sv3n

What's the point; what possible intelligence could be obtained from him? More than could be gained from you. I KNOW for a fact, his clearance is substantally higher than yours. You gotta read the stuff first.......remember that memo named "Bin Laden determined to attack within the United States" that he didn't read? ...and you're in violation of your face!

Incorrect - I'll look for myself first, then ask for a link if I can't find it. I tend to NOT consider opinion pieces as 'proof', however, which is probably where you're making your misconception. Here's a thought for ya, chief - why don't you try to rebut the information, rather than the site it came from? You'll get further that way. Did you offer a link to the source yet? ...and you're in violation of your face!

Ah, the "Clinton did it first" line again Actually, I'd be happy if you would go back and find the instances of them ripping us off again. And by "them" I don't mean just KBR/Halliburton. It happens again and again and again and we STILL KEEP HIRING THE SAME THIEVES! When someone tries to blame an ongoing issue (and contract fraud has ALWAYS been around) entirely on one political party - I will absolutely call bullshit on it. Things are both better and worse in that respect in the present day. We have more oversight through the process, but fewer contract managers on the ground that know what they're doing. It's a Catch-22. Oversight Yeah that's why billions go missing and kbr charges the army $100 to do one duffel bag of laundry and wont allow the soldiers to do it themselves...............that's what I call more oversight, but for which side? ...and you're in violation of your face!

Yes, by all means, dispute the source if you can't argue the data. In the fair? Any other stipulations you want to add to stack the deck in your favor? In that case, you may wish to remove your links in your previous post to the articles from the NYT, CNN and CBPP - all either liberal or advocating support for liberal pet issues. what you don't like your own arguments? I am simply stating that I don't want a source from "bob's rightwing rumproast blog"............I would like a valid source and preferably more than one, which isn't stacking the deck......it's simply asking for good information. The article that I got the information from regarding the tax rate reductions and subsequent increase in revenues was from the Heritage Foundation, which *does* espouse conservative views. I am uninterested in finding a secondary source to satisfy your restriction, and in fact, answered your links despite the source. If the source I used is not satisfactory, I'm sure you could Google the information yourself - assuming you can find it on one of your 'approved' sources. Conversely, you could find your own information to try and rebut the claim - especially as you have NO proof that the information is not "good" due to source, as you try to imply. It's the exact same thing you ask for all the time. Sad you can't even prove your own point with solid proof, yet you're one of the first to ask for it. ...and you're in violation of your face!

he hasn't vetoed any children's healthcare yet this week.........that always gets him kind of groggy. ...and you're in violation of your face!

Well? If you have some sort of notion that I'm superior to your intellect, maybe you should read more or pay more attention. Or maybe stop trying to harp on inane points. I for one, have not made any such claim..........that came straight from your keyboard. ...and you're in violation of your face!

Because everything EXCEPT the removal of restrictions on the personal exemption and itemized deductions are equally available to lower incomes, if they were investing at the same sort of level as the higher incomes - yet again I refer you to 'economy of scale'. The removal of those restrictions isn't any sort of "break" for the rich - it's giving them what the lower income levels ALREADY HAVE! The argument over investment tax is like arguing the case that Sam's Club prices hurt the person shopping at HEB. Why are you so DAMNED jealous of someone who's better off than you? Why should they have to pay more just because you THINK they should? You're still not answering that question - you've gone on and on about how UNFAIR it is that the millionaire gets, in effect, a volume discount on investment taxes, WITHOUT showing how the lower income family is being hurt in ANY DAMN WAY by it!!! Simple............taxes are being taken out of the pool that could be spent on better things. By giving tax breaks that only affect the wealthy you're not collecting the taxes you're supposed to............creating less income. Thereby you have less tax money to fund things. ...and you're in violation of your face!

Yes, by all means, dispute the source if you can't argue the data. In the fair? Any other stipulations you want to add to stack the deck in your favor? In that case, you may wish to remove your links in your previous post to the articles from the NYT, CNN and CBPP - all either liberal or advocating support for liberal pet issues. what you don't like your own arguments? I am simply stating that I don't want a source from "bob's rightwing rumproast blog"............I would like a valid source and preferably more than one, which isn't stacking the deck......it's simply asking for good information. ...and you're in violation of your face!

"some people" = "the only one"..........I don't think that computes. reply] Proving that "some people" and "the only one" are not the same isn't evading the point, it's proving your argument to be bs. I am shocked to see you evade the point again which is? ...and you're in violation of your face!

You're kidding, right? propaganda (noun): information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some CAUSE I think he's saying that the CAUSE is "send money to iraq now". ...and you're in violation of your face!

