Lucky...

How about not taking the money from the people in the first place. They cut spending all the time on programs but they spend it again and never give any back. They can cut all the programs they want. They will find some other way to hand over tax dollars to people who didnt work for it. And then an average guy like you becomes disabled and cry's, "WHERE'S ALL THE HELP?" .... understand?

Well there is the Libertarian party, but too many people are too chicken-shit to want that much freedom. So we continue to get elections of Tweedle-dum vs. Tweedle-dee. Chicken? How about intelligent? Your answer to the poor is that charities will care for them and turn a blind eye. 100's of billion per year and charities will collect this? BRILLIANT. What you really say when you say that charities will account for all the poor is, "FUCK THE POOR." Don't think people see this and gag.

>>>>>>You've allowed yourselves to be fooled by your governments about the dangers of this or that nation when in reality your own governments are a huge part of the problem the world now faces. Exactly and the fear-mongering comes from where? Oh yea, the Repubs. - The war on Communism - The Russians were a joke militarily and economically - When we supposedly outspent them, we trippled our debt in the process - Other than the bay of pigs 20 years before Reagan, the Russians weren't hostile to us. Hell, we beat Germany together. - The war on drugs - The originator, Reagan, was runing guns, drugs as he was babbling his incoherent shit about the same. - The war on terrorism - We're fighting the wrong guys, but makes for good profit. So yes, these fears are originated by the party that benefits by them. Religion is teh same POS, pledge your heart or burn in hell. Civilizations have used fear forever to control idiots. >>>>>>>>It is the people controlling these governments that are a threat. Yep and these governments use fear to get the idiots to play. >>>>>>>>The Democrates are fools to be promising all this spending to poor Americans because we know they can't deliver. UH, they do a lot more good tahn you give them credit for. Clinton wanted socialized meds, Congress shot it down. The idiots need to quit voting in garbage so we can see what Dem accross the board will do.

>>>>>>>...you could get him impeached. After 5+ years, they can't. Give it a rest. An impeachment is a political indictment, it comes from the House regardless of outcome of said indictment. The house was Repub controled so how is it that we could get these lock-stepped guys to vote by simple majority for an impeachment when the criminals were in the majority? Senseless to think it could happen. Now that the dems are in control of the House, if they started an indictment it would make them look petty. It would look as if they wanted control to make a point rather than to make change and would hurt them with swing votes next November. Cindy Sheehan told Pelosi that she better start impeachment proceedings or Sheehan would run against her seat next year. I like her doing that but we don't need an impeachment to be reminded that your president as likely the worst ever. >>>>>>>Imperialism? Bullshit. The only land we've ever asked for from any place we've fought in was enough to bury those who died there. Quite obviously you are using the 1940's version of imperialism. Moe contemporary versions include fiscal imperialism: American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition - Cite This Source - Share This imperialism Acquisition by a government of other governments or territories, or of economic or cultural power over other nations or territories, often by force. Colonialism is a form of imperialism. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/imperialism From another angle, shall we talk the wars the wars with the American Indians when we stole this country? But when we give these countries money and demand allegiance, we are being imperialistic.

How do the Dems fail to keep promises? They do spend it socially and do shrink the military, the major problem with the US.

Ah, there's that old lie again.... *chuckles* Mike are ya out of gas? Why not tell us why it is supposedly a lie?

>>>>>>.....your beloved Republicans continue to spend billions and billions (no Trillions) of dollars on war. Actually the war hobby has cost nearly 1/2 trillion and that doesn't include the normal operating costs of the military, which are about 550B per year. So Bush has allocated 3 /12 trillion to the military including the war since he's been in office.

>>>>>>>Sending everyone to college will actually be a disservice to those people who aren't capable of gaining the very highest classifications because they stand no chance of capitalising on their expensive efforts. Degrees are meant to be for the best, don't give them to everyone. Besides, educated people tend not to vote for, uh, your party, so let's keep em stupid, huh? What if a person wants to get educated just cause? What if they want global knowledge? Can we have the same argument about kids; not everyone should have them? Even if it's true, how do you weed them out? Shall we sterilize those we determine not fit to be parents and refuse education to those not fit learn? Do you ever wonder why people call that party the Nazi Party? Step back and look at what you're essesntially saying; not everyone should have access to education. Think about the fairness. Governments should promote health and education, our society alomost punishes them or at least prohibits some from achieving either/both.

This is the same utilitarian process we've used forever and why this country is so fucked up. When we start weeding cause we think they're imposters, we will certianly snag some "real" students. The death penalty is like this, just killem all if they smell a little guilty and we'll be sure to get the bad ones, sorry about the extra ones. Education is for everyone and to claim some don;t belong is, well, very Republican of you.

>>>>>>1 in the morning and 4 double scotches does hell on the sight. And the reasoning....

>>>>>>>so I get to travel back to the third world states to see the quaint customs of the natives once in a while. But enough about inbreeding

I think you're on to something here, you can also tell by examining worker's rights, safety in the workplace, wages, etc.... BTW, red states ae grouped amongst the worst in these areas so they can sell cheaper, but have worse conditions for people/workers.

>>>>>>>>From the way it sounds it doesnt matter who gets to be the next president one thing I can almost for a fact say is for sure and that is our taxes will be going waaaaaaay up. Bill Clinton raised taxes significantly for the rich, barely for the MC, so what is your worry? You just hate to see poor people getting a break? Your taxes will increase what, maybe 500/yr at the most. Perhaps the soaring debt will slow and even tho you don't care, some needy people will be helped. Bill raised taxes, the debt was eventually leveled, the deficit killed and budget balanced. The US Dollar started kicking ass and the poor were helped, eduction breaks given, etc.... all things you apparently don't like. Since YOUR pres, gas prices doubled, almost 4K troops killed, house prices doubled+, dollar now below the CanadianDollar when it was 1.55C = 1USD, etc..... How can you denounce tax raises and praise tax cuts when there is nothing to substantiate that it helps anything?

