Message to Obama

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Postby seastreet » Fri Sep 12, 2008 4:59 pm

dudejcb wrote:So, now that we know about Joe, and his sacrafice, what do you guys think about the way Max Cleland was treated by Rove?


Do you have any idea how Max Cleland was wounded in Vietnam? If you did, you would distance yourself from that last comment faster than muslim in a hog farm. The dumbass dropped his own grenade while getting into a helicopter. :biggrin:

Look for yourself...

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/02/con04074.html

That was one of the first things we learned at Fort Benning while boarding and dismounting blackhawks.
Glimmerjim wrote: I may be slow but I'm dumb!
User avatar
seastreet
hunter
 
Posts: 1686
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:56 pm
Location: Downeast, NC


Postby dudejcb » Fri Sep 12, 2008 5:05 pm

seastreet wrote:
dudejcb wrote:So, now that we know about Joe, and his sacrafice, what do you guys think about the way Max Cleland was treated by Rove?


Do you have any idea how Max Cleland was wounded in Vietnam? If you did, you would distance yourself from that last comment faster than muslim in a hog farm. The dumbass dropped his own grenade while getting into a helicopter. :biggrin:

Look for yourself...

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/02/con04074.html

That was one of the first things we learned at Fort Benning while boarding and dismounting blackhawks.


You totally missed my point genius... again. Yes, I know how he was wounded...and apparently you can't read (it was another guy's grenade dipstick. read all the way to the end.)... as if how he got wounded matters. The point is he sacrificed a lot for our country and Rove treated him as a traitor in order to win an election. Yeah, Rove falsley smeared him for political gain. And that is what he and his minions are doing again. Are you getting it now? Thought not.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5249
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Postby Dolsmi » Fri Sep 12, 2008 5:33 pm

It seems like, In the view of the extreme liberal democrat's, (dudejcb) It's always someone else's fault, you see that your view/opinion should never be judged, questioned or compromised.
Why can't this guy tell his story and have all people respect his story for what it is?
It seems like everything has to be for the political gain of the party and not for the country. You're rarely open minded, and extreme blinders are definitely on and quite a few negative comments, and subject changes are always given.
User avatar
Dolsmi
hunter
 
Posts: 540
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 8:02 am
Location: Minnesota

Postby seastreet » Fri Sep 12, 2008 6:36 pm

dudejcb wrote:
seastreet wrote:
dudejcb wrote:So, now that we know about Joe, and his sacrafice, what do you guys think about the way Max Cleland was treated by Rove?


Do you have any idea how Max Cleland was wounded in Vietnam? If you did, you would distance yourself from that last comment faster than muslim in a hog farm. The dumbass dropped his own grenade while getting into a helicopter. :biggrin:

Look for yourself...

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/02/con04074.html

That was one of the first things we learned at Fort Benning while boarding and dismounting blackhawks.


You totally missed my point genius... again. Yes, I know how he was wounded...and apparently you can't read (it was another guy's grenade dipstick. read all the way to the end.)... as if how he got wounded matters. The point is he sacrificed a lot for our country and Rove treated him as a traitor in order to win an election. Yeah, Rove falsley smeared him for political gain. And that is what he and his minions are doing again. Are you getting it now? Thought not.


Better stick facts and stop trying to divert dudejcb. Joe Cook is not a politician, like Max Cleland was. Joe Cook was wounded in this war, and his brothers in arms will be affected by the dangerous and passive foreign policy of Obama.

Simply, brownlou tried to smear Joe Cook as a phony, and he got served. No amount of rose petals on the pile of bullstuff will change the smell. Joe Cook made a great argument and you're pissed about it. Get over it because your idiot is gonna lose in November.
Glimmerjim wrote: I may be slow but I'm dumb!
User avatar
seastreet
hunter
 
Posts: 1686
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:56 pm
Location: Downeast, NC

Postby DuckinFool » Fri Sep 12, 2008 8:17 pm

:lol: :rofl: :lol: :rofl: :lol: :rofl:
Recession-neighbor loses job...Depression-you lose job...Recovery-Obama loses job.
Image
Don't blame me.....I didn't vote for him !!!
User avatar
DuckinFool
hunter
 
Posts: 1470
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 6:47 am
Location: Southern Illinois

Postby dudejcb » Mon Sep 15, 2008 8:42 am

Seastreet,

I can appreciate that you're a partisan non-thinking guy, and DuckinFool has it going on for you. All that aside, the ones pushing a "diversion" are Joe Cook and those who think focussing on his wounds are the issues at hand. His nice video is a diversion away from the real issues that took his legs, his veterns benefits, and everyone's pocketbook.

