317 Forum Posts by "DMXRoid"
On the topic of PA support for terrorism, and funding of said terrorism, which I was engaged in on this thread a few days ago, I present this:
http://hnn.us/blogs/3.html#2318988
Abbas is giving money to the families of suicide bombers.
At 11/27/05 02:09 PM, texmex1 wrote: should teachers be making more?
i think so( a least the hard working ones)
Teachers won't ever make more than they do, because the educational system isn't part of the market, and is in fact completely insulated from any and all market effects. Since a parent cannot choose to pay a good teacher more than he would pay a bad teacher, and, probably more importantly, since teachers unions across the nation are rabidly opposed to any kind of pay based on merit, teacher salaries are doomed to be low until we break the monopoly on the edudational system that currently exists.
Because half of them were from years ago, talking about different subjects, with a single sentence or two about the PA. For instance, the first one is talking about the installment of a new finance minister.. Two or three years ago. What am I suppose to "answer"?
Yes. Yes, I admit it. The PA put a new finance minister into power. OMFGOSH.
Did you perhaps read WHY they have a new finance minister? Because of the corruption and support of terrorism that has been the calling card of the PA, the US and EU demanded a new finance minister. I'm sorry if you're incapable of reading an entire article, but the reasons are clearly spelled out.
Also, the EU investigation was done in 2002, so, yes, they are from years ago, because that's when the Commission did its study. I don't know why it's hard for you to absorb the idea that, when you're talking about a subject whose main point occurred a few years ago, that the relevant evidence would also be a few years old. And, most importantly, in the face of your absolute lack of any evidentiary support for your claims, the "OMFG UR ARGS R OLD" bit doesn't fly.
Again, the EU and IMF have stringent guidelines on where the money can go. It can't go towards benefiting any single political party. That would be interfering in the democratic process. EU money goes towards structural reforms, basic infrastructure. Building schools, teacher salaries. They spent millions running the successful elections which took place after Arafat kicked. A government, and the political party which is currently in power, is not one and the same. The American government is not Republican. K?
Wow, I can't tell if you're being naive here, or are just ignoring reality because if you acknowledged it, it'd make you look bad.
Yes, in most countries, where you have an actual free government that is controlled by the peope and not by a band of thugs, the party running the government is not the government. However, in almost every Middle Eastern nation, the ruling party is inseparable from the government. Look at the Ba'athists in Syria and Iraq, or the governments of Saudi Arabia or Iran. The Palestinian Authority is NO different from these governments, in that the PLO is the ruling organization, and it spends the money where it wants to, demands of international bodies aside.
And, as much as you might wish that the EU and the IMF can simply establish fiscal legitimacy and transparency by fiat, that's horribly, horribly wrong.
Congratulations. What a coincidence that it came up on your random google pull, huh?
I don't see what your point is here. You're claiming that I haven't read anything from the CFR, or from the CFR's terrorism site because it came up in a Google search? If anything, that only bolsters my point that it's a highly respectable publication. You're sort of losing here, son, you might want to rethink your strategy, starting by admitting that you're not so much of a reader.
You know, you aren't making any sort of a case by constantly attacking me and throwing illegitimate sources in my face. Making your opponent disgusted does not constitute "a win".
By "illegitimate sources", do you mean "sources that I disagree with and don't really have the ability to respond to because my debating strategy consists entirely of spouting off at the mouth about things that I really don't know a lot about"?
No, you're right, making your opponent disgusted doesn't constitute a win, but making them unable, or at the very least, unwilling, to respond to any of your arguments in any fashion does. I'm ahead in this debate by a lot, dude. I'm at least responsive to the psuedo-arguments that you're making, I'm at least providing some evidentiary support for what I'm saying, and I'm at least consistent in my argumentation. I don't know what you'd call it when the person you're debating refuses to answer your points, and then claims that he's refusing to answer them because he's disgusted, or whatever, but in my book, that's a win for me, and a poor, poor showing for you. Perhaps you should come back and play this game when you're ready for prime time.
Your articles don't have much relevance today. That's the problem.
Why? Because you, the Great All-Being, have decided that that's the case? Please, deliver unto us your wisdom. Until then, all you're saying is "I can't really answer them."
The PLO is a political party. The EU does not donate aid to specific parties.
