4
   

Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread IV

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 10:31 am
Thomas wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Not that you actually have substantive criticism of his positions, though.

Of course not! She told you, she isn't listening to him.


"Not listening" is American vernacular for "refusing to obey or adhere to or take seriously." It has nothing to do with not knowing what is being said.

Here is just one example of a Krugman doom and gloom scenario that translates into downright error at best, more likely mistatement to create a false impression, or possibly a flat out lie:
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/luskin042303.asp

There are many, many, many more such examples.
_________________
--Foxfyre

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I?-
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 10:37 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Thomas wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Not that you actually have substantive criticism of his positions, though.

Of course not! She told you, she isn't listening to him.


"Not listening" is American vernacular for "refusing to obey or adhere to or take seriously." It has nothing to do with not knowing what is being said.

Here is just one example of a Krugman doom and gloom scenario that translates into downright error at best, more likely mistatement to create a false impression, or possibly a flat out lie:
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/luskin042303.asp

There are many, many, many more such examples.


Sure; but none provided by you, Foxfyre. Just ad hominem.

The fact that Luskin's numbers in that article you posted, also turn out to be inaccurate? I note that you didn't say anything at all about that.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 11:02 am
It is a bit hard to believe that giving big tax cuts to the likes of Paris Hilton and Teresa Heinz created a lot of jobs. The fact is that the cuts were a big give away for the wealthy. Even conservative economists have said that.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 11:05 am
Advocate wrote:
It is a bit hard to believe that giving big tax cuts to the likes of Paris Hilton and Teresa Heinz created a lot of jobs. The fact is that the cuts were a big give away for the wealthy. Even conservative economists have said that.


Maybe it is a bit hard for a liberal to believe, Advocate, but even a liberal can educate himself on this stuff. Start HERE
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 11:07 am
Advocate wrote:
It is a bit hard to believe that giving big tax cuts to the likes of Paris Hilton and Teresa Heinz created a lot of jobs. The fact is that the cuts were a big give away for the wealthy. Even conservative economists have said that.


Lots of jobs in Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, etc where all their designer clothing is made.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 11:11 am
maporsche wrote:
Advocate wrote:
It is a bit hard to believe that giving big tax cuts to the likes of Paris Hilton and Teresa Heinz created a lot of jobs. The fact is that the cuts were a big give away for the wealthy. Even conservative economists have said that.


Lots of jobs in Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, etc where all their designer clothing is made.


And HERE are some good references to pursue for your education on that, Maporsche.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 11:14 am
Bush Pleads for Patience in Iraq War

WASHINGTON (AP) - With Democrats pushing for an end to the Iraq war now entering its fifth year, President Bush pleaded for more patience Monday, saying success is possible but "will take months, not days or weeks."

The war has stretched longer, with higher costs, than the White House ever predicted. On the fourth anniversary of the day Bush directed the invasion to begin, the president made a televised statement from the White House Roosevelt Room to defend continued U.S. involvement.

He said his plan to send 21,500 additional U.S. troops to secure Baghdad and Iraq's troubled Anbar Province "will need more time to take effect," especially since fewer than half of the troop reinforcements have yet arrived in the capital. Bush added: "There will be good days and bad days ahead as the security plan unfolds."

Democrats are bringing up this week in the House a war spending bill that would effectively require the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by the fall of 2008, on top of providing funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for the year. The White House has been pushing aggressively against this legislation, and Bush did so again on Monday.

"It can be tempting to look at the challenges in Iraq and conclude our best option is to pack up and go home," he said. "That may be satisfying in the short run. But I believe the consequences for America's security would be devastating."

He said he had received news of positive signs during a morning briefing on the war with his National Security Council, and during a closed-circuit television conference call with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki from Baghdad.

Bush ridiculed House Democrats' legislation to remove troops, a measure he has promised to veto because it contains a timeline. He called it an abdication of U.S. commitments to Iraqis.

"There's a lot more work to be done and Iraq's leaders must continue to work to meet the benchmarks they have set forward," he said. "As Iraqis work to meet their commitments, we have important commitments of our own."

The House's war spending bill includes a troop withdrawal deadline of Sept. 1, 2008. The timeline would speed up if the Iraqi government cannot meet its own benchmarks for providing security, allocating oil revenues and other essential steps.

Democrats "have a responsibility to ensure that this bill provides the funds and the flexibility that our troops need to accomplish their mission," the president said."They have a responsibility to pass a clean bill that does not use funding for our troops as leverage to get special interest spending for their district. And they have a responsibility to get this bill to my desk without strings and without delay."

But Democratic lawmakers argue that the public voted in November to place them in charge of Congress to demand more progress in Iraq?-and to start getting the U.S. troops out.

The House plan appears to have little chance of getting through the Senate, where Democrats have a slimmer majority. The White House wants to stop it anyway, fearful of the message the world will hear if the House approves a binding bill to end the war.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Sunday the House bill could make it impossible for military commanders to do their work.

Congressional Democrats, put in power in large part because of anti- war public sentiment, are trying to use their power of the purse to force action. So far, Iraq's leadership is struggling to meet the major benchmarks that it has pledged to the United States.

