I Don't Care

[Rick Clark]

I DON'T CARE:(


The lady who wrote this letter is Pam Foster of Pamela Foster and
Associates in Atlanta. She's been in business since 1980 doing
interior design and home planning. She recently wrote a letter to a
family member serving in Iraq....... Read it!

WHAT'S ALL THE FUSS? "Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we?
Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our
shores on September 11, 2001? Were people from all over the world,
mostly Americans, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown
Manhattan, across the Potomac from our nation's capitol and in a field
in Pennsylvania?

Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible,
burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?

And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated"
when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet? Well, I
don't. I don't care at all.

I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents
for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.

I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start
caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a crime
in Saudi Arabia.

I'll care when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi tells the world he is sorry for
hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling
slashed throat.

I'll care when the cowardly so-called insurgents"
in Iraq come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own
religion by hiding in mosques.

I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search
of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their
suicide bombs.

I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their First
Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law instead
of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights.

In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave marine roughing up
an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care.

When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have
been humiliated in what amounts to a college hazing incident, rest
assured that I don't care.

When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told
not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the
bank that I don't care.

When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat,
and fed "special" food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is
complaining that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can
absolutely believe in your heart of hearts that I don't care.

And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled "Koran"
and other times "Quran." Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and --- you guessed
it - - - I don't care ! ! ! ! !

[huisjen]

An interior decorateor from Atlanta? Couldn't you find a less informed source? I wonder if she'll care if her relative gets killed in Iraq because shrubbie sent our troops there while ignoring Osama.

I'd be much more interested in what the service memeber relative had to say in response than in what this uninformed dip**** says, if indeed there is a relative. I mean, the letter says it's to a relative, but it seems to be written as a propaganda piece aimed at preventing people who buy this carp from coming to their senses and saying "Let's Impeach Bush!"

Dan

[Uncle Duke]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/foster.asp

"Although the article quoted above has come to be attributed to a Pam Foster, it is actually the work of Doug Patton (http://www.americasvoices.org/bios/PattonD/PattonD_bio.htm), a freelance columnist and political speechwriter. The e-mail-circulated version leaves off his two opening paragraphs and adds a closing "I don't give a sheet either about those sheet heads!" statement that wasn't in his original, but it is otherwise a faithful copy of his article, which was first published (http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/dpatton/2005/dp_0606p.shtml) on the gopusa.com web site on 6 June 2005..."

The site he writes for, gopusa.com, has the banner message "Bringing The Conservative Message To America..."

[edited to add: huisjen asks: "...An interior decorateor from Atlanta? Couldn't you find a less informed source?..." - he may not actually be any more informed than an interior decorator... hard to tell. ]

[edited again to clarify, for Rick: Pam Foster may have sent that commentary to someone, but she didn't write it... original authors deserve identification, and it's always nice for us to know where something came from, in this case from a right-wing 'message' group.]

[wait - you were being sarcastic on your Social Security thread when you said "I will now check things out..."? My fault, I thought you were serious.]

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

Rick,
You do not own a magic wand.
All of us have access to that same right-wing nonsense but don't find it worth the time to seek it out.
You may find it comforting to find sites that bolster your world view but, you seem to assume it's true just because your gut finds it pleasing.
Rather than thrill us with all that cut & paste, how about explaining why it's true, correct, unbiased, factual, ingenious, or whatever.
Laying out your versions of whatever, sentence by sentence, is a good way to take stock of what you believe.
Dragging in some unknown third party who is trying to sell some dubious agenda to the not-so-smart is of little value. We've all been thru' that too many times to count.

Charlie

[Chris Coose]

Classic American ignorance, from begining to the WBF.

Thanks for the example. No wonder we are getting our asses kicked.

We should be very grateful for the oceans on each side of us. They balance our ignorance.

[John of Phoenix]

If you agree with this view point, pass this on to all your e-mail friends.

DING, DING, DING!!

Phoney, phoney phoney.

[Phillip Allen]

Is it the attribution or the sentiment with which you all so vehemently disagree?

[Keith Wilson]

Is it the attribution or the sentiment with which you all so vehemently disagree?Both. Not only is it a political hack's fairly inept propaganda piece pretending to be from an "ordinary citizen", but the ideas expressed are stupid - worse than that, they're deliberately ignorant, and profoundly destructive to any chance of our conflict with Islamic extremists having a good ending - or any ending at all in any of our lifetimes, for that matter.

Remember, you can bluster all you want, but when we are making enemies faster than we can kill them, we have a real problem, and we can't kill them all.

[pcford]

Why don't these self-righteous wingnuts ever check to see if the material they are passing on is fake or not? You can smell this stuff a mile off.

Oh, I forgot, reality is irrelevant to these people.

Praise geebus!!!

[Uncle Duke]

Phillip,
You ask: "Is it the attribution or the sentiment with which you all so vehemently disagree?"
For me it is a little of each, but I don't think I'm being vehement. Or at least not about the sentiment/content. People have a right to have stupid opinions, myself included.
I do object, though, pretty strongly, about posting things which you get in an email without checking them out for 'truthiness'. Correct attribution is one part of that, accuracy of content is another. In this case, attribution, since there is really nothing of content here to be measured as accurate or not.
In the case of Rick's "Social Security" thread it is accuracy of content, since that post presents 'facts' which turn out to be 100% untrue.
In both cases, above, it takes about a minute to check - not too big a burden among friends.
I just think it is polite to check what you are saying to the public, even if you are just "passing along" some mass-mailing which you got. And I think it is rude not to check. Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[TomF]

Is it the attribution or the sentiment with which you all so vehemently disagree?

For my part, both.

I also think it's historically illiterate to think that 9/11 "started" anything - it was a salvo from the other side in a longstanding conflict with the West in general, and (more recently) with the US in particular.

Radical fundamentalist Islam is reactionary, just as are other radical fundamentalist belief systems. They're reacting to something, not just initiating a war on no pretext. Whether their pretext is any more legitimate than ours is quite a different question ...

[Phillip Allen]

Both. Not only is it a political hack's fairly inept propaganda piece pretending to be from an "ordinary citizen", but the ideas expressed are stupid - worse than that, they're deliberately ignorant, and profoundly destructive to any chance of our conflict with Islamic extremists having a good ending - or any ending at all in any of our lifetimes, for that matter.

Remember, you can bluster all you want, but when we are making enemies faster than we can kill them, we have a real problem, and we can't kill them all.

Okay, how do you feel about the rhetoric used against the South during the civil war and its effect?

When you're through with that, let us consider the rhetoric used in the Spanish American War...WWI, WWII. How about the rhetoric used during (take your pick) a political campaign..."Goldwater's gonna drop the Bomb" comes to mind.

To the people who died on that September morning, your death has become a political football. That woman’s death or that child’s death or the lost parent of this family’s value is based on how much political currency Chuck can glean from it.

If we are, in fact, at war, then let us make war. If we are not at war then let us make peace. Let me remind all and sundry first that magnanimity comes from the winner…only! Appeasers have no such thing as magnanimity. Appeasers are no more than supplicants. These supplicants are willing to sell the security of their own children for appeasement today. Ask Joe CSOH about magnanimity. He understands a brawl or so he says (and I believe him). You can try to ignore a bully but in the end there is only one thing a bully can understand. Islam is a bully. If you can’t believe that then you might want to consider joining them and passing on your peace directly to those people…if you are right, they will be grateful.

War is hell…then if the mongers of doubt are right, we are enjoying peace as I write this.

[Chris Coose]

I'm watching the rhetoric saber rattling happening over Iran, that combined with the BS found in this e-mail makes me care a great deal.

The Nation
In the run-up to the Iraq War, the Bush Administration proved remarkably adept at the art of "diplomacy" for war. Now the White House seems to be using the same game plan for Iran. It is exaggerating the threat Iran poses, is making demands that go beyond Iran's treaty obligations and is now pushing for a UN Security Council resolution that would impose sanctions and other punishments. The Administration has created a premature crisis that is distracting public attention from Iraq but is also stiffening Iran's defiance and maybe even accelerating its efforts to enrich uranium.
The White House strategy so far has played into the hands of Iran's radical regime. It is not clear how much power President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad actually has. But the Administration's threats against Iran--including talk of "regime change" and its refusal to rule out using tactical nuclear weapons--have helped Ahmadinejad distract attention from his broken economic promises and have bolstered his sagging popularity. The leaders of both countries seem to be pursuing, for their own political and ideological purposes, a reckless game of chicken that could end in disaster not only for the two countries but for the Persian Gulf region, perhaps even the world.
Some Democrats may be tempted to run to the right of Bush on the issue of Iran's nuclear program. If they do, they will only deepen the unfolding crisis and make it hard to resist a future White House request to Congress for the authority to use force. The better strategy would be to return the question of Iran's nuclear program to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and to engage Iran in regional diplomacy to prevent a widening civil war in Iraq. Engaging Iran would not be an endorsement of its regime but would appeal to its interest in bringing more stability to the region. There are three reasons for pursuing this diplomatic approach.

