Antiwar protesters trash 9/11 memorial

[Guest Some Guy]

Tyler, why do you suppose that war wiuth N. Korea has not been brought up? We aren't going to war with them unless we absolutely have to. They kill millions of S. Koreans, as you've just said and I've said many times here.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Because Iraq ISN'T the worst danger, and I'm tired of people using that excuse. If we attack based on level of danger, the NKs are the most dangerous by far.

[Guest Vyce]

By eliminating these governments who support terrorism, do you really think we're gonna stop terrorism? Do you really think they will take to us and it'll be a nice, happy world?

 

No. They're going to resent us and take stabs at our soldiers. They're gonna smuggle a fucking nuke into our country and blow up a city.

No, we would never totally defeat terrorism.

 

As long as there's a Jew alive on this planet, for instance, there will be a terrorist that is trying to kill him.

 

BUT I do believe it is possible to so debilitate terrorist groups by destroying their resources and support nations that they are disadvantaged and limited from doing an extreme amount of damage.

 

****

 

As for terrorism against us?

 

If we moved ALL interests out of the Middle East tomorrow....not just Iraq, ACROSS THE BOARD.....

 

AND if we totally sold out Israel and took away ALL of our support for them, leaving them to the mercies of the Arab nations....

 

....the terrorists would STILL be planning to smuggle a nuke inside our country.

 

It's a culture war. The civilized world (us, "The Great Satan") vs. religious fanatics. You have 2 options: you can essentially do nothing (or use diplomacy, which is essentially the same thing) or you can take proactive steps which run the risk of enraging the religious zealots even further. I'd rather take the risk.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

AND if we totally sold out Israel and took away ALL of our support for them, leaving them to the mercies of the Arab nations....

 

Bahahahahaa.

 

Everyone and their mother knows that Israel would absolutely and utterly destroy the rest of the Arab world, including Palestine, if we took our leashes off of them.

 

I also doubt our risk would be remotely as high if we withdrew from the Middle East and stopped supporting Israel. There may be one fanatic here and there, but they most definitely wouldn't be uniting the entire Arab world against us.

 

Turning this into a holy war is the WORST thing we can do.

[Guest evenflowDDT]

AND if we totally sold out Israel and took away ALL of our support for them, leaving them to the mercies of the Arab nations....

 

Bahahahahaa.

 

Everyone and their mother knows that Israel would absolutely and utterly destroy the rest of the Arab world, including Palestine, if we took our leashes off of them.

For realz. Anyone versed in basic Israeli history could tell you that in the Six Day War, Israel held off Egypt, Syria and Jordan (maybe others? I can't remember) all by themselves. Both the U.S. and France had embargoed weapons to Israel, and Egypt, Syria and Jordan were receving arms from the rest of the Middle East AND the Soviets.

 

I can only assume Israeli military has gotten even better in the past 35 years. Don't sell Israel short just because they're incredibly tolerant of suicide bombers and Arab extremists.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

Yet another update. Take that pseudo-hippies...

 

http://www.whittierdailynews.com/Stories/0...1247478,00.html

 

"La Habra -- came under the national spotlight last week, when this newspaper reported antiwar demonstrators had destroyed a memorial to the victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the East Coast. Vandals destroyed 87 American flags, destroying red-white-and-blue stepping stones created by neighborhood children and replacing patriotic signs with antiwar slogans.

 

The story was picked up on the Drudge Report, muck-raking journalist Matt Drudge's Internet Web site, and quickly went global.

 

As the week ended, the fence had become a rallying point of patriotism, drawing people from all over Southern California who heard about it on the news and wanted to help restore it.

 

By Thursday, 200 new American flags were again flying at the site, along with new posters and pictures of Sept. 11 victims and of local soldiers and their families."

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

lol, who coined them "Pseudo-Hippies" instead of regular hippies? I must have missed that, but it's more accurate.

 

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

"lol, who coined them "Pseudo-Hippies" instead of regular hippies? I must have missed that, but it's more accurate."

 

I use this term to differate between real hippies and the ones that play one on TV. As far as I know nobody else has used the term.

 

A while back I gave some details at what makes someone a pseudo-hippie, and I can't find the post via the search engine...

[Guest TheMikeSC]

But this wasn't about 9/11 till Bush made it about 9/11. You want vengeance?

 

You talk to that guy with the bad suit who's having trouble swallowing the pretzel.

Hey, pretzel jokes about Bush, that's original.

How about you debate the point instead getting pissy about a wisecrack?

 

If you don't have anything to add; don't post in the thread.

I'm sorry, Hussein DOESN'T give money to suicide bombers?

 

He didn't, by MANY accounts, provide intel to Al Qaeda for the 9/11 attacks?

