More Tall Tales From the Bush Administration

[Utah]

I've never said anything sympathetic about Hezbollah, unless by pointing out the fact that Hezbollah didn't exist until the Israelis started bombing Shiite villages in Southern Lebanon. Statements of historical fact shouldn't be construed as necessary "sympathy."

Yes, that is sympathetic in the true sense of the word. You do not think that they are borne out of evil but rather are a result of Israeli action. Nothing really wrong with being sympathic to a group, although it allows me to take free shots at you [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Which means that Bush could have stood 90% of Iraq's population against a wall, shot them, and if the survivors say they're glad Saddam's gone then Bush is exonerated from murder. That's smart.

Which, of course, is not what he did. There is always trade-offs and hard decisions. Again, you want to forget that there was a hell of a lot of killing in Iraq before we got there. Let me ask you, what if the president accurately estimated that Saddam would kill 20,000 of his own people if he did not invade. Would you then be in favor of the invasion? You need to recognize lives were also saved even if we dont know the balance.

Just curious, do you call congress and the president murderers for allowing a 55 mph speed limit or allowing for the consumption of alcohol which combined causes something like 50,000 deaths a year?

That's an unusually candid expression of the racist/imperialist mindset: the families of the civilians we kill aren't even "upset" about the deaths. Probably some sort of Muslim death wish thing.

Faulty logic of course. The question is whether they would have supported the war before their love ones died. Easy to be upset when you draw the short straw.

Its like asking a family of someone killed by a drunk driver if they favor relaxing drinking and driving laws.

[Taxman]

I must say that I have a hard time not being a total jackass to you given your rediculous and hateful comments, but in the name of civility I will refrain. Do you really think people like Chris and myself hate our country so much? If so, you are the one that needs to talk to a first grader. The fact that you make irrational statements and then defend their logic by calling them something a child would understand is similarly rediculous. Also you should read my post below which you seemed to have ignored, probably because it's too sophisticated for a first grader. Your words are those of someone who doesn't actually know how to support his argument and thus resorts to ad hominem attacks to belittle those who know more than him. Your "simple example" is completely irrelevant given the statements I have already made defending myself against your boorish attack. Even if I did not make those comments, your example still fails because you never provided a sound basis for your original argument. I repeat again, if you don't understand a point your best bet would be not to respond to it.

[Utah]

If you read the posts carefully, you would see that Alger brought up the first grade thing first.

Also, as far as Alger hating his country, we have debated the issue ad nauseum and I therefore do not want to rehash it again. I would submit that in this thread Alger calls the U.S. terrorists. Enough said.

Finally, I have always felt that when you insult someone that you should not look like a fool doing so. I would have pointed out that you were incapable of spelling ridiculous and therefore looked ridiculous yourself. But in the name of civility, I will refrain.

[adios]

"I love how your entire article of pages and pages is all based fron the NTU website, which is clearly a biased source."

Yep they're biased against tax increases.

"I also like how they don't talk about how many billions of dollars go to the military, far more than any other of the programs they are complaining about."

The article I posted was about how much each candidates proposals would increase government spending. There's plenty of information and papers on defense spending if you look for it on the site.

"They do mention the increase in government spending, but this doesn't qualify."

Qualify for what?

"If they're going to criticize the platforms of the democratic candidates, they should also take a look at more things about the current administration than it's tax cuts and vague comments about spending."

Again they have an article about Bush's State of the Union and the impact on the budget. Just look for it you'll find it. You're obfusccating. I'm pointing out Kerry's being disingenous about what him cutting the budget decicit.
Apparently you're not denying this.

"Based on the democratic platforms presented so far, even if they did repeal the tax cut, they would also significantly reduce spending."

Oh really. What specifically do you refute in the NTU study?

"Thus neither side can be entirely correct by their model."

Model of what?

"In this way, the plethora of information introduced here fails to make neither Kerry nor Bush look like the answer."

The answer to what?

"Again, corporate taxes differ from individual income taxes."

Don't understand your point. A tax is a tax. What constitutes taxable income to a corporation as opposed to taxable income to an individual are two different things for the most part. BTW the difficulty in defining taxable income for each and all categories of income earners is the reason the tax code is so complicated.

"It is possible to modify only some of the various taxes."

Wrong it's possible to modify all tax laws.

"I feel like many supporters of Bush have a real problem defining any faults in his presidency."

Ok

"No president has ever been perfect, but some people would have you believe that the current one is as close as we've been."

