to keep correcting you, Ice? GWB should have never trusted the CIA, MI6, French Intel, al Massoud, or the Kremlin. GWB should have had some surgery and gone undercover himself, in Iraq, to find out for real and 100% proof positive what was going on.
kiss-me_team-america.gif
 
#114
#114
therealUT said:
Is there a big difference in going to war with Germany after first after Japan attacked us and going to war with Iraq a couple years after we were attacked by the al Qaeda?
Click to expand...

Japan and Iraq were in an alliance.

Bush has tried and tried, unsuccessfully to connect Saddam and al Qaeda.
 
#120
#120
therealUT said:
How many times do I have to keep correcting you, Ice? GWB should have never trusted the CIA, MI6, French Intel, al Massoud, or the Kremlin. GWB should have had some surgery and gone undercover himself, in Iraq, to find out for real and 100% proof positive what was going on.
kiss-me_team-america.gif
Click to expand...

He's the man in charge and the blame is part of it.
 
#121
#121
The Dude said:
Not sure, but would guess that was a reaction to the depression.
Click to expand...

That would be comparable to Reagan taking over for Carter and the sad state we were in, except Reagan cut taxes across the board, and the economy recovered quickly. The wealthy started investing their money in this country instead of abroad, the exact opposite of what happen during the first couple years of FDR's New Deal program.
 
#122
#122
therealUT said:
If you believe that Iraq is a disaster, as of February 2008, then your opinion on anything which involves military operations has lost any and all credibility.
Click to expand...

Disaster as in we shouldn't be over there. We should be 1000 miles east (if OBL is there, as suspected).
 
#123
#123
The Dude said:
He's the man in charge and the blame is part of it.
Click to expand...
I will play your game. If the intel turned out to be correct, yet Bush never made it public (as he has no requirement to, since it is intel concerning national security) and Iraq armed operatives to attack a US city with a weapon of mass destruction, then what would you be saying today? You would most likely be blaming Bush for a lack of action. I would rather our Commander-in-Chief place trust in the intelligence community (our own, which was corroborated by every major player on the globe, save China) and act then sit idly by thinking, "Well, it might be wrong..."
 
#124
#124
The Dude said:
Disaster as in we shouldn't be over there. We should be 1000 miles east (if OBL is there, as suspected).
Click to expand...
So, now you want us to invade Pakistan? Because the CIA intel says OBL is there, I suppose?

In the future, Dude, if you are going to make a stand, at least make it on principle, and stick to that principle.
 
#125
#125
therealUT said:
I will play your game. If the intel turned out to be correct, yet Bush never made it public (as he has no requirement to, since it is intel concerning national security) and Iraq armed operatives to attack a US city with a weapon of mass destruction, then what would you be saying today? You would most likely be blaming Bush for a lack of action. I would rather our Commander-in-Chief place trust in the intelligence community (our own, which was corroborated by every major player on the globe, save China) and act then sit idly by thinking, "Well, it might be wrong..."
Click to expand...

Here-Here :thumbsup:
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top