The salient issues are:

-Iraq was a mistaken excuse for the neocon chickenhawks to re-fight Vietnam, as they have wanted to do since 1975. Just because good soldiers get wounded in the process doesn't somehow make it any smarter.

-Because we have given most our national treasure to Halliburton, KBR, Blackwater, etc. and diverted our attention away from the Taliban and Bin Laden, the real terrorists are making a comeback and we are not in a postion to respond properly in Afghanistan or Pakistan. We are in more danger now thatn before 9/11.

-9/11 happened on Bush's and the arrogant repuclican's watch! Just becasue there hasn't been another attack on our soil in the interim doesn't mean squat. Terrorists are patient. The Homeland is no more secure thatn it was 7 years ago, and airport security is busy collecting shampoo and pen knives as if that's the real threat, and longer time to board a plane is the answer.

-The economy is in the tank after 8 years of laissez laissez-faire (yeah, I said it twice for a reason) non-regulation non-oversight of anything so the "free market" can work its "wonders" ... achieved by packing watchdog agencies (FERC, FED Reserve, FCC, Justice Department, the Supreme Court etc.) with political idealogue activist hacks who brazeny choose not to follow the legislation (or Constitution) of the agencies (and government) they are dismantling, so as to allow their well-heeled cronies slurp at the public trough, at the public's expense.

-Universal healthcare would actually cost less than we are now paying and would unburden American businesses from having to provide medical insurance as part of their benefits package--taking those costs away from their bottom line--and making them more (not less) competitve. (BTW: don't hand me that crap about Canada. Nothing says our system would have to be like theirs... insisting otherwise is just another scare tactic.)

-Your guns are not in jeopardy, that's another scare tactic.

-We don't need a consititutional amendment to outlaw gays.

-Drilling in Anwar or on the shelf(s) is not a long-term strategy to solve our energy situation or bring the price of gas or electricity down. It's a short term strategy to provide more profits while we whistle in the dark and wonder why it's not working.

-The John McCain of today is not the John McCain of the past. He's lost his sense of honor and has become one of those cynical politicians who will lie and cheat to win an election. (Do you really think Palin is the best choice he could have made that would serve the best interests of the country should a VP need to step in? If so, I have some land and a bridge you simply must have. By the way , you've won the Nigerian lottery, so send me $500 so I can get you what you deserve right away... and Bill Gates is giving away $200 to every person in the country.)

There is not point in trying to talk logic or facts with people like you. Rather than have serious give and take, you resort to immature jock-like name calling, and sophmoric phraseology declaring victory for yourself at every turn... in a somehow self-satidying attempt to stroke you own ego.

Go stroke yourself (and DuckinFool) and be done with it.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5249
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Postby seastreet » Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:09 am

dudejcb wrote:Seastreet,

I can appreciate that you're a partisan non-thinking guy, and DuckinFool has it going on for you. All that aside, the ones pushing a "diversion" are Joe Cook and those who think focussing on his wounds are the issues at hand. His nice video is a diversion away from the real issues that took his legs, his veterns benefits, and everyone's pocketbook.

The salient issues are:

-Iraq was a mistaken excuse for the neocon chickenhawks to re-fight Vietnam, as they have wanted to do since 1975. Just because good soldiers get wounded in the process doesn't somehow make it any smarter.

-Because we have given most our national treasure to Halliburton, KBR, Blackwater, etc. and diverted our attention away from the Taliban and Bin Laden, the real terrorists are making a comeback and we are not in a postion to respond properly in Afghanistan or Pakistan. We are in more danger now thatn before 9/11.