No, it doesn't, but it does give money to the PA, which is controlled by the PLO. What part of this is giving you a problem? If a terrorist organization is the controlling faction of a government, and you give money to that government, you just expect that the terrorist organization won't use that money for their own purposes? Or, even if you do accept that they'll use the money for their own purposes, do you believe that this somehow absolves the EU or the PA of any responsibility, because they aren't directly giving money to the PLO, but instead writing a check that says "PA" on it?
Sorry, I was talking about the third article in your second google pull. But calling some random website you pulled "one of the most well-respected foreign policy publications in the country" is a bit ludicrous. Honestly – neither you nor I ever went to "cfrterrorism.org" before this thread.
Maybe you pride yourself on not reading anything, but I have read both the publication and the website of the Council on Foreign Relations, the parent body that owns the cfrterrorism site, on multiple occasions, and have also read articles on cfrterrorism. The fact that your reading list is small and hardly inclusive isn't an indictment of mine, or of any publication.
Check out the biocom links at the end of the article, genius. When I say links, I mean links. Not anchors.
Are we talking about the same article here? The CFR Terrorism one? Because all I'm seeing at the bottom of that article (on either page) is the typical "Print This", "Go Home", "Print the Sources" links, and hte "Print the Sources" link only has one URL (that I see), at the bottom, pointing to a UN page.
Re: Die Zeiit article: proof?Thanks for asking.
http://europa.eu.int../patten/sp02_293.htm
OK, I read through the article, and, honestly, I'm not impressed. It's a self-serving speech by the Commissioner of the study into EU funding the PA where he simply re-iterates the conclusions the Commission came to in the first place. Secondly, while he does respond to the claims the German paper made, it's hardly reasonable to assume that every document since then which criticizes the EU funding of terrorism in Arab-occupied Israel is based on that, and not on independant research. In fact, there's no evidence to assume that that's the case at all. This is not a compelling document, in the face of the publications which I provided which directly refute the claims made by the Commission. However, thank you for providing the link to the speech.
Ys, I do trust the PA, if you want to schieve something in deplomacy, you must have trust your enemy.
Even when, every time you trust your enemy, they sneak across a couple terrorists to blow htemselves up in a mall, or to slaughter a family of settlers as they sleep.
:The PA are not buying any weapons for the terror groups, this claim is unbased, unproved and illogical, the PA has no reason to give weaponary to the terror groups.
See above. There's a whole side discussion re: this.
:Yasser Arafat is a corrupted leader, everyone knows that, the currnet authorities are not like Yasser at all.
Actually, the rhetoric coming out of Abbas isn't that different from that which spewed from Arafat.
:The fact is that the PA will not spend the money given to it on terror, while it has to develope a lot more importent things.
Sure they will. Nothing stopped them, or the PLO, from funding an extensive terror network inside Arab-occupied Israel at any point in their history before today. Why should we believe that things are any different now?
:As you may know, they are now a democracy,
Yeah, they're a democracy. So is Egypt, so is Iran. People vote there, but it's hardly a free election, and, the reality is, terrorists control more of Arab-occupied Israel than the PA does, either directly or indirectly.
Actually, the first link isn't even about EU aid to the PA -- it's about the new PA financial minister.
Good for you, you can selectively read. That's better than I thought you were capable of. Surrounding the discussion of the new PA finance minister is the reason that the US and some EU nations demanded that he be put in place: massive corruption and use of foreign aid for terrorist reasons. Look dude, if you're going to claim that you're responding to the articles I'm posting, then actually respond to them, instead of just flat out lying about what they say.
:And the second link is about the PLO.
The PLO controlls the PA. It's been that way since the PA was created as a result of the Oslo Accords in '93. Burned again, chump.
:Finally, the third article (at a pretty funny website, btw) deals with EU aid to the PA (and half of the info is either unsourced, sourced to dead links / random articles which have nothing to do with the topic, or related to a by now completely junked article in Die Zeit).
First off, don't you think it's a bit hypocritical to indict a well written article in one of the most well-respected foreign policy publications in the country for being poorly sourced when you've had no sources for your arguments since we've started? Secondly, EU aid to the PA is what we're talking about. Third, those aren't dead links, they're anchors. The links on the right take you to the part of the article with that heading. I didn't realize that, in the course of this argument, I'd have to teach you how to use a website. Hopefully, one day, your little squirrel brain will be able to encompass the idea.
