Kerry and Cambodia
Maybe it’s time to give the Barking Moonbat Award of the Week to John F****** Flip-flop Kerry............
Posted by Dottie
08/20/2004 at 08:01 PM
Yes stay good en mad! We need to realize what steps are and have been continued to be taken by the left.
Ban books
“Hate” crimes
Incorrect Speech (PC)Add these all together and you are seeing your first amendment go up in a puff a smoke. One down, and I bet they will just go up the line....anyone for gun controll debates with no chance for the public or the groups they support to represent them to have a way of getting “the truth” back out to the public when it comes time to either support or demand your local political type votes the way you expected them (or wanted them) too?
We need to make sure Kerry and his ilk are no where close to being elected this November!
Posted by Guy S.
08/20/2004 at 08:06 PM
Guy, didn’t you know that the Bill of Rights only applies to left wing democrats? The First Amendment is on for their use but when someone not of their “stripe” exercises their rights, they cry foul. Liberal gun grabbers want to ban the ownership of all guns but when 4 kids skinny dip in the pool of a well know columnist and liberal gun grabber, it’s ok to use his unregistered handgun and shoot one of the boys. Common people are required to go through airport security checks but let the Chapaquadic Life Guard, get searched and he is up in arms. If anyone in America should get searched it is him. Hell he left a girl to die and another got raped in his house, while he was home.
All the lies they have said about President Bush and he hasn’t whinned, cried, or complained. He’s taken it like a man and is leaving it up to the good judgement of the American People to sort out the truth. Kerry doesn’t believe the American People have the judgement to sort things out. He is a male of low character.
Posted by Bob
08/20/2004 at 11:32 PM
I’m still waiting for the after action reports and fitreps to appear in public after an FOIA request.
“The rules are for the hoi poloi.” said the Anointed One. “Do you know who I am?”
“Yeah. You’re that gold digging snob who enhanced your service records, backstabbed your buddies and milks your public service job without doing much to earn your pay, and are one of the most boring, pompous public speakers I’ve ever heard. Any other questions? No? So who the fuck do you think you are?”
Posted by dick
08/21/2004 at 12:10 AM
So this may seem like kind of a dumb question, but what does Kerry have to gain from lying about whether or not he went into Cambodia? I mean, it’s well known now that a number of operations took place there and in Laos? Or did I miss something.
And something else. You said that Bush had been expunged of the accusation that he had been AWOL from duty. Not that I really think this says anything about how he would serve as President in a second term just like I don’t see how this talk of Kerry’s service in Vietnam says that much, but the White House has actually said that they couldn’t prove Bush didn’t go AWOL. It seems that some records had been accidentally destoyed. There were some pay stubs and what not but they couldn’t find the sign in sheets.
Also, they couldn’t find people who said that they saw him on the base during that time period. I believe that it was a four month period they were talking about, the same amount of time that 200 Swiftboat Veterans for Truth supposedly remember seeing Kerry in Vietnam.
That last part may not have been fair, though, since the Swiftboat Veterans for truth have already said that most of them didn’t not serve in the same area at the same time as Kerry. According to an interview O’Niel gave on Fox News, when they say in the commercial that they served with John Kerry, they only mean that they served in Vietnam. They admit that most of the people in their group don’t know John Kerry personally at all.
So maybe it doesn’t prove anything that people don’t remember seeing George Bush on the base at the time that people accused him of being AWOL. But my point Vilmar, is what is your point? What are you trying to show here? All this stuff that about Cambodia, it revolves around a war, one where things happened that the government didn’t want people to know about. I’m sure that if you look at the records long enough you’ll see some discrepencies. Not everything was recorded exactly the way it happened for good reason. There are certain things that need to remain secret. And maybe that’s a part of the reason why different people are remembering the experience differently.
Maybe you guys would like to discuss an issue that’s a little more recent. How about the defict? How do people feel about that?
Posted by Stacey
08/21/2004 at 08:42 AM
Stacey, you have proven yourself to be a Leftist drone with your comments. I say that because you obviously believe that Bush is guilty of being AWOL until proven innocent. Think about that for a minute. You are placing the burden of proof on Bush to prove he didn’t do something wrong. That is the entire opposite of the way our legal system works, friend. If someone believes he was AWOL it is up to them to prove the accusation, not the other way around.
As for the deficit, we have had those ever since Alexander Hamilton invented the concept of deficit spending to pay off the debts of the Revolutionary War. The government is not supposed to run a surplus. If it takes in too much money it should return that money to the people to whom it rightly belongs. That is what George Bush did and it is also what the Liberals are whining about because they believe in grabbing as much money from the people as they can to finance their socialist agenda.
You have yet to make a valid point here, little buddy. I respect your efforts to suspend disbelief in us and try to sway our minds but you have not presented one argument yet that merits anything I haven’t heard before from Liberals and have found to be backed up by nothing but platitudes and repetitious whining.