-9/11 happened on Bush's and the arrogant repuclican's watch! Just becasue there hasn't been another attack on our soil in the interim doesn't mean squat. Terrorists are patient. The Homeland is no more secure thatn it was 7 years ago, and airport security is busy collecting shampoo and pen knives as if that's the real threat, and longer time to board a plane is the answer.

-The economy is in the tank after 8 years of laissez laissez-faire (yeah, I said it twice for a reason) non-regulation non-oversight of anything so the "free market" can work its "wonders" ... achieved by packing watchdog agencies (FERC, FED Reserve, FCC, Justice Department, the Supreme Court etc.) with political idealogue activist hacks who brazeny choose not to follow the legislation (or Constitution) of the agencies (and government) they are dismantling, so as to allow their well-heeled cronies slurp at the public trough, at the public's expense.

-Universal healthcare would actually cost less than we are now paying and would unburden American businesses from having to provide medical insurance as part of their benefits package--taking those costs away from their bottom line--and making them more (not less) competitve. (BTW: don't hand me that crap about Canada. Nothing says our system would have to be like theirs... insisting otherwise is just another scare tactic.)

-Your guns are not in jeopardy, that's another scare tactic.

-We don't need a consititutional amendment to outlaw gays.

-Drilling in Anwar or on the shelf(s) is not a long-term strategy to solve our energy situation or bring the price of gas or electricity down. It's a short term strategy to provide more profits while we whistle in the dark and wonder why it's not working.

-The John McCain of today is not the John McCain of the past. He's lost his sense of honor and has become one of those cynical politicians who will lie and cheat to win an election. (Do you really think Palin is the best choice he could have made that would serve the best interests of the country should a VP need to step in? If so, I have some land and a bridge you simply must have. By the way , you've won the Nigerian lottery, so send me $500 so I can get you what you deserve right away... and Bill Gates is giving away $200 to every person in the country.)

There is not point in trying to talk logic or facts with people like you. Rather than have serious give and take, you resort to immature jock-like name calling, and sophmoric phraseology declaring victory for yourself at every turn... in a somehow self-satidying attempt to stroke you own ego.

Go stroke yourself (and DuckinFool) and be done with it.


And how is relevant to the discussion to whether or not Spec. Joe Cook is a phony regarding his video as a "soldier who was wounded sending a message to Obama"?

Simply, brownlou served, and I gave it an "all ball reject" for the win. Nuff said.
Glimmerjim wrote: I may be slow but I'm dumb!
User avatar
seastreet
hunter
 
Posts: 1686
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:56 pm
Location: Downeast, NC

Postby jaysweet3 » Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 am

I really wasn't a big fan of invading Iraq. Like you Dude, I thought that the real fight was going after the Taliban in Afghanistan and now Pakistan. Without being too much of a conspiracy theorists, I can see how "owning" Iraq is strategically advantageous to our situation in the middle east.

To say that 9/11 is President Bush's fault is so wrong. American policies have been shaping the world long before Bush came into office. And to completely discredit the current administration for preventing another attack is pure speculation. Whom do you think the Taliban hates more, Bush or whoever is running the next administration?

Our economy is in the tank because, it has been built on air for the last 20 years. Take a look at our last two economic booms and what they have been spurred by. Dotcom investing and real-estate overinflation. They have been the air in the bubble.

What our economy needs is to get back to manufacturing goods. Not just ideas that are sent overseas to be manufactured. Unfortunately, the world has a finite amount of natural resources. In order to manufacture goods we need to use them.

Oil, can be our economic catalyst in this country. It can create a new industry for our workers. Yes, on a long enough time line, domestic oil is not a long term fix for our energy needs. But what natural resource is? Until something else is developed, do we just sit around and wait?

In the meantime we need to encourage economic growth for our American owned companies. We don't do that by raising their taxes and adding more government regulation. Get out of their way and let them grow and put people back to work. Selling sandwiches to each other is not going to help us on the global market. Redistributing our wealth is defiantly the wrong way to do it.