Re: Die Zeiit article: proof?
Where does the government derive it's power from? In the US or any truly democratic system – the people.
Is there a limit on how much the people can cede to the government, or what kind of actions they can take via the government?
At 11/25/05 05:46 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: A teacher in Bennington, VT has been accused of giving a liberal vocabulary quiz question in school.
An example of just one of the questions:
I wish Bush would be (coherent, eschewed) for once during a speech, but there are theories that his everyday diction charms the below-average mind, hence insuring him Republican votes.
http://www.cnn.com/2..l.quiz.ap/index.html
Some parents are enraged, and the Superintendent is taking it seriously.
What do you think? Is this another example of liberal bias in our nation's public schools? Or should teachers have the prerogative to express their political views in their lessons?
Yes, of course this is an example of liberal bias in public schools. Can you imagine what would happen if a teacher busted out a vocabulary test with the following questions on it:
"African-Americans should regard affirmative action as a (discommodity, exuberance) when it comes to their advancement as a race, as the policy (denigrages, cachinnation) their achievements as individuals."
No, teachers should not express, or try to impose, or have silly little subliminal tricks to promote, their political ideology in the classroom, not because politics has no place in education, but because the ideological spectrum is so narrow in the field of teaching that there's no way to ensure that for every person who asks the Bush question, there's another who asks the Aff Axn question.,
See, that's not true, contrary to what some random page you pulled off of google might say. If you only gave me a single link, I could better refute it. But you insist on posting half a dozen links at a time, filled with half a dozen different arguments. I don't have the time (nor inclination) right now to refute half a dozen different conspiracy theories. Maybe you ought to find a reputable source, take your time and read through it, ask, "is this actually anywhere near the truth, or just insane, unfounded accusations", and then, if it satisfies all of these requirements, post it, and I'll get back to it sometime. No guarantee about tonight or tomorrow, perhaps Sunday.
Wow, that's such a rhetorically awesome post, I don't know where to begin. You start off with "I don't really have a response to anything that you're saying, so I'm going to act like you gave me too much information, and that's YOUR fault", and then follow up with "Anyone who disagrees with me is a conspiracy theorist". You're like a genius or something. You should probably just admit that you're wrong, hang up your spurs, and move on, because this whole arrogance-via-indignation thing you're doing here ain't workin out too well.
And, I'll argue that every link I posted is the truth, and nowhere near insane or unfounded. So, put on your reading cap and get to it, hoss. Don't worry, I don't actually expect you to reply to the things I've posted. I fully assume that you'll continue along the dual path of "You post too much crazy conspiracy nonsense" as a way to mask the fact that you really can't argue your side effectively.
We'll just count this one as a win for the King (that's me).
At 11/25/05 05:03 PM, red_skunk wrote:At 11/25/05 04:34 PM, DMXRoid wrote: However, I'm not willing to stipulate to that. Here's a few responses directly to the EU report:It's a bit frightening how you believe any link that you find on google that reinforces your previously held viewpoint. There have been multiple investigations by the EU - by the commission, by working groups of the parliament, and by OLAF. None of them have found misuse of EU aid. EU aid is strictly attached to conditions, and is a transparent process overseen by both the EU and the IMF.
It's even more frightening that your ego has inflated to the point that you believe that your assertions should just be taken as fact, and indeed should not be held to the standards of evidence and, I dunno, a warrant or two, that all arguments should be when in an argument. I mean, that's all well and good that you're living in "Red Skunk is Ompnipotent" land, but, unfortunately, your all-seeing, all-knowing Eye is still a secret to those of us on the outside.
Yes, there have been multiple investigations by the European Union, and NONE have been enough to clear the PA of wrongdoing. In fact, during each investigation, there was substantial evidence that the PA WAS violating its conditions of aid, but the EU simply decided to not do anything about it. It's a nice theory that the process is transparent, but that's not how it's worked in practice. Even the EU reports found many, many examples of the Palestinian Authority not meeting the transparency requirements that it itself imposed. You're confusing non-action with vindication. They're not the same thing, as the EU has specifically shown us on more than a couple of occasions. The EU bailed on the Iranian nuclear negotiations, but that doesn't mean that Iran doesn't have a nuclear program in place, and isn't trying to produce a large amount of weapons-grade nuclear material.