Everyone's entitled to their opinion.

"Perhaps this is a knee jerk reaction to the various criticisms of him, but such things are an integral part of politics."

If you say so.

"I can only hope that the perspective of history will reveal to those people, the big picture that they were missing during these last few years."

Do tell. Don't keep us in suspense.

[adios]

Well did he ever land on an aircraft carrier [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]? I'll bet you didn't think of the deserter comment all by yourself either.

[Taxman]

Well thanks for setting me straight. Obviously the coherency of my arguments is no match for your superior spelling skills. I would guess that Alger didn't call the US a terrorist state but more likely made a comment on its use of violence in Iraq. That may be a strong comment but it is not the same as hating America. No I didn't bother going thorugh the entire thread, but either way I don't care about such petty squabbling. I care about legitimate and logical debate.

[Utah]

I would guess that Alger didn't call the US a terrorist state but more likely made a comment on its use of violence in Iraq. That may be a strong comment but it is not the same as hating America.

Same diff. It is a tedious and long running debate between us. You are jumping in out of context.

Obviously the coherency of my arguments is no match for your superior spelling skills

No, I am a terrible speller. However, when I insult someone I usually double check my spelling [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[jokerswild]

No, it's a fact. He was grounded by the
Texas Air National Guard for being to drunk to fly. Since he couldn't play with the airplanes any more, he quit showing up for 18 months. That's the military experience of the appointed President.

[Taxman]

My point is that the quotes you provided all focused on the spending platforms of the deomcratic candidates. You were using them as evidence against htose candidates and I was merely pointing out an example of something that could and should be cut before all of the other programs those candidates support. "I'm pointing out Kerry's being disingenous about what him cutting the budget decicit." First off that sentence doesn't entirely make sense, but a clear objective of your post was to point out flaws in the democratic candidates, without balancing this with any similar comments on Bush. If you're going to quote that extensively then you should include other relevant information. Questioning every thing I say without explicitly defining it is a weak way to argue. I will try to be more specific, but you know what I meant by the model of either side (ie the economic policies). You are the one obfuscating now, discrediting the vague parts of my arguments without making any actual arguments of your own. Similarly the answer I refer to is obviously meant as the "answer" to solving the economic problems of today. The importance of the difference between corporate and individual taxes is that corporations might be more able and more willing to utilize extra capital in a more constructive manner than individual billionaires.

In your post you said, "wrong it's possible to modify all tax laws." Ok I'll give you this one (sorta), I was vague, but do you really think I'm dumb enough to think all laws can't be changed? I meant that a selective review of the type of taxes raised or lowered can be a useful and legitimate way of doing things as opposed to a unilateral decision of raising/lowering all taxes (or maybe this is done, but in a way to benefit only certain people. Yes, this is opinion, not fact). I'm not trying to refute the NTU model, I'm only doing what you are trying to do to me with your response, and that is cast a question over the ultimate truth provided by it. "BTW the difficulty in defining taxable income for each and all categories of income earners is the reason the tax code is so complicated." I couldn't agree more. I know I just mentioned selective review under our current system, but ultimately I think the tax code is in dire need of extensive simplification. Also there's no need to make obtuse comments to my observations. Everyone is indeed entitled to their opinion and I was just stating mine. And yes, I do say so: criticism is an integral part of politics (unless you prefer the soviet Russia model). History will tell (more about) how things really are now because that's how history works. I'm not so vain as to claim I know what that will mean. I do know that there are far more people that want tax cuts because they want more money, than care about the environmental health and future of our planet. And then there's the people who complain to high heaven about the probles with public education, but refuse to pay the taxes needed to bring about any improvements. Maybe if they just redirected the military budget, we could solve most of these problems, but that seems unlikely in the current political climate.

[MMMMMM]

Utah: ""The ones who are upset about the deaths are the liberals in the U.S., not the Iraqis."

Chris Alger: "That's an unusually candid expression of the racist/imperialist mindset: the families of the civilians we kill aren't even "upset" about the deaths. Probably some sort of Muslim death wish thing."

Utah: "Faulty logic of course. The question is whether they would have supported the war before their love ones died. Easy to be upset when you draw the short straw.[/b]"

Sorry but I can't help commenting that faulty logic does seem to be a recurring theme in many of Alger's arguments. Chris often does a fine (albeit slanted) job of assembling facts to bear out his case, but faulty logic is all too often a (major) stumbling block.

Not to mention that Utah's comment objectively gave zero indication of a racist or imperial mindset.