Lets create a market where we are all able to produce and pay our own way. After all we are Americans, the “Rugged Individualists” Not the “mister can you spare a dime type
User avatar
jaysweet3
hunter
 
Posts: 8213
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:42 am
Location: N. Illinois

Postby seastreet » Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:17 am

jaysweet3 wrote:I really wasn't a big fan of invading Iraq. Like you Dude, I thought that the real fight was going after the Taliban in Afghanistan and now Pakistan. Without being too much of a conspiracy theorists, I can see how "owning" Iraq is strategically advantageous to our situation in the middle east.

To say that 9/11 is President Bush's fault is so wrong. American policies have been shaping the world long before Bush came into office. And to completely discredit the current administration for preventing another attack is pure speculation. Whom do you think the Taliban hates more, Bush or whoever is running the next administration?

Our economy is in the tank because, it has been built on air for the last 20 years. Take a look at our last two economic booms and what they have been spurred by. Dotcom investing and real-estate overinflation. They have been the air in the bubble.

What our economy needs is to get back to manufacturing goods. Not just ideas that are sent overseas to be manufactured. Unfortunately, the world has a finite amount of natural resources. In order to manufacture goods we need to use them.

Oil, can be our economic catalyst in this country. It can create a new industry for our workers. Yes, on a long enough time line, domestic oil is not a long term fix for our energy needs. But what natural resource is? Until something else is developed, do we just sit around and wait?

In the meantime we need to encourage economic growth for our American owned companies. We don't do that by raising their taxes and adding more government regulation. Get out of their way and let them grow and put people back to work. Selling sandwiches to each other is not going to help us on the global market. Redistributing our wealth is defiantly the wrong way to do it.

Lets create a market where we are all able to produce and pay our own way. After all we are Americans, the “Rugged Individualists” Not the “mister can you spare a dime type


Well put!!! :thumbsup:

If we install a consumption tax (a revised version of the Fair Tax) and remove the barriers that prevent industry from coming here, then our economy would boom in manufacturing jobs. The US isn't well known as manufacturing friendly when it comes to tax structure.
Glimmerjim wrote: I may be slow but I'm dumb!
User avatar
seastreet
hunter
 
Posts: 1686
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:56 pm
Location: Downeast, NC

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:18 am

jaysweet3,

I agree with most of what you are saying. However, there are two points I have to disagree.

jaysweet3 wrote:Our economy is in the tank because, it has been built on air for the last 20 years. Take a look at our last two economic booms and what they have been spurred by. Dotcom investing and real-estate overinflation. They have been the air in the bubble.

Our economy has been sound over this period. The bubbles did not erase all or even most of these gains. Stocks are up, housing prices are up, home ownership is up. The fundamentals of the economy are still strong, but the housing bubble has to work it's way through the system. Too much government intervention will lead to it dragging on (think Hoover creating a depression and Roosevelt making it great). Too little government involvement will get it over as quick as possible, but too much short term whipsaw (think insurance - you lose in the long run, but smooth big bumps along the way).


jaysweet3 wrote:What our economy needs is to get back to manufacturing goods. Not just ideas that are sent overseas to be manufactured. Unfortunately, the world has a finite amount of natural resources. In order to manufacture goods we need to use them.

Manufacturing has been and continues to grow in the long-term. Employment, and especially union employment, had been declining. Just like farm employment had dropped dramatically, but farm output has grown dramatically because of technology.

Hourly wages have risen in manufacturing jobs. Who makes more? A guy with a shovel or a guy driving the bulldozer? Why? They are both just moving dirt. PRODUCTIVITY raises real wages.

There have been huge productivity gains in manufacturing which has displaced workers and raised wages for those remaining. This is where the jobs have gone and not to China. In the long-term, this is a good thing for everybody. In the short term, it depends if you are the guy with the shovel or the bulldozer.

I couldn't find the right links, but this is a good summary.

http://www.manufacturing.net/article.aspx?id=10102&terms=
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16077
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby dudejcb » Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:37 am

First Sea,

I didn't call Joe Cook a phony. I said the argument he makes is not on target with the issues facing our country and is diversionary in that sense.