The impending House vote concerns a $124 billion spending bill, $95.5 billion of which is targeted for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Some of the other money is for unrelated domestic programs, which also has angered the White House.

Entering its fifth year, the war has claimed the lives of more than 3,200 members of the U.S. military.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice earlier Monday staunchly defended going to war but acknowledged the administration should have sent more troops initially to quell the civil strife following the invasion.

Asked on CBS's "The Early Show" to say what the administration could have done better, she said that, early on, officials "might have looked to a more localized, more decentralized approach to reconstruction.

"... And I do believe that the kind of counterinsurgency strategy in which Gen. (David) Petraeus is now pursuing, in which we have enough forces to clear an area and hold it, so that building and governance can emerge, is the best strategy. And that probably was not pursued in the very beginning."

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a persistent critic of the war strategy but a supporter of the war itself, has repeatedly complained that not enough U.S. troops were placed on the ground in the weeks and months following the March 2003 invasion.

Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., also appearing on CBS, maintained that "the only way you end sectarian violence is to occupy a country or have a decentralized government.

"You've got to give these people (the Sunnis, Shia and Kurds) breathing room like we did in Bosnia," Biden said. "You've got to separate these people. This is a failed strategy."
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 11:32 am
Foxfyre wrote:
maporsche wrote:
Advocate wrote:
It is a bit hard to believe that giving big tax cuts to the likes of Paris Hilton and Teresa Heinz created a lot of jobs. The fact is that the cuts were a big give away for the wealthy. Even conservative economists have said that.


Lots of jobs in Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, etc where all their designer clothing is made.


And HERE are some good references to pursue for your education on that, Maporsche.


Could you show me where that link says that Paris Hilton having more money to spend on designer clothing does not create more jobs in countries where this clothing is made?

I was not saying anything against free trade, just pointing out that Ms. Hilton spends a lot of money on clothes, and now has a little mroe to spend.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 11:41 am
maporsche wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
maporsche wrote:
Advocate wrote:
It is a bit hard to believe that giving big tax cuts to the likes of Paris Hilton and Teresa Heinz created a lot of jobs. The fact is that the cuts were a big give away for the wealthy. Even conservative economists have said that.


Lots of jobs in Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, etc where all their designer clothing is made.


And HERE are some good references to pursue for your education on that, Maporsche.


Could you show me where that link says that Paris Hilton having more money to spend on designer clothing does not create more jobs in countries where this clothing is made?

I was not saying anything against free trade, just pointing out that Ms. Hilton spends a lot of money on clothes, and now has a little mroe to spend.


Well sombody has to receive those shipments into the USA, ship them to stores, stock them, press them, hang them up, advertise them, sell them, tax the revenue they generate. I would guess every job in Malaysia etc. has created at least two jobs here. So thank you Paris Hilton. (God I can't believe I just said that--I am SICK of Paris Hilton, but that has absolutely nothing to do with her money or who makes her clothes.)
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 11:47 am
Paris Hilton has money to spend because her family built a very lucrative hotel chain. That didn't happen over night and it certainly did not happen for free.

Paris Hilton has money to spend because people pay for her signature lines and products she endorses.

Paris Hilton does not have more money to spend because of tax breaks, but rather someone in her family earned it. A concept too many liberals are unfamiliar with.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 11:53 am
McGentrix wrote:
Paris Hilton has money to spend because her family built a very lucrative hotel chain. That didn't happen over night and it certainly did not happen for free.

Paris Hilton has money to spend because people pay for her signature lines and products she endorses.

Paris Hilton does not have more money to spend because of tax breaks, but rather someone in her family earned it. A concept too many liberals are unfamiliar with.


Yep, the lottery that is conception sure did help out Paris.

I love your comment though. Basically your saying that Paris deserves the money because her ancestors did very well for themselves (she has no actual talent for anything), and then you lambast liberals about earning their money.

Please tell me again what Paris Hilton knows about EARNING money.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 11:58 am
You DO know that only INCOME is taxed? That wealth is not taxed? That's somewhere in Economics 101 too. So the fact that the liberal leftwing wacko group picked Paris for their anti-tax cut poster girl only shows how little they really know about the subject. Smile
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 12:07 pm
Ah, you changed that Laughing
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 12:14 pm
I took out the word 'inherited'. In fact, most inherited wealth in the USA is not taxed but hers was in a bracket that there probably was a pretty hefty one time inheritance tax on what she received. But now she pays normal income tax on interest or investment income that she can't shelter somewhere and most likely a big bunch of whatever income she receives is sheltered. That's one of the fallacy of trying to 'tax the rich'.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 12:15 pm
maporsche wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Paris Hilton has money to spend because her family built a very lucrative hotel chain. That didn't happen over night and it certainly did not happen for free.

Paris Hilton has money to spend because people pay for her signature lines and products she endorses.

Paris Hilton does not have more money to spend because of tax breaks, but rather someone in her family earned it. A concept too many liberals are unfamiliar with.


Yep, the lottery that is conception sure did help out Paris.

