Questions Republicans just can't answer

McG, You're projecting again. Show me where I said it'll stop illegal immigration? The federal government has the responsibility to "stop" illegal immigration; it's that simple. They fail in that responsibility.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

McG, You're projecting again. Show me where I said it'll stop illegal immigration? The federal government has the responsibility to "stop" illegal immigration; it's that simple. They fail in that responsibility.

McGentrix wrote:

What would you suggest we do about illegal immigration coming over the Mexican border?

cicerone imposter wrote:

Enforce the laws congress made into law.

cicerone imposter wrote:

In 1986, the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) was passed, creating for the first time, in theory at least, penalties for employers who hired illegal immigrants.

If this was not your answer, why did you post it? You even went to the extra effort of making colored and large... What was your point if not to answer my question?

0 Replies

McG, Do you undestand anything about circular argument?

0 Replies

I do, but you can't seem to answer a simple question. I would ask you why that is, but I fear you would fail answering that question as well.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

ican, "Appears to be" and the reality are quite different. If you are honest enough, you must admit that the Iraqi military and police are being infratrated by sectarian groups that are killing their own people.

The so-called "goal" seems to increase the problems, not solve them.

I was giving my answer to the question: What is the plan ... ?

I was not evaluating the effectiveness of the plan.

Clearly, the plan is not working. Crying or Very sad

0 Replies

Any plan I might have is meaningless to our government. You should be asking "them" what their plan is.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

What is being done to defend our borders and ports?

Worldwide communications spying is what is being done, but our borders and ports are indefensible unless they are completely closed.

What is being done to defend our chemical and nuclear facilities?

Worldwide communications spying is what is being done, but our chemical and nuclear facilities are indefensible unless they are completely closed.

I strongly disagree with the conclusion that ports and nuclear facilities are indefensible unless completely closed. Ridiculous notion.

Cycloptichorn

I think it a ridiculous notion that any part of the American infrastructure is defensible without closing it, if Islamist Terrorists are not exterminated prior to their planned attacks.

All any of them need to do is to steal a general aviation airplane capable of carrying 500 to 1,000 pounds of high explosives, plus adequate fuel, plus a suicidal pilot. There are thousands of such aircraft located on airfields throughout America. The theft need not actually occur more than an hour prior to the planned attack.

To protect American life, limb and infrastructure, we must exterminate the Islamist Terrorists before they steal these aircraft and load them with high explosives. The best place to do that is where they are trained. Adequate monitoring of domestic and foreign communications might help locate them before they takeoff. Because once they takeoff, distinguishing such aircraft from non-combatant aircraft is too difficult to allow stopping enough of them.

0 Replies

ican, Do you sleep on top of your bed, or below it? Do you have a bomb shelter in your home? How thick is the cement?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

ican, Do you sleep on top of your bed, or below it? Do you have a bomb shelter in your home? How thick is the cement?

I don't sleep in, under, over, or beside any part of the American infrastructure, except occassionally I have fallen asleep on my toilet ..... noshit!

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
What is the plan for winning the War in Iraq?

Subquestions:

Does it require greater troop strengths?

What kind of planning was done for the post-war period by US leadership?

How are we going to stop the rampant sectarian violence?

How are we going to divide oil revenues fairly amongst Iraqis?

At what point will we be able to disengage from Iraq completely?

How much longer do you project America will have a significant presence in Iraq?

What are we doing to combat the spiraling costs of our occupation?

If the war in Iraq is helping to train more terrorists, how is it making Americans safer in the long run?

What is the plan for winning the war in Iraq?

The Bush administration's plan appears to be:

The American military is attempting to train enough Iraqi troops to by themselves defend Iraq against the deliberate killers of non-combatants Iraqis;

The American government is assuming that successfully training the Iraqi troops as described is sufficient to prevent Islaamic Fundamentalists from re-establishing their sanctuary and growing in Iraq;

Upon the Iraq government requesting it, the American government will remove its troops from Iraq.

