w00dland wrote:And who do you think owns those companies? Or is on the board of directors of those companies?
RICH PEOPLE!
so because rich people are taxed, they decide they want their companies to fail and they choose to not hire employees? that makes no sense. you have created no logical link between the taxation of rich persons and employment rates.
I'll probably get flamed like hell for this but I don't care. Abortion is not a belief for most people. It is used if the baby was a "Mistake" for the most part which I think is entirely wrong. If your boyfriend was to dumb to strap on a condom before he decided to go all the way with you that's his fault and your fault for not paying attention and forcing him to put one on. Now your pregnant and you only see one way out of it - killing your baby.
It's stupid murder made by people who think they have no other choice. They do have other choices but they won't take the responsible way out because they think it will ruin their lives.
abortion is not a belief, but you can't force your beliefs on the topic of abortion on other people. you may see it as murder, but a lot of people don't. and you aren't going to change their minds by making laws or telling them how you feel. to change their minds...well I'm not going to rehash an entire persuasion course I took, but it takes a lot of work and not the type you're doing.
trust me, I made a pro-life short documentary and I got a lot of instinctively defensive negative reactions the first time I showed it.
Do I Know You wrote:All that is saying is that he would have more of an incentive to attack. You'd fight back if you country was at war, wouldn't you?
and rightfully so, but my point was Iraq had no plans to attack us except on the condition you supplied, which we apparently agree is acceptable.
John McLaughlin himself wrote that, and the source for the letter is right at the top of the document:
Source: Congressional Record October 9, 2002 Page S10154
yes, but the evidence that was presented to Congress and recorded in the Congressional Record came from somewhere. *that* is the source that I'm interested in.
as I said, even Bush admitted to the press that there was no connection between Iraq and terrorists, effectively admitting that he lied months earlier when he presented information that led the US population to believe that there was a connection.
I don't have a detonator; its on a timer.
A countdown timer?
No, a count-up timer. It goes from one to explode.
w00dland wrote:And who do you think owns those companies? Or is on the board of directors of those companies?
RICH PEOPLE!
so because rich people are taxed, they decide they want their companies to fail and they choose to not hire employees? that makes no sense. you have created no logical link between the taxation of rich persons and employment rates.
The rich people on these boards invest a lot of money on their companies (i.e. Stocks, bonds, ect) and when they lose that money to taxes they can't put as much money into the company forcing them to downsize the number of employees to make higher profits.
And if abortion isn't a belief how am I supposeted to force my belief on someone else?
Top 5 wood-5-Goliath 4-Ravine Flyer II 3-Phoenix 2-Voyage 1-El Toro Top 5 Steel- 5-Velocicoaster 4- Maverick 3- Fury 325 2-Steel Vengeance 1-X2 Coaster Count: 444
if the rich people can't put their money in their company's stocks, then other people on the open market will. and if the company is private, then they're generally well off enough on their own that a tax increase isn't going to send a business into the red. the only thing that would be effected by a tax increase for the rich is a bit of a smaller personal bank account balance, but they aren't going to be out on the streets begging for food or firing their employees so they can keep their new car. employees are fired when the company can't make enough money to stay alive, not when the owners give a few more dollars to the govt.
you have a certain belief on abortion. from what I gather, you believe it is wrong, murder, etc. you can't force those beliefs on others.
I don't have a detonator; its on a timer.
A countdown timer?
No, a count-up timer. It goes from one to explode.
SFGA Bob wrote:I don't suppose you've ever heard of corporate, or white collar, crime by any chance, huh?
I've got no problem with the rich, I've got a problem with the way they're treated by the gov't.
Then how did they get rich in the first place?
You tell me why taxing the rich is good, we say why it's bad and now you go off saying they are all dirty monkey heads? (For lack of a better word)
Everybody has bad things going on in their lives, but when rich people's are discovered people think the gov't has known about it forever and will make sure nothing will happen to that person. All assumptions.
Top 5 wood-5-Goliath 4-Ravine Flyer II 3-Phoenix 2-Voyage 1-El Toro Top 5 Steel- 5-Velocicoaster 4- Maverick 3- Fury 325 2-Steel Vengeance 1-X2 Coaster Count: 444
Do I Know You wrote:You still need to show me that article where Bush says there's no connection between Iraq and al-Qaida.
I believe it was on TV, but I'll look for an article online later.
edit: okay, I ran into a bit of trouble while looking for this article. its a little tough to find a news story over a year old on the internet, but I did find what I think is the article on cnn.com
the only problem is that the page is gone. I found that link along with the headline, "CNN.com: Bush: No evidence Saddam was involved in 9/11 attacks" here. its all the way down at the bottom of the page.
I was able to find a site with a portion of an article about that whole thing. its a commentary site, so I'm not saying everything else is reliable, but the story is an external quote.
"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."
w00dland wrote:You tell me why taxing the rich is good, we say why it's bad and now you go off saying they are all dirty monkey heads? (For lack of a better word)
I never said the rich were dirty monkey heads. in my last post, I said I really don't have anything against the rich.
and they should be taxed because they're citizens of this country and use up its resources just like the rest of us which means they should be taxed just like the rest of us (which they are).
