Congratulations President Bush, 6 yrs. with no terrorist attack on US soil!

reply to post by austinthetitan

And what kind of credit it that?,

Hi Austin, There is a lot of silence out there concerning Bush's success in homeland security. What's the big deal about not giving him some credit? If it had been done on Clinton's watch he/she and the media would have endless orgasmic praise! But we can't say anything good about Bush, oh gosh no!

Originally posted by semperfortis
The Liberals are trying to silence the only conservative voice that is making an impact... FACT... Regardless of your spin

no, they aren't

Higher taxes?

That is a no brainer..

You libs want to punish success.. Just like good little Socialists, you want everyone equal and no one to excel above anyone else.. So you tax what YOU call the rich...

no, we actually want everyone to have a good standing. if you achieve you get to have more, if you can't achieve as much for some reason or another you get to survive with a fairly good standing.

see, you're just repeating the party line that we're damn commies that don't want people to excel. we have no problem with it, we just want those that don't excel to have a good standard of living in terms of things like healthcare.

WHO THE HECK ARE YOU TO DECIDE WHO HAS TOO MUCH MONEY? Are you playing GOD?

now that's just an idiotic argument.

At what point do I begin to make too much money? You tell me please as it is you defending this pile of excrement...

depends on several things, cost of living, the size of the family you support, and how much money you're giving to charity. let's say you live in modern america, and you're earning $400-500,000 a year... that's far more than you need to live. you should definitely get taxed more than someone that earns $40-50,000 a year that supports the same size family as you do.

Economic study after economic study has shown that REDUCING taxes increases the TAX revenue.. FACT

yes... then we should cut all the taxes from the lower classes, instead of cutting the taxes of those that could lose 3/4ths of their income and still live better than those that carry the highest tax burden in america.

Liberal equals Socialism equals Communism

no, that's wrong. i'm pretty sure the majority of liberals are practicing religious folk, so i'm sure that they aren't communists.

Spin it all you want, the facts are there

1. Redistribution of Wealth by the Government through higher taxes

...some of the wealth does need to be redistributed, not all of it.
especially when some people are living without healthcare, regardless of how hard they work.

2. Squashing of any voice that is contrary to the Liberal Philosophy

yes, because you believe the kool-aid myth of the "liberal media"
newsflash, most people in the media are right of center or in the center.

3. Creation of the Welfare State

to an extent, yes. we want people to be able to live.
life, liberty, property... that's the liberal motto. LIFE, that's the big one. life entails food, shelter, and healthcare...
what is it that you conservatives have against socialized healthcare? is it just that you're too much in love with the current corporate drug system that overcharges us?

Facts and Facts and Facts, not opinion, facts

the facts and facts and facts you skew.
socialist in the modern sense and socialist in the cold war sense are two different things. france is a socialist nation. it's a great nation. hell, i'd say it's even better than either country i have citizenship in. higher life expectancy, better standard of living, best healthcare system in the world, less crime, the list goes on... and yet they don't claim that they're the best in the world... odd

Again it is clear..

I post link after link with facts and proof

I am supposedly "refuted" by opinion, supposition and "Well I said it" so it must be true...

This is why the American public needs to be informed...

The emotional aspect of your argument is without base and substance, yet that is how most if not all Liberals are. When confronted with FACTS, such as I have presented, they respond with "No Your Wrong" or "Your Just Spinning It"

Well I could always say that those that argue with me are "Pink Skinned Marmots" does not make it so, but just like your argument, it can be said..

no, they aren't

Why? Because YOU say it?

no, we actually want everyone to have a good standing. if you achieve you get to have more,

You advocate higher taxes on the supposed rich. So by your very own admission, the more you get, the more you want to take

What your saying doesn't wash

we just want those that don't excel to have a good standard of living

Exactly!!!! My point perfectly...

By your VERY OWN WORDS AGAIN!!!

You want those that want to sit around on their duffs, doing nothing, to profit from my hard work..

Wonderful analogy... THAT IS THE REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH
THAT IS A SOCIALIST CONCEPT
Thanks

now that's just an idiotic argument.

Please explain to me why it is idiotic, as you put it, to want to know exactly who the person or persons are that will determine when I have gone above the limit of success you will institute? Who in a FREE country has that right?

that's far more than you need to live.

ACCORDING TO WHO????? YOU????

I think it is perfectly acceptable for someone to work hard, make investments, take chances and begin earning even millions..

In your Socialist society is YOUR opinion more valid then MINE?
If so Why????

yes... then we should cut all the taxes from the lower classes,

And completely lose any incentives to work, then we can all sit around and live off the government...
Your perfect Socialist/Communist Community

no, that's wrong. i'm pretty sure the majority of liberals are practicing religious folk, so i'm sure that they aren't communists.