Try again with another tack. Sooner or later you may present a rational argument, backed up with facts that we can discuss.
First of all, I didn’t say that I thought he was AWOL. I was using that as an argument to compare to what everyone here has been saying about Kerry. I’ve done that only because Vilmar insisted on comparing the two of them first. You’re right, there isn’t any evidence to say that he went AWOL, but more importantly, he hasn’t proved that he didn’t go AWOL, which is what Vilmar was saying.
As far as the defict is concerned, there’s nothing wrong with having a deficit. That is an important aspect of our economy. The issue I have with it is that right now it’s out of control. You need to have some sort of balance between the money you’re taking in and the money you’re spending. Otherwise you run the risk of lowering the value of the US dollar. This was one of the causes for the Great Depression. People kept loaning out money to the point that the money just wasn’t worth anything.
I happen to think that John’s Kerry plan to impose hight taxes on the rich may help to eleviate some of the stain that’s being place on the US dollar. How do you feel about that?
Posted by Stacey
08/21/2004 at 09:48 AM
You’re twisting facts again over the AWOL issue. Vilmar did not say that Bush “hasn’t proved he didn’t go AWOL”. And it is not “more importantly” that he didn’t. It is more important that no one has proven that he did. That is the law, friend. You side-stepped the main point there. Try again.
Kerry’s plan to impose high taxes on the rich is an abomination. Why should the people who have worked the hardest to make themselves wealthy have to pay more? Do you and Kerry propose that there be a penalty for success? What is the incentive for people to try to increase their net worth if they will only be penalized by the government for doing so? Yours and Kerry’s plan destroys the foundation of America where people are encouraged to improve themselves and increase their value based on achievements and success.
I also feel that it is a violation of an individual’s civil rights to be singled out for a tax increase or have to pay extra taxes based purely on income. A truly fair tax would have everyone paying the same flat rate, wouldn’t it? Why should Joe Shmoe, who makes $20k per year pay almost no taxes while Bill Gates pays up to 50% of his income in taxes each year. They are both free human beings and equal Americans in the flesh. The only difference is one of them is a smart businessman who struggled to succeed and made a fortune while the other is satisfied to remain at the bottom of the income ladder. They are both fine people and are being all they can be. Why do you wish to penalize Gates? How can you call that fair?
There are other ways to balance the budget. Why do Democrats and Liberals always fall back on the old “tax the rich” plan? This isn’t the first time they (and you) have proposed the rich paying more than the average Joe. It is class warfare and only angers people more and more at the high achievers in our society without accomplishing anything else .
I know, I know .. you will say that most of the wealthy inherited their money and didn’t work for it. That argument won’t wash either so don’t try it. The facts from the Treasury Dept. argue otherwise. Most wealthy people earned it. Period. And with the “death tax” the wealthy get taxed twice when they die. How would you feel about having your earnings taxed twice?
-
Posted by Fred Z
08/21/2004 at 11:22 AM
First, concerning the whole AWOL issue. Here’s a line I copied from Vilmar’s original post.
We all know this self-same media HOUNDED President Bush when he was accused of being AWOL, a term still used by the left and proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be false.
All I was saying about that is that it hasn’t been prooven to be true or false. That’s it. It’s still an open question, one that I don’t think is very relavent but you people keep bringing it up.
Concerning taxation. I don’t have a problem with taxing people the same. What I have a problem with is the selective double taxation that goes on. Did you know that you have to pay an income tax on the money you pay into social securty? This doesn’t really effect the wealthy that much since the amount they pay into social security is so little compared to their net income. The less wealthy can end up paying an extra ten percent in taxes a year as a result of this double taxation.
And what about all these companies that don’t get taxed at all because of a P.O. Box they have in Bermuda? Don’t you think that if a company has office in America, is making money off of American citizens, that they should be taxed?
But this is really side stepping my original question. Doesn’t it bother that this giant deficit is being created without any plans to pay it down at all. When Alexander first started using a defict to finance the country, he made a point of saying that it had to be balanced with some sort of income. Are you saying that’s not the case? (And before you jump all over me, I’m not implying anything, I’m just asking you what you think about it).
Posted by stacey
08/21/2004 at 11:38 AM
Give ‘em hell, Stacey!
Posted by oldcatman
08/21/2004 at 11:51 AM
Good point Stacy about havng to pay income tax on the money you put into Social Security. I think it is wrong and unfair. Unfortunately, the president doesn’t write the tax laws, congress does and this law was written quite a while back by a democratic controlled congress. But, that is still no excuse for the republicans not correcting it.
I may be wrong but I don’t think corporations in themselfs pay income taxes. I always thought corporations were taxed based on the value of their property...a property tax. But, when Kerry or Bush say there are going to give corporations tax breaks, what they are really saying is that they are going to give the wealthy owners a tax break. Face it, even a property tax break means money in the pockets of the owners. Now, I am all for more money into the pockets of the owners (wealthy). Why, because it’s the wealthy who invest (risk) their money to expand and grow companies, providing more jobs to people like most of us here. I don’t know about you but I’ve never had a poor or middle class person sign my pay check, unless you work for some locally owned mom & pop business.