Jaysweet,

Bush and Condi refused to listen or heed any and all warnings they were given that "something big is about to happen" and "Bin Laden determined to strike in America." Teh only reason I therew that out is becaseu I've had Spinner and others make the triumphant claim that "we haven't been attaced since 9/11." So that was a pre-emtive remark.

I agree that our economy has been built on air and all the "free-trade" and tax codes that reward exporting jobs is the problem. The R's have had control of the White house and both houses of Congress for 6.5 of the last 8 years and haven't done squat to remedy anything.

I haven't heard anythign about raising taxes on anyone except the ultra-rich who have gotten the Bush tax cuts that McCain first was against but now wants to make permanent.

Why are oil companies getting tax breaks during times of record profits? That money, rather than going to support military spending (for instance), instead goes toward quarterly dividends, bonus pay. Tax breaks to encourage economic growth should go to fledgling industries that hold strategic potential who's industries we think our in our best long term interests, or those that will provide manufacturing jobs for a vibrant middle class to fire our economic engine.

I know we all like the myth of being rugged individualists and that's especially appealing here in the west. But the reality is... here in the west and elsewhere... they like to talk down big government and how it's al in your face, but are the first ones with their hand out for federal funds, whether for highways, bridges to nowhere, or subsidies for cattle and agriculture. Large corporations (not the little guys) give millions in campaign donations and get back billions in special projects, oil leases and other sweetheart stuff that pretty much bypasses the rest of the economy and benefits the few.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5249
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Postby seastreet » Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:42 am

dudejcb wrote:First Sea,

I didn't call Joe Cook a phony. I said the argument he makes is not on target with the issues facing our country and is diversionary in that sense.


Yet you responded to my response to brownlou with your usual weak DNC talking points.

Begin your crying.
Glimmerjim wrote: I may be slow but I'm dumb!
User avatar
seastreet
hunter
 
Posts: 1686
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:56 pm
Location: Downeast, NC

Postby jaysweet3 » Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:03 am

How much should a Corporation have to pay in taxes? Oil is a comodity, it is traded on a market, and it's value is set by that market. Oil companies should be punished and not allowed to compete on a global basis? Companies should not be able to make a profit? They should be in businiess to give to those without?
User avatar
jaysweet3
hunter
 
Posts: 8213
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:42 am
Location: N. Illinois

Postby brownlou » Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:04 am

Seastreet---for the win?
LOL!!!
I haven't given this topic another thought.
LOL!!
But I am glad that you are so proud of yourself!
Bravo!
brownlou
hunter
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 5:09 pm

Postby dudejcb » Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:08 am

No. Oil companies should be allowed to make a profit. But when they are this fabulously profitable I don't think they need extra incentives (via special tax breaks) to help them make ends meet.

I suppose how much they get taxed might be related to the type of work they do and the profitability of the enterprise.

Corporations should be just a responsible to pay taxes on their profits as ordinary people. A paper entity should not have more rights, or less responsibiities, than actual human citizens should it?
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5249
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Postby seastreet » Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:45 am

brownlou wrote:Seastreet---for the win?
LOL!!!
I haven't given this topic another thought.
LOL!!
But I am glad that you are so proud of yourself!
Bravo!


Glad you acknowledged your beatdown. :biggrin: :hammer:
Glimmerjim wrote: I may be slow but I'm dumb!
User avatar
seastreet
hunter
 
Posts: 1686
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:56 pm
Location: Downeast, NC

Postby dudejcb » Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:56 am

seastreet wrote:Glad you acknowledged your beatdown. :biggrin: :hammer:


Beat...down? you have an einordinately high yet undeserved opinion of yourself... and again, emoticons are gay! Beat down indeed.
Last edited by dudejcb on Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5249
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Postby jaysweet3 » Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:58 am

Most corporations don't actually pay taxes. All monies and profits are moved along the line down to the actual owners who pay the taxes. There are "REAL" people paying those taxes. Not some piece of paper.
User avatar
jaysweet3
hunter
 
Posts: 8213
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:42 am
Location: N. Illinois

Postby dudejcb » Mon Sep 15, 2008 12:00 pm

having had a couple of corporations, my experience is that they don't pay state income tax. The do pay federal income tax and state sales tax (if they're retail).
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5249
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Sep 15, 2008 12:15 pm

dudejcb wrote:Bush and Condi refused to listen or heed any and all warnings they were given that "something big is about to happen" and "Bin Laden determined to strike in America."