 

Bush said it in his speech --- if you don't OPPOSE the terrorists, then you oppose us.

 

Saddam is simply a speed bump in the road.

 

And if other Muslim states wish to continue sponsoring terrorism, they will suffer the same fate.

 

I find it amusing that we're supposed to be sympathetic here.

-=Mike

[Guest TheMikeSC]

hahaha. Cool

 

EDIT: I do not agree with crime. But the officers said there was no crime, so.. *shrug*

 

 

EDIT 2:

 

Historically, war helps the economy.

 

Wha? Even in the Civilization computer game, war hurts the economy. War doesn't help the economy, especially when it's used as a diversionary tactic.

 

EDIT 3: I read that harder now. I thought it was a pro-war memorial, not a 9/11 memorial. I hereby recant my statement. Not cool or

Um, war helps economies.

 

Do you think FDR's "New Deal" was what ended the Depression?

-=Mike

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

No, you're right, it didn't end the depression on its own. However, that was back when wars gave us a tremendous increase in industrial production; is that still the case?

 

Um, nope.

 

Consumers still aren't going to spend money; they're still worried about terrorism, and Bush's wonderful tax cuts give the people who SPEND money relatively dick. Maybe if we cut payroll taxes...

 

...but we know that will never happen, because then Bush couldn't afford his tax cuts for his rich buddies.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

No, you're right, it didn't end the depression on its own. However, that was back when wars gave us a tremendous increase in industrial production; is that still the case?

 

Um, nope.

 

Consumers still aren't going to spend money; they're still worried about terrorism, and Bush's wonderful tax cuts give the people who SPEND money relatively dick. Maybe if we cut payroll taxes...

 

...but we know that will never happen, because then Bush couldn't afford his tax cuts for his rich buddies.

The ending of the war will lead to lower oil prices, which will help the economy. It will shoot consumer confidence throgugh the roof.

 

And, as a nice little aside, this is all cyclical and the turnaround will happen inevitably regardless.

 

As for the tax cut --- let's face a few facts: ANY tax cut will "help" the "rich" (and let's keep in mind that the Democratic definition of rich isn't exactly Rockefeller levels of money) since, technically, hey actually PAY the taxes. Bush proposes ANY across-the-board cuts and you get the same idiotic complaints.

 

Do you think Bush's tax cuts have benefitted his "rich buddies" all that much?

-=Mike

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Not payroll taxes. Cut payroll taxes and the consumers will IMMEDIATELY have more money in their pockets to spend.

 

According to the Citizens for Tax Justice (http://www.ctj.org/html/gwbfinal.htm <-- that source in particular), the top 1% of taxpayers will get $53,123 a year in tax breaks from Bush's original plan (has not been instituted yet, if I'm not mistaken). So, yes, they do benefit quite a bit from these tax cuts.

 

Also, it's not even remotely feasable economically. This, in specific, has sent us back into a federal deficit. According to the Congressional Budget Office in early 2002, "CBO's projection of the cumulative surplus for 2002 through 2011 has plunged by $4 trillion in just one year [2001] . . . some $2.4 trillion of that drop can be attributed to legislative actions. The legislation with the largest effect was the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, enacted in June."

 

In addition, several like minded "economic stimulus" packages have furthered the deficit.

 

He also eliminated the Capital Gains Tax in that aforementioned economic stimulus package, which was a tax to put a minimum of taxes on corporations. That means that corporations often pay NOTHING in taxes now. In addition, he PAYED BACK ALL THE MONEY IN CGT CORPORATIONS HAVE PAYED OVER THE 15 YEARS IN WHICH IT WAS INSTITUTED. Yes, 15 years. It wasn't instituted by some crazy liberal, it was brought in under Reagan. This move was advised against by Alan Greenspan and Bob Rubin, former Treasury Secretary. This idiotic decision sent $254 million dollars back to Enron, and similar figures back to other large corporations like Cheney's Halliburton. (Wall Street Journal, 10/23/01)

 

So, Bush's repeated tax cuts don't help out his little rich buddies? Bullshit. He gives money back to the rich guys who sit on their asses and collect Trust Fund money, while refusing to cut payroll taxes on people who could use it to... I don't know... BUY THINGS TO HELP STIMULATE THE ECONOMY? PERHAPS?

 

Explain that, Mike.

[Guest NoCalMike]

I think another thing as well is, how can we even have tax cuts and spend all this extra money for the war at the same time? It won't work, and it will just translate into new taxes in the future(ala the proposed 20cent tax increase on gas). All sorts of funding is being cut nationwide already, to pay for the original tax cut that squandered the nice surplus Bush had waiting for him in 2000. Now he wants ANOTHER tax cut that doesn't help the people who could use the money at all.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Not payroll taxes. Cut payroll taxes and the consumers will IMMEDIATELY have more money in their pockets to spend.