Does it require greater troop strengths?

The plan does not appear to require greater troop strength

What kind of planning was done for the post-war period by US leadership?

It appears that all kinds of planning for contingencies was done. Unfortunately, those plans selected aren't working.

How are we going to stop the rampant sectarian violence?

I don't know!

How could we stop the rampant sectarian violence?

Exterminate the Islamist terrorist promoting that violence by their deliberate killing of Suni and Shia non-combatants .

How are we going to divide oil revenues fairly amongst Iraqis?

I don't know!

How could we divide oil revenues fairly amongst Iraqis?

Divide oil revenue shares equally among the Iraqi population including minors and adults.

...

More later!

0 Replies

ican, Your "fear factor" lost in the last election. Rummy is now gone. Bush has been toppled. Americans have spoken; Iraq is not part of the war on terrorism. You are still in the "minority" of using fear to pursue your political agenda.

0 Replies

continued from my earlier post answering Cycloptichorn's preceding questions

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...

At what point will we be able to disengage from Iraq completely?

How much longer do you project America will have a significant presence in Iraq?

What are we doing to combat the spiraling costs of our occupation?

If the war in Iraq is helping to train more terrorists, how is it making Americans safer in the long run?

At what point will we be able to disengage from Iraq completely?

Until the Iraq governent asks us to leave or until a Democrat is elected president, whichever occurs first.

How much longer do you project America will have a significant presence in Iraq?

Until the Iraq governent asks us to leave or until a Democrat is elected president, whichever occurs first.

What are we doing to combat the spiraling costs of our occupation?

I do not know!

What can we do to combat the spiraling costs of our occupation?

Perform independent audits of each expenditure past, present and future to determine whether it bought what it was intended to buy at the price it was intended to buy it. When an expenditure is determined to not have bought what it was intended to buy at the price it was intended to buy it, hold its buyer accountable.

If the war in Iraq is helping to train more terrorists, how is it making Americans safer in the long run?

Fewer terrorists are being trained as a result of the war in Iraq, than would have been trained had there been no war in Iraq. The war in Iraq is helping to train more terrorists to replace the ones killed in the war.

Many of those terrorists who are trained as a result of the war in Iraq, are subsequently being killed as a result of the war in Iraq instead of subsequently terrorizing Americans.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

ican, Your "fear factor" lost in the last election. Rummy is now gone. Bush has been toppled. Americans have spoken; Iraq is not part of the war on terrorism. You are still in the "minority" of using fear to pursue your political agenda.

My fear factor lost in the last election Exclamation

Iraq is not part of the war on terrorism Exclamation

I am still in the "minority" of using fear to pursue my political agenda Exclamation

A US congressional election does not ever determine what is true or is not true outside of the US Congress Exclamation

The 2006 US congressional election did not determine whether or not the Iraq war is part of the war on terrorism Exclamation

Truth is fearful only to those who lack competence to deal rationally with truth, or to those for whom pursuing the truth conflicts with their own political agendas.

American voters are rightfully disgusted with how poorly the war on terror in Iraq is proceding. Some Americans think the Iraq war is not a part of the war on terror, but are afraid to say what is or should be a part of the war on terror.

You in particular appear to me to be such an American. When asked what you think should be done differently, you beg off with the pathetic excuse that determining that is not your job or responsibility.

I say everyone who claims an action is wrong or inadequate, is morally obligated to at least provide his own opinion about what are the attributes of the right or adequate action. I say this because in my experience no action I've witnessed or taken is right or adequate in all contexts, but is right or adequate usually only in one context. In other words, given a tough problem to solve, the solution is to be found only when people cooperate in determining and eventually agreeing on the context of the solution they seek.

Right now, I think the context of the solution to the terrorist problem is the elimination over time of terrorist sanctuaries for training terrorists. Iraq was, and is again, one such place sought by terrorists to be a sanctuary for terrorists. Our problem to be solved then is how to adequately prevent Iraq again becoming a terrorist sanctuary.

