Mickey

So many lies, so little time. I'm sure my buddies on the right can hold up their end in making sure no democratic lies evade scrutiny like the time Kerry claimed to be Irish on St. Patrick's Day. I'm just holding up my end of the line here. You see, I'm all about responsibility. The funny thing is that we will probably see this gradually trickle through the internet as some new startling revelation about Soros, that he is financed by drug cartels. I've always wanted to pull one of these in court: "Okay Mr. Soandso, is true that you brutally murdered your mother when she stumbled upon you taking lewd liberties with the family hamster?" When the other side objects you look at the jury with your best "can you beleive this guy?" look and before the Judge rules on it, you hold up you hand and say "Withdrawn". It is best done while appearing to be referring to something that looks like an arrest report. The Fox guy was doing that with this interview. "Is it true that Soros gets his money from drug cartels?"

The question isn't about Soros, it is that the Speaker of the House is willing to go on national TV and lie his fanny off. Call me crazy but that bothers me a wee bit. I am not overcome with sympathy for Soros by any means. I thought the Republicans were all about moral values and character.

Hastert went on Fox and hinted that Soros gets his money from drug groups in favor of legalizing drugs, ie, drug cartels. When Soros called him on it he said he was talking about Soros having donated money to a number of groups in favor of legalizing drugs. BS. Soros gives money to those groups and on Fox Hastert was talking about where Soros gets his money from so he couldn't have meant the groups he donates to. The crap Hastert was throwing out there was just that and his backpedal dance is disingenuous and implausible. It is no secret where Soros gets his money and regardless of what you think of him or his political tastes, he certainly doesn't get money from drug cartels and hinting that he does on national TV is a disgraceful, shameful performance by the Speaker of the freakin' House. Here are the details complete with quotes: Hastert caught in a lie

A bigger load of BS I've never seen. Crap like "Buildings don't eat planes" and "The wings would have been shorn off". Really? What are statements like that based on? Empirical studies on what happens when a plane going 400MPH slams into a zillion tons of concrete? Nobody knows what happens when a plane hits a building. No such studies have ever been done. In fact, the two towers certainly did seem to "eat" the planes that flew into them. Those planes struck the sides and disappeared inside where they were practically vaporized. All the footage in this little piece of garbage is from outside the building. You just make matters worse by spreading this kind of lunacy. There are enough muslims who acutally believe that we would, as Israeli puppets, attack ourselves just to create an excuse to go after Iraq and Afghanistan. There is a good side to the internet. This would be a prime example of the bad side.

You seriously think that they chose NY and scheduled the convention so late for some reason other than to take political advantage of 9/11? Please. This is NYC, hardly a bastion of Republican voters. Prior to 9/11 it was pretty popular everywhere in the Republican states to mock out NYC as a center for liberal pansies. Bush isn't here because he can win in NY, he is here to take advantage of 9/11, pure and simple. As far as responding when the s-h-i-t hit the fan, I thought we all responded, I wasn't aware that it was only republicans who did. Thanks for clearing that up. You see, that is what we mean by exploiting 9/11 for political gain. Acting as if you people were the only ones who responded to that tragedy. Frankly, I was never more ashamed of an American President than I was on that day. He spent the day running and clueless. I had a friend die on 9/11 that I've known since the '70s. He was no republican. I can guarantee you that he is turning over in his grave thinking that his death is being used to help re-elect GWB.

I am sure it does, just as the "Lambs of God" turn off mainstream voters. As a democrat myself, I haven't seen these looneys at any of the meetings. Many of them aren't really democrats anymore, the party moved too far to the center under Clinton for them which is why we have Nader. Here is an article from Slate about police-protester interaction that, I think, is far more characteristic than the violent incident that occurred: You were expecting violence and mayhem? I am worried that violence might get worse as the week progresses for a lot of reasons. Bush is about as welcome in NYC I think as Kerry would be in Dallas. Their is a war on that is not all that popular, tempers and emotions are pretty high. Toss in the way the last Presidential election ended, the emotions of 9/11 and polls showing a dead heat and it isn't hard to imagine some major civil unrest going on. Really, a 100,000 protesters is a lot of people. That is really incredible and a cause for worry. I think the NYPD though is a good group to be able to handle this situation. They have seen it all and know how to handle large and potentially unruly crowds without raising tempers.

Bill, you can't paint us all with the same brush. That guy who set the bombs in Atlanta and shot that doctor was a republican. I wouldn't blame the republican party for him. I think something like 100,000 people marched on Sunday and out of that 100,000, how many were out of hand or even arrested? If you are going to blame the party as whole for everything some idiot or group of idiots do, then be fair, go both ways. Blame the republicans for a black guy getting dragged behind a pick up truck and for tying a gay kid up to a fence on the prarie.