At 11/25/05 04:20 PM, The_Jason wrote: The role of the federal government is to protect our borders. When it comes down to other issues, it is the state government which takes control. That, for instance, is why the states choose drinking age, speed limits, etc.
Actually, the states haven't chosen the drinking age or the speed limit on interstates for a while. The US Federal Government has attached the awarding of highway funding to a legal drinking age of 21, and has made similar demands re: speed limits.
At 11/25/05 04:17 PM, red_skunk wrote:At 11/25/05 04:10 PM, DMXRoid wrote: Way to read beyond the first sentence. Other excerpts from that article:I read the entire article. Your refutation to the extensive EU probe was three baseless accusations, one of which was simple opinion, the second of which was hyperbole ending with an unsubstantiated claim, and the third of which was a quote about a guy who was stopped and wasn't allowed into the US because he's suspected of being a terrorist. Come on.
Even if I were willing to stipulate to your claim that the EU probe was valid, you've still not responded to the other 4 links I was kind enough to provide you with. What would your reponse been had I not included the link to the National Review article?
However, I'm not willing to stipulate to that. Here's a few responses directly to the EU report:
http://www.charlesta..ssarticle.asp?ID=430
http://www.charlesta..essarticle.asp?ID=90
http://www.bicom.org..ions/?content_id=287
http://public-integr..s/publications29.htm
http://www.take-a-pe..reDoesTheMoneyGo.pdf
http://www.defenddem..9&attrib_id=7393
Basically, the EU investigation DID find evidence that a.) the PA was using money to support terrorism, and b.) that the PA had NOT maintained the required transparency in financial transactions as ordered by the IMF and the EU. That the EU did nothing isn't a vindication of the PA, or of the EU's cowardice.
Good job. You've now proven that you can't google, and that you can't read.Yeah, that's it.
OMFG I AM T3H WINNER NOW!!!!!!
At 11/25/05 04:00 PM, red_skunk wrote:At 11/25/05 03:52 PM, DMXRoid wrote: Wrong.
http://www.forbes.co..s/2003/0317/049.html
http://www.acpr.org.il/cloakrm/clk86.html
http://cfrterrorism...avens/palestine.html
http://www.nationalr..beck200404060854.asp
http://www.aijac.org..s/Jan-02/070102.html
Google ftw.From your second to last source, first sentence: "On April 1, following a lengthy probe, the European Union concluded that funds it provided to the Palestinian Authority between 2000 and 2002 had not been used to finance terrorist attacks against Israel"
Thanks for providing it yourself, and not making me have to dig up a link.
Way to read beyond the first sentence. Other excerpts from that article:
Immediately following the sentence you quote: "The ruling was immediately criticized by a number of European lawmakers as an undeserved vindication of PA chairman Yasser Arafat, and rightly so."
"But it is clear that Arafat continues to use foreign aid to finance and direct terrorist activities against Israel. The money certainly isn't reaching its intended target: the Palestinian people, who, despite receiving over $4 billion in international aid since the Oslo Accords of 1993, continue to live in a perpetual state of poverty. Indeed, 60 percent of the annual Palestinian budget comes from foreign aid, millions of which Arafat stashes away in secret bank accounts."
"The latest evidence of Arafat's long-running financial support for Palestinian terrorism came last week, when reports surfaced that Raad Mansur, a former high-ranking member of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade (the military wing of Arafat's Fatah movement) had confessed to Israeli security officials that Arafat supplied him with funds that were used to buy weapons and carry out attacks on Israeli targets in the West Bank."
Good job. You've now proven that you can't google, and that you can't read.
At 11/25/05 03:35 PM, red_skunk wrote:At 11/25/05 02:59 PM, DMXRoid wrote: How many times was Arafat caught using foreign aid money to buy terrorist arsenals?I can't say anything for other sources, but in terms of aid from the EU and its member states.... never. And... They've made up the bulk of aid donated to the PA since it's inception..