WHAT????

You do know the definition of Communism don't you? It has nothing to do with religion...
SHOOT... Here let me help

Communism
1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2. (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
3. (initial capital letter) the principles and practices of the Communist party.

Dictionary

some of the wealth does need to be redistributed

Thanks for supporting my position

When you TAKE what I have honestly earned, the FREEDOM is gone

newsflash, most people in the media are right of center or in the center.

Completely wrong

Take a look at the VAST number of media organizations that have contributed to the Democratic Party...
LIBERAL

Journalist Taking Sides

I counted and out of the 143 listed, 120+ contributed to the DEMOCRAT Party...

See now? PROOF
Not just what one says, PROOF

what is it that you conservatives have against socialized healthcare?

I'm against SOCIALIZED ANYTHING

the facts and facts and facts you skew.

Skewing facts????

Interesting...

So you claim your OPINION and SUPPOSITION that you have been posting is MORE VALID?
Why? Again, because YOU say so?

Every one of your suppositions has been refuted with FACT. That is because the facts are there for all to see for themselves and I have no problem posting them..

Semper

Originally posted by semperfortis

no, they aren't

Why? Because YOU say it?

no, because you haven't been able to show adequate evidence that they are.

You advocate higher taxes on the supposed rich. So by your very own admission, the more you get, the more you want to take

What your saying doesn't wash

...but you'd still be left with substantially more than those that achieve less. what i say does wash, you're assuming that achievement wouldn't matter because of progressively higher taxation. the progress of taxation rates wouldn't be directly proportional to the progress of income. it would be significantly less.

we just want those that don't excel to have a good standard of living

Exactly!!!! My point perfectly...

By your VERY OWN WORDS AGAIN!!!

You want those that want to sit around on their duffs, doing nothing, to profit from my hard work..


re-read what i said. those that don't EXCEL. i never those that don't WORK. and again, this isn't about profit, it's about living. do you expect a homeless person in modern america that has a psychological condition to just get off the street and start earning? no, those people need medical treatment before they can be integrated into society and start earning.

Wonderful analogy... THAT IS THE REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH
THAT IS A SOCIALIST CONCEPT
Thanks

your welcome for taking what i said and turning it into something else

Please explain to me why it is idiotic, as you put it, to want to know exactly who the person or persons are that will determine when I have gone above the limit of success you will institute?

it's not like i'm going to take away all income above X, income would be taxed progressively.

Who in a FREE country has that right?

you don't live in a free country, you live in a relatively free country...

ACCORDING TO WHO????? YOU????

you don't have to shout and use and excessive number of question marks, one or the other works fine.
clearly what you need to live is a bit of an easy thing to measure. there's something called a "cost of living"

I think it is perfectly acceptable for someone to work hard, make investments, take chances and begin earning even millions..

In your Socialist society is YOUR opinion more valid then MINE?
If so Why????

i never said it was wrong that people earn millions, i just think they should have a higher tax burden than those that struggle to feed their kids and can't afford health insurance.

and here's the funny thing... so many of the wealthy haven't actually done any hard work. they get money through inheritance...
this isn't my opinion here. i'm just saying it's obscene for people to have millions of dollars while there are millions of people that actually need that money for something useful than a 4th ferrari.

And completely lose any incentives to work, then we can all sit around and live off the government...

... if we cut taxes from the poor they'd still have to earn an income. they'd still have to survive, and they'd have more income to survive on and possibly advance their position with.

i have put forward no way for them to just sit around living off the government, yet you assume i have.
odd, it's like you're not actually arguing against me, but a straw man. i'll go contact dorothy so she can bring him over here to take my place.

Your perfect Socialist/Communist Community

again with an ad hom attack... you're actually creating a straw man to. you're creating a fake opinion and assigning it to me...

WHAT????

You do know the definition of Communism don't you? It has nothing to do with religion...
SHOOT... Here let me help

you're not talking about communists, you're talking about liberals.

i know the definition of communism, and i know the founders of it.
look into the acts of the apostles, see how capitalist they were.

Thanks for supporting my position

When you TAKE what I have honestly earned, the FREEDOM is gone

and when you force third world countries into a position where they will have to remain is such a position so you can continue to prosper, their freedom doesn't exist.

and honestly, i'd rather take away a bit of "freedom" from a well off american than watch more people starve in third world countries.

Completely wrong

Take a look at the VAST number of media organizations that have contributed to the Democratic Party...
LIBERAL

Journalist Taking Sides

I counted and out of the 143 listed, 120+ contributed to the DEMOCRAT Party...

you just said that the democrats are liberal... they may be left of center, but not liberal. and another thing... you just showed me journalists... how about the stories the media runs? got any proof that the positions of the news etc are liberal? they seem quite conservative. i haven't seen a single news organization taking up the position of amnesty international and the UN that israel is guilty of war crimes...

honestly, it doesn't matter who they are, these people are reporting quite conservatively. i didn't say anyone accusing the USA of war crimes when it attacked fallujah (many were committed there)... i actually saw a sickening amount of praise for our "success" in turning a beautiful city into a smoldering ruin.

See now? PROOF
Not just what one says, PROOF

proof... that doesn't list the entirety of the media... odd
it's like they took a sample. i mean, they have o'reilly's producer, but not o'reilly. kind of suspicious sampling.

I'm against SOCIALIZED ANYTHING

oh. so you don't support the SOCIALIZED police, the SOCIALIZED libraries, SOCIALIZED schools, SOCIALIZED roads, SOCIALIZED firefighters and the SOCIALIZED military?

odd.. i thought you liked the military. you actually support quite a bit of socialized

Skewing facts????

Interesting...

So you claim your OPINION and SUPPOSITION that you have been posting is MORE VALID?
Why? Again, because YOU say so?

actually, part of what we're arguing is political philosophy. one can argue on political philosophy without facts...

right now, i'm giving arguments instead of data, because that's all i feel like doing.... especially since this little discussion is a tangent to the main topic.

Every one of your suppositions has been refuted with FACT. That is because the facts are there for all to see for themselves and I have no problem posting them..

i could post numbers, i could post "facts" but i don't want to. this isn't the main topic of the thread, it's thread jacking. start a thread, then we'll throw numbers around

Semper

sorry, you'll have to change this because you don't support anything socialized.

i just want to ask you:
how can conservatives make any progress?

Congratulations to all Americans. We have taken the fight from the streets of manhattan to the hills and villages of the arab world. And I sincerly hope that every American who has died is compensated a 100 fold in enemy corpses.

no, because you haven't been able to show adequate evidence that they are.

You have shown NO EVIDENCE at all

That one statement completely refutes your stance and any validity the rest of your statement may or may not have..

How ridiculous is it that YOU call for evidence, and yet post none yourself!!!!

I thought this was a serious debate. Apparently I was wrong

Later

Semper

right now, i'm giving arguments instead of data, because that's all i feel like doing....

reply to post by madnessinmysoul
Hi Madness,

Liberals argue a lot using their feelings as you do here. That is because they do not have the facts to back them up. You need something if you are trying to argue with Semper!

That's ok Plum...

I have no intention of continuing the debate with him

If one can even call posting opinion, supposition and innuendo a debate

It is funny though how the Libs actually almost congratulate Clinton on soiling the office of President and wont even thank Bush for what he is doing right...

Well not so much funny as pathetic and expected...

You will find that I have given up, for all practical purposes, in discussing anything with the flaming libs on here.

All they have is personal experience, opinion and insults. It is almost impossible to debate on a professional level with them any more...

Just wait until a Republican wins again!!! That will be a hoot....

Of course he will "Steal" it just like they say every Republican does.. LOL

Semper

6 years ago President Bush made the decision to take the war on terrorism to the terrorists and fight the war in Afganistan and Iraque. Good move IMHO. The military has benifited greatly by staying at the cutting edge so to speak in its equipment, methodology and tactics. A military that stays in the garrison all the time soon becomes like the.. well I was going to say like the French, but I appreciate the French so I won't. But it looses its edge. I think these days our military needs to be as good as it can be!

reply to post by plumranch


i'm not using emotion, i'm just trying to make sure the tangent that i've been on with semp doesn't last too long. it's a complete derailment of the thread

reply to post by semperfortis


i've shown no evidence because this isn't a thread about the topic you and i are discussing.... thanks for ignoring all my counterpoints and the statements i made regarding how we're off topic

Originally posted by plumranch
6 years ago President Bush made the decision to take the war on terrorism to the terrorists and fight the war in Afganistan and Iraque.

um... what terrorists in iraq? there was absolutely no link between al qaeda and iraq. afghanistan i can agree with, but any trained monkey would have known that we needed to fix the mistakes we made in afghanistan during the cold war

Good move IMHO.

no really in the case of iraq...

The military has benifited greatly by staying at the cutting edge so to speak in its equipment, methodology and tactics.

we're actually not on the cutting edge tactics wise. we really are doing horribly in dealing with the insurgency situation we now find ourselves in.

A military that stays in the garrison all the time soon becomes like the.. well I was going to say like the French, but I appreciate the French so I won't. But it looses its edge. I think these days our military needs to be as good as it can be!

...no it doesn't. hell, if we look back at the founding of our country, you'll see that the founding fathers didn't even believe in having a standing military.