 

According to the Citizens for Tax Justice (http://www.ctj.org/html/gwbfinal.htm <-- that source in particular), the top 1% of taxpayers will get $53,123 a year in tax breaks from Bush's original plan (has not been instituted yet, if I'm not mistaken). So, yes, they do benefit quite a bit from these tax cuts.

 

Also, it's not even remotely feasable economically. This, in specific, has sent us back into a federal deficit. According to the Congressional Budget Office in early 2002, "CBO's projection of the cumulative surplus for 2002 through 2011 has plunged by $4 trillion in just one year [2001] . . . some $2.4 trillion of that drop can be attributed to legislative actions. The legislation with the largest effect was the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, enacted in June."

 

In addition, several like minded "economic stimulus" packages have furthered the deficit.

 

He also eliminated the Capital Gains Tax in that aforementioned economic stimulus package, which was a tax to put a minimum of taxes on corporations. That means that corporations often pay NOTHING in taxes now. In addition, he PAYED BACK ALL THE MONEY IN CGT CORPORATIONS HAVE PAYED OVER THE 15 YEARS IN WHICH IT WAS INSTITUTED. Yes, 15 years. It wasn't instituted by some crazy liberal, it was brought in under Reagan. This move was advised against by Alan Greenspan and Bob Rubin, former Treasury Secretary. This idiotic decision sent $254 million dollars back to Enron, and similar figures back to other large corporations like Cheney's Halliburton. (Wall Street Journal, 10/23/01)

 

So, Bush's repeated tax cuts don't help out his little rich buddies? Bullshit. He gives money back to the rich guys who sit on their asses and collect Trust Fund money, while refusing to cut payroll taxes on people who could use it to... I don't know... BUY THINGS TO HELP STIMULATE THE ECONOMY? PERHAPS?

 

Explain that, Mike.

Heck, I'm for all ANY tax cut you can possibly come up with.

 

Of course, the top 1% makes quite a bit of money and $53K+ a year to them is about as big as, maybe, $100/year is to me. It's not exactly going to suddenly --- gasp --- make them rich.

 

A deficit isn't a terribly bad thing, provided the money is used for a worthwhile purpose. We have to fix up our military. The economy isn't doing gangbusters and the absurdly over-valued dot-coms no longer pay the big bucks in taxes, so deficits will be hard to avoid.

 

And, time for a blinding flash of insight --- corporations NEVER pay taxes. They have NEVER paid them. They simply PASS THE EXPENSE onto the consumers. To raise any taxes on corporations is to simply shoot oneself in the foot.

 

Our goal is for corporations to grow. When they have MONEY, corporations, more than almost anything else REINVEST in themselves and, once again, hire more people and --- VOILA --- economic growth occurs. Capital Gains Taxes affect MANY people -- including tons of middle-class people whose retirements are in jeoprdy due to the accounting fiascoes o' Wall Street.

 

I know, it's popular to assume that people with money must inherit it --- but that is such a tiny minority of the wealthy that it is not funny. The vast majority of the wealthy work their collective butts off --- far harder than ANYBODY here --- and I refuse to resent them for having money. They also EMPLOY people and do more for the economy than you or I.

 

I love it that you think doing one or the other is the only possibility.

 

Why not do BOTH?

-=Mike --- When yor mrchandise doesn't sell, you don't raise the prices. Same premise with taxation.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

I think another thing as well is, how can we even have tax cuts and spend all this extra money for the war at the same time? It won't work, and it will just translate into new taxes in the future(ala the proposed 20cent tax increase on gas). All sorts of funding is being cut nationwide already, to pay for the original tax cut that squandered the nice surplus Bush had waiting for him in 2000. Now he wants ANOTHER tax cut that doesn't help the people who could use the money at all.

The surplus died when the dot-coms started realizing that turning a profit might be a necessity and they quickly ceased being cash cows.

 

The dot-coms were no different than the stock market of the 1920's --- so ridiculously overvalued that when the correction finally comes (and it came for dot-coms in 2000), they'd crash and burn in short order.

-=Mike -- And God knows the accounting problems only made things that much worse

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Trickle down economics is a good theory that has NEVER worked. They're supposed to "reinvest" in themselves, but they end up saving the money... thus, how they got rich in the first place. Ever since it was introduced as a theory in the 20s by Andrew Mellon, it simply has led to rapid recessions and stagnation in the economy whenever it has been used.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Trickle down economics is a good theory that has NEVER worked. They're supposed to "reinvest" in themselves, but they end up saving the money... thus, how they got rich in the first place. Ever since it was introduced as a theory in the 20s by Andrew Mellon, it simply has led to rapid recessions and stagnation in the economy whenever it has been used.