Clinton knew we were at war and failed to stop the 1st World Trade Center attack. He would not have stopped the 2nd either. So what does that mean? The entire country was in a state of denial. Now only 1/2 the country is.

Read the damn memo. Everybody knew "Bin Laden was determined to strike America" He had done it before. There was nothing specific in this thing that hadn't been known for a decade. It was just the Democrats politicize 9/11. Democrats cry like a baby when Republicans politicize 9/11, but they don't miss a beat when they can. Thing is they have to lie and mislead to gain political advantage from it.

dudejcb wrote:Teh only reason I therew that out is becaseu I've had Spinner and others make the triumphant claim that "we haven't been attaced since 9/11." So that was a pre-emtive remark.
That's a fact. Nobody ever expected that we would go this long without another successful domestic terrorist attack. Don't worry dude, sooner or later you will get your wish and there will be another attack. Then you can triumphiantly claim success for your side.

dudejcb wrote:I agree that our economy has been built on air and all the "free-trade" and tax codes that reward exporting jobs is the problem. The R's have had control of the White house and both houses of Congress for 6.5 of the last 8 years and haven't done squat to remedy anything.
We IMPORT more and higher paying jobs than we export. If every country stopped "exporting" jobs we would lose out on the deal. This is a lie or just plain stupidity.

As I pointed out, we have lost 10's of millions of farm jobs. Where did they go? Automation. Same is true for manufacturing.

Since we have "lost" more jobs than there are people in the country, why isn't unemployment 100%?

We "export" and we "import" jobs. We come out ahead on the deal.

dudejcb wrote:No. Oil companies should be allowed to make a profit. But when they are this fabulously profitable I don't think they need extra incentives (via special tax breaks) to help them make ends meet.

I suppose how much they get taxed might be related to the type of work they do and the profitability of the enterprise.

Corporations should be just a responsible to pay taxes on their profits as ordinary people. A paper entity should not have more rights, or less responsibiities, than actual human citizens should it?
So you think higher taxes on AMERICAN corporations will help Americans? You do know you can only tax American corporations? This gives foreign corporations a competitive advantage.

How that hell can giving competitive advantages to foreign corporation ever benefit us? Please layout how making American corporations less profitable helps Americans. It will reduce salaries because their will be less jobs in America (supply and demand). It will reduce retirement income. Most of it comes from American corporations, either directly via pensions and retirement accounts or indirectly as taxes passed through via social security.

You don't get it that the corporations manipulate the idiotic politicians like Pelosi. They eliminate competitions by making the legal and environmental barriers to entry so great that a new corporation cannot get into the business. This is short-sighted as corporations tend to be. They are playing with fire and end up burning everything down. You see this in all heavily regulated industries. California energy crisis, Freddie & Fannie Mae, ... Let's hope it doesn't happen to the American oil industry. The existing companies have their protection, but the vultures are now circling. Obama is just waiting to rip the carcass apart.

Energy is a strategic industry. It is as essential as food. We need to reduce the financial burdens on the energy industry (less taxes and less regulation). Food, energy, heavy manufacturing, ... There are certain things we need to subsidize for national security reasons. Oil is without a doubt one of them.

dudejcb wrote:having had a couple of corporations, my experience is that they don't pay state income tax. The do pay federal income tax and state sales tax (if they're retail).
So the taxes didn't come out of your pocket? They just came out of some legal framework. You completely missed jaysweet3's point. A corporation is just a legal arrangement. All taxes are come from people either directly, such as out of the shareholders pockets, or indirectly out of the consumers pocket.

If we could actually get money from corporations, all we would need to do is create a bunch of them and then require they pay us money. It's the basic premise that money doesn't grow on trees and it doesn't grow in corporate board rooms either. Every last penny comes from a person somewhere.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16077
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby dudejcb » Mon Sep 15, 2008 12:30 pm

Spinner,

it is exceptionally low for you to suggest that I wish we get hit again. You can bite me on that one.