Warren Buffet says he pays less tax % than does any of his receptionists. This guy is awaesoe, he says the rich should pay a higher tax rate as the middle class has been getting screwed for the last 10 years or so. More specifically, he says people who consume should be taxed more than people who produce, which is great wisdom. Taxes are supposed to influence behaviour or sometimes deter certain behaviour and taxing the prolatariat punishes going to work. This guy goes agianst the trend so much for the elitist class. He's pledged most of his money to charity once he dies. This guy IS a contemporary American hero IMO, versus the garbage in the White House.

***Stunned***

So, now that no one is responding to your posts, you're responding to yourself? Only way I can get an intelligent answer.

I wrote: I hope you guys answer these in enumerated fashion. I don't expect that, and if some do they will answer a variant of the questions, but I think we can sew up some of this thread. As I thought, no one would answer the questions. I just can't see how some are so stubborn on one side of an issue, yet unwilling answer questions. But, we have dirtbag in chief twice, so how can I be surprised this demographic is any different?

Let's put 1 aspect of this argument to bed. The side who is for the use of these bombs on civilians claims I made an assertion that these targets were left untouched from the start of the war with the idea of dropping the bomb, rather than the meeting in May of 45. I have thought on this: 1) Does it matter when they decided to drop the bomb on a civilian target that was likely mostly women and children? 2) Hypothetically, even if it was asserted that they made this decision in Dec 41 rather than May 45, would it change anything? 3) If it were a last-minute decision, would that matter? 4) The only absolving possibility I see is if they dropped the bomb on a city they thought was paramount in the war, and if they thought that, why wasn't it bombed early on in the conflict? 5) If they thought Hiroshima was a viable, important military target, why did they not bomb it early as they bombed Tokyo? Hell, it was the closest. I briefed the thread and all I could come up with in regard to me saying they left it alone so the civilians wouldn't flee and they could see what the human loss was is found here: POST #31 2) Unmollested by US bombs for the purpose of seeing what the human damage would be POST #78 Hiroshima was not conventionally bombed during the war, as it wasn't a strategic point, so why atomically bomb an unmollested city? POST #152 OK, and why was it untouched? Perhaps.....uh, cause it had virtually no military significance? YEA, exactly, no reason to bomb it, hence left untouched until we wanted to provide some collateral damage and document the evidence. If someone can find more, I implore them to do so. Truth is, I didn't know when they made that decision before I entered this thread and researched and read of the selection committee. I had heard from Discovery Channel that they intentionally left it untouched so the civilians wouldn't flee and they could better establish the human kill total, but I didn't know when that decision was made. So I'm not claiming that point, but at the same time the other claim is that I did overtly state that the US decided early on that they would leave the city alone so they could later kill civilians and get a better count, a decision made at least by May 45, is not established thru any citation from the other side of this argument. Please find where I stated this. 6) Isn't it semantic to wonder what the timing is? I mean, a decision to bomb civilians is a decision to bomb civilians; timing is strategy and has zero to do with morals. 7) If Hiroshima was a military target of any real importance, why did they wait to bomb it until the last day of the war? 8) If Hiroshima was a relevant military target and the US didn't bomb it all war long for whatever reason, did it put US and ally troops in danger? I hope you guys answer these in enumerated fashion. I don't expect that, and if some do they will answer a variant of the questions, but I think we can sew up some of this thread.

Bomb Tokyo as a demonstration. Casualties and damage would be minimal and the message would be sent. Give em a week see what they do, then reconvene and make your next move if no surrender.

Paying for it? Hell, just run your debt to the roof! Maybe that's why the pound just went 2:1 on the US buck and the new Euro is kicking our asses too.

Nah, never happen, we'll keep spending 2B per week until we are spent into onblivion, our $ falls to the Peso, then we'll act polite like any 3rd world nation.

I put nothing in there that I have not seen on foreign websites....and not even the radical ones If you could put some sugar in it and make it sound as if killing 200-300k women and kids is pallatable he would appreciate it.

>>>>>>>>>There has been numerous documentaries that stated that the USA wanted to "test" the bomb on humans, so they coukld be ready if someone used such a device on the USA. Oh yea, read the other thread, I, as well as Kallend cite several sources that state a committee was formed in May 45 and they wanted to drop teh bomb on an urban area to get civilian casulties. As well I heard it on a Discovery show, and I think they are pretty neutral. >>>>>>>>It was an immoral act, and since then, the USA has been committing many other immoral acts as well. Yep, look atthe acts after the bombs and it becomes easier to believe. >>>>>>That is exactly what Hitler said of his Gestapo, and their torture was well known. It was to give the Germans a preparedness...so torture was okay with Hitler....just as it is with Bush and Cheney. There are stark resemblances of the two.

We knew no such thing. The Los Alamos test indicated the power of the bomb (though 20kt is exceeded by conventional weapons now), but more Japanese died from radiation sickness and that wasn't known until afterwards. WW2 was a total war, where no one came out looking like angels. Esp not the Germans and Japanese. Did you forget that the Italians were in it too on the Axis of Evil side, or did you know? They were the first to declare war on the US. WHat evidence do you have to support that the US didn't know the devastation the bomb would cause from radiation?

I think it was mostly women and children, the mes were at war. Some elder men were there, but there was absolute participation by all able-bodied men I'm sure. I would love to read some demographics of the gender/age of teh killed. >>>>>>There is no question it was ethically the wrong move and the low road to take. Unfortunatley contemporay Americans seem to feel that it was no big deal.