First, Iran's nuclear program does not pose a threat to US security or international peace and is not likely to for many years. This month Iran announced that it had successfully enriched uranium to 4.8 percent. But enrichment to 90 percent is required for nuclear-weapons-grade material, and Tehran's announcement did nothing to alter independent expert opinion that Iran is five to ten years from being able to build a weapon, a view shared by US intelligence agencies. So there is plenty of time for the IAEA to gauge Iran's compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Iran may very well have nuclear weapons ambitions--or the ambition to acquire the capability to build such weapons--but at this point neither the United States nor the international community has solid evidence of a covert weapons program. Indeed, IAEA inspections so far have supported Iran's argument that it does not (although the latest IAEA report draws attention to Iran's refusal to answer some questions). And without solid evidence, other important powers whose cooperation is needed, like China and Russia, will not support Washington's call for sanctions or endorse its coercive diplomacy.
Second, the continued use of coercive diplomacy to curtail Iran's nuclear program will only strengthen its hard-line regime and solidify Iranian public opinion behind a national goal of obtaining nuclear weapons. Washington should realize that threatening Iran with sanctions and military attacks strengthens Iranian hard-liners' case for nuclear weapons. It also allows them to tap into a deep national reservoir of historical grievances against the United States and the West. American efforts to deny Iran what neighboring countries, including Israel and Pakistan, already have can be portrayed as yet another injustice at the hands of Washington. Thus, the more the United States pushes Iran to stop uranium enrichment, the more it is likely to turn the nuclear issue into a cause that's all about defending the country's sovereignty and dignity. In contrast, involving Iran in a regional discussion about stabilizing the Persian Gulf could go a long way toward satisfying Iran's pride and diminishing its appetite for nukes.
Finally, Iran is poised to complicate the already difficult position of US forces in Iraq. Iran has as much or more influence with the main Shiite factions in the Iraqi government as Washington, and Shiite support for a national unity government will be critical to preventing a widening civil war. American forces are highly vulnerable to Iranian-sponsored guerrilla warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan. Indeed, Iran has good reason to believe it could prevail in an extended conflict by encouraging Shiite attacks on US forces and by driving up oil prices to well over $100 a barrel by threatening shipping and oil facilities in the Persian Gulf. It makes no sense for the Administration to threaten Iran when we're so vulnerable to Iranian retaliation. It is simply unrealistic to expect Iran not to take advantage of our vulnerabilities when Washington is pushing sanctions and apparently preparing for regime change and military strikes.
Good statecraft is about creating the conditions that expand the choices for peace and security. By hardening Iran's national resolve around its nuclear program, the Administration is narrowing the choices to war or capitulation. Saner voices must offer an alternative to the Administration's endgame: an alternative that recognizes that the international community has time to deal with Iran's nuclear ambitions and also that we must address legitimate Iranian security concerns, taking seriously the idea of a region free of all weapons of mass destruction. This larger vision would require the United States to be willing to give up its own nuclear option, and thus won't be realized overnight. But this is the kind of diplomacy we should demand of our national leaders, not diplomacy that leads to more war and instability.

[Keith Wilson]

Islam is a bully. And here, ladies and gentlemen, we have a sterling example of the sort of ignorance that is precisely the reason that for all of our military might, we f*ck up time and again, and make enemies faster than we can kill them. First note that it's not "Islamist extremists", not "radical fundamentalist Islam", not "Islamic terrorists" but all of Islam from Mohammed to the present; Ibn Khaldun, Saladin, Averroes, and Rumi alike; all 1400 years of history, all the 1.3 billion followers of Islam, 20+ percent of the world's population.

Second, note that "Islam is a bully" - a bully being someone who uses his superior strength and greater size to lord it over the weaker and less aggressive. Get a clue, Phil. Islam has been declining in power and influence for the past 400 years. In every respect - military, cultural, economic, technological - its relative strength and influence has been declining ever since Western Europe stated to develop modern science, free markets, and the Enlightenment ideas of human freedom and democracy. The only reason anyone pays any attention to middle eastern countries at all is because they happen to have oil, and that will run out before too long. Without oil, they'd be like Paraguay or Burkina Faso, places that most people in the west couldn't find on a map. Islamist radicalism derives from the fact that their culture is under siege by Western values on every side, and they're losing. Terrorism is an act of desperation, a tactic chosen by those who believe they have no other option, a tactic of the very weak against the strong. As despicable as terrorism is, describing it as a "bully" is 180 degrees off - dead wrong.

If we don't understand our enemy, if we don't even recognize the need to understand our enemy, we're in a lot of trouble.

[Gary E]

So now whut???? NUKEM ALL???
or
DEAL or No DEAL ???

[Gonzalo]

(From The Nation) Good statecraft is about creating the conditions that expand the choices for peace and security. By hardening Iran's national resolve around its nuclear program, the Administration is narrowing the choices to war or capitulation. This approach is classic G. W. Bush. Remember, this is the man who said "I don't do nuance," or words to that effect. Every situation worth paying attention to at all is a screaming crisis, and the only alternatives are fight or appease.

[Phillip Allen]

"If we don't understand our enemy, if we don't even recognize the need to understand our enemy, we're in a lot of trouble."

Can I glean from this statement of yours then that you accept Islam as your enemy?

Personally, I think the doubt mongers who seem to want us to remain immobilized by the very doubt they spread among us are the enemy within. Can you make a statement about your well-reasoned plan to get us out of conflict with the particular and segregated Muslims you have in mind omniscient one?

I can't believe...and I mean that, that you can't think of a few examples of Islam as bully for us this morning...did the 3000 souls who died for Islam not feel bullied? How about the poor frightened 18 year old with the explosives strapped under his clothes...is he not the victim of a bully...methinks you use Portia's defense to good effect..."ONE pound only but exactly and that at a single stroke"

[Phillip Allen]

So now whut???? NUKEM ALL???
or
DEAL or No DEAL ???

Well that would work after a fashion...a lot of collateral damage no doubt...speaking of collateral damage...were the deaths on September eleven collateral damage?

[TomF]

Hmm. I think, essentially, that Fukuyama got it partly right, calling it a clash of Civilizations. This stuff in Iraq and Afghanistan isn't a traditional "war," 'cause only one political entity is fighting ... against a loose alliance of radical groups on the other side. There's no defined group to negotiate with, or even to fully defeat.

Puts one in mind of the end of the Roman empire; I suspect that the various Roman generals would have preferred a good solid State Army to contend with, rather than loosely organized but uniformly hostile and lightly-equipped barbarian tribes.

I'm not trying to counsel appeasement - that doesn't work, I agree. But I am counselling that we understand the roots of the conflict, which didn't simply emerge from nothing on September 11. I think that to win hearts and minds, one must understand why the hearts and minds turned against one in the first place. And winning hearts and minds is, I think, the only way out.

t.

[Meerkat]

There's a rumor circulating that the Whitehouse pressured B'liar into dumping his foreign secretary (Snow) for saying that a nuclear attack on Iran was "crazy."

[Norman Bernstein]

Personally, I think the doubt mongers who seem to want us to remain immobilized by the very doubt they spread among us are the enemy within.

Are you possibly referring to the same 'doubt-mongers' who suspected, back in 2003, that the WMD argument for war on Iraq was of questionable validity? Because, you might have noticed... they turned out to be right.

It is impossible for anyone to say whether or not Iran represents any sort of credible threat or not. The rhetoric they're using is fierce... but many astute observers ascribe it to a need for the sake of domestic consumption. The idea of a nuclear-armed Iran is distrubing... but other experts argue that the difficulties associated with enriching enough uranium, of sufficient purity, to make a weapon, are formidable and certainly not likely in the near to medium term.

There is certainly one thing for sure: for some polticians, sabre-rattling is the most effective way to consolidate and fortify the base... and whether it is sincere or disingenuous, any reasonable person would take all this with a healthy grain or two of salt. There's little doubt in my mind that drumming up apprehension over Iran works well for the Bush crowd.

[Phillip Allen]

"Hmm. I think, essentially, that Fukuyama got it partly right, calling it a clash of Civilizations. This stuff in Iraq and Afghanistan isn't a traditional "war," 'cause only one political entity is fighting ... against a loose alliance of radical groups on the other side. There's no defined group to negotiate with, or even to fully defeat."