I got jaysweet's point. my corporate profit was considered as personal profit and taxed accordingly.


Read the damn memo... that's what Bush, Cheney and Condi were supposed to do... read it and then ask questions... but didn't. If they had, or had listened to Clark, they might have gotten the CIA and FBI to connect the dots better. Maybe save some lives.

The reason the 9/11 attack was successful was because the FBI and CIA were dysfunctional in several regards. They had a lot of information and several opportunities, and made many stupid mistakes. Try reading The Dark Side by Jane Mayer. I have work to do and can't spend all day dithering with you guys.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5249
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Postby jaysweet3 » Mon Sep 15, 2008 1:02 pm

Well, now that he's gone...we can get back to bashing the ill thought policies of the dems.
User avatar
jaysweet3
hunter
 
Posts: 8213
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:42 am
Location: N. Illinois

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Sep 15, 2008 1:53 pm

dudejcb wrote:it is exceptionally low for you to suggest that I wish we get hit again. You can bite me on that one.
I don't know how else to take the fact that you claim it is triumphant for our side to point out that there have been no successful attacks. If it is triumphant for our side that there are no attacks, then would it not be triumphant for the other side if there were attacks. Where is the flaw? It is a triumph, don't you agree. It sounds like you do not.

dudejcb wrote:I got jaysweet's point. my corporate profit was considered as personal profit and taxed accordingly.
So you agree that every penny of "corporate" tax comes out of the pocket of some person somewhere. The so-called corporate taxes are born by the shareholders (in the short-term) and by the employees and consumers (in the long-term). This is just short-sighted tax policy that puts American corporations at a competive disadvantage. Very stupid for a party that claims to be worried about export jobs. This is one of those policies that provides incentive to export jobs, which I thought you were against. Maybe not.

dudejcb wrote:Read the damn memo... that's what Bush, Cheney and Condi were supposed to do... read it and then ask questions... but didn't. If they had, or had listened to Clark, they might have gotten the CIA and FBI to connect the dots better. Maybe save some lives.
There was no actionable intelligence in the memo. There is nothing to believe any administration would have prevented 9/11. If Bush would have done what was necessary to stop the 9/11 attacks, it would have been illegal. Clinton had more opportunities to stop 9/11 than Bush. However, this is the benifit of hindsight. Just like Obama, your hindsight is much better than your foresight. When you are obsessed with the "liberties" of non-Americans, you cannot fight a war. You can barely get a criminal convicted if they are on video tape committing the crime and admitting to it. To believe these people can prosecute a war is insane. This was the mindset prior to 9/11. This is still Obama's mindset. Noone argues he is not a Harvard educated lawyer. An inexperience Harvard lawyer running the country is the last thing we need.

Lives have been saved since then. That is why the triumphant point that there has been no succesful terrorist attacks since then. Bush learned from the the attack on the world trade center. There is no indication that Clinton learned anything.

dudejcb wrote:The reason the 9/11 attack was successful was because the FBI and CIA were dysfunctional in several regards. They had a lot of information and several opportunities, and made many stupid mistakes.
Who said they didn't? You do know the CIA was run by a Clinton holdover. That damn Bush. What was he thinking relying an a Clinton-appointee? He should have known they were incompetent and dysfunctional.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16077
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby seastreet » Mon Sep 15, 2008 1:58 pm

jaysweet3 wrote:Well, now that he's gone...we can get back to bashing the ill thought policies of the dems.


Image
Glimmerjim wrote: I may be slow but I'm dumb!
User avatar
seastreet
hunter
 
Posts: 1686
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:56 pm
Location: Downeast, NC

Postby dudejcb » Mon Sep 15, 2008 3:42 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
dudejcb wrote:it is exceptionally low for you to suggest that I wish we get hit again. You can bite me on that one.
I don't know how else to take the fact that you claim it is triumphant for our side to point out that there have been no successful attacks. If it is triumphant for our side that there are no attacks, then would it not be triumphant for the other side if there were attacks. Where is the flaw? It is a triumph, don't you agree. It sounds like you do not.
This is not a "triumph" issue (nor a mission accomplished one) despite the fact that you have at times made that claim. this is more likely a matter of time issue. as an open society (If Cheney and Bush's minions haven't re-written the consitituion yet) it is probable that eventually something may happen. We all hope not, but to assume we have it figured out is to lay the groundwark for the next attack.

