Dr. Tyler; Captain America

Of course I'm not an insider, that's utterly absurd. I've done small amounts of insignificant technical work for the campaign, and I've never claimed to be an insider.

I'm not sure it is completely true, really. I've said for a long time that they probably had a few rockets full of chemical weapons lying around, and they probably destroyed those. But, I sincerely doubt that they had these massive stockpiles lying around.

That would be this: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/20...bluff-wmd_x.htm And how is the nuclear claim NOT the fault of the president? The CIA warned him about it almost a YEAR in advance.

The difference here is that Arnold IS a centrist, and that's unquestionable. Now, if you had said that in re: Bush or Reagan or someone of the sort, THEN it would have been a parody and more obvious that you were "parodying" me. In this case, your pathetic "parody" sounded more like an assertation (based on very little, mind you, but an assertation based on common word).

Registering for the NY Times is free and takes about five seconds. It's an article which quotes the Defense Department and says they were intended for making hydrogen. Also, re: Iraq nuclear claims, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...0-2003Aug9.html

I think Cruz Bustamane will win it if the democrats center behind him, which I think they will around election time. If they don't, Arnold will win because left-wingers will split their votes.

I suggest you actually get off your ass and research the candidates before you make that assertation. Dean is, by far, a stronger candidate than Bush ever was, and if he can improve his mannerisms on television (he looks really stiff when he's in a one-on-one situation), I think he's got Bush nailed. That is, unless people buy into the Rovian attack machine which is sure to come.

Yep, he mentioned it when you were "away." So of course you have to take anything he says about Howie with a grain of salt since he's making money to pimp Mr. Dean... I've said many times that I don't agree with everything on the guy's platform, but I do find a lot of his views -- for example, his view on civil unions -- to be strongly rooted in constitutional law, and thus, very defendable. Also, I find it rather fun to completely dissect bullshit tossed at him.

Watching CNN, I've seen little but journalistic blowjobs for Dean. Where is this unfair treatment he's received? -=Mike You must have been ignoring the printed news for the past... oh, I dunno... three months to not see the multiple "DEAN IZ LEFT WING!~!~!!!!!", "Dean did terrible on MTP!!!!", "Dean IS LEADING US OFF OF A CLIFF INTO THE WILDERNESS AND ONTO A PILE OF RABBITS!!!!!!" articles.

Okay. "Evidence which was used against the suggestions of the CIA and other people, who proved it wrong far before the SOTU address." And what about the "trailers", Marney? He told us ad nauseum that those trailers were used to create biological weapons. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/09/internat.../09WEAP.html?hp ...Wait!

The wonderful thing about the Dean campaign is that it's more about a movement than a man.

Give me one example where I've criticized Bush's misspeak and refused to back off after he apologized. Don't even think about using WMDs, because that's a flat out lie that he used, not a misspeak.

As an RPer myself, I completely and wholeheartedly disagree. There are some stories which you just cannot break up, and if they were going to read your RP anyway, length will not deter people. You simply have to be a good writer to pull it off.

Wonderful, you can stop being a snide little fuck any time now. I work 43 hours a week myself, and I make barely enough to pay my own tuition. Don't make this out to be a "LOL TYL0R IS PAMPERED AND HE HAS NO IDEA KIK" My $460 a week (before taxes) has always been cut by about a hundred bucks, before and after Bush's cut. Therefore, I'm making as much as you and I can honestly say that I get approximately the same amount taken out for taxes. Add to that the fact that my tuition is close to *$20,000* a year, and I don't get much in the way of financial aid (after the original partial scholarship), and you'll see that you're not too far away from my boat, especially since I live on my own 2/3 of the year. Now, on to your issues: 1) Dean doesn't raise INCOME TAXES. These are the ones the federal government -- which is what Dean would be in control of -- can change, not sales tax, etc. Let's be clear here: a president Dean would have NO CONTROL over property, sales, etc. taxes. So, your assertation that you wouldn't want a tax-hiker is flawed. This is in addition to the fact that we've seen budget surpluses grow the economy, meaning you should be able to get a better, higher paying job under a President Dean. He doesn't plan to balance the budget primarily through raising income taxes (especially since Bush's tax cut BARELY effects a ~$30,000 payroll anyway); he plans to balance it through controlled spending in the budget (Bush's budgets have gone up exponentially since he's come into office). Payroll taxes will not go up, because he's planning to bolster Social Security and Medicare by nixing the wage cap (in effect, making higher income people still have to pay proportional social security taxes). Again, this can only affect you positively, since you're the one who will be benefitting from a better job market. EDIT: I may be wrong about federal control of gas taxes, so I edited it out. I don't *think* the feds control that, but I may have been wrong.