Yes...we are fighting a Hydra. It seems appropriate since the Hydra is a monster from an aboriginal civilization and the “particular and segregated” Muslims who are trying to kill us are an aboriginal bunch.

[Phillip Allen]

So Norman...you suggest appeasment then?

[Gonzalo]

Phillip,

Keith doesn't need any support from me, but here is my take on it, as a reader of Keith's opinion, not its originator.

Keith clearly doesn't mean "Islam" is the enemy. Out of all 1.3 billion Moslems, there are only a very small number who are our enemy. It is critical to success that we understand our enemy so that we can take appropriate action as needed. If we define the entire Islamic world as our enemy, we can't take appropriate action against the ones who are fighting against us.

When we start going after Moslems who aren't our enemies we do to things: one, we reduce our ability to target our power on our real enemies, and two, we start making enemies faster than we can kill them.

"Know your enemy" means knowing who he isn't as well as knowing who he is.

By the same token, I also don't think Keith was in any way defending the terrorists. Far from it. But by making clear that the word "bully" doesn't apply, he is taking another step towar knowing the enemy. The enemy is not an entire religion, Islam, that bullies us. The enemy is a small but growing number of extremely fanatical fundamentalists who use terrorist tactics because they are weak. The ways you might oppose a bully just won't work against a scattered and secretive group of fanatics.

Pretending that your enemy is one thing when it is another invites failure. Know your enemy!

[Keith Wilson]

Can I glean from this statement of yours then that you accept Islam as your enemy?Yeah, sure. :rolleyes: 1.3 billion people, every damn one of them are our enemies. What a spectacularly fatuous statement! We were attacked by a small ragtag group of desperate religious fanatics who got really lucky. We were not attacked by "Islam" any more than the federal building in Oklahoma City was blown up by "conservatives".


Personally, I think the doubt mongers who seem to want us to remain immobilized by the very doubt they spread among us are the enemy within. When the @#&$ did I ever say I want us remain immobilized? :mad: I want us to fight those who are actually our enemies, those who are actually a threat to us, not to toss high explosive around indiscriminately until we make enemies of all 1.3 billion Muslims. Those who want, because of the success of a couple of terrorist fanatics, to start a war between Western civilization and all of Islam are Osama Bin Laden's dupes. Don't you understand? That's his dream! That's why he did it! It's EXACTLY what he wants!

[Meerkat]

Christians are more dangerous than Muslims - they're closer! ;)

[Phillip Allen]

When we fought our way into Germany in WWII, I don't think anyone of consequence suggested we kill all Germans...and we didn’t. I repeat that magnanimity is the purview of the winner and practiced only after winning has taken place.

After the Mountain Meadows Massacre, we killed the head of the snake only and not all Mormons…(though it took twenty years to find the political gonads to do it)

[Chris Coose]

Personally, I think the doubt mongers who seem to want us to remain immobilized by the very doubt they spread among us are the enemy within.

There is a significant majority percentage of Americans who believe we are headed in the wrong direction in foreign policy. Do these people fall into your catagory of doubt mongers?

[Phillip Allen]

Christians are more dangerous than Muslims - they're closer! ;)

That statement is true

[Norman Bernstein]

So Norman...you suggest appeasment then?

I find it interesting that some folks can only see possibilities in the extreme.... if someone doesn't support the conservative cause, he must be a 'liberal'.... if he doesn't support sabre-rattling, he must be an 'appeaser'.

Might it not have occurred to you that in between waving a war flag and rallying the troops, and genuine appeasement, there might not be an entire world of possibilities that could all be intermediate solutions?

Diplomacy is one strong possibility, although back in 2003, it seems that Iraq was showing some genuine willingness to engage in diplomacy, and it was turned down flat by the Bush foreign policy machine.

Containment... sanctions... international cooperation... dealmaking... all of these might be intermediate solutions... and a more balanced President would genuinely and sincerely look to explore those possibilities before raising the battle flag. All of this could have been done prior to Iraq, at the savings of 2400+ American lives, 15,000+ American casualties, and hundreds of billions of dollars....

...but that sort of thing doesn't rally the conservative base nearly as well as WAR.

[Phillip Allen]

There is a significant majority percentage of Americans who believe we are headed in the wrong direction in foreign policy. Do these people fall into your catagory of doubt mongers?

The enemy within are those who want us to remain immobilized...does that include you?

[Gary E]

Christians are more dangerous than Muslims - they're closer! ;)

And Christians have bigger FIRE STICKS......

The only way to win....but ya got to USE them

[TomF]

Originally Posted by Meerkat
Christians are more dangerous than Muslims - they're closer! ;)

That statement is trueCloser to whom? I'm a whole continent further away from Meerkat than I was in 1990 ...:p

[Keith Wilson]

Phil, Osama Bin-Laden would be thrilled, absolutely ecstatic, to read your posts about "Islam as the enemy". Getting westerners to think that way was precisely the reason they attacked the US on 9-11-01.


The enemy within are those who want us to remain immobilized...does that include you?REMAIN IMMOBILIZED? Jesus H. Christ, we have already invaded and occupied two countries! Afghanistan was an excellent idea. OTOH we attacked and occupied Iraq based on false information, a country had nothing to do with attacks on the US, and that was only a threat to its own unfortunate citizens.

Get this: I do NOT want us to remain immobilized, nor does any responsible person. I want us to use force where it will do some good, against people that are actually real threats to the US. I want us to have some brains, rather than just muscle.

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

I do object, though, pretty strongly, about posting things which you get in an email without checking them out for 'truthiness'. Correct attribution is one part of that, accuracy of content is another. In this case, attribution, since there is really nothing of content here to be measured as accurate or not.
In the case of Rick's "Social Security" thread it is accuracy of content, since that post presents 'facts' which turn out to be 100% untrue.
In both cases, above, it takes about a minute to check - not too big a burden among friends.
I just think it is polite to check what you are saying to the public, even if you are just "passing along" some mass-mailing which you got. And I think it is rude not to check. Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

The roll of Joe (Cold Spring on Hudson) Will eloquently be played by Uncle Duke today please mark your programs accordingly :)

Well Said Uncle Duke ;)

Edited to ad Pam Foster is in no way related to me ;) ;)

[Phillip Allen]

“…but that sort of thing doesn't rally the conservative base nearly as well as WAR.”

“Yesterday, Dec. 7, 1941 - a date which will live in infamy - the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.”

rally?

[Gary E]

Phil, Osam Bin-LAden would be thrilled, absolutely ecstatic, to read your posts about "Islam as the enemy". Getting westerners to think that way was precisely the reason they attacked the US on 9-11-01.

Ok Keith.... WHAT IS YOUR SOLUTION???

[Meerkat]

So Norman...you suggest appeasment then?
You guys ever engage in a discussion without pumping out the semantically loaded adrenelin producing words?

Is it appeasement if you have no contact with your neighbors down the street that have been burgled and have other problems because they put up a fence and buy a burgler alarm? (Heaven forefend that you actually say anything nice to or about them!)

[John of Phoenix]

"Doubt mongers." That's neocon jargon for "reality based".

[Phillip Allen]

"Doubt mongers." That's neocon jargon for "reality based".

No...It is my "jargon" for those who have no answer but to sow doubt in all its partisan manifestations

[John of Phoenix]

So you have no doubt. ALLLL of Islam is your enemy and you're gonna nuke 'em.

Clever.

[Norman Bernstein]

No...It is my "jargon" for those who have no answer but to sow doubt in all its partisan manifestations

Is there a word for someone who views everything and anything going on in the world as a threat worthy of going to war over? I think I might be in need of some 'jargon' of my own.

[Keith Wilson]

Warmonger? Militarist? Damned fool?

[Phillip Allen]

So you have no doubt. ALLLL of Islam is your enemy and you're gonna nuke 'em.

Clever.

No...I believe that was Gary


So now whut???? NUKEM ALL???
or
DEAL or No DEAL ???

[Norman Bernstein]

Warmonger? Militarist? Damned fool?

Nope. Unlike many from the 'other side', I don't feel the need to use emotionally charged code-words to attack those who disagree with me.

Interesting, though, that 'doubt' is now being described as a partisan thing.

[Phillip Allen]

Is there a word for someone who views everything and anything going on in the world as a threat worthy of going to war over? I think I might be in need of some 'jargon' of my own.

another weak attempt to re-direct the thrust of my commentary out of its original context...an accident no doubt

[Rick Clark]

INSIGHT
"We live in an age disturbed, confused, bewildered, afraid of its own forces, in search not merely of its road but even of its direction. There are many voices of counsel, but few voices of vision; there is much excitement and feverish activity, but little concert of thoughtful purpose. We are distressed by our own ungoverned, undirected energies and do many things, but nothing long. It is our duty to find ourselves." —Woodrow Wilson


Have we found our-self's yet?
AS I see it we are just spining our wheels, and as they say what goes up must come down.