I love your comment though. Basically your saying that Paris deserves the money because her ancestors did very well for themselves (she has no actual talent for anything), and then you lambast liberals about earning their money.

Please tell me again what Paris Hilton knows about EARNING money.


Is that envy, or jealousy? So hard to tell those apart.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 12:25 pm
McGentrix wrote:
maporsche wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Paris Hilton has money to spend because her family built a very lucrative hotel chain. That didn't happen over night and it certainly did not happen for free.

Paris Hilton has money to spend because people pay for her signature lines and products she endorses.

Paris Hilton does not have more money to spend because of tax breaks, but rather someone in her family earned it. A concept too many liberals are unfamiliar with.


Yep, the lottery that is conception sure did help out Paris.

I love your comment though. Basically your saying that Paris deserves the money because her ancestors did very well for themselves (she has no actual talent for anything), and then you lambast liberals about earning their money.

Please tell me again what Paris Hilton knows about EARNING money.


Is that envy, or jealousy? So hard to tell those apart.


Neither. Emotions have nothing to do with FACTS.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 01:08 pm
maporsche wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
maporsche wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Paris Hilton has money to spend because her family built a very lucrative hotel chain. That didn't happen over night and it certainly did not happen for free.

Paris Hilton has money to spend because people pay for her signature lines and products she endorses.

Paris Hilton does not have more money to spend because of tax breaks, but rather someone in her family earned it. A concept too many liberals are unfamiliar with.


Yep, the lottery that is conception sure did help out Paris.

I love your comment though. Basically your saying that Paris deserves the money because her ancestors did very well for themselves (she has no actual talent for anything), and then you lambast liberals about earning their money.

Please tell me again what Paris Hilton knows about EARNING money.


Is that envy, or jealousy? So hard to tell those apart.


Neither. Emotions have nothing to do with FACTS.


Nonsense. You have let your disdain for someone like Paris Hilton to blind you to the fact that she is a successful business person. It must kill you to think that some one like her can be successful and wealthy for doing so little (it seems) while we have so many poor people in the world.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 02:06 pm
McGentrix wrote:
maporsche wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
maporsche wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Paris Hilton has money to spend because her family built a very lucrative hotel chain. That didn't happen over night and it certainly did not happen for free.

Paris Hilton has money to spend because people pay for her signature lines and products she endorses.

Paris Hilton does not have more money to spend because of tax breaks, but rather someone in her family earned it. A concept too many liberals are unfamiliar with.


Yep, the lottery that is conception sure did help out Paris.

I love your comment though. Basically your saying that Paris deserves the money because her ancestors did very well for themselves (she has no actual talent for anything), and then you lambast liberals about earning their money.

Please tell me again what Paris Hilton knows about EARNING money.


Is that envy, or jealousy? So hard to tell those apart.


Neither. Emotions have nothing to do with FACTS.


Nonsense. You have let your disdain for someone like Paris Hilton to blind you to the fact that she is a successful business person. It must kill you to think that some one like her can be successful and wealthy for doing so little (it seems) while we have so many poor people in the world.


Hold on. There is PLENTY that I like about Paris Hilton. Believe me. None of those things has to relate to her being a 'successful business person', which I would be foolish to assume she is. I would imagine that she has several dozen advisors and career managers that make all the important decisions for her (panty-less crotch shots and all). There is absolutly ZERO evidence that SHE is a successful business person.

There is no 'disdain' here, just calling a spade a spade.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 02:11 pm
maporsche wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
maporsche wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
maporsche wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Paris Hilton has money to spend because her family built a very lucrative hotel chain. That didn't happen over night and it certainly did not happen for free.

Paris Hilton has money to spend because people pay for her signature lines and products she endorses.

Paris Hilton does not have more money to spend because of tax breaks, but rather someone in her family earned it. A concept too many liberals are unfamiliar with.


Yep, the lottery that is conception sure did help out Paris.

I love your comment though. Basically your saying that Paris deserves the money because her ancestors did very well for themselves (she has no actual talent for anything), and then you lambast liberals about earning their money.

Please tell me again what Paris Hilton knows about EARNING money.


Is that envy, or jealousy? So hard to tell those apart.


Neither. Emotions have nothing to do with FACTS.


Nonsense. You have let your disdain for someone like Paris Hilton to blind you to the fact that she is a successful business person. It must kill you to think that some one like her can be successful and wealthy for doing so little (it seems) while we have so many poor people in the world.


Hold on. There is PLENTY that I like about Paris Hilton. Believe me. None of those things has to relate to her being a 'successful business person', which I would be foolish to assume she is. I would imagine that she has several dozen advisors and career managers that make all the important decisions for her (panty-less crotch shots and all). There is absolutly ZERO evidence that SHE is a successful business person.

There is no 'disdain' here, just calling a spade a spade.


You obviously watch too much E! or something because you know absolutely nothing about what you are talking about beyond your envy of Paris Hilton's success.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 02:12 pm
I don't have a clue whether Paris is or is not successful at anything other than making tawdry headlines. But would you accept that she is the beneficiary of other people's business success? And is that wrong? I mean are you cutting your kids out of the will because you earned the money and they didn't?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/16/2026 at 03:43:14