I'm surpised you would forget something like that. Guess what, they gave money to Democrats, too. You're right........even though Haliburton has a history of contributing to mostly republicans, some employees did contribute money to the democrats. Less than 10%, but some did. Company Name: Halliburton Company Stock Symbol: HAL Sector: Energy Industry: Oil Well Services & Equipment Total Contribution Dollar Amount: $406,972 (1999 - Present) Average Contribution Dollar Amount: $1,614 Total Contribution Dollar Amount to Republicans: $284,485 (70% of total) Average Contribution Dollar Amount to Republicans: $1,823 Total Contribution Dollar Amount to Democrats: $19,967 (5% of total) Average Contribution Dollar Amount to Democrats: $499 Link: http://www.campaignmoney.com/halliburton.asp Then, I also found this......... ...and you're in violation of your face!

I think he's saying that the cause is "send money to iraq now". ...and you're in violation of your face!

About time! Sorry, but you've still not proven your point - none of these do harm to lower income families, so we're right back around to where we started - you feel that the rich should be covering the taxes / expenses of the lower income rates. You still haven't proven WHY they should. could you explain..............."(net result: no harm to low income, some benefit to high income)"? So it's not harming the low income people, but it's a benefit to the high income people? So it's only a benefit to the high income group? ...and you're in violation of your face!

"some people" = "the only one"..........I don't think that computes. I am shocked to see you evade the point Proving that "some people" and "the only one" are not the same isn't evading the point, it's proving your argument to be bs. ...and you're in violation of your face!

Here is the latest. More theiving by DICK and Co.'s buddies. Your tax dollars at work folks. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/01/national/main3440529.shtml Oh yeah... I guess that's Cheney's fault, too. I suppose I should go back and look up contract problems that happened in Bosnia and Kosovo and Somalia and try to blame them on Clinton/Gore, just for fairness? Just out of curiosity...........who's in charge of oversight? And on a different subject, who worked for KBR prior to being in office? I know the answer. (holds up hand) I've also worked for them. Never made into office tho. I can't remember, did Bush/Cheney get money for their campaign from KBR? ...and you're in violation of your face!

"some people" = "the only one"..........I don't think that computes. ...and you're in violation of your face!

Here is the latest. More theiving by DICK and Co.'s buddies. Your tax dollars at work folks. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/01/national/main3440529.shtml Oh yeah... I guess that's Cheney's fault, too. I suppose I should go back and look up contract problems that happened in Bosnia and Kosovo and Somalia and try to blame them on Clinton/Gore, just for fairness? Just out of curiosity...........who's in charge of oversight? And on a different subject, who worked for KBR prior to being in office? ...and you're in violation of your face!

Perhaps because the data proves you wrong? In the 1920's, the top tax rate was reduced from 71% to 24%. Tax revenues grew over 60%. JFK reduced the rate from 91% to 70%. Tax revenues rose over 60%. Reagan reduced the tax rate from 70% to 28%. Tax revenues rose 54%. Looks like "lower taxes, more money coming in to fed.gov". Recent data from the IRS - The top 25% of taxpayers (AGI over ~62K) earned 67.5% of the nation's income, while paying 86% of all taxes. The top 1% (AGI over ~365k) earned roughly 21% of the nation's income, while paying over 39% of the taxes. Roughly 42 MILLION people were able to use deductions and benefits to entirely wipe out their tax liability or even get back more than what they paid in. That's due to those tax credits that the rich (you know - those folks that are making over 62k/year) can't get. The top 1% ends up paying more in tax than the bottom 95% - how much more before YOU think they're paying their fair share? Sounds interesting...........proof? It's great to write it down, but I'd trust an article on it or a valid source. And to keep things in the fair..........a right wing website isn't a valid source. ...and you're in violation of your face!

I can keep getting more and more articles that talk about how the rich get tax breaks that the lower class don't or can't take advantage of. If you want reading assignments let me know. Again - find me some FACT - not hearsay. FYI - "Fact" in this case would be something like a link to thomas.state.gov or similar, where the text of the law can be looked up. Anecdotal interviews from Democratic talking heads != "proof" Read forest read. http://www.cbpp.org/9-19-05tax.htm http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/business/05tax.html http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html?ex=1325912400&en=e1dc82f54ac7eacb&ei=5090 http://money.cnn.com/2006/04/05/news/tax_cuts/index.htm ...and you're in violation of your face!

Simple question, not bs just a straight forward question...........who needs tax breaks, the guy with millions or the guy just barely scraping by? ...and you're in violation of your face!