[Chris Coose]

So we invade Iraq as answer to 9/11.

How is this going exactly? Are we meeting our goals?

Brilliant mobilization isn't it?

[TomF]

OK, were I the Sec of Defence, what would I recommend to the Commander in Chief?


Institute a draft, and ship 'em out in bulk. You need so many boots on the ground that nobody in Iraq's further than 50 feet from a coalition soldier. Can't make those IEDs or recruit suicide bombers half so effectively when you can't move for being seen.
Lean on Pakistan, and have them cough up Osama. He's there, or they know where he is. Get him alive, try him, and then make him dead.
Close Gitmo, try any actual terrorist b@stards, and pay reparations to the also-caughts. Hearts and minds ...
Adjust trade policy etc. to become PARTNERS with the ordinary people who live in the parts of the world which have resources you need. Co-opt those ordinary people through their own self-interest. Learn enough about Islamic and Arabic culture to understand what about North American culture offends them - and stop providing that offence!
All this to provide a safe place for the indigenous population to give up the radicals to the courts etc. By removing the cause of radicalization, you've removed the recruiting tool of your enemy.
Once the general population starts to get ACTUAL, sustainable benefits from a non-radical leadership, then get outta Dodge. The people themselves are much better placed to deal with the remaining radical thugs, in whatever way best pleases them.t.

[Norman Bernstein]

Good posting, Tom...and I am very much in agreement with you, especially, item #1, which I consider to be the greatest mistake and error of judgment of Donald Rumsfeld, one which deserves an actual penalty.

When you invade a country, you become responsible for it's security. You can't secure a country full of insurgents when the population is 25 million and you've got just 120,000 pairs of boots on the ground. Colin Powell understood this.... and got parcelled off because of it.

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

THIS WHOLE THREAD IS PREDICATED ON A LIE

[JimD]

This post provides considerable opportunity for puns and cheesy rhetorical wit, such as


reality is irrelevant to these people....but they don't care!!!

[JimD]

THIS WHOLE THREAD IS PREDICATED ON A LIE

They don't care about that, either.

[Gary E]

,,,,and you've got just 120,000 pairs of boots on the ground.

Yeah.... NOW it's been reduced to BOOT's on the ground????
What a load of C R A P ...not you Norm, you didnt coin that crap phrase..
They are and always will be OUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS... the kid acrros the stereet.... your brother, your sister (remember there are women over there too), your cuzzin,,,nefew, etc etc....

THis is a case where more men and guns aint gona help...

[Norman Bernstein]

I certainly meant no disprespect to the men and women who occupy those boots, Gary.... but it's clear that they have indeed been disrespected by the men who put them there.

[Phillip Allen]

Yeah.... NOW it's been reduced to BOOT's on the ground????
What a load of C R A P ...not you Norm, you didnt coin that crap phrase..
They are and always will be OUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS... the kid acrros the stereet.... your brother, your sister (remember there are women over there too), your cuzzin,,,nefew, etc etc....

THis is a case where more men and guns aint gona help...

You're right of course...the military will still live on acronyms and such catchy phrases as "in the rear with the gear" and "boots on the ground" Try not to get distracated.

BTW I agree with Tom for the most part...thanks for the post Tom

[TomF]

I disagree Gary. I think that putting more troops on the ground may be the only thing which can lock down the security environment.

Iraq's crazies' best recruiting tool is their apparent success in thumbing their noses at the occupier. Until they're made incapable of blowing things (and other Iraqis) up, they will still be seen as (a) having an upper hand, (b) being a romantic alternative to the Great Satan, and (c) dangerous enough that ordinary Iraqis won't take the risk to give them up.

Take away their capability to induce fear, and you've taken away their capability to recruit.

Identify the real enemy (OBL) and deal with him expeditiously, and you demonstrate both strength and judgement.

Take away their reason for cultural/economic grievance, and you've taken away the general population's motivation to radicalize.

t.

[Keith Wilson]

They are and always will be OUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS... the kid across the street. . . . Very true. And so are an awful lot of Muslims

Tom, unfortunately I don't know if we can put that many people in Iraq, particularly when they don't speak the language and don't really have a much of clue about the culture. I don't have a very good plan; we're in it pretty deep in Iraq, and none of the alternatives looks too good at the moment. The other points are good, if five years too late.

[Rick Clark]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/foster.asp

"Although the article quoted above has come to be attributed to a Pam Foster, it is actually the work of Doug Patton (http://www.americasvoices.org/bios/PattonD/PattonD_bio.htm), a freelance columnist and political speechwriter. The e-mail-circulated version leaves off his two opening paragraphs and adds a closing "I don't give a sheet either about those sheet heads!" statement that wasn't in his original, but it is otherwise a faithful copy of his article, which was first published (http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/dpatton/2005/dp_0606p.shtml) on the gopusa.com web site on 6 June 2005..."

The site he writes for, gopusa.com, has the banner message "Bringing The Conservative Message To America..."

[edited to add: huisjen asks: "...An interior decorateor from Atlanta? Couldn't you find a less informed source?..." - he may not actually be any more informed than an interior decorator... hard to tell. ]

[edited again to clarify, for Rick: Pam Foster may have sent that commentary to someone, but she didn't write it... original authors deserve identification, and it's always nice for us to know where something came from, in this case from a right-wing 'message' group.]

[wait - you were being sarcastic on your Social Security thread when you said "I will now check things out..."? My fault, I thought you were serious.]

Thanks Duke, I wasn't using the snopes right, in the fact I used to much info. to search for instead of just her name, but did find it.:)

[Gary E]

I believe that the current resident in the Whitehouse ha got us into an un winnable war from which we will loose so much more than we have so far that it will make your head swim.

I believe there is only one way out...
LEAVE NOW...before it gets worse, because it will, count on it.

Continue the effort in Afganistan, and find him...

Not that this will happen, because there is too much at stake in all areas, starting with W's pride, and continuing on to the profits racked up by the Carlyle Group.

[Uncle Duke]

Rick says:
"Thanks Duke, I wasn't using the snopes right, in the fact I used to much info. to search for instead of just her name, but did find it"

Oddly, I have a hard time believing you. If you really, personally, cared about truth you would know by now how to tell the difference between chicken salad and chicken sh*t.

[High C]

...Unlike many from the 'other side', I don't feel the need to use emotionally charged code-words to attack those who disagree with me.....

Hahh! :eek: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

This is more of Rick Clarks usual bull****.

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Rick says:
"Thanks Duke, I wasn't using the snopes right, in the fact I used to much info. to search for instead of just her name, but did find it"

Oddly, I have a hard time believing you. If you really, personally, cared about truth you would know by now how to tell the difference between chicken salad and chicken sh*t.

RICK IS A LIER

Proof

I did exactly as Rick claimed. I put Pam Foster into Snopes search engine - note it is not a complicated search engine.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid205/p36e3c98b155135c88f31701f34110937/ef1679e8.jpg

WHOA lookie what the search comes up with on the first click.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid205/pc9c3232b8b9cf98f6166a8638e949a3c/ef1679b0.jpg

BAM Rick is a blatant LIER

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid205/p32dcbd0eee2dabf178206689c628ac8d/ef167955.jpg

Case closed.

[Uncle Duke]

In fact, all you have to put in is "Foster" - skip the "Pam"...
Still the first response.

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

Ummm that's LIAR Joe... :D

[Uncle Duke]

Hey, PMJ, you can't really critize the spalling when the massage is good.
Can yu?

[Jagermeister]

Thanks Duke, I wasn't using the snopes right, in the fact I used to much info. to search for instead of just her name, but did find it.


I did exactly as Rick claimed. I put Pam Foster into Snopes search engine - note it is not a complicated search engine.


Your test is a fraud, Joe. Rick claims he entered something into snopes instead of just Pam Foster's name. (What isn't specified). You then claim to put Pam Foster's name into snopes. The two scenarios are not the same.

I have no idea if Rick is a liar or not (please note the spelling of the work, "liar"), but if he is, your test hasn't proved it. Other than demonstrating your ability to paste images, and your inability to spell, you haven't demonstrated anything of value.

P.S. I just tested the snopes search engine. Extraneous information will cause it to miss the entry. E.g., "Pam Foster is an adjective" will return no hit. Maybe Joe and Uncle Duke (channeling Hunter Thompson?) owe Rick an apology.

