DELETED

[David- n Hampton, VA]

Here, Here.....Very well said SJ.

[JT]

The claim of Al-Qaeda being in Iraq before we invaded is unsubstaniated by any reliable source. They became established there after the the ignorant"Mission Accomplished" and "Bring it on" statements.
I think 100 years from now, G.W. Bush will be regarded as the worst president that this country had in the first 230 years.

[flip-flop]

Back to the question of the experienced one vs. the socialist one.

Many of the same type of arguments we here against Obama were used against Kennedy. Many thought his catholicism would make it impossible for him to be elected.

Critical issues of the time included the economy, Cuba, and worries about soviet space programs, and of course the fear that his religion would guide his policy.

He was a state rep for 6 years, in the Senate for just 7 years when he ran for president. The election in 1960 was one of the closest in US history. He is STILL the only practicing Roman Catholic to ever be elected president. He was the youngest president ever elected to the office. He was 5 years younger than Obama is today.

From Wiki: Kennedy called his domestic program the "New Frontier". It ambitiously promised federal funding for education, medical care for the elderly, and government intervention to halt the recession. Kennedy also promised an end to racial discrimination. In 1963, he proposed a tax reform which included income tax cuts, but this was not passed by Congress until 1964, after his death. Few of Kennedy's major programs passed Congress during his lifetime, although, under his successor Johnson, Congress did vote them through in 1964–65.

Was he a socialist too?

[Teddy Salad]

On the experience issue, I believe that nothing can really prepare anyone to be the president of the USA. I think that you either have the talent for the post, or you don't.

It's clear to me that Bush II didn't have it. I'm hoping the next president does.

[DELETED]

DELETED

[flip-flop]

Several facts we did know which were correct about Iraq before the invasion:

1 Iraq was a training ground for Al Qaeda terrorists.

2 Iraq had used WMD before and it was clear the they had the capability to manufacture WMD's.

3 All diplomacy to let the UN inspectors into Iraq to complete the work they were doing was stopped by Saddam Hussein leading to further suction of the presence of WMD's.

I'd like to see the source on point 1.

I won't concede that these point are true, more that they are not enough to justify a preemptive war.

We do know that the Administration deliberately lied to move us more rapidly to war with Iraq. Points 1, 2, and 3 can apply to other countries as well, perhaps even more so, but we are not in a rush to go to war with them are we - Pakistan, North Korea, Iran.

They didn't just lie to win over us peace loving tree huggers (by the way, I totally support the invasion of Afghanistan where there was direct proof of a relationship) they also lied directly to leaders of their own party.

from the LA Times:

According to a book on Cheney called "Angler," by Washington Post reporter Barton Gellman, Armey, a Texas Republican, had spoken out against the war. Cheney was trying to change his mind. So the vice president told him the threat from Iraq was actually "more imminent than we want to portray to the public at large." In Armey's account, Cheney told him:

Iraq's "ability to miniaturize weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear," had been "substantially refined since the first Gulf War," and would soon result in "packages that could be moved even by ground personnel....We now know they have the ability to develop these weapons in a very portable fashion, and they have a delivery system in their relationship with organizations such as Al Qaeda."

"Did Dick Cheney ... purposely tell me things he knew to be untrue?" Armey said. "I seriously feel that may be the case...Had I known or believed then what I believe now, I would have publicly opposed [the war] resolution right to the bitter end, and I believe I might have stopped it from happening."

More ...

Vice President Dick Cheney told Armey that Saddam Hussein's family had direct ties to Al-Qaida and that Saddam was developing miniature nuclear weapons. Dick Armey, believing this to be true, then voted for the Iraq War and then, after it became clear this was not true, stated that he "deserves better than to be bullshitted by the Vice President."

Now I don't agree with Dick Armey (a republican who was the House Majority Leader and one of the architects of the Republican Revolution), but I do agree with him on this one. He did deserve better than to be BS'd by the VP.

[soxfan22]

From Wiki: Kennedy called his domestic program the "New Frontier". It ambitiously promised federal funding for education, medical care for the elderly, and government intervention to halt the recession. Kennedy also promised an end to racial discrimination. In 1963, he proposed a tax reform which included income tax cuts, but this was not passed by Congress until 1964, after his death. Few of Kennedy's major programs passed Congress during his lifetime, although, under his successor Johnson, Congress did vote them through in 1964–65.