Wrong.
http://www.forbes.co..s/2003/0317/049.html
http://www.acpr.org.il/cloakrm/clk86.html
http://cfrterrorism...avens/palestine.html
http://www.nationalr..beck200404060854.asp
http://www.aijac.org..s/Jan-02/070102.html
Google ftw.
At 11/25/05 03:21 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: The proper role of government is to protect the life, liberty, and property of those governed, and to provide furnish public goods and services--goods and services that are non-rival and/or inexcludable. That is, any good or service where the consumption of one person has no effect on the consumption of another; and/or any good or service where it is impossible or infeasible to deny non-conumers a benefit of the good or service.
If you don't mind, would you give me an example of what you mean by "non-rival" or "inexcludable" goods? Things like clean air/water, and other environmental products? Or things like food?
What do people think the proper role of government is in the modern world? Is it supposed to function only as a line of defense against foreign invaders, is it supposed to concern itself with the material well-being of the citizenry, is it supposed to provide social services, is it supposed to ensure open trade between foreign and domestic businesses?
Also, where do you think government derives its power? For example, what gives the government the right to tax an individual, and then spend that individuals money? Where is the power to form a military, and does that military have the right to act outside the territorial borders of the country?
Well, if you want to achieve anything with the palastinians, you must assume that the government is pro peace. If the government is pro peace, the money which would be given to them won't slip to the terrorists' hands. If you don't trust them and you think that they will give anything to the terrorists, you won't achieve anything anyway. So, I really don't care that the EU gives money to the Palastinain authorities, I am even for it, because I trust the Palastinains autorities.
Wait, you trust the PA? What sense does that make? They actively harbor, and often times will buy weapons for, terrorist organizations inside Israel. How many times was Arafat caught using foreign aid money to buy terrorist arsenals? If what you meant was "I trust the PA to spend every foreign dollar they get on eradicating Jews", that makes perfect sense. BUt I don't see how you can trust them NOT to support terrorism when that's basically what their entire history is.
Yeah. Just like after I've expressed my views, the conservatives will accuse me of listening to punk music and "rebelling in my teen angst" and "bashing Bush just cause it's cool." Why should I know anything about politics when clearly it's only the right wing that uses their brain?
I think there's a difference here. Not that what those conservatives told you was warrented or right, but there's still a distinction between that and my beef.
An attack like the one that you recieved is one on your motivations, your reasons for saying the things that you do. It's not an attack on the source of your arguments, or your thought process, just on your reason for believing the things that you do. What I'm talking about is when someone indicts not the motives, but the arguments themselves, and I find that a little more objectionable, because it's an assault on my thought process (or lack thereof), an attack on my intelligence and rationality.
Yes. It really is that wonderful. It's like coming to faith, except more attached to reality.
Yes, because nothing is more attached to reality than a firm belief in socialism, multiculturalism, and military weakness.
At 11/24/05 06:29 PM, day-dreaming wrote: its weird how u generalize about "lefties" right after complaining about being generalized against
I wasn't complaining about generalizations. I'm actually a big fan of those. My problem is that the Left, which is a pretty static group, accuse me of repeating talking points, or doing whatever Bill O'Reilly/Rush Limbaugh/Ann Coulter tell me to do, and act like that's a valid, or even true, statement, and that it indicts the point that I'm making at that time. Generalizations are just fine, hypocrisy isn't.
I've been a conservative for a pretty long time, so I've probably heard every bit of invective that's been hurled at my side of the aisle. Over the past 3 or 4 years, however, I've noticed a couple of interesting trends.
1.) If, during the course of an argument with a liberal, I make an argument that they consider traditionally conservative (tax cuts work, cutting and running in Iraq will make the terrorists MORE powerful, capitalism solves problems, etc...), they'll immediately accuse me of "parroting the party line", or "doing whatever the White House tells [me]", and then will often follow up with something that Howard Dean or Tom Daschle said the day before, or, even better, yell out "HALLIBURTON" and run away giggling.
Why is this? Why is it that conservatives are automatically conisdered to be automotons, while Leftists are ALWAYS the product of a long process of soul searching and political and philosophical development? Why, when there's clearly more intellectual diversity among conservatives than there is among liberals, is the Right always the static side of the debate?