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

Okay, then he's not a liar. He's an idiot. :D

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Your test is a fraud, Joe. Rick claims he entered something into snopes instead of just Pam Foster's name. (What isn't specified). You then claim to put Pam Foster's name into snopes. The two scenarios are not the same.

I have no idea if Rick is a liar or not (please note the spelling of the work, "liar"), but if he is, your test hasn't proved it. Other than demonstrating your ability to paste images, and your inability to spell, you haven't demonstrated anything of value..

Works if you put

I Don't Care

WHAT'S ALL THE FUSS? "Are we fighting a war on terror

The lady who wrote this letter

She's been in business since 1980 doing
interior design and home planning.

Basically if you put ANY line from that bogus post the FIRSTsearch result is the same lame False. I'll Care If . . . You cant AVOID getting that as a search result if you tried.

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

Jagerpossum: It's not fair. Bush is a god. We are the chosen. They hate us because we're free. I'm hungry.

[Phil Heffernan]

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

We all use the internet, For Rick, it is a means to glean right wing rants, and post them to express his own opinions. He obviously has a phobia about speaking his OWN mind, and prefers to use the words of others to express his opinions.

I'm sure he doesn't care whether the rant was written by Jane Doe, or Douglas McArthur. Hence, his continual ignoring of facts. It's all about reinforcing his own (ignorant) viewpoint. But to him, it 'feels' right...

As for me, anything posted by Rick Clark as a C&P,is, by definition, false.

I don't need no stinkin' Snopes;)

PH

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Kevin I may type fast and care to piss off some spelling nazi's but the weird question is why would you choose to back a troll like Rick Clark ??????

WE may be on opposite sides of the political fence but you do pick some dark horses to back .

Oh and apologize to Rick

Bwaaaaaaaaa ha ha :D :D :D :D :D

[Uncle Duke]

Jagermeister -- comment above (from Joe (CSOH)) is quite correct. Except for spelling, of course.
Any simple search on snopes brings up actual information. Almost anything "cut-and-paste" from the email which Rick got brings up actual information.
You are correct, though, that there are things you can enter which do NOT bring up relevant information. For example "WBF". Or "Where can I get stupid email and believe it at no mental cost".
Sorry - I am being snide. But, really, it's not tough to check this stuff out, and if someone says that they couldn't manage to figure it out, well, then.....

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

I feel a UnkyDuck/JCSOH/Phil/PMJ group hug coming on....


:DBWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAAAAAAA

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

As for me, anything posted by Rick Clark as a C&P,is, by definition, false.

I don't need no stinkin' Snopes;)

PH

Nuff said
Take that to the bank Kevin. ;)

This Foster OUT :D

[Jagermeister]

I'm not backing the message, the messenger, or the medium. I just dislike seeing someone called a liar unless they deserve it. I didn't think you proved your case.

Sing along now, boys and girls...
(correct lyrics this time - first attempt was from memory)

When criminals in this world appear
And break the laws that they should fear
And frighten all who see or hear
The cry goes up both far and near
For Underdog! Underdog! Underdog! Underdog!

Speed of lightning, roar of thunder
Fighting all who rob or plunder
Underdog. Underdog!

When in this world the headlines read
Of those whose hearts are filled with greed
Who rob and steal from those who need
To right this wrong with blinding speed
Goes Underdog! Underdog! Underdog! Underdog!

Speed of lightning, roar of thunder
Fighting all who rob or plunder
Underdog. Underdog!

[LeeG]

South Park is better than this.

[High C]

I sense chumps on the hook...

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

Lee! Good to see ya buddy... Did you need a hug too?

[Jagermeister]

South Park is better than this.

Philistine. :p

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

I sense chumps on the hook...


Better chumps than a chunk.:D

[LeeG]

anyone have a favorite South Park episode?

[Meerkat]

New title for Rummie: The Secretary of Defiance. ;)

[Katherine]

2 days before the day after tomorrow

[LeeG]

I'm still recovering from the last one with Chef/Isaac Hayes...oh,,the topic? Damn,,I bet Rick even votes. We're screwed.

[Katherine]

Maybe he has an anal probe.

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

Okay then.:eek:

[LeeG]

there, I have fixed this thread. Arrrrrr

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

:confused:Maybe Rick Clark is an anal probe in his day job...

[Rick Clark]

Ok I admit that I do a lot of C/P so what do you whant to know in my own words?

[PatCox]

When your house of illusions is collapsing and reality is starting to threaten to overwhelm your ideology, it is comforting to turn to myths, comforting myths that confirm your beliefs so you can further resist reality.

Myths like "reducing taxes increases tax revenues."
Myths like " We are fighting the terrorists who destroyed the Trade Center in Iraq."
Myths like "welfare makes people poor."

The original cut and paste here is a myth; a fraud, a lie written by a professional hack, its propaganda, misinformation propagated with the intent of misleading you, with the intent of encouraging your continued blindness by reinforcing the original lies which led to this war.

Propaganda. Its propaganda, and anyone who believes it is a dupe.

[John of Phoenix]

Ok I admit that I do a lot of C/P so what do you whant to know in my own words?

Why do you still support GW Bush?

[Uncle Duke]

Ok I admit that I do a lot of C/P so what do you whant to know in my own words?

The problem, Rick, is not the C&P method (though some find it more polite to post a quick summary and a link to the actual article). The problem is when things posted are inaccurate, and can be quickly determined to be inaccurate.
The community here is (my opinion) mostly made up of people who actually care about things being right. They care that frames are beveled correctly. They care that planks are lined off carefully so that there are not huge spaces between them. They care that caulking is done with the right materials and they care that the correct fillers and paints are used and they care that a boats design is attributed to the correct designer. They are here because they appreciate a community of like-minded people, even if they don't always agree.
The fact that this is the bilge does not lower that attitude - it is still a community of people who feel profoundly that there is an important difference between things being right and things being wrong.
When you post things which are immediately provable wrong, then you are insulting the intelligence of everyone here. When you do it over and over it is hard to not believe that you are doing it on purpose. And, assuming that it matters, you are marking yourself as someone who does not care about things being right.
Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[Phil Heffernan]

Yup, what HE said...

PH

[Rick Clark]

Support GWB, not even, I do not like him, never had never will. The same with is father.
There you go it's in print.

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

The problem, Rick, is not the C&P method (though some find it more polite to post a quick summary and a link to the actual article). The problem is when things posted are inaccurate, and can be quickly determined to be inaccurate.
The community here is (my opinion) mostly made up of people who actually care about things being right. They care that frames are beveled correctly. They care that planks are lined off carefully so that there are not huge spaces between them. They care that caulking is done with the right materials and they care that the correct fillers and paints are used and they care that a boats design is attributed to the correct designer. They are here because they appreciate a community of like-minded people, even if they don't always agree.
The fact that this is the bilge does not lower that attitude - it is still a community of people who feel profoundly that there is an important difference between things being right and things being wrong.
When you post things which are immediately provable wrong, then you are insulting the intelligence of everyone here. When you do it over and over it is hard to not believe that you are doing it on purpose. And, assuming that it matters, you are marking yourself as someone who does not care about things being right.
Just my opinion, I could be wrong.



WOW that is just about perfect. Thanks again Uncle Duke

[huisjen]

The lie that Iraq=Al Quaeda serves only to support shrub. Why would you post these lies if you didn't support him?

I'm a veteran. I support our troops. I support going after OBL. I don't suppport fomenting war with the entire Islamic world. I don't support shrub. I don't support alienating our allies. I don't understand why you would post this trash if you didn't support shrub and his policies.

Dan

[Rick Clark]

Well it's ok to go after OBL, but that we are not doing.
We are making enemies out of the hole world if a poll was taken we would rank below GWB.
I support our troops just not the war in the east. He took us there and it will be many years before we ever get out of that mess.

[John of Phoenix]

Making enemies around the world. Support the troops but not the war...well that's interesting. What do you think that "I don't care" piece is talking about?

[Rick Clark]

I guess I'm in over my head!

[Tom Montgomery]

I sense chumps on the hook...
Yep.

One hundred responses to a C&P thread started by a known troll. Amazing...

And some of you still complain that folks like Rick Clark and Dutch thrive on the WBF. :rolleyes:

Scot! Save us!

[Osborne Russell]

Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our
shores on September 11, 2001?

Weren't the Crusaders Christians?


And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated"
when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet? Well, I
don't. I don't care at all.

I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents
for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11 . . . [etc]

The United States bombed villages with B-52's and no one turned himself (or herself ;)) in. So why should people in Viet Nam care about 9/11?