The 1960's and 1980's tend to disprove that notion.

-=Mike

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

The late 1980's quick economic growth under Reagan was made useless by a recession in the latter half of the elder Bush's presidency. It was a very short-term economic policy that proved to be unhealthy for the economy afterwards. In times of good economic health, it's common for jobs to be created... that, after all, is what trickle down is based upon, right? The creation of jobs?

 

Explain this, then. Under Clinton, the economy created 22.88 million jobs. Under Reagan/Bush Senior, 18.499 million jobs were created in their 12 years. These statistics are readily available at the Bureau of Labor Statistics' website, www.bls.gov. In addition, 91 percent of Clinton's jobs (20.920 million jobs) that were created happened to be in the private sector.

 

I don't know enough about the 1960's to argue that point, however.

[Guest Powerplay]

The late 1980's quick economic growth under Reagan was made useless by a recession in the latter half of the elder Bush's presidency. It was a very short-term economic policy that proved to be unhealthy for the economy afterwards. In times of good economic health, it's common for jobs to be created... that, after all, is what trickle down is based upon, right? The creation of jobs?

 

Explain this, then. Under Clinton, the economy created 22.88 million jobs. Under Reagan/Bush Senior, 18.499 million jobs were created in their 12 years. These statistics are readily available at the Bureau of Labor Statistics' website, www.bls.gov. In addition, 91 percent of Clinton's jobs (20.920 million jobs) that were created happened to be in the private sector.

 

I don't know enough about the 1960's to argue that point, however.

Well, Tyler, you also have to take into account the massive Internet boom. If anything is responsible for the fantastic economy during the Clinton years it would certainly be the onset of the internet.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Agreed, it did have a great deal to do with the internet.

 

However, even so, that wasn't the only aspect which affected the economic health. A lot of it had to do with the surplus and the fact that we had a realistic chance to pay off the national debt by 2009 as well. He had sound fiscal responsibility and a great economic team. Of course the internet helped a great deal, but you can't completely discount his affects on the economy.

 

However, the stats were more to disprove the notion that trickle down economics are this amazing wonder.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

The late 1980's quick economic growth under Reagan was made useless by a recession in the latter half of the elder Bush's presidency. It was a very short-term economic policy that proved to be unhealthy for the economy afterwards. In times of good economic health, it's common for jobs to be created... that, after all, is what trickle down is based upon, right? The creation of jobs?

 

Explain this, then. Under Clinton, the economy created 22.88 million jobs. Under Reagan/Bush Senior, 18.499 million jobs were created in their 12 years. These statistics are readily available at the Bureau of Labor Statistics' website, www.bls.gov. In addition, 91 percent of Clinton's jobs (20.920 million jobs) that were created happened to be in the private sector.

 

I don't know enough about the 1960's to argue that point, however.

Short-term economic growth? 1982-1991 is short-term? And considering that what Reagan inherited made what Clinton inherited look like the salad days is nothing to sneeze at. Tax revenues doubled (and had the Congress ever gained ANY control over spending, the deficits wouldn't have been a problem whatsoever) and growth went through the roof.

 

BTW, it should be noted that the growth under Clinton was FAR less healthy than Reagan's. The dot-coms were horribly overpriced, technology by the truckload was sold to China against the State Dept. and Pentagon's wishes, and oversight of corporate auditing was decimated nicely. We're paying for ALL of that right now.

 

Reagan took an economy crippled by stagflation and reversed it. Clinton took an economy that suffered a 9-month recession and was in full recovery when he took office and simply rode it. Bush Sr's presidency was an economic disaster to say the least, but Reagan did one of the great economic turnaround jobs in American history.

-=Mike

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Agreed, it did have a great deal to do with the internet.

 

However, even so, that wasn't the only aspect which affected the economic health. A lot of it had to do with the surplus and the fact that we had a realistic chance to pay off the national debt by 2009 as well. He had sound fiscal responsibility and a great economic team. Of course the internet helped a great deal, but you can't completely discount his affects on the economy.

 

However, the stats were more to disprove the notion that trickle down economics are this amazing wonder.

The surplus was off the back of the dot-coms and the lax oversight of corporations (Enron didn't lie on their books for just one year). Not exactly a great thing.

 

As for the surplus --- let's not give Clinton too much credit here. The GOP House did that. Clinton had no intention of balancing the budget. And when the dot-coms went belly up, the surpluses were going to go bye-bye regardless.

-=Mike