0 Replies

ican, If you understood anything about truth, you would know Bush is a liar.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

ican, If you understood anything about truth, you would know Bush is a liar.

I know Bush is a pseudologist (i.e., a falsifier or liar). And I know you are also a pseudologist.

So what has that got to do with what I previously posted?

ican711nm wrote:

Right now, I think the context of the solution to the terrorist problem is the elimination over time of terrorist sanctuaries for training terrorists. Iraq was, and is again, one such place sought by terrorists to be a sanctuary for terrorists. Our problem to be solved then is how to adequately prevent Iraq again becoming a terrorist sanctuary.

Nothing in that quote is based on anything Bush said, is saying, or I anticipate Bush will say.

It is an established fact that after the USA invaded Afghanistan in October 2001, al-Qaeda established a rapidly growing sanctuary in northeastern Iraq in December 2001. That fact is based on what our military directly verified after we invaded Iraq in March 2003. That fact is also based on its subsequent confirmation by a Congressional commission.

0 Replies

pseudologist...

good one...

0 Replies

We know Bush didn't say those things: it was spoken by ican, the antisocialist for humanity. Kill all the terrorists; an impossible task when they're growing faster than the you can kill them off.

0 Replies

revisited

Cycloptichorn wrote:

How much has the average American family benefitted from Bush's tax cut plans?

I don't know! A large number of Americans paid zero taxes in 2001. So the average tax saving for them in 2006 will be zero.

How much have some low income American families benefited from Bush's tax cut plans?

MARRIED FILING JOINTLY

Tax on Taxable Income for 2001 Tax Year
$........0 to 45,200 x 15.0% = Tax
..45,201 to 109,250 x 27.5% = Tax
.109,251 to 166,500 x 30.5% = Tax

Tax on Taxable Income for 2006 Tax Year
$........0 to 15,100 x 10% = Tax
..15,101 to 61,300 x 15% = Tax
..61,301 to 123,700 x 25% = Tax

2006 TAX REDUCTIONS FOR TAXABLE INCOMES EXCLUDING CAPITAL GAINS

2001: for $15,000 the tax = $2,250.00
= (15,000 x 0.15)
2006: for $15,000 the tax = ..1,500.00
= (15,000 x 0.10)
2006 Tax Reduction = ............ $750.00

2001: for $30,000 the tax = $4,500.00
= (30,000 x 0.15)
2006: for $30,000 the tax = ..3,745.00
= (15,100 x 0.10) + ((30,000 - 15,100) x 0.15)
2006 Tax Reduction = ............ $755.00

2001: for $60,000 the tax = $10,850.00
= (45,200 x .15) + ((60,000 - 45,200) x 0.275)
2006: for $60,000 the tax = ....8,245.00
= (15,100 x 0.10) + ((60,000 - 15,100) x 0.15)
2006 Tax Reduction = ........... $2,605.00

2001: for $120,000 the tax = $27,672.50
= (45,200 x 0.15) + ((109,250 - 45,200) x 0.275) + ((120,000 - 109,250) x 0.305)
2006: for $120,000 the tax = ..23,115.00
= (15,100 x 0.10) + ((61,300 - 15,100) x 0.15) + ((120,000 - 61,300) x 0.25)
2006 Tax Reduction = ............. $4,557.50

0 Replies

ican, Trying to divert the subject again? LOL

0 Replies

In 2001, for married filing jointly: the tax rate on taxable capital gains was the same as the tax rate on taxable income for your highest tax bracket.

In 2006, for married filing jointly: the tax rate on taxable capital gains is 15% for all those in the 25% and higher income tax brackets; it is 10% for those in the 15% and lower income tax brackets.

In 2006, for married filing jointly: if your only income is from taxable capital gains equal to or less than $61,300, you are taxed 10%; if your only income is from taxable capital gains greater than $61,300, you are taxed 10% on $61,300 and 15% on all that greater than $61,300.

0 Replies

Questions Republicans just can't answer

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know