Back and forth. round and round. Leads nowhere. If nothing else, it is aesthetically poor because you could so easily change the names of the accused around, and the accusations would be true to an uncomfortable extent! Whether this C & P is authentic or not scarcely matters, because even if it turns out to have been written by a gorilla with a computer, people will adopt it and say they wish they had written it. But it sounds just like Al Qaeda propaganda, translated into American propaganda. The small amount of humor produced by these reflections goes away quick when people start insisting that one version is propaganda and the other side is the one and only God's truth.

The practical problem with this position -- I won't acknowledge them until they acknowledge me -- is that the only way out is mutual acknowledgement. Actually, that's over-stated. There may be no way out. But it's the only way to get any practical relief at all, so how's about it?

[John of Phoenix]

I guess I'm in over my head!

The truth shall set you free.

[Rick Clark]

There is a good fresh breeze blowing I think I will go sailing.

[LeeG]

maybe Rick is the real Dutch

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

There is a good fresh breeze blowing I think I will go sailing.

Great what kind of boat
Where do you sail
Got a photo ?

Personally I think your full of ****e, but come on prove me wrong ;)

[Katherine]

What happened to your ignore feature Joe?:D

[John of Phoenix]

http://www.woodenboat-ubb.com/vbulletin/upload/images/statusicon/user_online.gifhttp://www.woodenboat-ubb.com/vbulletin/upload/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif

Gone sailing. (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)

[PatCox]

I don't think Rick is a troll, he gives good advice on some topics. I think he really wanted to know what people thought of the piece.

I also think its possible to agree with the piece, at least partly, and still think the war was a mistake.

How do you oppose the war but support the troops? By remembering not to blame the individual soldiers for what they were sent to do.

Once critics of the war start into the "war criminal" rhetoric and start bewailing "atrocities," they are indeed blaming the soldiers for GW Bush's crimes.

What you have to remember is that the killing of innocents, the dehumanization, the brutality, the process that takes good young men and turns them brutal, all of this is absolutely unstoppable, it is the inevitable result of any and all war. Just wars and unjust wars, all wars result in the death of innocent people and the turning of yougn men into killers. Thats what its about.

So, maybe Rick opposes the war, but at the same time, opposes some of the arguments used against the war, some of the rhetoric used by opponents of the war, when that rhetoric seeks to blame the soldiers by casting them as the villains simply because the war has brought about what all wars bring about, atrocities. The fault is Bush's. for sending young men to a country where they cannot tell friend from foe and become so embattled and fearful that they fire first and ask questions afterward. What would you have them do?

So like I said, its possible to oppose the war, but also to oppose some of the other people who oppose the war.

[Phillip Allen]

Right on Pat!!! (every fight once entered into should be a fight to win...those railing against the actual fight are the losers...kick-ass and get out...try not to make such mistakes in the future but when they happen (and they will)...kick-ass and get it over with

[John of Phoenix]

If this was the first war ever fought, we'd be surprised at the toll it takes on those who survive.
“Shell shocked”, “battle fatigue”, “post traumatic stress disorder” and the rest of the euphuisms are just the balm we apply to excuse what we knew was going to happen.

If you send young people to do your dirty work knowing they'll come back drastically changed, they are owed at least two things. The cause must be just and you have to take care of them when they come back.

Sidney Freedman, the shrink on M*A*S*H said it so well, “The wounds that don’t bleed – the scars that don’t heal.”

[PatCox]

Well, Phillip, I said don't blame them. But if starting the fight was a mistake, and the war has lost its purpose (its easy to ask a boy "take that hill" or "defeat that army," but how the hell do you say "establish a stable, free democratic government?" Thats not a job for the army.) then you ought to call them off.

[Tom Montgomery]

I don't think Rick is a troll, he gives good advice on some topics.
So does Dutch. Hmmm... coincidence?

Rick may not BE a troll (noun) but he certainly enjoys TROLLING (verb).

What gets me is the righteous tone of disapproval from some who, for THEIR part, habitually respond to such posts. It takes two to tango.

As for me, I think the likes of Dutch make this a more interesting place. The only folks who get their feelings hurt are those who INSIST on engaging these characters. But these unfortunates are all volunteers.

[Jagermeister]

Myths like "reducing taxes increases tax revenues."
Myths like " We are fighting the terrorists who destroyed the Trade Center in Iraq."
Myths like "welfare makes people poor."


The evidence on the forum is overwhelming in support that it is predominantly liberals who cling to myths are reject reality.

Tax revenue as a function of tax rates follows a curve that increases from zero to some maximum and then decreases as tax rates increase past the maximum sustainable point. Untaxed money is the "seed" money for next year's "crop" of money. Tax too much seed money and the returns decrease. While a valid argument exists about where we are on the curve at any given point, there certainly exist points on the curve for which reducing the tax rate increases tax revenue. It has been proven both theoretically and empirically.
To deny the existence of the curve itself is to deny reality.

Myths like " We are fighting the terrorists who destroyed the Trade Center in Iraq" are a construct of the deranged left. Obviously the terrorists who destroyed the WTC were killed in the attack, and have not found a way to attack from the grave. To answer the question of whether or not we are fighting terrorists associated with those who destroyed the WTC it is necessary to define the type and level of association - something that was not done in this case.

I don't think there is a myth that "welfare makes people poor", so much as there is a truth that certain forms of welfare perpetuate poverty. Again, to deny the existence of the relationship is to deny reality. This is not a matter of intelligent debate. Rational people debate the form of assistance - not the fact that certain forms are counter productive.

So, once again the evidence firmly demonstrates that holding liberal beliefs does convey veracity upon the acolyte, and that liberals are just as capable of holding erroneous beliefs. That some liberals should be so completely wrong so frequently is a matter for another time.

[Jagermeister]

The bilge ... is still a community of people who feel profoundly that there is an important difference between things being right and things being wrong.

It is too frequently that people on this forum base their conceptions of right and wrong on what they feel is right or wrong, discounting and ignoring the facts which indicate otherwise. While this is a bi-partisan failing, I cannot help but notice that the greatest number of those posting emotionally driven arguments devoid of reason or fact belong to the left side of the political spectrum.

[Norman Bernstein]

Tax revenue as a function of tax rates follows a curve that increases from zero to some maximum and then decreases as tax rates increase past the maximum sustainable point.

Yes, the familiar 'Laffer Curve'... specifically designed for consumption by people who really think that the economy is so incredibly simple as to be controlled by only two variables. With little more than an eighth grade education, it certainly sounds pretty plausible, admittedly. Of course, you'd have to find an excuse why, in previous economic booms with vastly higher taxations, revenues also skyrocketed.... but that one is over the head of the eight-graders.

It's rather similar to the 'Trickle-down Economy', another theory devised by greed to decieve people into thinking that by making really wealthy people a lot more wealthy, money will somehow mysteriously 'trickle down' to the lower economic classes. It's the same theory in operation today, just without the 'trickle-down' name, because it didn't test well in focus groups. Of course, anyone with enough intelligence to read the CBO and Census reports of the last 40 years can recognize that it doesn't work, at least not in the way it was sold.... since real wages for median Americans have been declining steadily over that period, while real income of the wealthy has absolutely skyrocketed.

[Popeye]

what we we talking about?

[John of Phoenix]

what we we talking about?

"I don't care." :D

[Phillip Allen]

too easy... :)

[Popeye]

what the f***, over.
what the f***, out.

[Jagermeister]

Yes, the familiar 'Laffer Curve'... specifically designed for consumption by people who really think that the economy is so incredibly simple as to be controlled by only two variables. With little more than an eighth grade education, it certainly sounds pretty plausible, admittedly. Of course, you'd have to find an excuse why, in previous economic booms with vastly higher taxations, revenues also skyrocketed.... but that one is over the head of the eight-graders.

Norman, you are being pompous. I didn't reference the Laffer Curve, which has a particular shape. I didn't say the equation was in two variables. I most definitely have more than a eighth grade education, having taken college economics as an undergraduate. I didn't deign to state where the break point existed. As my post explained, if tax rates are below the peak, increased rates will increase revenue. I only stated that the curve exists, and that there is a point where increased rates lead to decreased revenues, and conversely, decreased rates lead to increased revenue.

But instead of accepting the truth of my statement, you felt driven to present a straw-man argument of your own creation, and denigrate my education. So much for your being above the fray and free from insulting people. :rolleyes: You're a hypocrite as well.

[PatCox]

Jager's faith based economics. Straight from the mouth of Rush. Not what they teach in colleges, but everyone knows the colleges are all full of liberals.

Jager, there is some point at which taxation stunts the economy and reduces revenues, I don't deny that, the argument is over where that point is. You seem to think its low, and we are over it now, so further cuts would increase revenues.