Basically, it is smart politics for both parties to run to the center from the start of their convention to the election. The Democrats did it which is why there was so much on Kerry and his service record, it edges him to the right. The Republicans are doing the same thing. I think though that this is one election where the key isn't going to be to grab the few undecideds out there. Turnout will be the key as it usually is in close campaigns.

Why not voter IQ tests? How about a current events exam issued at the polling place? Just because a voter is registered doesn't mean that he has paid any attention to what is going on let alone has even a vague understanding of the issues. I never figured you for an elitist.

Your hypothetical is not complete. It would have to include the election being decided in one state by less than 600 votes where Kerry's brother is the governor with many allegations of ballot and polling place "irregularities". You would also have to add in state courts being overturned by federal courts on issues of state law with the whole mess being decided by a Supreme Court that just happens to have a number of Justices who were appointed by Kerry's father. If that happens and the left is silent and the right complains then yes indeed, everyone, right and left, will be hypocrites. Interesting. Apparently you are running out of things to mock the left out with so you are now imagining things they might do that might be worthy of being mocked at some point in the future. How clever of you.

11747[/snapback] My original post was in insult to the left?? Wow Mick, time to thicken up that skin a bit. Sorry if you felt that way, didn't mean it as an insult and after re-reading it, it sure didn't sound too insulting. If you were insulted, maybe it hit too close to home... 12038[/snapback] Here is what you said about the left on the board: "1. They have nothing to add anymore. 2. They realize their guy is in deep stevestojan. 3. They can't compete. 4. They're all on their way to NY in their best hippy gear to create chaos" Lets see now, all you said is that we are a bunch of hippies who can't compete because we are full of sh*t and have nothing else to offer. Gee, now why would I take that as an insult? Is that what you consider to be a cordial invitation to a meaningful exchange of ideas? Is this what you call mature? Look,

From the other side, all I usually see from the right is a regular refrain of "flip-floppper", "flopenstein", etc. etc. Talk about sound bytes. The lying swifties were quoted here and lauded long before they made it into the mainstream. Then when the proof started coming in that those guys are off the wall stooges, then all I heard from the right on this board was how meaningless it all was. From the same group that made it an issue. That was well before the convention in Boston. "Komrade Kerry" is another one I have seen over and over here. Same with "democrates". I am sure we have screaming looney's enough on our side but you certainly seem blind to your own group. Do you not read Wacka, Boomer/Cpt. Idiot, Gavin, RkFast, stuckincicny, Richio etc.? They almost never post a thought on an honest to goodness issue. Their posts are uniformly negative personal attacks against Kerry. You don't see posts from them along the line of "Kerry's proposal for a prescription drug benefit for veterans is good/bad/flawed/perfection because blah, blah, blah." Instead you hear "He's a flip-flopper", "Kerry lied about his age/medals/service/policies/favorite food/taxes/kids/cars/and pets." "Kerry had botox surgery", "Kerry had an affair", etc. etc. etc. The only thing keeping this board from essentially becoming an echo chamber for an army of parrots is the occasional reach across the divide that is accomplished by some of the more reasonable participants. That, ufortunately, is happening less and less. Take this thread for example. The basic theme is that the left has been a little quiet lately and the conclusion from that unproved, anecdotal piece of pure guesswork, is a list of insults aimed at everyone from the left. Those insults were authored by you and now here you are complaining that people on the left are sound byte oriented and have little to offer. If you do not see the screaming hypocrisy of that there is no point in even attempting to have a dialouge with you. I saw this thread started a few days ago and I never went past your post. It was clear that it was yet another insult the left party here at the PPP likely to draw the snickering applause of the typical candidates so I didn't waste my time reading any further. I checked it out today because I saw that blzrul had entered the fray so I wanted to see what creative new insults were tossed at her. If you are truly wondering why there aren't more meaningful exchanges of information and ideas here at the PPP, just re-read your post starting this thread and that should explain it to you.

Actually, not a single solitary piece of documenatary evidence has surfaced to support their story and further, every document that has been found refutes their story and supports Kerry. All the vets who served on Kerry's boat at the same time Kerry did also support his story. A number of vets involved in those actions have also come forward and verified Kerry's version. Documents have been found and in one case, an audio tape, that shows the lying swifties said one thing back then and quite another now. The official army records which include sworn statements all support Kerry. Further, a number of statements were made by the lying swifties long after the war and long before this election where they were very complimentary with regards to Kerry's service. All that changed once Kerry looked to be the democratic nominee and Bush campaign cash started to flow. IN the last week or two we have had a number of Bush campaign officials resign once their connection to the lying swifties was revealed. Even Dole, when he thought the cameras were off, agreed with McCain's statement that Bush should be ashamed of himself for the kind of tactics used against McCain then and Kerry now (What Bob Dole Really Thinks About Bush. By and large the lying swiftities themselves admit that they have no proof. Most people, if they had no proof, would shut the @#$#@$ up. On the other hand, Kerry's people have abundant proof including all the official reports. I agree with John McCain's opinon of these men, they have dishonored themselves.

Letterman said last night that the Mayor has asked New Yorkers to stay away from the convention prompting him to the wry observation that the party wants a New York convention without any New Yorkers.

Yes, we should just let the economically weak die so that they won't reproduce because economic productivity is a matter of genetics. We should let the infirm die, rip out those weeds. We should let the poor starve, rip out those weeds. We should let the sick who can't afford their own medicine suffer and die, rip out those weeds. Children who are born to parents who can't afford them, let them die lest they too reproduce, rip out those weeds. Let nature take its course. They are people, not weeds. There is a word for people who take care of those less fortunate: blessed.

According to the CBO, the top 20% in income paid 65% of the federal tax burden and the bottom 80% paid 35% of the taxes. The top 20% was made up of 22.5 million households and the entire country had 109 million households. Taxwise, they don't really deal with individuals, just households. Those kinds of numbers are thrown around to try and demonstrate that their are tons of poor people out there making out like bandits, not paying any taxes. That is more than a little misleading. Kids count as much as you or I on a population table but they don't pay taxes and I don't think they should be included but they have to in order to get that kind of stat. The same is true for the unemployed or the disabled. My other post has a link to the CBO numbers, check them out if you are really, really bored and want to see if you can bore yourself just a little more.

So on that theory, we should tax the wealthy at much lower rates inorder to have a truly flat, fair tax system? Lets use some real numbers from the CBO for 2001. The top fifth in income numbered 22.5 million people making an average of $182,700/yr before taxes and $133,700 after taxes. On average they each paid $49,000 in federal taxes, an effective rate of about 26.8%. The second lowest fifth numbered 21.1 million people who made an average of $34,200 before taxes and $30,000 after taxes. They paid an average of $4,000 in taxes, an effective rate of 11.6%. This is the system about which you complain and presumably want to change. That top fifth generated 1.1 Trillion in tax revenue while that second lowest fifth generated only 84.4 Billion dollars. You appear to be advocating that they all pay the same percentage and that, itself, is progressive enough. All told, those two groups generated 1.184 trillion in revenue. How much would be generated if they were taxed at the same rate and what rate would we have to use to generate the same amount of revenue? Lets say, for example, that we hit both groups at a rate of 18%. The top fifth would each pay about 32,900 per year and the second lowest fifth would pay 6,156 each. The after tax income of the upper group would be 149,800 as compared to the 133,700 under the old rate. They would get a $16,100 tax cut. Yippee for them. The lower group however would see their after tax income go from 30,200 to 28,044, a tax increase of $2,156, youch. How much revenue would we have generated? I'll spare you the math to get there but in the end, its about 314 Billion Dollars less than was generated under the actual system. So if you wanted to do that and balance the budget, all you have to do is come up with about 314 Billion in cuts. You can add in all the other income groups and the number just get worse. I am as big a fan of budget cutting as the next guy but 314 billion is just not going to happen. I beleive that total defense spending before 9/11 was in that range so imagine trying to elmenate the entire defense budget or the equivalent in other programs. It aint going to happen. Any idea what rate you would need to generate the same revenue with both groups all paying the same rates? About 24.5% would do it. That would mean that the lower group would have their taxes go from $4,000 to $8,379 reducing their after tax income from $30,200 to $25,821. Their taxes have been more than doubled. The good news though is that the top fifth would have their taxes lowered from $49,000/yr to $44,761/yr. That is a modest savings of $4,239. The question then is whether it is fair to double the taxes of 21.1 million people who are just scraping by on 30k after taxes inorder to give a lousy 4k boost to 22.5 million people who are coasting along at 133k+ per year after taxes as it is? The alternative would be to just scrap 314 billion off the budget and if you have a realisitc idea on how to do that, fine, I'd love to hear it. Do that first and there will be no need to argue the rest of this. Even if I were to agree that there is a progressive component in using percentages, that isn't progressive enough nor even practical unless you have no interest at all in a balanced budget on the one hand or see no problem in doubling the taxes on people trying to get by on 34k/yr. There is right, there is wrong, there is fair, there is unfair and then there is what's possible. Effective Federal Tax Rates 1979-2001

Riiigght. If you react you are a crybaby and if you don't, a cricket.

Taxes are a burden that has to be carried. Some people are bigger and stronger than others and can carry more weight than those who are smaller and weaker. Lets say you have 10 people and a tax burden of 100 pounds to be carried by them. An equal distribution, equal not fair, would be 10 pounds each. However, if 5 of them can carry 15 pounds just as easily as the other 5 carries 5 pounds, wouldn't a "fair" distribution be 15 pounds for the stronger 5 and 5 pounds each for the weaker 5? What is actually done with that tax money in terms of government expenditures is a different issue from distribution of the tax burden.

Basically a sales tax and no, it isn't fair. It sounds fair and it even sounds plausible but it is neither. A dollar to you may not be worth as much as a dollar to me. If all you have is a single dollar, that dollar is worth more to you than a person who has dollars to spare. This is a basic ecomonic principle, it is nothing new. Eat one candy bar and you are a happy camper, eat 50 candy bars and you end up vomiting away the afternoon in an emergency room somewhere. That last candy bar was not worth quite as much as the first. Such taxes can spur the development of a large scale black market. Cigarette taxes are so high that there is great deal of cigarette smuggling going on. The generated revenues are very difficult to predict and so budgeting becomes even more difficult. Why not just get rid of all deductions of every kind and retain the progressive system? Getting rid of deductions would mean increased revenues so the rates themselves could be lowered. All sources of income should be taxed at the same rate so that investment income is not favored over wage income. That would also lead to lower, albeit still progressive, tax rates. There are better ways to resolve the problems of our tax code than a sales tax.

Dude, lighten up. Your nihilism is really bumming me out man. Take my advice and watch some women's beach volleyball for awhile. It'll improve your world view I promise.

That is really why I haven't decided yet for sure who I am going to vote for although I obviously side with Kerry on social issues. Defense is a big issue. That story I related from Woodward's book really made me worry about Bush's decision making process. So often people want to boil such issues down to elementary characterizations such as whether so-and-so is "tough". Those are ridiculous simplifications that are more often than not, meaningless. The President is essentially a decision maker. The question is who do I trust to make better decisions, Bush or Kerry? I figure Kerry is smarter and much less likely to be swayed by others. He will lead rather than be led. Both of those traits can be drawbacks in certain circumstances. People can outsmart themselves, happens all the time. There is a thin line between being overly swayed by others and arrogantly ignoring the opinions of others. Bush is going to stick to a decision come what may and that can be good but it can be lunacy in certain circumstances. If what you are doing is cleary not working, it is crazy not to try a different tack. He listens to others but we elected him to make the decisions, we elected his judgment, not Cheney's. I've seen Bush in a crisis and I wasn't impressed. I haven't seen Kerry in a crisis yet so I can't compare the two. Defense is a big issue but it isn't the only one. I am not really sure that in terms of terrorism, the outcome of the election is going to be all that critical anyway. Regardless of who wins, they are still going to be doing their best to kill us. Regardless of who wins, we will be doing the best we can to stop them.

His Viet Nam service isn't the only reason to vote for Kerry, there are plenty of others on a whole host of issues. His website lays out his positions comprehensively and includes links to his speeches and proposals. I think your mind is probably made up so there is no reason for you to bother wading through all that information. As much as I dislike Bush's positions on a variety of issues, I am still not sure who I am going to vote for because there is just too much time between now and the election for me to decide. One thing I did recently learn that I didn't know before was the role Kerry played in taking down BCCI, the favorite bank of terrorists including bin Laden. Check it out: How John Kerry Busted the Terrorists' Favorite Bank The ranking Republican on Kerry's committee (Sen. Hank Brown) said of Kerry's role in busting BCCI: "John Kerry was willing to spearhead this difficult investigation, because many important members of his own party were involved in this scandal, it was a distasteful subject for other committee and subcommittee chairmen to investigate. They did not. John Kerry did." By the way, one GW Bush engineered a $25 Million dollar loan from a BCCI joint venture to Harken Energy. I'm sensing a theme emerging here. An ugly job, no one wants to do it, some stay on the sidelines but not Kerry, he shoulders his share of the load. Some report for duty, some don't.

Here is one link to a CNN transcript on the story, O'Neill is caught saying this to President Nixon, on tape: O'Neill said no one could cross the border by river and he claimed in an audio tape that his publicist played to CNN that he, himself, had never been to Cambodia either. But in 1971, O'Neill said precisely the opposite to then President Richard Nixon." O'NEILL: I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border on the water. NIXON: In a swift boat? O'NEILL: Yes, sir. (END VIDEOTAPE) CNN Transcript Here is another link where O-Neill was confronted with his own words: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,130048,00.html Apparently, when he said he was "in Cambodia" he obviously didn't mean that he was "in Cambodia". See, it all depends on what your definition of "in" is.

Shame, shame, shame. These guys are bigger liars than I thought. I didn't know that a couple of these shills were awarded the Bronze Star themselves based on reports of the action they signed that said that there was indeed small arms fire. I guess their memories of the event now, 36 years later, are better than their memories were then immediatley after the event.