KRC

First, you were talking about terrorism. Now you are talking about WMD. I know it is difficult to stay on topic when you are just repeating talking points, but please make some semblence of an effort. Thank you.

Funny, I didn't know that AQ was the only terrorist organization we should be concerned with in the GWOT. Clinton put Iraq on the State Sponsors of Terrorism list. The UN specifically mentioned them in the countless resolutions after the cease-fire agreement. Iraq was to give up all ties to terrorist activities. They did not and the UN specifically mentioned that they did not give up those activities, violating the cease-fire agreement.

That was a Tennesseeboy-ism. Actually, all of the items mentioned were Tenny-isms.

...because, as we all know, the only terrorist group is AQ and the only terrorist activity before Gulf War Part Deux was 9/11.

Shhh...Terrorism did not exist in Iraq prior to the "invasion," remember. [cut-and-paste from previous posts] President Clinton had Iraq on the U.S. list of State sponsors of terrorism and the UN specifically listed Iraq (within resolutions) as a sponsor of terrorism. Terrorist groups: *Abu Nidal Organization – Received government sponsorship from Iraq *Ansar al-Islam – Received safe haven in Iraq *Arab Liberation Front – Formed and was stationed in Iraq. Iraq was the primary leader, and it is considered that this group was a proxy for the Iraqi government in the Palestinian Territories and in Lebanon. *Movement of Islamic Action of Iraq – Formed in 1982, it was based in Iraq and Iran. *Mujahedin-e-Khalq – Received military and financial support from Iraq, along with safe-haven. *Palestine Liberation Front – Received financial support along with safe-haven. [/cut-and-paste from previous posts]

...but solutions are hard. It is much easier to just...Oooooh...shiney object.

Why bother.

...but...but...but...we need to tax the crap out of people in order to fund all of the government programs that are essential to our existence. We can't survive without government programs.

Happy Birthday, Bill!!

So much for you always being right.

CNN Thingy 5-4 barring Ten Commandments displays in courthouses.

In a match between Darin/Mrs. Darin and the bear, my money is on Nanook and the wife. The only thing is question, is whether there will be enough of the carcass left to recognize that it was a bear.

Fortunately, there are people out there who are willing to stand up and fight right now.

Exactly. We have the power to make a difference. We just need people to get up off their azzes to actually do something about it. Hopefully, an issue like this is enough to do that.

I would agree with you if we were not discussing Consitutional Amendments. You are not doing to get two distinctly different pieces of legislation through in one Constitutional Amendment.

Flag - Yes, Marriage - No. I do not see this as an avenue into the Marriage amendment. Of course, what the Dems are doing with all of their "outrage" is drawing more attention to what Rove said. Couple that with the RNC press release detailing the actual words of leading Democrats after 9/11, and the public is now able to see for themselves. That alone is enough to hurt them. The best thing the Dems can do is to leave it alone. The more attention they bring to this, the more it will hurt them. Reeling in the fish.

The Dems are obviously doing it out of desparation. I suspect that Rove has something up his sleeve. I heard one opinion yesterday that this was done to specifically lure the Dems to hang themselves. They are taking the bait easily. It is part of the whole patriotic, support the troops, support the best interests of America stuff that the Reps have been blasting the Dems with for years. This could all be part of legislation that will be hitting the floor soon. The tactic of "do you actually support this country, the troops and are patriotic or was Rove correct in his assessment of you?" The RNC had a press release immediately ready, which tells me that this was part of a larger scheme. Time will tell.

That is the problem, it is too broad. We are leaving it up to corrupt local politicians to determine what is in the public's interest. "Hmmm...this shopping mall would be in the 'public's interest.' Just ignore the fact that the developer getting the contract just contributed a substantial amount of money to my 'campaign fund.'"

I have a plan for that too.

Put in a default on the W2. I would tend towards private accounts as that default with the same deduction as the current SS deduction. Now, what are the chances that the spineless, limp-wristed Congress would actually pass this?

It will be an extension of the existing 401K system. I will take the example of my previous employer wrt profit sharing and 401k. They make regular contributions to a money market account (a holding account). It is then up to me how I want to invest the money. I can leave it in the money market account or shift it into any investment I choose (stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc). My boss' philosophy was "It is my responsibility to make sure the money gets to the account. What you do with it is your choice. If you lose everything, then it sucks to be you." As with 401k, you have the option to have additional money taken out of your check for retirement. The only difference is that in this system, the company does not have mandatory contributions as with 401k. Now, my SS plan is similar. You take the money currently earmarked for SS and put it into the money market account set up by the company. It is then up to you how you invest it. You can leave it in the money market account or transfer it somewhere else. No government involvement except for the normal reporting to the IRS as with 401k. The government also does not dictate what investments are acceptable (like Bush was stating). Now, for people who want the government to control their money, you can have the option to take the money earmarked for SS, and send it to the SS program. You can make it part of your W2 that you fill out each year. One box will be to send the money to the money market account, the other will be a deduction from your paycheck to be sent to SS. You can even check both and set up a percentage to be sent to each. SS stays intact to make those people happy. Private accounts are set up for the people who want that. Everybody wins.

So, we need a government program to take care of this?

That is the beauty of my plan. You actually accumulate wealth, which is something you do not get with SS. SS is keeping the poor down. Privatizing will help the poor more than any other section of the population, in the fact that it will create wealth for them and their families. By privatizing, you are giving them the ability to invest in their future and the future of their family. Instead of the government stealing their money, they get to keep it. When they pass, they can pass that money to their family instead of losing it to the black hole that is the federal government. You also get a better rate of return with private accounts. Even the most modest of returns will beat SS in the long run. If we want to help the poor, allow private accounts. SS is keeping them poor. You call privatization a "gamble." Well, SS is guaranteed...guaranteed to not be there when I retire. I have paid all of this money into a system which gives me nothing. The only way they can keep the system afloat is to take more of my money and give even less back to me in the future. Any way you slice it, the "gamble" is better. The worst thing that can happen to me is that I have nothing. With SS, I lose money. The choice is clear. The "potential" to have nothing or the guarantee to lose more than I put in. It is a simple numbers game. I am still ahead with the worst case scenario in the "gamble" than I will be with SS.

Give that man a prize!!