Everybody has bad things going on in their lives, but when rich people's are discovered people think the gov't has known about it forever and will make sure nothing will happen to that person. All assumptions.
the government doesn't know everything, but it does have the responsibility to respond properly and equally, which it often doesn't when certain rich people get in trouble.
coasterdude12 wrote:So why are all the multi-billionaire Kerry supporters giving 10-20million to 527 wbesites?
so that if he's elected, he'll give them what they want. its the same for all parties, so don't think I'm just hating on one.
I don't have a detonator; its on a timer.
A countdown timer?
No, a count-up timer. It goes from one to explode.
you caught me! I'm making up the whole thing. in fact, I spoofed the cnn website just so you could see the headline for the article. and that other site, that's my personal site with some official sounding text.
its not my fault you didn't keep up with news last year. if you want an entire article on the story, then google it yourself. I'm not your damn retreiver.
I don't have a detonator; its on a timer.
A countdown timer?
No, a count-up timer. It goes from one to explode.
Do I Know You wrote:You still need to show me that article where Bush says there's no connection between Iraq and al-Qaida.
I believe it was on TV, but I'll look for an article online later.
edit: okay, I ran into a bit of trouble while looking for this article. its a little tough to find a news story over a year old on the internet, but I did find what I think is the article on cnn.com
the only problem is that the page is gone. I found that link along with the headline, "CNN.com: Bush: No evidence Saddam was involved in 9/11 attacks" here. its all the way down at the bottom of the page.
I was able to find a site with a portion of an article about that whole thing. its a commentary site, so I'm not saying everything else is reliable, but the story is an external quote.
I took the time to screen out what you might consider "unreliable" sources and only got to page 3 on Google, so if your favorite news source isn't listed above, feel free to pick up where I left off.
I just love that once I source a site in an academic paper, its not my fault if its taken down later and how I'm not accused of lying or plagarism by my professors or peers who could easily destroy my academic career and, therefore, the rest of my life, but on a message board otherwise concerned with rollercoasters and theme parks, I'm a liar.
the next time you decide to enter into a debate, make sure you know the history of whatever it is that you're arguing as its not the responsibility of your opponant to bring you up to speed. I'm done.
I don't have a detonator; its on a timer.
A countdown timer?
No, a count-up timer. It goes from one to explode.
I took the time to screen out what you might consider "unreliable" sources and only got to page 3 on Google, so if your favorite news source isn't listed above, feel free to pick up where I left off.
I just love that once I source a site in an academic paper, its not my fault if its taken down later and how I'm not accused of lying or plagarism by my professors or peers who could easily destroy my academic career and, therefore, the rest of my life, but on a message board otherwise concerned with rollercoasters and theme parks, I'm a liar.
the next time you decide to enter into a debate, make sure you know the history of whatever it is that you're arguing as its not the responsibility of your opponant to bring you up to speed. I'm done.
Oops, those say nothing about no link to Saddam and al-Qaida, just to 9/11, which we all know Bin Laden orchestrated that. As I remember you saying earlier...
SFGA Bob wrote:as I said, even Bush admitted to the press that there was no connection between Iraq and terrorists, effectively admitting that he lied months earlier when he presented information that led the US population to believe that there was a connection.
It says in just about every article that Saddam had al-Qaida ties.
Washington Post wrote:Bush, while seeing no link between Hussein and the attacks, said yesterday that Iraq was linked to Osama bin Laden's terror organization. "There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties," he said. Some terrorism experts dispute the extent of those ties, but the ties are not disputed as vigorously as the link between Hussein and the Sept. 11 attacks.
CBS wrote:"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties," the president said. But he also said, "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" attacks.
Common Dreams wrote:"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties," Bush said.
Boston Globe wrote:Bush denied that his statement conflicts with the comments of his vice president. "What the vice president said was that [Hussein] has been involved with Al Qaeda," he said.
And my favorite one (it's in the title even)
USATODAY wrote:Bush repeats there was an Iraq, al-Qaeda alliance
The last one you have to register to view, and I didn't feel like doing that.
So I guess what we've (I mean we like how the doctor says: How are we feeling?) learned today is not to post something, then post six links proving yourself wrong and claim to have defeated the other guy
perhaps I should have been clearer in what I meant. you see, the discussion was about the US attacking and invading Iraq. (I think) we both agreed that if a foreign power were to invade our country that we'd fight back as it was said in the letter you posted that Iraq might look to retaliate if we invaded. also in the letter, it said that there was a link between Iraq and al-Qaida. I never meant to say that there was never ever a link between them, but that one of the main reason Bush listed for invading Iraq was that they participated in the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the US somehow which was just not true.
I guess my point was that the war was started on false information.
as for not being able to view the last link, Go Firefox! it really is an amazing piece of software. some of my favorite extensions for it are Adblock (don't worry Dave, I'm not blocking ads on your site), the winamp controler, and BugMeNot. plus, you can't get better than tabbed browsing.
I don't have a detonator; its on a timer.
A countdown timer?
No, a count-up timer. It goes from one to explode.
The point isn't that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, it's that they had links with al-Qaida. That's what Bush said:
George W. Bush wrote:The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends and it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of Al Qaeda. The danger is clear: Using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other.
For anyone that follows college football, not ranked Notre Dame, who lost to BYU last week, exploded in the second half scoring 28 points, beating #8 Michigan 28-20.
Last edited by Virtua Tennis on September 11th, 2004, 7:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
)