SpinnerMan wrote:
dudejcb wrote:I got jaysweet's point. my corporate profit was considered as personal profit and taxed accordingly.
So you agree that every penny of "corporate" tax comes out of the pocket of some person somewhere. The so-called corporate taxes are born by the shareholders (in the short-term) and by the employees and consumers (in the long-term). This is just short-sighted tax policy that puts American corporations at a competive disadvantage. Very stupid for a party that claims to be worried about export jobs. This is one of those policies that provides incentive to export jobs, which I thought you were against. Maybe not.
How short sighted is it to let the fabulously profitable pay no taxes while our record national debt grows exponentially? Very stupid for a party that portends to understand the financial world and its negative impact on business and its ablity to get and use capital.

SpinnerMan wrote:
dudejcb wrote:]Read the damn memo... that's what Bush, Cheney and Condi were supposed to do... read it and then ask questions... but didn't. If they had, or had listened to Clark, they might have gotten the CIA and FBI to connect the dots better. Maybe save some lives.
There was no actionable intelligence in the memo. There is nothing to believe any administration would have prevented 9/11. If Bush would have done what was necessary to stop the 9/11 attacks, it would have been illegal. Clinton had more opportunities to stop 9/11 than Bush. However, this is the benifit of hindsight. Just like Obama, your hindsight is much better than your foresight. When you are obsessed with the "liberties" of non-Americans, you cannot fight a war. You can barely get a criminal convicted if they are on video tape committing the crime and admitting to it. To believe these people can prosecute a war is insane. This was the mindset prior to 9/11. This is still Obama's mindset. Noone argues he is not a Harvard educated lawyer. An inexperience Harvard lawyer running the country is the last thing we need.

Lives have been saved since then. That is why the triumphant point that there has been no succesful terrorist attacks since then. Bush learned from the the attack on the world trade center. There is no indication that Clinton learned anything..
My my my. quite a rant. Yup the memo didn't say how, when or where. But FBI agents in Minnesota caught Missaoui, asked for permission to open his laptop and were denied. If the administration had been engaged, perhaps the FBI/CIA would have been also. Arabic types taking flying lessons but not caring about learning landing and takeoffs... ignored. CIA knew two of the hijackers were in the country, but then "lost" them becasue of other busy work. Again, had our leaders been leading, perhaps those charged to do the work would have been paying closer attention, rather than sleeping at the wheel and then receiving promotions and medals for incompetence following their dismal failures.

SpinnerMan wrote:
dudejcb wrote:The reason the 9/11 attack was successful was because the FBI and CIA were dysfunctional in several regards. They had a lot of information and several opportunities, and made many stupid mistakes.
Who said they didn't? You do know the CIA was run by a Clinton holdover. That damn Bush. What was he thinking relying an a Clinton-appointee? He should have known they were incompetent and dysfunctional.
Ah. playing the Clinton card yet again. Clinton and his folks tried to get these nimrods to listen and in their hubris they ignored them and refused to pay atttention to anything... and that's on them. Clinton wasn't there, get over it. Try again.

Lives were saved? well I hope so but there's no evidence to support the claim. All the prosecutions they have tried have failed becasue they mucked it up. Now they've come full circle and come the the conclusion that a criminal approach is probably better that a war-footing approach. Talk about slow-witted...is it them, or you and those like you who refuse to accept what is in front of your nose.

No wonder we're screwed. all this important stuff and you guys get lathered up over a pinhead woman who can see Russia from her house, but has no clue what the Biggest thing Bush did! for the first time in our nation's history he authorized pre-emtive war against someone who didn't attack us. She's genius all right.

A poly sci major in elected office and she misses that freight train of change! Oh yeah, she's qualified... to ovulate.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5249
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests