# It's going to Cost a Lot More with an Obama Adminstration



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080402/ap_ ... obama_gore

pretty good idea, to woo Gore for his support, but i don't think he gets it before the convention as it would make the division greater between the Clinton and Obama camps, causing a huge fracture.

the real point here is this. with our economy struggling, families struggling with high food and fuel costs, this guy wants to raise taxes and now utility rates which will create an even greater hardship on middle class families, but yet give a break for the lower class folks? how about we just break the backs of the middle class and pull them right down with the poor folks, then there will be even more poor people eligible for his socialist programs.
sad, very sad indeed. :eyeroll:


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

I couldnt agree more. I have said it from the start it wouldnt benefit me or my family to vote for Obama. But I can see how he appeals to the lazy. Real Americans will suffer if he gets in.

Can anyone tell me how my life will be better with Obama in office?


----------



## jgat (Oct 27, 2006)

FlashBoomSplash said:


> Can anyone tell me how my life will be better with Obama in office?


You'll be able to hear an emphatic State of the Union Address. :roll:


----------



## sdeprie (May 1, 2004)

I'm hoping to get a lot more from a president than good oration. If all I wanted was a good speech, I'ld rent a good movie. I'm hoping for leadership that doesn't break our backs, punish us for making money, give it away to those unwilling to work for it, etc.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

huntin1


----------



## sdeprie (May 1, 2004)

huntin1, I can't view your response. My program won't open it. I will say that I put as much stock in Al Gore as the Green Man as I did his inventing the internet. A recent convention of over 400 scientific weather specialists called his statistics "junk science." They were filled with facts that were not connected to his conclusions except in his imagination. Is there global warming? Maybe. Are we causing it? Doubtful. Contributing to it? Maybe, but not certainly. Can we stop it of it is starting? Doubtful. If there is true global warming, it is probably a natural cycle and very little of what we do affects it. Take this statistic and think about it. Of the top 10 warmest years in the last 100 years, at least 5 were before 1941, the warmest year was 1931, if I am not mistaken (I know it was before 1940). The coldest year in the last 100 years was just a few years ago. (I can't remember exactly, but certainly within 20 years, I think 1991.) This does NOT support Global Warming. Do we need to support good stewardship over the earth? Certainly. I don't think we do that by causing a ruckus about everyone else using less energy and maintaining 3 homes that use more electricity each than my hometown, flying all over in a private jet spewing more noxious exhaust each hour than my car does in a year, and blaming everyone else for our problems. Just my opinion. Oh, and I still judge people by their friends.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> how about we just break the backs of the middle class and pull them right down with the poor folks


Maybe that's the plan. What better way to implement full scale socialism?



> You'll be able to hear an emphatic State of the Union Address.


There is one of the major reasons for the love fest. How shallow do you have to be to base your decision on a presidential candidate on their oratory ability? I would far prefer someone who stuttered and fumbled through his words with a poor vocabulary but had a clear vision of right and wrong.

Sdeprie huntin1's response was a bumper sticker that said "REPUBLICAN, because not everyone can be on welfare".

Global warming??? Of course we contribute. Anything that breaths contributes, but insignificantly. Besides, I kill enough critters every year to make up for my breathing ---- and then some. Heck thinking about it I am one of the cures for global warming. I stop enough lung functions every fall to make up for a couple dozen other people also.  If I hunt some more I can drive my SUV (dirty word) without a guilty conscience.


----------



## Bgunit68 (Dec 26, 2006)

sdeprie said:


> I'm hoping to get a lot more from a president than good oration. If all I wanted was a good speech, I'ld rent a good movie. I'm hoping for leadership that doesn't break our backs, punish us for making money, give it away to those unwilling to work for it, etc.


Wasn't Hitler a great orator? I agree with you. A good speech could just mean he's a great B.S. artist. I'm not saying he is because I don't really know much about him. I don't think many people know much about him. All I know he is a liber...uuh..ooops...Democrat, nough said!


----------



## jgat (Oct 27, 2006)

jgat said:


> FlashBoomSplash said:
> 
> 
> > Can anyone tell me how my life will be better with Obama in office?
> ...


Just to clarify my comment was meant as sarcasm.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

jgat said:


> jgat said:
> 
> 
> > FlashBoomSplash said:
> ...


I certainly knew that.


----------



## Bgunit68 (Dec 26, 2006)

Hey Plainsman I just ordered something from a company in Jamestown ND. When I saw where the company was from I knew it looked familiar for some reason. LOL. The company is RealTruck.com.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Yes, I know that place. A couple years ago they legalized 4X4 on roads with speed limits 40 mph or less. They had to have a review mirror and a horn. I bought a horn from them, and you can record your own sounds. Sometimes mine is like the old Model T ooga oooga, but right now it is Coyote Serenade. Once in a while when coming home through our little housing community I can't pass up driving the neighborhood dogs crazy.


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

I know there is at least 9 Obama supporters on here after reading Plainsmans Poll so I will ask again.



> Can anyone tell me how my life will be better with Obama in office?


I will make it easier how will he benefit your life.(Obama Supporters)


----------



## Whistler31 (Feb 1, 2007)

huntin1 said:


> huntin1


 Maybe it should read:
REPUBLICAN
Because Someone Has To Pay For It!


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Whistler31 said:


> huntin1 said:
> 
> 
> > huntin1
> ...


Are you serious?

The Republicans haven't paid for crap. They've driven our nation into debt unprecedented in history. How is that 'paying for it?'

If anyone is paying for it, it's foreign nations. It's their loans that finance our country.

Do you guys realize that there hasn't been a single tax dollar spent on Iraq? Do you realize that our rebate checks are being paid for with loans from China?

Taxes suck, I think we all can agree on this. But IMO it's crucial for our country to start balancing the budget. Our dollar is worth crap because we pay for everything on credit.

So this is the reality, the only way to balance our budget is to either have the government spend less or to raise taxes.

At least the Democrats are concerned with this. As much as you don't want to see higher taxes we can't continue to operate with deficit spending. It's why our economy is in the crapper. At least they live in reality enough to aknowledge this. I'm not saying higher taxes are the solution. I'd rather see us cut our military spending, get out of Iraq, stop giving billions of dollars we don't have to other nations, and quit wasting money on pork barrel projects. Balance our budget by reducing government and spending, so we don't have to raise taxes.

What does McCain want to do? Stay in Iraq for 100 years and invade Iran. How's he going to pay for it? By taking on $Trillions more in debt, that's how! He want's to do just what Bush has done, spend through the roof and cut taxes. I know you guys probably aren't economists but can't you see the problem with that?

At least the Dems want to get out of Iraq because they realize WE CAN'T AFFORD IT! It's literally one of the biggest contributors that is bankrupting our country. Unless we can foot the bill, we shouldn't be there. And that goes for everything including social programs. If we don't have the money for it in our coffers, then we shouldn't borrow money to fund it.

Sadly, the "Spendocrats" are the more fiscally responsible party today. Would they balance the budget? Probably not, but they'd operate in a manner that would make us less reliant on racking up debt loaned to us by other countries.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Bgunit68 said:


> sdeprie said:
> 
> 
> > I'm hoping to get a lot more from a president than good oration. If all I wanted was a good speech, I'ld rent a good movie. I'm hoping for leadership that doesn't break our backs, punish us for making money, give it away to those unwilling to work for it, etc.
> ...


You know, if I remember correctly it wasn't that long ago when the US was faced with a similar recession and our countries morale was crap. Then a president was elected who was also a great orator and he inspired us to believe in ourselves again.

His name was Ronald Reagan.

Or do you guys completely discount that him being a great inspirational speaker helped out our country in those dark times? I've always heard Republicans lament about how important it was that Reagan was an excellent speaker and how he could inspire people with his great speeches...but I guess that quality is just empty rhetoric when it comes from the otherside of the aisle???


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

When REgan talked, he said something. With Obama its endless rhetoric about change and empty promises.

In regards to John McCains "100 years" bit... Do you realise that we've been in Germany AND Japan continuously for over 50 years? Having a base in the area is a good thing, and I'd like to keep a US presence in the middle east for a LONG time.

You can ask Decoy his thoughts on invading Iran, hes the man when it comes to Mid-East politics.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Gun Owner said:


> When REgan talked, he said something.


OK, I'll bite...what were some of the things he said?

Weren't they just empty promises too until he fulfilled them?



Gun Owner said:


> In regards to John McCains "100 years" bit... Do you realise that we've been in Germany AND Japan continuously for over 50 years? Having a base in the area is a good thing, and I'd like to keep a US presence in the middle east for a LONG time.


True, but there's a huge difference here...those countries help pay for and support those bases. Both Germany and Japan want us there and have even stepped up to pay for more of the costs of the bases when the U.S. has tried to scale them back.


> Over the years, the Pentagon has invested tens of billions of dollars to build military communities in Germany that are second-to-none anywhere in the world for infrastructure and amenities.
> 
> The value of this investment is beyond dispute: A first-class network of road-, rail- and river-ways spares U.S. military personnel logistical headaches - and saves U.S. taxpayers money.
> 
> ...


So you're not even coming close to comparing apples to apples. We're spending more than $12 billion a month in Iraq. Under McCain we'd be spending even more. Plus, we're doing it where we aren't wanted and no one is going to help us pay for it...well, except for other countries giving us high-interest loans. :roll:



Gun Owner said:


> You can ask Decoy his thoughts on invading Iran, hes the man when it comes to Mid-East politics.


Let's hear them. I'd especially like to hear how we would fund a campaign against Iran. Or where we're going to get troops to do it.

Unless the US can pay for it with our own money, we shouldn't go.

Not to mention the possibility that Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden (who are Sunni Muslims) would probably love to see us do it since Iran (a shiite nation) are their enemy.

McCain doesn't understand this...and really understands very little with Iraq and the middle east in general.


----------



## sdeprie (May 1, 2004)

The Republican Party has a long ways to go to regain their credibility and their connection to their philosophy. However, their philosophy is not spending taxes. That philosophy belongs to the Democratic Party. Now, individuals may be different, but those are the basic party philosophies.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

sdeprie said:


> However, their philosophy is not spending taxes. That philosophy belongs to the Democratic Party.


The Republican philosophy is not spending taxes? Yeah, no shyte. That's the problem. If they would have only spent tax dollars we'd have a balanced budget.

Instead they cut taxes and spent more. Do realize that Bush and the Republican controlled congress spent more than any other administration in history? And that's even after being adjusted for inflation.

Unfortunately they didn't do it with tax dollars. They did it by borrowing money from countries (mainly Communist China) and racking up the biggest deficit in history.



sdeprie said:


> Now, individuals may be different, but those are the basic party philosophies.


Here's the basic philosphies of the Republican party;

Less/Smaller Government
Fiscal Responsibility
More Individual Freedoms

And what did this latest batch of Republicans do?

They ballooned government to the biggest it's ever been.
They were the most fiscally irresponsible group of politicians in our history
They infringed on more of your liberties than ever before.

I totally agree with the principles of the party. But they're lies. They tell you them so you vote for them. Once they get it in office, they do the exact opposite. If they actually did what they say they stand for I'd vote for them. Some of you guys have been drinking the kool-aid for so long you don't even keep tabs on them anymore or hold them accountable. These Republicans of today aren't doing what you think they are...they are doing everything you say you stand against.


----------



## sdeprie (May 1, 2004)

Did you miss the first line? I started out saying they had strayed far from their philosophy, or at least that was what I implied. The philosophy remains the same, even if they are not living up to it.


----------



## Whistler31 (Feb 1, 2007)

Matt, Are you going to be OK? I worry about your blood pressure. Take a deep breath, everything is going to be fine. (NOT) :stirpot:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Some new ideas, thank you Matt. Some of them I agree with, some I don't, some I see at a different angle. This might get long. I think as Americans many democrats and republicans on this site agree, but sometimes partisanship clouds our vision. I'll try stick to what I believe.



> So this is the reality, the only way to balance our budget is to either have the government spend less or to raise taxes.


Matt, history has shown us that every time taxes are cut government brings in more revenue. I guess it is because when taxes are cut business and people have more money to invest. If they make more money they pay more in taxes at a lower rate, than if they made less money but paid taxes at a higher rate.



> stop giving billions of dollars we don't have to other nations


Here I completely agree, I wish their was a hand clapping emoticon. This will have to do. :beer:



> quit wasting money on pork barrel projects


Couldn't agree more on this either. :beer:



> Balance our budget by reducing government and spending, so we don't have to raise taxes.


More agreement. :beer:



> At least the Dems want to get out of Iraq because they realize WE CAN'T AFFORD IT





> It's literally one of the biggest contributors that is bankrupting our country.


You have a point, but what is our security worth? Also, I have read a half dozen accounts that say illegal aliens cost us more than the war. The democrats want out of Iraq (security) but want to let 12 million illegal aliens continue to thumb their nose at American laws. Not only that they want to reward them.



> Sadly, the "Spendocrats" are the more fiscally responsible party today.


It sure appears that way, and it makes me very angry with the double crossing republicans in Washington.



> Would they balance the budget? Probably not, but they'd operate in a manner that would make us less reliant on racking up debt loaned to us by other countries.


I disagree. I think they will spend more, they will just spend it in different places. Instead of spending on our military (history proves that) and security they will spend it on enhanced welfare programs. In other words they will use your tax dollars to buy votes from the lazy. Not the needy, the lazy.



> I've always heard Republicans lament about how important it was that Reagan was an excellent speaker and how he could inspire people with his great speeches...but I guess that quality is just empty rhetoric when it comes from the otherside of the aisle???


It wasn't as a primary quality important to me. It is important to shallow people, and the shallow people listened to him. Each year people place importance more and more on the frivolous values and not what is important. Take 100 people and if the president is speaking on TV and American Idol stays on 90 of those people will watch American Idol. His oratory ability is why so many liberals voted for him (Reagan Democrats). Most of these touchy feely thoughtless people would have voted for him after his speech when the astronauts were killed in the shuttle. Perhaps non of them had a dry eye when he used the phrase "slipped the surly bonds of earth". Great line, I know a couple of fire and brimstone breathing liberals that couldn't keep a dry eye.



> True, but there's a huge difference here...those countries help pay for and support those bases.


I don't know, but I hope that when things stabilize that Iraq will help pay for things. Their resources make them a very rich country, they simply are not fully developed yet, and the populace was cheated out of what they do have. Time will tell.



> Plus, we're doing it where we aren't wanted


Now that just isn't true. I have spoken to many returning soldiers and have a niece and friends their now. That is democrat cool-aid.



> McCain doesn't understand this...and really understands very little with Iraq and the middle east in general.


This is where things get difficult. I don't agree with the liberals, but those in office should have more information than any of us. With that thought I can't understand some of the decisions being made, and some of the things liberals are calling for. It would appear that liberals are more concerned in winning the next election than the war. That is self centered and careless and greatly disturbs me.



> And what did this latest batch of Republicans do?
> 
> They ballooned government to the biggest it's ever been.
> They were the most fiscally irresponsible group of politicians in our history


I agree with those two things, they acted like liberals. That has me very ticked at them. I am glad your not happy with them either. Jerks.



> They infringed on more of your liberties than ever before.


That one isn't true. The darn liberals would pass more gun laws, and more social laws that they consider politically correct. I especially like hate crimes. You call someone a bad name before you kill them and you spend twice as long in jail, as if some people are killing people they like. However, if you abort them now or I think in the future euthanize them it's ok. Also, if you were not calling overseas to a known terrorist you had nothing to worry about. I hope they catch anyone who did.



> I totally agree with the principles of the party. But they're lies.


They sure have been this last go around. :beer:



> They tell you them so you vote for them. Once they get it in office, they do the exact opposite.


That applies to 90% of the politicians in Washington. What's with that place anyway. Some I sure have expected better from only to be disappointed. I think all three that are up for president now would be huge disappointments.



> If they actually did what they say they stand for I'd vote for them.


No kidding, Washington would be full of sterling people wouldn't it?



> Some of you guys have been drinking the kool-aid for so long you don't even keep tabs on them anymore or hold them accountable.


I think many on here have been watching them. I know many on here like me think our only choice for years has been the lesser of two evils when we vote. I'm not happy, and I challenge anyone to find a happy voter among the people who post often in this form. Oh, I forgot, there are some cool-aid drinkers that post here ----- sorry. Not talking about your Matt, but I'll let you ferret them out. I think we will agree on who has the cool-aid mustaches.


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

Matt

I dont have to say to much because plainsman covered most of it.

I have issues with some of your points cutting funding to our military is like cutting off your arm that's probably one of the dumbest things I have ever heard in my life. Our military is completely volunteer and our men and women in our armed forces deserve the best of the best and I think we should increase funding to our military. We should be in Iraq for the next hundred years. There is some radical muslims that dont like freedom and we have a chance to keep it over there so why not. What should we do wait for them to attack us again. :eyeroll:

What we should do is cut out welfare, get rid of all illegal aliens, increase the death penalty for murder, stop paying for other countries welfare programs we dont need to help the world, And we need to stop ethanol production until we figure out a way to use something other than our food.

I personally feel that ethanol is one thing that is driving this country into an economic depression.

I will agree with you on some issues with Bush he is entirely to liberal.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> True, but there's a huge difference here...those countries help pay for and support those bases. Both Germany and Japan want us there and have even stepped up to pay for more of the costs of the bases when the US has tried to scale them back.


That is not correct. At one time we occupied those countries and paid nothing. Today we rent the bases we have in those countries and receive no assistance or payments from those countries for being there.



> Unfortunately they didn't do it with tax dollars. They did it by borrowing money from countries (mainly Communist China).


Not exactly but in a way there is some truth. What China does is buy Treasure Bills from the US. They are sitting on a pile of them now. However China knows themselves it would be suicide for China to cash in those T-Bills as their economy is tied directly to the US dollar. It would be like cutting their own throats which makes it easier for our government to foolishly print more bills to sell to them. Not a good position for the US to be in but not a sky is falling scenario either.



> What does McCain want to do? Stay in Iraq for 100 years and invade Iran.


Even the far left whackos know that is hog wash and out of context



> I'd rather see us cut our military spending


That was the thinking in the 70's. Easy to see today the mess it made out of our military as far as being able to fight a two front war. Silliest thing said yet.



> Our dollar is worth crap because we pay for everything on credit.


Not true. The dollar started a slow decline when Nixon refused to pay out gold and we went off the gold standard. Then when OPEC discovered the power of oil it was very easy for US authorities to strike an agreement with OPEC to price oil in US dollars exclusively for all worldwide transactions. This created a artificial strengthening of the dollar. "The artificial demand for our dollar, along with our military might, places us in the unique position to "rule" the world without productive work or savings, and without limits on consumer spending or deficits. The problem is, it can't last." Now the high cost of oil and gold going through the roof has weakened the US dollar world wide.



> at least the Dems want to get out of Iraq because they realize WE CAN'T AFFORD IT


We cannot afford not to afford it.

There is no easy fix or easy solution. As always, in the past or in the future the government cannot do things alone. It takes some give and take by the people themselves. It takes some sacrifice by the people. Do you think the majority of the people are willing and ready to stand up, change their habits and give up some of the personal pleasures they have come to demand, not want or need but demand.

The government can only do what we allow them to do and unfortunately we have allowed them to do exactly what they have done. We have become our own worst enemy.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> What we should do is cut out welfare, get rid of all illegal aliens, increase the death penalty for murder, stop paying for other countries welfare programs we dont need to help the world, And we need to stop ethanol production until we figure out a way to use something other than our food.


Definately, spot on post!!!


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

FlashBoomSplash said:


> I have issues with some of your points cutting funding to our military is like cutting off your arm that's probably one of the dumbest things I have ever heard in my life. Our military is completely volunteer and our men and women in our armed forces deserve the best of the best and I think we should increase funding to our military. We should be in Iraq for the next hundred years. There is some radical muslims that dont like freedom and we have a chance to keep it over there so why not. What should we do wait for them to attack us again. :eyeroll:


We aren't fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq. These aren't the people who attacked us.



cwoparson said:


> We cannot afford not to afford it.


I beg to differ. If it's going to cost "X" amount of dollars, and we don't have "X" amount of dollars...then we can't afford it.

You guys have some convoluted thinking. You complain about welfare and other social programs where people get things they don't pay for...

...but in reality you are the same. You too want things that you do not want to pay for.

You want a high priced military and expensive campaigns, but you don't want to pay for them. For some reason you think it's fine to fund our military and country by racking up massive amounts of debt that will be paid off by your kids and Grandchildren.

You bytch about welfare and social programs yet when it comes down to it, you're more than willing to pass the buck to others. You guys would scream bloody murder if taxes had to be raised to fund our military and our budget. Yet you'd also scream bloody murder if we cut military spending. You can't have it all. If you so strongly support our military then you need to man up and insist on higher taxes to fund them.

Otherwise, you're no different than the leeches abusing welfare by having the government provide services that you aren't willing to pay for.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> You can't have it all. If you so strongly support our military then you need to man up and insist on higher taxes to fund them.


I for one am willing to put my money where my mouth is. I'll don't care if it cost me $1000 more a year. Don't tell me to do it alone though. I'm not going to pay for a liberals security. If I had my way I would like to see to parallel Americas. Science fiction for just ten years. I don't think the liberal America would survive. If they did they would have the same form of government that Afghanistan had.

As far as raising taxes, I think that will cut the government revenue. Reagan proved that by cutting taxes government in the long run actually brings in more revenue. That's lesson the liberals deny, but we should remember.


----------



## USAlx50 (Nov 30, 2004)

Matt Jones said:


> We aren't fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq. These aren't the people who attacked us.


If you dont think al quada is in Iraq you are naive. I'm not saying they were there in large #'s when we invaded but they definately have increased in #'s in Iraq since we have been there. Why did zarqawi (sp?) run to Iraq to recover after being wounded in fighting in afghanistan?

This is a very difficult issue, I'm not sure where I stand on all this stuff myself.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> As far as raising taxes, I think that will cut the government revenue. Reagan proved that by cutting taxes government in the long run actually brings in more revenue. That's lesson the liberals deny, but we should remember.


Tax revenue definitely increased...but our debt increased even more. So you have to ask, how real is the increase? Is it substantial or artificial?

I'm sorry, but I'm not big on Supply-Side economics. How does the old adage go? If you force feed a horse enough oats, some will make it out the other end for the sparrows to eat. If you pump enough government money into the economy (the horse), some will come through for the sparrows to eat (us). The problem is the money we're pumping into it is borrowed and not enough comes back around to balance the budget, let alone pay down some of the massive debt we've racked up.

With that being said, I do think we need to look into some tax cuts. Our corporate tax rate is 35%, the highest in the world. It really does encourage corporations to move offshore. What we need to do is cut the corporate tax rate for corporations with operations solely in the U.S. Have a sliding scale rate, the more a company has invested in our country, the bigger a break they get. There's no reason why a company like Nike, who has zero U.S. manufacturing jobs should get any break. Which is why I'd be against a flat corporate tax break.

If this could be shown that it would bring in jobs, and increase tax revenue (an actual net gain) I'm all for it. I'm leery, because in the past it hasn't. It's simply given more money to people who don't need it aren't willing to invest in our country.

In the global economy we need to be competitive. When other countries have corporate tax rates 12-15% it makes it very hard for us to compete.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> I for one am willing to put my money where my mouth is. I'll don't care if it cost me $1000 more a year. Don't tell me to do it alone though. I'm not going to pay for a liberals security.


Agreed, it's something everyone needs to pay for.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> With that being said, I do think we need to look into some tax cuts. Our corporate tax rate is 35%, the highest in the world. It really does encourage corporations to move offshore. What we need to do is cut the corporate tax rate for corporations with operations solely in the U.S. Have a sliding scale rate, the more a company has invested in our country, the bigger a break they get. There's no reason why a company like Nike, who has zero U.S. manufacturing jobs should get any break. Which is why I'd be against a flat corporate tax break.


That has a little liberal slant to it, but I like the idea. It's a little close to one of my pet peeves, and that is protectionist laws within the borders of the United States. Things like grocery stores in North Dakota can't buy milk out of state. I thought our nation was built on the free market system with the idea that competition is good. Still, I like the incentive it provides, while at the same time I don't like blackmailing a corporation. It's a conflict in my mind, but would be good if not to unfair. I guess it would depend on the scale. Can you tell I am thinking and rambling as I type? 

I think I will defer to Bobm's thoughts on this one. He is up on the corporations/taxes better than anyone I know.


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

> You bytch about welfare and social programs yet when it comes down to it, you're more than willing to pass the buck to others. You guys would scream bloody murder if taxes had to be raised to fund our military and our budget. Yet you'd also scream bloody murder if we cut military spending. You can't have it all. If you so strongly support our military then you need to man up and insist on higher taxes to fund them.


I dont know how you can say that. I am more than willing to pay for the military. I am not willing to have my tax dollars go to welfare. Heck I work hard everyday and I love my country so if my hard earned money is going to the military I am all for it. As long as the lazy and illegals dont get I am good.

Oh and if we cut spending to all the worthless programs we wont need to raise taxes.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

The first income tax this country laid eyes on was to support a war. The war went away but the taxes remained. In our history taxes have been put in place to support the military many times. The military was eventually downsized or the wars ended but the taxes remained in place. What happened? Our framers were against taxation except in the most extreme emergencies and stated so many times. They also said any taxation for emergencies for the country would be level across the board on all citizens. What happened?

Think about this for a moment. In 1916 the new era of income tax on the people came into effect. It was across the board as voluntary for the people except for the rich where it was at 7%. That same year the treasury department reported there were 206 people in the country with income over one million dollars. Five years later after the tax had jumped to 77% on the rich the report could only produce 21 people that claimed over one million income per year. What do you think happened to all those millionaires? They sure didn't leave the country and I doubt they all died in just five short years. The fact is rich people don't pay taxes. You and I do. We don't have a problem with not enough taxes going to washing. We have a problem with how Washington spends it.

On the second part of this subject I have one question I would ask anyone willing to answer. Does anyone actually believe if we pull out of Iraq that Al-Qaeda would leave us alone? If the answer is no, where would you rather fight them, there or here? If your answer is yes, I would dearly love to hear your answer as to why you think they would not come after us.

Anyone that believes we are not fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq or that Al-Qaeda has never attacked us before, in my opinion has either been in a long sleep or has their head buried in the sand.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

I don't know who said it not a current politician you can bet, but the quote goes something like this.........

You cannot tax and spend this nation into prosperity.

Both parties do NOT have a clue as to the economy or government uke:

And all the economists that are quoted by the media are Socalists :******: They have never worked for a living. Spent all their lives in Acadamia :eyeroll:


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

CWOP, read my tag line Harry S. Truman said it best.........


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

cwoparson said:


> > True, but there's a huge difference here...those countries help pay for and support those bases. Both Germany and Japan want us there and have even stepped up to pay for more of the costs of the bases when the US has tried to scale them back.
> 
> 
> That is not correct. At one time we occupied those countries and paid nothing. Today we rent the bases we have in those countries and receive no assistance or payments from those countries for being there.
> ...


Wow cwoparson

Excellent synopsis. Spot on accurate in my opinion....

Ryan


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

cwoparson said:


> Anyone that believes we are not fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq or that Al-Qaeda has never attacked us before, in my opinion has either been in a long sleep or has their head buried in the sand.


Al-Qaeda has attacked us before, but we aren't fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq...at least not the Al-qaeda that attacked us...

I know this is confusing to a lot of people...actually, I'd be willing to bet most Americans don't have a sound idea of what actually is happening in Iraq. It is complicated.

You have two groups fighting each other in a civil war over the control of the country; Shiite muslims and Sunni muslims...who have been fighting each other since 656 A.D. Saddam was able to sequester this civil war through brutal force. Once we removed him, it created a power vaccum and both sides are vying to take control of the country. They are fighting each other, not us...we're essentially caught in the crossfire trying to stop a civil war that's gone on over 1000 years.

Al-Qaeda, and Osama Bin Laden, are Sunnis. The majority of Sunni muslims view the shiites as their enemy, such as the Sunnis in Iraq. Bin Laden's sect of Al-Qaeda focuses their hatred on the western world and are responsible for the attacks on the US. There is Al-Qaeda in Iraq (denoted as AQI because it is different that the Al-Qaeda led by Bin Laden), but their goal is to destroy the shiites. Not the US. Which is why Al-Zarqawi declared an all-out war on the Shiites...not the US.

We're there now in effort to stabilize the country, not to protect us from future attacks.

Bin Laden's Al-Qaeda is alive and well, safe in Pakistan where they are strengthening, mobilizing and getting ready for more attacks on the US.

So where do you think we should be if you had to choose?


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Matt.

Harry Truman said it best.......

Read my tag line. We don't want to fight them on our soil.

At least not til I get a couple more automatic weapons.


----------



## goldhunter470 (Feb 25, 2005)

> I know this is confusing to a lot of people...actually, I'd be willing to bet most Americans don't have a sound idea of what actually is happening in Iraq. It is complicated.


It's complicated because we've been systematically lied to from day one....


----------



## sdeprie (May 1, 2004)

The question I have is: "Who was lying to us?"


----------



## goldhunter470 (Feb 25, 2005)

The real question, sir is: "Who *hasn't* lied to us?"


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

goldhunter470 said:


> The real question, sir is: "Who *hasn't* lied to us?"


and



> It's complicated because we've been systematically lied to from day one....


And we have been lied to about being lied to. Your right it is complicated. It all gets down to which lier your going to believe. I guess if your talking about the Iraq war:
In agreement: 
Bush and our Pentagon
Our congress liberal and conservative
Russia
Germany
England
etc
all thinking the same thing about Iraq

Liberals on the other side when we found no WMD's, and they seen political advantage. You know those buttons you see that say Bush lied people died. Well they should read liberals lied people died. Why? Because for the past two three years they have extended the war by giving hope to the opposition in Iraq. They are still subverting Iraqi democracy for political gain. No conscience is the problem.


----------



## goldhunter470 (Feb 25, 2005)

> They are still subverting Iraqi democracy for political gain.


This is dead on. Everything these idiots in Washington, liberal and conservative, do is about power and we continue to allow ourselves to be divided along ideological plains. Classic divide and conquer. If most of us could see the forest for the trees, this country, and world, would move to a lot better level.


----------



## Whistler31 (Feb 1, 2007)

* The Al Qaeda Terrorists We Face In Iraq Are Part Of The Same Enemy That Attacked The United States On 9/11, And They Still Intend To Attack Us At Home. While there is a debate in Washington about al Qaeda's role in Iraq, the facts are that al Qaeda in Iraq is an organization founded by foreign terrorists, led largely by foreign terrorists, and loyal to Osama bin Laden.

Al Qaeda In Iraq's Founder And His Successor Were Foreign Terrorists, Not Iraqis

Al Qaeda In Iraq Was Founded By Foreign Terrorists Linked To Senior Al Qaeda Leadership. Al Qaeda in Iraq founder Abu Musab al Zarqawi was not an Iraqi and neither is his successor Abu Ayyub al-Masri.

* Jordanian Terrorist Abu Musab Al Zarqawi Founded Al Qaeda In Iraq And Pledged Allegiance To Osama Bin Laden.
o Before 9/11, Zarqawi ran a terrorist camp in Afghanistan. 
o According to our intelligence community, Zarqawi had longstanding relations with senior al Qaeda leaders and had met with Osama bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri. 
o In 2001, Zaraqawi left Afghanistan and eventually went to Iraq to set up operations with terrorist associates after Coalition forces destroyed his Afghan training camp.
o In 2004, Zarqawi and his terrorist group formally joined al Qaeda, pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden, and promised to "follow his orders in jihad." 
o Bin Laden publicly declared Zarqawi the "Prince of Al Qaeda in Iraq" and instructed terrorists in Iraq to "listen to him and obey him."

* Zarqawi's Successor Abu Ayyub Al-Masri Is An Egyptian Who Also Has Deep And Longstanding Ties To Al Qaeda Senior Leadership. 
o Abu Ayyub has collaborated with Ayman Zawahiri for more than two decades. 
o Before 9/11, Abu Ayyub spent time with al Qaeda in Afghanistan and taught classes indoctrinating others in al Qaeda's radical ideology. 
o Last year Osama bin Laden tried to send a terrorist leader named Abd al-Hadi al Iraqi to help Abu Ayyub.
+ According to our intelligence community, Abd al-Hadi was a senior advisor to bin Laden who served as his top commander in Afghanistan. 
+ Abd al-Hadi never made it to Iraq. He was captured last year and now is held at Guantanamo Bay.

* Our Intelligence Community Reports That Many Of Al Qaeda In Iraq's Other Senior-Most Leaders Are Also Foreign Terrorists. These foreign terrorists include:
o A Syrian who is al Qaeda in Iraq's emir in Baghdad
o A Saudi who is al Qaeda in Iraq's top spiritual and legal advisor
o An Egyptian who fought in Afghanistan in the 1990s and has met with Osama bin Laden
o A Tunisian we believe plays a key role in managing foreign fighters
o Last month, Coalition forces killed senior al Qaeda facilitator Mehmet Yilmaz, a Turkish national who fought with al Qaeda in Afghanistan and met with Khalid Shaykh Muhammad and other senior al Qaeda leaders.

Al Qaeda In Iraq Tries To Deceive Others Into Thinking It Is An Iraqi-Led Operation

The Recent Capture Of Al Qaeda In Iraq's Most Senior Iraqi Official Reveals That The Group Is Led By Foreigners Who Are Trying To Deceive Others Into Thinking They Are Iraqis. On July 4, Coalition forces captured a senior al Qaeda in Iraq leader named Khalid Abdul Fattah Da'ud Mahmoud al-Mashadani, the highest ranking Iraqi in the organization.

* Mashadani said the foreign leaders of al Qaeda in Iraq went to extraordinary lengths to promote the fiction that al Qaeda in Iraq is led by Iraqis.
* Mashadani said al Qaeda in Iraq went so far as to create a figurehead whom they named "Omar al-Baghdadi" so that Iraqi fighters would think they are following the orders of an Iraqi instead of a foreigner. 
* Mashadani said Abu Ayyub and his team of foreign leaders, not Iraqis, make most of the operational decisions for al Qaeda in Iraq.

According To Our Intelligence Community, Al Qaeda Senior Leaders And Al Qaeda's Leaders In Iraq "See Al Qaeda In Iraq As Part Of Al Qaeda's Decentralized Chain Of Command, Not As A Separate Group." Al Qaeda in Iraq is not just collaborating with al Qaeda leaders or maintaining contacts with them, they have formally merged with them and pledged baya'at, or loyalty, to Osama bin Laden.

* Our intelligence community concludes that "Al Qaeda and its regional node in Iraq are united in their overarching strategy."

Al Qaeda Is The Greatest Threat To Security In Iraq Due To Their Constant Attempts At Inflaming Sectarian War Through Large-Scale Bombings

Our Intelligence Community Believes Al Qaeda Is The Most Dangerous Of The Sunni Extremist Groups In Iraq.

* Al Qaeda In Iraq, More Than Any Other Group, Is Behind Most Of The Spectacular, High-Casualty Attacks Seen On TV. Our military estimates that between 80 and 90 percent of suicide attacks in Iraq are carried out by foreign-born al Qaeda terrorists brought into the country for the sole purpose of blowing themselves up and killing innocent Iraq civilians.

* Al Qaeda Designs Their Attacks To Accelerate Sectarian Violence In Iraq. Al Qaeda attacks Shia in hopes of sparking reprisal attacks that inspire Sunnis to join al Qaeda's cause.

* Al Qaeda Is The Only Terrorist Group In Iraq With Stated Ambitions To Make The Country A Base For Attacks Outside Iraq. Al Qaeda in Iraq dispatched terrorists who bombed a wedding reception in Jordan and sent operatives to Jordan where they attempted a rocket attack on U.S Navy ships in the Red Sea.

* Al Qaeda In Iraq Shares Bin Laden's Goal Of Making Iraq A Base For Its Radical Islamic Empire And Using It As A Safe Haven For Attacks On America.

* This Is Why Our Intelligence Community Reports That Al Qaeda In Iraq, Compared With Other Groups, "Stands Out For Its Extremism, Unmatched Operational Strength, Foreign Leadership, And Determination To Take The Jihad Beyond Iraq's Borders."

Iraq Is Central To The War On Terror, And America Can Accept Nothing Less Than Complete Victory

* These Killers' Own Words Show That They Would Not Stop Trying To Kill Americans And Others Were We To Leave Iraq. 
o We know their intentions. Just last November, al Qaeda's top commander in Iraq issued an audio statement saying he will not rest until he attacked our Nation's capital.

* For The Security Of Our Citizens, And The Peace Of The World, We Must Give General Petraeus And His Troops The Time And Resources They Need To Defeat Al Qaeda In Iraq. We have already seen how al Qaeda used a failed state in Afghanistan to bring death and destruction to the street of our cities. The costs of withdrawal could be catastrophic:
o Sectarian violence in Iraq could increase dramatically, raising the prospect of mass casualties.
o Fighting could engulf the entire region in chaos. 
o We could soon face a Middle East dominated by violent Islamic extremists.

* Recent Successes In Anbar Province Show That This Is A Fight We Can Win. Less than a year ago, Anbar Province was al Qaeda's base in Iraq, but U.S. and Iraqi forces have since teamed with Sunni sheiks who have turned against al Qaeda and driven the terrorists from most of the population centers. Our troops are now working to replicate the success in Anbar in other parts of the country.

The facts are that al Qaeda terrorists killed Americans on 9/11, are fighting us in Iraq and across the world, and are plotting to kill Americans here at home again. Those who justify withdrawing our troops from Iraq by denying the threat of al Qaeda in Iraq and its ties to Osama bin Laden ignore the clear consequences of such a retreat. Following their advice would be dangerous for the world and disastrous for America. So we must defeat al Qaeda in Iraq-and we will.


----------



## goldhunter470 (Feb 25, 2005)

Not exactly sure what that was about so I googled it. Word for word taken from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 724-9.html
"Fact" sheet. lol Some people will never get it...