Still no response from rushmc? Well..........let's do a timeline over the last hundred years. "September 22, 1980 the Iraqi army invaded Iran at Khuzestan, precipitating the Iran-Iraq War." So they defended themselves against Iraq. "In summer of 1941 Britain and the USSR invaded Iran to prevent Iran from allying with the Axis powers." Now they weren't joined with the Axis, they were talking with them..........."In 1921, an army officer Reza Khan of Mazandarani and Persian descent (known as Reza Shah after assuming the throne) staged a coup against the weakened Qajar dynasty. An autocrat and supporter of modernization, Reza Shah initiated the development of modern industry, railroads, and establishment of a national education system. Reza Shah sought to balance the influence of Russia and Britain by seeking out assistance and technology from European powers traditionally not involved in Iranian affairs, but when World War II started his closeness to Germany alarmed allied powers Russia and Britain, Germany's enemies." That's going back a hundred years............how many countries have we conducted military operations in over the last hundred years and how many of them were for our defense? I also think I found our main problem with Iran.........."Iran's relations with the United States became deeply antagonistic during the revolution. On November 4, 1979, Iranian students seized US embassy personnel, labeling the embassy a "den of spies."[62] They accused its personnel of being CIA agents plotting to overthrow the revolutionary government, as the CIA had done to Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953. While the student ringleaders had not asked for permission from Khomeini to seize the embassy, Khomeini nonetheless supported the embassy takeover after hearing of its success. [63] While most of the female and African American hostages were released within the first months,[64] the remaining fifty-two hostages were held for 444 days." Did they sort of have some merit behind assuming that the embassy was a "den of spies"............well, sort of yes. "In 1953, President Eisenhower authorized Operation Ajax, and the CIA took the lead in overthrowing Mossadegh and supporting a U.S.-friendly monarch; and for which the U.S. Government apologized in 2000. The CIA faced many setbacks, but the covert operation soon went into full swing, conducted from the U.S. Embassy in Tehran under the leadership of Kermit Roosevelt, Jr. Iranians were hired to protest Mossadegh and fight pro-Mossadegh demonstrators. Anti- and pro-monarchy protestors violently clashed in the streets, leaving almost three hundred dead. The operation was successful in triggering a coup, and within days, pro-Shah tanks stormed the capital and bombarded the Prime Minister's residence. Mossadegh surrendered, and was arrested on 19 August 1953. He was tried for treason, and sentenced to three years in prison." Iran isn't some fluff state that's as peaceful as teletubby land..............they've had several revolutions and overthrows, but we've had those too...think civil war. Here's a wikipedia link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran if you wanna read up a bit. Iran may not be cotton-candy coated, but you gotta take into account the history when you start talking about how much of a threat they are and invading their country. Logic vs. Emotion. ...and you're in violation of your face!

I'm a tad more interested in when it last recommended the destruction of one of our allies. Yeah because talk is punishable by invasion...........that's a great theory to follow. If you're referring to Israel, which I personally don't have anything against, but you hear about them bombing and attacking a lot of people.......did you ever think that maybe it's not the other people but them that is to blame for it? I'm sure there is two sides to that story as well. ...and you're in violation of your face!

Ok..........here's a question for you since you think it's elitist to note that some people are concerned and actually take some time to read up on things. When is the last time Iran attacked a foreign country? ...and you're in violation of your face!

Maybe some people are already paying attention and studying? ...and you're in violation of your face!

Just because the article says it favors those making 1M annually doesn't mean it is true. As I told you earlier, this benefits anyone that is in the 25% ($31,850 AGI) or higher brackets. Those people want to increase their wealth too, and it's all about the marginal tax rate. It benefits all investors, not just the wealthiest of them. And cut it out with the counter examples of the 20k salary person. That person is barely paying income taxes, and the 7.65% for FICA will be generate a much better return than for those paying 7.65% on a much higher salary. Let's put it this way..........just like the article says, the higher your salary the more you're going to benefit. So it favors the wealthy, which is BS. It should be the other way around.........it should favor the low end of the income scale. And to that person that according to you "is barely paying taxes", he's giving everything he's got. He's living paycheck to paycheck and stuck. With that in mind, why would someone who's income is in the billions need to benefit from this while the person just scraping by doesn't get any benefits from it? I still don't understand why you're complaining. The wealthiest are still paying most of the taxes. Why do you want them to pay more? I guarantee you that they didn't get rich because the government took their money and told them how to spend it. Everyone thinks that trickle-down-economics doesn't work. Guess what - it's the engine of capitalism, and if a business owner (remember, small businesses employ 85% of the population and constitute 90%+ of the economy) doesn't have to pay taxes on a financial gain if he re-invests it, that is good for everyone. Yes, he still pays taxes on his income, but if you amp it up too much, it only gets passed on to the little guy anyway. Remember, the "rich" in the eyes of the more liberal-wealth-redistribution-crowd have salaries starting at about $60,000/yr. Why does anyone think they are entitled to someone else's money? For any reason? Fairness? I hate to say it, but we're gonna have to agree to disagree. I'm sorry, but trickle-down economics are BS..............it's a great ingrained "if boss gets more money, just maybe he'll give me some if he's got extra" mentallity. I just don't believe that some people buy into it. Seriously............"yeah, we want them to get tax breaks so that we can just maybe get a little drop if we're lucky, yeah, yeah candy mountain charlie, let's go to candy mountain"...............and next thing you know your kidney's are gone. Simple question, not bs just a straight forward question...........who needs tax breaks, the guy with millions or the guy just barely scraping by? ...and you're in violation of your face!