Was he a socialist too?

No flip, JFK was not a socialist. JFK was an advocate of cutting all taxes. He saw this country was still in the grips of The New Deal (the largest expansion of gvt in our history), and realized that in order to really grow the economy and revenue to the government, we had to lower taxes.

Obama wants to raise taxes. That is unquestionable. He says he will lower taxes on 95%. Well, 40 - 50% of those don't pay any taxes at all. How can you LOWER something that isn't there? Isn't that wellfare?

He will also raise corporate taxes - which will do nothing other than raise prices, lead to layoffs, and encourage domestic companies to move overseas.

Dividends and Cap gains taxes will also be increased substantially under Obama. Obama will also raise the death tax.

So maybe Obama's right...As long as you don't invest in the markets, sell your house, die and pass your money to the kids, buy anything at Target, Best Buy, Sears, go on vacation, buy a car, sell a car, buy or sell commmodities, buy something at Gap, at Express, at Macy's, work at Gap, Macy's, Sears...well then, your taxes might not go up. In fact, you will probably get a check from somebody who has done better than you in life. No thanks! I think Obama is underestimating the common dignity that most Americans have running through them. Most of us don't want handouts (and, with my household income, I will probably get a cut on my income tax from Obama, at the expense of those who do better than me - no thanks! - although, now that Biden says that the threshold is actually $150,000, not 200 or 250, well, that is geeting very close to me.

Listen, I'm all for paying my share. However, goverment isn't set up to pay the trillions in new spending that Obama is proposing. Taxes are paid to pay for essentials - infrastructure (roads, bridges, tunnels, etc)...law enforcement, national security, etc). Isn't overtaxation the reason this country was founded?

And, I haven't even mentioned the $800 BILLION Obama will ship to the UN as part of the Global Poverty Act. Do we remember the fraud that was Oil for Food? We trust the UN to do the right thing with OUR $800 billion?

What about New Orleans? How about Detroit? Maybe Galveston? The levees in the midwest need updating. I'm sure we have some bridges that could use some work.

BTW Flip, I hear there's a great breakdown of Obama's tax proposals over on www.noodlesalad1.blogspot.com

One last quote from JFK -

Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government." - John F. Kennedy, January 1963

He did not want to do the things you mentioned through taxation. He advocated lowering taxes to increase revenues to the government, which hisrtory tells us, has always been successful.

[flip-flop]

How about not starting a preemptive war that is nearing a price tag of $600 billion dollars with no end in sight if McCain is elected? He is on the record saying it may go on for 10 or more years - perhaps the rest of this century. And that is the financial cost - not the human one over 4000 troops, countless contractors, and let's not forget the nearly 100,000 innocent Iraqi lives.

How about not cutting regulations to the bone to promote the "free" market and enabling the greedy ones to profit while robbing the pensions of the rest of us and resulting in a $700 billion dollar bailout? There are already talking about another bailout.

That's over $1.3 trillion dollars right there and the tally is going up every month by $10 BILLION.

Money that would otherwise be VERY well spent in New Orleans, Galveston, on our children's educations, clean fuel, and tax cuts for all.

If Iraq wasn't a training ground for terrorists before the war, it certainly is now. I am sorry, but I don't feel safer.

[David- n Hampton, VA]

Hey Flip Flop,

I am right with...I will NOT be voting for Bush next week....you can count on it....I see your points and you have convinced me.

Thank you.

[cypressgirl]

Hey Flip Flop,

I am right with...I will NOT be voting for Bush next week....you can count on it....I see your points and you have convinced me.

Thank you.

[flip-flop]

Ok ... just trying to keep up with the rules here.

Bush - off limits (and I wasn't the one who brought him up...just responding to those who did).

Clinton - totally in bounds.

Thanks...

[soxfan22]

How about not starting a preemptive war that is nearing a price tag of $600 billion dollars with no end in sight if McCain is elected? He is on the record saying it may go on for 10 or more years - perhaps the rest of this century. And that is the financial cost - not the human one over 4000 troops, countless contractors, and let's not forget the nearly 100,000 innocent Iraqi lives.

How about not cutting regulations to the bone to promote the "free" market and enabling the greedy ones to profit while robbing the pensions of the rest of us and resulting in a $700 billion dollar bailout? There are already talking about another bailout.