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

So? Guess you've never seen a pasted article where the little tick marks identify it as such. You're right though, some people never get it and it is no surprise you weren't sure what the article was about. Paste, quote, or posters opinion & thoughts still doesn't change the fact the article is factual. You made the comment once some people don't have a clue what is really going on in Iraq. I would suggest you are either in that group or you're in complete denial.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

goldhunter, thanks for pointing that out!

It's one thing to post an article from a news source that is going to be slightly biased one way or the other...

...but a press release from the White House! Come On! Hmm, I wonder what stance they're going to take? :roll:

It's the most biased information you could find. I'm glad someone pointed it out.


----------



## goldhunter470 (Feb 25, 2005)

Like I said Matt. Some people will never get it.

And I knew what the article was about. Just didn't see any reference as to where it came from and what it had to do with anything. Pretty easy to see that it was a cut and paste. Just looking for some transparency.


----------



## sdeprie (May 1, 2004)

goldhunter470, Matt: So, what part am I not getting?

The one that Al-Queda is actually our pacifist friend and if we would quit picking on them they would leave us alone? Terrorists are terrorists. Even our friendly terrorists are still terrorists and have to be brought to understand that terrorism will not be tolerated.

Or maybe about the part that WE are the destabilizing force in Iraq? If we would just leave, they would come to a friendly understanding? There are 2 styles of Muslims; a fanatic style, of which Al-Queda is only one faction; and a reasonable one, which actually is more tolerant of "Infidels." We are trying to support the more reasonable Muslims until they can get the whole picture and unite against the fanatics, who they will eventually see cause more trouble than they are worth.

We all know politicians lie. Actually, it is pretty easy to tell when they are lying. Their lips are moving. Try listening to the reports of people actually there. I don't mean the media. If it doesn't bleed, it's not newsworthy. They refuse to report on anything but bloodbaths. There is lots of documentation fo the positive things we have accomplished there. The more the insurgents attack us, the more desperate they are, because they know we are winning support of the Iraqi people. Sure, many Iraqis are tired of our being there. Even they don't believe they would be safer if we just left. They just need a way to voice their fear and frustration. If we compare their protests to our own, we would think everyone in the US is protesting the Olympics. Media coverage......


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

sdeprie said:


> The one that Al-Queda is actually our pacifist friend and if we would quit picking on them they would leave us alone? Terrorists are terrorists. Even our friendly terrorists are still terrorists and have to be brought to understand that terrorism will not be tolerated.


Who said they were pacifists? Don't distort my viewpoint simply because it is different than yours.

What I said, is that in Iraq the Sunnis (AQI) are mainly after the Shiites, and vice versa. That is _the_ Conflict. Because of the presence of US troops and because they're interfering with the civil war they have become a target as well. It's their beef...they want us to stay out of it.



sdeprie said:


> Or maybe about the part that WE are the destabilizing force in Iraq? If we would just leave, they would come to a friendly understanding?


No, they won't come to a peaceful understanding. They have been fighting each other for 1400 years. There isn't a peaceful resolution to this!!! That's what people like yourself do not understand. It won't matter if we're there 100 years...there isn't going to be a peaceful resolution.

The only way to stop the conflict is through the use of brutal force. Which the US will never be allowed to do. Saddam knew how to make them fall in line, and let's be honest his methods worked.

By removing him, we destabilized the country.



sdeprie said:


> There are 2 styles of Muslims; a fanatic style, of which Al-Queda is only one faction; and a reasonable one, which actually is more tolerant of "Infidels." We are trying to support the more reasonable Muslims until they can get the whole picture and unite against the fanatics, who they will eventually see cause more trouble than they are worth.


Do you think we are decreasing the number of them who want to kill us by being there? I don't. I think the longer we stay, the more fanatics we are creating.



sdeprie said:


> We all know politicians lie. Actually, it is pretty easy to tell when they are lying. Their lips are moving. Try listening to the reports of people actually there. I don't mean the media. If it doesn't bleed, it's not newsworthy. They refuse to report on anything but bloodbaths. *There is lots of documentation fo the positive things we have accomplished there*.


Like what???

I have 4 friends who have been to Iraq. 3 out of 4 have nothing positive to say about it. One was my roommate for 2 years before he had to be shipped out...now that he's back I've talked to him a lot about the clusterfock that's going on over there.

Baghdad still has far less electricity and water than they did before the war. We haven't even been able to get them basic utilities in 5 years and over 500 billion dollars spent. And that sounds like 'good progress' to you? So they've built a few schools for PR...big deal.

There is growing sentiment throughout the population that feel they were better off under Saddam.



sdeprie said:


> The more the insurgents attack us, the more desperate they are, because they know we are winning support of the Iraqi people. Sure, many Iraqis are tired of our being there. Even they don't believe they would be safer if we just left. They just need a way to voice their fear and frustration.


Unfortunately I don't agree with you. We're just going to have to disagree because obviously we have countering viewpoints of what we believe is going on over there.

With Iraq, there aren't any good solutions. There are bad solutions, and there are worse solutions. I think it's time we (as a country) faced those facts and got the hell out of dodge.

We can't afford to stay there as permanent "peace" keepers...

...because these people are going to fight each other regardless of what we do. We need to just let them do it. One side will win and take over the country, and at that point Iraq will be much easier to deal with.

I just don't see how bankrupting our country and weakening our military is going to make us safer???

I think even Bush realizes this, that there isn't a good resolution. He wants to stay there and hand the mess off to the next guy so when we pull out and things go to hell in a handbasket, he can say it wasn't his fault.

But it's going to happen. Things are going to get much worse before they can get better. We just need to ask what's better for us; to have it happen soon and cut our losses or after 10-20-50-100 more years later, thousands more dead later, and trillions of dollars spent later.


----------