2.) When confronted with someone who believes that their ideals are incorrect, and probably harmful, the Left will quickly resort to claims of censorship by those who disagree with them, while, at the same time, attempt to impose speech codes, not to mention thought codes, on their opponents by labelling their arguments "racist", "sexist", "classist", etc.? Does the Left truly believe it's being censored when it's disagreed with? And where is the Leftist concern for the censorship that is imposed upon conservatives in almost every public venue in America?
At 11/23/05 07:36 PM, therealsylvos wrote:At 11/22/05 11:34 PM, DMXRoid wrote:yes but usually to start a war you need a major event to ignite it. why would they start now?At 11/22/05 09:48 PM, therealsylvos wrote: i heard about an upcoming israeli/syrian war. can you tell me why this would happen?Because for decades, Syria has supported Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad?
Why not? I don't have a problem with punishing a nation after the fact of the transgression. In fact, it's probably a good strategy, because the offending nation doesn't know when it's going to come. Builds ths suspense.
Because there are congressional representatives who havn't told the public that they suport or detest abortion durring their election campain, they dont actually represent the publics veiw on abortion by doing this. But otherwise your idea, is a good one, as always.
First off, that's generally not true. Most canddiates opinions about abortion are known, or at least assumed by party affiliation. Where a member strays from the party, you tend to know it. Secondly, if abortion _did_ become part of the process again, people would know what their representatives beleived re: abortion. Plus, how many people really know where their state reps and senators (who would be making hte decisions once we moved abortion back to the jurisdiction of the states instead of the 9 Kings on the Court) stand on ANY issue, let alone abortion? That isn't a reason to oppose democratic involvement on abortion, it's just an example of voter apathy.
At 11/23/05 12:57 AM, bcdemon wrote: I would, and gladly lose my job over it.
And you wonder why we complain about liberal bias in the media.
At 11/22/05 12:24 PM, brigadier wrote: Anyone else hear about Bush's desire to bomb the Al Jazeera network station. All they do is report the truth, not that i'm a terrorist sympathiser, terrorism of all kinds is wrong, i just find Bush and the powers behind him to be wrong as well
1.) That report is unconfirmed by ANYONE but an anonymous source in the British government.
2.) Al Jazeera is NOT reporting the truth. They're a mouthpiece for terrorists and terrorist organizations. Claims to the contrary are just counter-factual.
At 11/22/05 09:48 PM, therealsylvos wrote: i heard about an upcoming israeli/syrian war. can you tell me why this would happen?
Because for decades, Syria has supported Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad?
At 11/22/05 08:44 PM, Lucky_Mabey wrote: I dont see how youre insults damaged the validity of that last comment there. If there is no government (I.E. A system to enforce laws.) Then all those people would be allowed to run free. In short
What you're demonstrating here is a serious lack of knowledge about what most rationalist anarchists believe, not to mention a saddening and disturbing reliance on authority to solve your problems for you. There's no reason to assume that, absent the existance of a government, crime would increase in the least bit. What percentage of the population do you think would become mad rapists if only it weren't a crime? If you're the kind of person that would rape in the first place, you're not going to be deterred by the law. You gotta rape.
If anything, crime would decrease. A society without a paternalistic government would be a society more geared towards the values of self-defense, both armed and unarmed. Murderers and rapists would be dealt with accordingly, and, most importantly, could be expelled from any community in which they were not welcome.
Anarchists are not proponents of absolute disorder, but rather of absolute individual order.
The starter of this thread isn't railing against the supposed lack of the middle class (which we'll get to in a second), but to the percieved problem of income inequality. He's railing against capitalism, like so many other thiny veiled Communists on this forum. Income inequality isn't a problem. It's natural. In any market, you're going to have some people who earn a lot, because they work for it, and others who won't, because they don't.
Income inequality is also necessary to establishing a value for goods and services. If everyone had the exact same income, there'd be no way to have the same variety of quality and quantity of the products of the economy. It allows competing markets based on luxury goods.
Not to mention that it's innevitable. The inherent differences in circumstance and ability between human beings will, without some overwhelming force like a government intervening to curb this, result in some being more productive, and therefore more wealthy, than others. You talk about income inequality like it's this giant plague that must be wiped from the earth when in reality it's just the natural state of humanity.
As for your point on the middle class, the overwhelming majority of the nation is part of what one can rationally consider the middle class. Over 55% of the nation is investing money in the market. Housing is up. which is always a sign of middle class growth. Average income is up, and so is median. The American middle class is strong, and always has been.