That's over $1.3 trillion dollars right there and the tally is going up every month by $10 BILLION.

Money that would otherwise be VERY well spent in New Orleans, Galveston, on our children's educations, clean fuel, and tax cuts for all.

If Iraq wasn't a training ground for terrorists before the war, it certainly is now. I am sorry, but I don't feel safer.

I thought we were talking about the premise of raising vs. lowering taxes?

I feel a hell of a lot safer. We've gone 8 years since an attack, when a day after 9-11, the common wisdom was that we wouldn't go 8 months.

Nobody on the left is ever able to answer why that is? Is it because they've stopped hating us? They declared Jihad against us, was that repealed? Maybe suddenly they don't think we are the "infadels" anymore?

So c'mon flip! Why is it that we haven't been attacked on our soil since 9-11? Is it pure luck?

I suspect you won't be able to give an answer, just like your comrades.

[loria]

From Wiki: Kennedy called his domestic program the "New Frontier". It ambitiously promised federal funding for education, medical care for the elderly, and government intervention to halt the recession. Kennedy also promised an end to racial discrimination. In 1963, he proposed a tax reform which included income tax cuts, but this was not passed by Congress until 1964, after his death. Few of Kennedy's major programs passed Congress during his lifetime, although, under his successor Johnson, Congress did vote them through in 1964–65.

Was he a socialist too?

No flip, JFK was not a socialist. JFK was an advocate of cutting all taxes. He saw this country was still in the grips of The New Deal (the largest expansion of gvt in our history), and realized that in order to really grow the economy and revenue to the government, we had to lower taxes.

Obama wants to raise taxes. That is unquestionable. He says he will lower taxes on 95%. Well, 40 - 50% of those don't pay any taxes at all. How can you LOWER something that isn't there? Isn't that wellfare?

He will also raise corporate taxes - which will do nothing other than raise prices, lead to layoffs, and encourage domestic companies to move overseas.

Dividends and Cap gains taxes will also be increased substantially under Obama. Obama will also raise the death tax.

So maybe Obama's right...As long as you don't invest in the markets, sell your house, die and pass your money to the kids, buy anything at Target, Best Buy, Sears, go on vacation, buy a car, sell a car, buy or sell commmodities, buy something at Gap, at Express, at Macy's, work at Gap, Macy's, Sears...well then, your taxes might not go up. In fact, you will probably get a check from somebody who has done better than you in life. No thanks! I think Obama is underestimating the common dignity that most Americans have running through them. Most of us don't want handouts (and, with my household income, I will probably get a cut on my income tax from Obama, at the expense of those who do better than me - no thanks! - although, now that Biden says that the threshold is actually $150,000, not 200 or 250, well, that is geeting very close to me.

Listen, I'm all for paying my share. However, goverment isn't set up to pay the trillions in new spending that Obama is proposing. Taxes are paid to pay for essentials - infrastructure (roads, bridges, tunnels, etc)...law enforcement, national security, etc). Isn't overtaxation the reason this country was founded?

And, I haven't even mentioned the $800 BILLION Obama will ship to the UN as part of the Global Poverty Act. Do we remember the fraud that was Oil for Food? We trust the UN to do the right thing with OUR $800 billion?

What about New Orleans? How about Detroit? Maybe Galveston? The levees in the midwest need updating. I'm sure we have some bridges that could use some work.

BTW Flip, I hear there's a great breakdown of Obama's tax proposals over on www.noodlesalad1.blogspot.com

One last quote from JFK -

Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government." - John F. Kennedy, January 1963

He did not want to do the things you mentioned through taxation. He advocated lowering taxes to increase revenues to the government, which hisrtory tells us, has always been successful.

spinnity spin spin spin spin
the pundits are in sweat
its two days later
and lo and behold
you haven't answered my question yet

fivethirtyeight must have you in a tiz!

[soxfan22]

loria said

spinnity spin spin spin spin
the pundits are in sweat
its two days later
and lo and behold
you haven't answered my question yet
fivethirtyeight must have you in a tiz

Loria, are you taking hits from the bong already?

What are you talking about?

[loria]

Loria, are you taking hits from the bong already?

What are you talking about?

you know precisely what i am talking about --
science and Palin
you said you would respond and you haven't--and you always call everyone else on for not repsonding so tit for tat--unless i have missed somethign that got buried in here, then i apologize.