Hell, go for it.

Actually, with these guys, they seem to focus on "trash talk" a lot with little character depth at all. I was going to use my new character (who is story-deep, but wrestling-shallow) to whoop up, but I'll probably lose myself because they're all trash talky.

Vote for Dean.

Nah, Rush is vehemently against Arnold.

I understand the joke, believe me. However, it's rather hypocritical when people are blowing their loads over a guy whose stances are completely unknown to anyone but himself.

His health care plan, actually, only increases the health care coverage to people <200% of the poverty line. The rest of the health care will, theoretically, come when additional taxes are rendered to companies who do not provide it for their employees.

I'm in. Keep us updated on the draft status.

FYI: The dude running the show is planning an interfed PPV for the Empire shizit. Throw your name in the hat for the Empire Title tournament, so we can have SWF guys absolutely obliterate the rest of the fed. KTHX

And by the way, not to spam the topic, but Vermont's sales tax under Dean was 1.25% lower than Bush's sales tax of 6.25%, and Vermont has more exemptions.

Do you mind if I ask how much you make a year? Or what your filing status is? The reason I ask is because as a single guy with no dependents, my monthly take-home pay has increased about $60 a month since all those "useless" tax cuts took effect this year. That's nothing to sneeze at in my opinion. I'd hope you agree. I barely make enough per year to file, since I'm a college student. However, I'm taking this from my parents' income. My stepfather used to recieve $2000 per two weeks out of a base $3500 paycheck under Clinton. He now recieves approximately the same (give or take 50 bucks) I equate a ~$50,000 salary to middle class, don't you?

Also, from the Vermont state website... The general sales tax rate is imposed on the buyer on the purchase price of tangible personal property, amusement charges, fabrication charges, some public utility charges and some service contracts. There are 46 exemptions from the tax which include medical items, food, manufacturing machinery, equipment and fuel, residential fuel and electricity, clothing and shoes with a purchase price of $110 or less. Rate: 5% I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy when you buy your televisions and don't expect to pay a small sales tax. Look at the expemptions there; food, clothes, shoes, etc. Those are necessities, and they're not taxed. Excises are taxed. Also, for people filing alone in income taxes, anyone who makes under $46,000 a year pays NO state income tax. Married Filing Jointly - 2002 VT Taxable Income Over But Not Over Base Tax Plus of Amt Over $ 0 $ 46,700 3.6% $ 0 $ 46,700 $ 112,850 $ 1,681 7.2% $ 46,700 $ 112,850 $ 171,950 $ 6,444 8.5% $ 112,850 $ 171,950 $ 307,050 $ 11,468 9.0% $ 171,950 $ 307,050 $ 23,627 9.5% $ 307,050 Married Filing Separately - 2002 VT Taxable Income Over But Not Over Base Tax Plus of Amt Over $ 0 $23,350 3.6% $ 0 $ 23,350 $ 56,425 $ 841 7.2% $ 23,350 $ 56,425 $ 85,975 $ 3,222 8.5% $ 56,425 $ 85,975 $ 153,525 $ 5,734 9.0% $ 85,975 $ 153,525 $ 11,813 9.5% $ 153,52 Head of Household - 2002 VT Taxable Income Over But Not Over Base Tax Plus of Amt Over $ 0 $ 37,450 3.6% $ 0 $ 37,450 $ 96,700 $ 1,348 7.2% $ 37,450 $ 96,700 $ 156,600 $ 5,614 8.5% $ 96,700 $ 156,600 $ 307,050 $ 10,706 9.0% $ 156,600 $ 307,050 $ 24,246 9.5% $ 307,050 Single - 2002 VT Taxable Income Over But Not Over Base Tax Plus of Amt Over $ 0 $ 27,950 3.6% $ 0 $ 27,950 $ 67,700 $ 1,006 7.2% $ 27,950 $ 67,700 $ 141,250 $ 3,868 8.5% $ 67,700 $ 141,250 $ 307,050 $ 10,120 9.0% $ 141,250 $ 307,050 $ 25,042 9.5% $ 370,050 These are by no means extreme.