Posted by Bob
08/21/2004 at 02:48 PM
Bob,
I’m glad someone is interested in the tax questions.
Actually, corporations are considered people for tax purposes as far as the IRS is concerned. Pretty weird, huh? But they do pay an income tax which is meant to be a flat 35% minus various tax breaks. One tax break they are getting right now, one which President Bush helped pushed through congress, is one which actually incourages them to outsource work to other countries and invest in other countries. The current administration (some of these rules were not approved by congress, just enacted by the White House) has actually made it easier to invest overseas then to invest in our own country.
Taxing the wealthy is sort of a catch-22. On the one hand, if you tax them too much they will be less likely to invest their money. If you don’t tax them enough, the burden for financing the country will be placed on the middle class. But regardless of which way I go on this question (I have trouble making up my mind about this) you can’t ignore the fact that 90% of the most recent tax cuts have been going to those making over a quarter of a million a year. Cutting the capital gains tax especially did nothing but help the wealthy.
I’m all in favor of fair treatment but we’re in a situation where the more money you make, the lower you pay in taxes as a percentage of you’re total income. And when I say total income, I’m including capital gains. There are a lot of republican websites where they say this isn’t the case but that’s only if you leave out the total removal of the capital gains tax.
This is really terriffic. I’m glad we’re discussing this stuff.
Posted by Stacey
08/21/2004 at 04:09 PM
Wow, I just checked my email. Thanks for all the responses everyone! I didn’t realize so many people were logging onto this site.
Alot of people had some intersting things to say. Especially Chris. I had never though of NAFTA as such a major issue. I was wondering if instead of emailing me, though, if you could go ahead and post your comments here. That way everyone can see what everyone else is thinking and we can generate some really interesting debate.
And thanks for all the support. Remember, it’s all about mutual respect and learning from each other.
Posted by Stacey
08/21/2004 at 04:33 PM
When the government taxes a corporation, it isn’t as if there is a disembodied company paying those taxes...some mystery man who comes up with the cash out-of-pocket. No, that money is an indirect tax upon the employees of the corporation and the people who purchase said company’s products or services. Do you actually believe that if the government would “do the right thing” and tax corporations 35% that the corporation wouldn’t be compelled to recoup that decrease in profit by a corresponding increase in prices? That basic economics, something which liberals are weak on. The Laffer curve applies equally to individuals and companies.
I don’t believe that 90% of the tax breaks went to those individuals making in excess of $250,000, either. A link or other reputable evidence, please. Remember, Dhimmicrats think that anybody with income > $50,000 or so is “rich.” Besides, if your statistic is true, it means absolutely nothing. If two individuals receive a 5% tax break on taxes of $1,500 and $150,000, those savings would be $75 and $7,500, respectively. What’s your point, exactly? Are you suggesting that it would be most fair to further convolute the tax code by another regressive tax redistribution? Blech.
Liberals latch onto an idea or three and are so tenacious and blind in their beliefs that facts, truth, and common sense mean nothing to them. All they can produce in refutation is cries for fairness (or some other emotion-based pap). When the clue bat smacks you on the ass, welcome to reality. It matters not one iota what you feel or think. Your much-vaunted social ideas have proven to be failures. Your greatest leaders of the last 50 years have been ineffectual buffoons (Clinton, Carter, JFK, et al.).
Posted by skh
08/21/2004 at 06:39 PM
I don’t see how 90% of the tax cuts went to those making over $250,000 per year? I got a tax cut too and I don’t make anywhere near that kind of money. So, how can people say that only the wealthy got tax cuts?
I got a theory on how the tax burden increases on the middle class due to tax cuts. Because of the tax cuts more people were added to the rolls of those that pay no Federal Income Tax. If you know someone who got Earned Income Credit (EIC), they not only pay no Federal Taxes but get free, unearned and undeserved, money back from the government. By adding more people to this non-taxed group, you in effect take away from the middle class group, thus decreasing the amount of middle class taxpayers which will then make it look like they are shouldering a larger load of the tax burden. The tax burden of the middle class taxpayers has decreased too but because there a now fewer of them, the democrats are trying to convince them that they are paying an unfair amount of taxes. It’s a numbers game and they are using it to deceive people. One of the things that irritates me most if that those that pay no taxes at all are complaining because they didn’t get the Child Tax Credit Refund. They not only got unearned money because of their EIC, then want more unearned money.
200 years ago we had a generation in the nation that said “ Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death”, 100 years ago they said “ Give Me Liberty”, and today the just say “ Give Me”.
Posted by Bob
08/21/2004 at 11:13 PM
Next entry: The Kerry Meltdown
Previous entry: Swift Boat Veterans Attacked By NY Times