I happen to think the point of diminishing returns is higher than todays tax rates. History is much more supportive of my view than yours.

I am not in denial of reality. You jump to too many conclusions, the most common one being the colcusion that anyone who says anything you disagree with is a dummy. You lecturing me on economics is like being lectured by my 6 year old who just learned something and just cannot imagine I might already know it.

[High C]

Kevin, you're wasting your time on these two. As they've stated so often and so clearly, they already know everything. :rolleyes:

[Jagermeister]

Myths like "reducing taxes increases tax revenues."


While a valid argument exists about where we are on the curve at any given point, there certainly exist points on the curve for which reducing the tax rate increases tax revenue.


Jager, there is some point at which taxation stunts the economy and reduces revenues, I don't deny that, the argument is over where that point is. You seem to think its low, and we are over it now, so further cuts would increase revenues.

So you now acknowledge that it is not a myth that there are points at which "reducing taxes increases tax revenues." Yet your initial statement contained no such qualifiers, only a statement that anyone who believed that such a thing was possible was guilty of believing in a myth.

Since by your own admission you were aware of this when you made your post ("just cannot imagine I might already know it"), that makes you not misinformed, but disingenuous. As the saying goes, "were you lying then, or are you lying now?"

[Jagermeister]

Kevin, you're wasting your time on these two. As they've stated so often and so clearly, they already know everything. :rolleyes:

Yup. My work here is done. The fraudulent are exposed as such. I can rest easy knowing I have let the light of knowledge shine into the dark places of the liberal heart. :)

[Osborne Russell]

How did it get from "I don't care if the Muslims are offended" to the Laffer Curve?

[Norman Bernstein]

But instead of accepting the truth of my statement, you felt driven to present a straw-man argument of your own creation, and denigrate my education. So much for your being above the fray and free from insulting people. :rolleyes: You're a hypocrite as well.

*smiles*

You really will go to pretty much any length, will you, to create some sort of false insult reaction? My use of the example of eight grade mathematics wasn't directed at you personally, and you know that.

We can discuss pretty much anything rationally.... except when we try to invent offenses.

And, FYI, the famous (or infamous, if you prefer) 'Laffer Curve' is indeed a description of precisely the same damn thing you were talking about. Laffer himself didn't ascribe any particular set of mathematics, per se, to it... he was merely stating the obvious, which is that at some point of taxation, and holding all other influences equal (the italicized part being the key omitted conditional), decreasing taxes will increase tax revenue.... but so will a whole host of other conditions, which Laffer, in his effort to make the case for tax cuts, didn't care to discuss.

[Norman Bernstein]

Kevin, you're wasting your time on these two. As they've stated so often and so clearly, they already know everything. :rolleyes:

Hell, HighC, compared to you, who truly believes he knows everything, I'm just loaded with self doubt! :p

[Gonzalo]

I think the impact of tax changes is seen even when the tax change is relatively small. I am reasonably well convinced that the positive effect of a tax cut partially offsets the loss of revenue.

Recently, I saw a reference in a newspaper story about an increase of 1% in North Carolina sales tax. According to the story, the net increase in revenue was significantly less that 1%. Likewise, in another example, a tax rollback of 1% yielded a cut of less than 1% in net revenue. The tax cut did not increase net revenues, however, it only caused revenue reduction that was less than proportional. (Wish I could remember the figures, but that is approximately what the article said. I have heard similar examples cited, as well.)

Back in the early Reagan administration, it was debated whether a tax cut could result in a net revenue increase. Nothing I've heard (as a layman, not an economist) bears out that claim, though I think other factors like the business cycle, deficit spending and massive foreign investment muddy the picture enough to allow politicians on both sides to cite statistics to fit their own prejudices.

I'd certainly be open to non-partisan evidence about net revenue increases due to tax cuts that makes an effort to filter out the factors I mentioned, and any other relevant ones I didn't.

Personally, I think it is one of those "get something for nothing" stories that is too good to be true.

[Keith Wilson]

. . . I cannot help but notice that the greatest number of those posting emotionally driven arguments devoid of reason or fact belong to the left side of the political spectrum.BS, utter and complete BS. :mad: One would think that the old slander "conservatives think, liberals feel" would by now be in the same class as the natural superiority of the white race, the essentially subordinate nature of women, and the divine right of kings, but no, he dredges it out of the mire, hoses it off, and holds it up as his own original observation. While there is certainly no shortage of stupidity on either side of the aisle, the endless repetition of "remember 9-11", "we're at war" , "Islam is the enemy", and "Bush haters" is at least as emotionally driven and devoid of reason as anything from the left. NEVER mistake a preference for compassion over cruelty for emotionalism or weak-mindedness.

Sorry, Kevin; you're normally far more reasonable than this. That particular line of argument just really irritates me.

[High C]

...We can discuss pretty much anything rationally.... except when we try to invent offenses....

You should talk! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

http://www.woodenboat-ubb.com/vbulletin/upload/images/statusicon/user_online.gifhttp://www.woodenboat-ubb.com/vbulletin/upload/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif

Gone sailing. (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)

I did go sailing. :D
After hearing Rick (Dutch) Clark proclaiming the wind was picking up , I went and checked if my local wind was picking up. Sure enough NE 11.5 mph / 18.5 km/h steady. Sailed for a couple of hrs and then picked up Tess at the bus stop and sold a house over the phone waiting for her ;)

Twas a good day, Thanks Rick ;)

[High C]

...Back in the early Reagan administration, it was debated whether a tax cut could result in a net revenue increase. Nothing I've heard (as a layman, not an economist) bears out that claim...

I don't suppose a doubling of federal revenue during Reagan's tenure would qualify as proof?

No, I didn't think so. :rolleyes:

[Jagermeister]

That particular line of argument just really irritates me.

Yeah, it really pisses off my brother, too. :D

I feel pretty comfortable making that claim here on the forum simply because conservatives are so outnumbered on the forum, that liberals get to own the larger number of crazies simply by virtue of their numbers. I don't have to worry about the percentages of crazies vis a vis normies for each party. We conservatives are swamped by the numbers alone.

[Norman Bernstein]

I don't suppose a doubling of federal revenue during Reagan's tenure would qualify as proof?


Sure, I'll see your 'doubling of federal revenue'.... and raise you the skyrocketing deficit during the Reagan admin!

(The ground rules: revenue increases that occur simultaneous to rising debt don't count!)

[Norman Bernstein]

I feel pretty comfortable making that claim here on the forum simply because conservatives are so outnumbered on the forum....

You really think it's an issue of 'numbers'? That your perspective doesn't get respect because there are too few of you?

Absurd. I can't speak for the others, but I'm always influenced by a good argument. Rather than feeling that you're somehow 'behind the eight ball' because you don't have the support of numbers of participants, maybe the problem is that your arguments are weak? ;)

[High C]

Sure, I'll see your 'doubling of federal revenue'.... and raise you the skyrocketing deficit during the Reagan admin!

(The ground rules: revenue increases that occur simultaneous to rising debt don't count!)

Yes they do count. The issue is whether or not reduced taxes resulted in increased revenue. The question has nothing in the world to do with spending.

[Gonzalo]

I don't suppose a doubling of federal revenue during Reagan's tenure would qualify as proof? Filter out the effects of the high inflation of those days, the impact of large deficit spending and foreign borrowing, and it might qualify as proof, especially if contrasted with similar periods in which taxes were not cut. Without taking those factors into account, no one can separate the actual impact of a tax cut from other factors.

Maybe there are such controlled analyses that support the claim that tax cuts increase net revenues, but I have not seen them. The only study I have seen on the Reagan cuts (years ago, and I can't cite the source) agreed that the revenue loss was smaller proportunally than the tax cuts, but concluded that there was no net increase in revenue.

Edited to add: Remember that there were pretty significant tax increases during Reagan's second term.

[Norman Bernstein]

Yes they do count. The issue is whether or not reduced taxes resulted in increased revenue. The question has nothing in the world to do with spending.

Nobody here, not even the most rabid liberals, are arguing that at the extreme fringes of the curve, excessive taxation doesn't dampen economic activity and produce the net result of lower revenues.

However, we're also in the midst of an era where taxation has been dramatically reduced already, compared to previous periods where revenues were high, even with drastically higher taxation levels. In other words, nobody really knows where the inflection point lies... and from what I can tell, most conservatives really don't care; they just want to see taxes cut.

In an era where the Bush administration is spending money like a drunken sailor, and borrowing like crazy to spend it, a tax cut is simply irresponsible.