So I guess Castro isn't really purposely trying to oppress the Cuban people, instead it seems as though he is so deluded that he actually thinks he is doing good, and that the people will be lost without him.
Interesting.
You're out of your fucking mind. Castro plays to the US media, so that people like you can find an excuse to feel bad for them. He thinks he's doing good? Hardly. He thinks he's doing good for Fidel, not for the Cuban people. He doesn't give a shit about them, and hasn't since the revolution. When he had landowners killed for the crime of property ownership, when he doomed his people to generations of poverty and squalor, when he repeatedly executes or imprisons political dissidents, that's not because he wants the best for the Cuban people, it's because he needs to do that to keep his regime.
I'm happy he has Parkinson's. Hopefully, he'll spend the last 10 years of his life shitting his pants and drooling his creamed corn down his beard. The swine deserves no less.
So here is what happens. John Murtha, a long time supporter of the Iraq War, spoke out against the war last Thursday and introduced a somewhat-lengthy resolution for a withdrawel of troops from Iraq.
Whoa, hold on. While Murtha was on board for the war in the beginning, he's been an outspoken opponent of the war since hte middle of 2004. This isn't anything new, it's just that nobody'd ever heard of Murtha before the New York Times decided that he was Page 1 news. He WAS a supporter of the war. Not recently. Which makes the whole story, that this once stalwart supporter of the Administration has now had enough, and can no longer put his name behind the war effort, a lie.
What happened has done nothing but created a deeper divide between Republicans and Democrats. You should have seen the sparks fly in the House.
Well, Democrats have been talking about how they want the US out of Iraq, how "Bush lied, people died", etc... Why is it problematic to call them on their shit, and ask them to actually vote for the rhetoric that they've been spouting for the past two years?
There's a pretty obvious correlation, there, bucko.
Oh great and wise Oracle, Knower and Seer of All Things, Eye into the Unknown, Political Genius, please, for the heathen unbelievers amongst us who do not yet see your cleansing light, spell it out.
You point out that there are natural cycles to the economy, but then you continue to insist that tax policy alone controls this cycle. If tax policy was the end all in deciding economics, it'd be simple. But it's not. That's what I was trying to get through to you. Bush's tax increase in 1990 did not create a recession in the early nineties. The economy was already slowing in the middle to late eighties (most likely because of Reagan's policies). You're delusional.
I never said that tax policy alone controls anything. I said that we can easily attribute the post 2003 growth to the tax cuts. Yes, there are economic cycles, and yes, I can have it both ways. Here's why.
Tax policy has an immediate impact on the state of the economy. If taxes go up, the amount of available capital for development and expansion is decreased, and a company must plan accordingly. If they go down, the company must plan for that as well, factoring in new expansion into their plans, because they'll have freed up some capital that they otherwise would not have had. In this way, tax policy directly and immediately has a large effect on growth. Good policy ==> growth, bad policy ==>collapse.
Cycles of growth and collapse, on the other hand, are long term effects that can be temporarily offet or accellerated due to policy decisions, but whose impacts, in the end, will be felt.
if you can't understand the idea of different timeframes, I can't help you.
Also, you're guilty of the crime you accuse me of. You say that there are multiple factors, and then you blame Reagan. At least my reasoning is internally consistent, dick.
What other factors play into the ecomony other than tax rates? I don't have time for that.
Your snarky and wholly irrelevant link to the Wikipedia Economics page notwithstanding, it's non-responsive to my point. I'm asking in this specific scenario, what other factors explain the increase in growth that we've historically seen post-tax cuts. RIght, you can't explain it, so you'll just keep pasting your Wiki link. Congrats.
I was pointing out the success of a different economic model, one which leads to the bettering of the majority involved. Instead of the very top brackets. Economics is not an exact science. Figure it out.
Sweden's had 4 good years of growth, but that aside, I'm willing to concede that an economy that's 2.2% the size of the US economy might succeed under different conditions, although Sweden's just finishing up a transition away from an agricultural base to a more industrial one. They hardly have the 100 year history of growth and development that we do, nor are they as economically relevant as the United States. It's an invalid comparison, but if it makes you feel better, have at it.