[PatCox]

Jaeger, ever listen to Stevie Wonder? He has a song called "superstition," in which he says that when you believe in things that you don't understand, its superstition. You might be right, but its still superstition to you, because, since you lack understanding, you have to take it on faith. Most of what stupid people know, they don't they really just believe it.

Conservative myths are like that. To say "cutting taxes increases government revenue" without qualifying it with "if taxes at the starting point are above the hypothetical point at which high marginal rates reduce investment" is a lie, too.

By the way, Laffer spoke of the individual disincentive to earn more resulting from the high marginal rate of income taxation.

The mechanism behind the idea that lowering taxes increases revenue has to do with completely different factors, having to do with the availability of money.

Its probably still arguable. Its another of those theories which ignores the fact that the government is an actor in the economy itself, and that government expenditures and government investments are just as capable of spurring economic growth as private investment and expenditure. The poor who get welfare do go out and spend it. When the government builds a bridge, an airport, a road, the economy benefits. Hell, the south would hardly have an economy but for government checks sent to retirees down there, and the military budget. Our income tax system is operating at present as a redistributive system that takes northern dollars and gives them to the south. Those good old fashioned individual responsibility types down there make out good.

[Gary E]

Yeah, it really pisses off my brother, too. :D

I feel pretty comfortable making that claim here on the forum simply because conservatives are so outnumbered on the forum, that liberals get to own the larger number of crazies simply by virtue of their numbers. I don't have to worry about the percentages of crazies vis a vis normies for each party. We conservatives are swamped by the numbers alone.

I just saw this and thought it might fit and wanted to pass it along before I lost it cuz I have no idea how to save this sorta stuff for later use....

It seems to fit in lotz a places....
So...here tiz....


http://www.stillmadeinusa.com/bsmeter.gif

[High C]

Filter out the effects of the high inflation of those days....

The what? :confused:

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Average_Annual%20_Inflation%20_Decade.gif

[Rick Clark]

I don't think Rick is a troll, he gives good advice on some topics. I think he really wanted to know what people thought of the piece.

I also think its possible to agree with the piece, at least partly, and still think the war was a mistake.

How do you oppose the war but support the troops? By remembering not to blame the individual soldiers for what they were sent to do.

Once critics of the war start into the "war criminal" rhetoric and start bewailing "atrocities," they are indeed blaming the soldiers for GW Bush's crimes.

What you have to remember is that the killing of innocents, the dehumanization, the brutality, the process that takes good young men and turns them brutal, all of this is absolutely unstoppable, it is the inevitable result of any and all war. Just wars and unjust wars, all wars result in the death of innocent people and the turning of young men into killers. That's what its about.

So, maybe Rick opposes the war, but at the same time, opposes some of the arguments used against the war, some of the rhetoric used by opponents of the war, when that rhetoric seeks to blame the soldiers by casting them as the villains simply because the war has brought about what all wars bring about, atrocities. The fault is Bush's. for sending young men to a country where they cannot tell friend from foe and become so embattled and fearful that they fire first and ask questions afterward. What would you have them do?

So like I said, its possible to oppose the war, but also to oppose some of the other people who oppose the war.

As I have said before Vietnam all over, but I guess some of you out there have no clue of what that means, because you where not there and have never been to WAR.

So you can say what you please as it dose not matter to me for the stupidity of those that support the war.
Do have a good day:)

[Uncle Duke]

As I have said before Vietnam all over, but I guess some of you out there have no clue of what that means, because you where not there and have never been to WAR.

So you can say what you please as it dose not matter to me for the stupidity of those that support the war.


Uhm... I don't know. I speak English pretty well but, Rick, you are baffling me with this one.
And, you have no comment about the responses to your previous question? You don't care?

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid205/p3c28bb08d9c4028123244f37b4d1addc/ef1288a0.jpg

Do have a good day:)

[Rick Clark]

Uhm... I don't know. I speak English pretty well but, Rick, you are baffling me with this one.
And, you have no comment about the responses to your previous question? You don't care?

What don't you understand Duke?

[Gonzalo]

High C,

I have egg on my face -- I'd incorrectly remembered that the high inflation of the '70s continued farther into the '80s. It still doesn't change my point. Any revenue increases in the Reagan years would have been partially due to inflation. Remember that an inflation rate for the decade (from your chart) of 4.82% per year X 10 years = 48.2%. This web site http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi calculates the inflation during the Reagan years 1981 to 1988 as 37.9%.

Even if revenues grew during the Reagan years, you know as well as I do that correlation in time is not cause. Since the economy has grown almost every year since WWII, almost any action by a politician can be said to correlate with economic growth, even if the effect of the action is negligible. That's why one needs to use constant dollars and filter out any factors that have a false correlation.

I did a little googling to see if I could find any analyses of the effect of tax cuts on revenues, in constant dollars, filtering out extraneous factors such as natural levels of economic growth. This site (which I can't vouch for; I only found it by googling) http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxcollections.htm seems to contain the kind of analysis I had in mind.

It starts by disputing your original premise that revenues doubled during the Reagan years. (By the way, this is new to me.)
Since World War II, federal tax receipts have fluctuated within a few points of 18 percent of the Gross Domestic Product. Because they have been so stable, tax collections have regularly grown with the economy. Almost always, the only drops in tax collections have been during recession years; otherwise, tax collections have expanded in the years that the rest of the economy expanded.

There are a few notable exceptions to the above rule: those periods following large tax cuts. After Reagan's income tax cuts took effect in 1982, real income tax collections took a long fall, despite the fact our economy continued to grow.

To be fair, this analysis only addresses income tax revenues. There are other taxes in the mix, and I can't say how much growth they may have contributed to revenues.

Conservatives like to point out that they are hardheaded and face facts. (Which, by the way, is what hardheaded conservatives like George Will object to in the current administration.) Right or wrong, facing facts means looking a little deeper into the evidence for or against claims such as "tax cuts increase revenue."

If it seems too good to be true, it probably is.

[Keith Wilson]

Here's better inflation data. Lately it's been increasing a bit.

http://www.forecasts.org/derived/inflannual.gif

[Popeye]

he turned me into a newt

..

i got better

[Keith Wilson]

"That's a King!"
"How do you know?"
"He's not all covered in sh!t."

[John of Phoenix]

Don't give to Reagan what rightly belongs to Volker.


Volcker's Fed is widely credited with ending the United States' stagflation crisis of the 1970s by limiting the growth of the money supply, abandoning the previous policy of targeting interest rates. Inflation, which peaked at 13.5% in 1981, was successfully lowered to 3.2% by 1983 and has remained low ever since. The change in policy contributed to the significant recession the US economy experienced in the early 1980s, which included the highest unemployment levels since the Great Depression. The stabilization of the price level has apparently been a success.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Volker

[Popeye]

if I went around saying I was an Emperor because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, people would put me away

[Rick Clark]

I did go sailing. :D
After hearing Rick (Dutch) Clark proclaiming the wind was picking up , I went and checked if my local wind was picking up. Sure enough NE 11.5 mph / 18.5 km/h steady. Sailed for a couple of hrs and then picked up Tess at the bus stop and sold a house over the phone waiting for her ;)



Twas a good day, Thanks Rick ;)

You are welcome Joe:)

[Rick Clark]

"Liberty is not collective, it is personal. All liberty is individual liberty." —Calvin Coolidge

[Nicholas Carey]

When you invade a country, you become responsible for it's security. You can't secure a country full of insurgents when the population is 25 million and you've got just 120,000 pairs of boots on the ground. Colin Powell understood this.... and got parcelled off because of it.And with a 1:5 head:tail ratio, that 120,000 pairs of boots turns into just 20k fighting soldiers, and 100,000 soldiers providing the infrastructure and supply chain necessary to keep them functional.

The US averages about 23 sworn, armed cops per 10,000 population. Here in Washington State, we have about 15.5 cops per 10,000 population.

In Iraq, if we assume there's 35,000 combat soldiers (generous, given the 1:5 head:tail ratio), that works out to 13.5 soldiers per 10000 population.

So, in Iraq, we have just shy of what it takes to police the State of Washington, hardly the strife-ridden place that is Iraq.

[PatCox]

Mr. Carey, those head/tail ratios still correct nowadays with the pentagon using private contractors to provide most logistics? Haliburton now houses and feeds them, I understand even base security is privatized, so that the maximum number possible are actually soldiering.

Someone recently did a comparison between Iraq and Vietnam, and comparing the number of soldiers deployed to Vietnam, the casualty rate is higher in Iraq.

[Osborne Russell]

So, in Iraq, we have just shy of what it takes to police the State of Washington, hardly the strife-ridden place that is Iraq.

That's because the Iraqi people want freedom.