O&A Listening thread 15Dec2011 - He's called... The STIG!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Artist

New Wackbag
Dec 7, 2011
23
0
0
#5
Anthony = God Damn Rich Cunt
 

Bill Lehecka

The Fat Horse v. 2.0
Donator
Dec 8, 2004
36,190
15,490
718
Cohoes, NY
#8
"We were the first to say..." the judge was wrong.

First, who cares if they were the first? Second, way to take a stand.
 

nataskaos

He's no good to me dead.
Jul 7, 2006
23,599
2,540
373
BFE
#9
hiya.
not listening, as I am at our office this week...but I figured I'd check to see who was in this mess.
 

stellarcomics

Registered User
Jul 25, 2005
6,948
1,577
658
#10
Republican administrations = Tax Cuts for the Rich and Wars.
And we were NOT ALL for the Iraq war… at the time.
 

CousinDave

Registered User
Dec 11, 2007
25,297
198
393
Ohio
#11
Barry wasn't in the Congress when they "authorized" the Iraq war but Hillary and just about all the other Dems were for it
 

TitanicSlide

is it too soon?
Jun 20, 2004
485
38
618
Long Island, NY
#12
Wow, the fox cheerleader is seeing the spaghetti on the wall again, this replaces crying as a child, crying and screaming as an adult
 

Hoffman

Guess who's back? Hoffman's back
Sep 28, 2006
34,674
2,022
458
Northern VA
#13
Barry wasn't in the Congress when they "authorized" the Iraq war but Hillary and just about all the other Dems were for it
A lot of people were. Powell was basically used as a puppet to trump it up.
 

CousinDave

Registered User
Dec 11, 2007
25,297
198
393
Ohio
#14
Republican administrations = Tax Cuts for the Rich and Wars.
And we were NOT ALL for the Iraq war… at the time.

So since you got a tax cut while W was POTUS that means you're rich!

Every federal income tax rate went down while W was POTUS and the lower rates went down more than the higher rates, so whenever anyone says tax cuts for the rich they are either an ignorant rube or just a liar.
 

CousinDave

Registered User
Dec 11, 2007
25,297
198
393
Ohio
#15
A lot of people were. Powell was basically used as a puppet to trump it up.

Was he really?

He never said after the fact that the intelligence that he acted on was knowing wrong, at the time he believed it just like everyone else, and the Iraqis made sure everyone thought they had WMDs so the Iranians would be afraid of them, they just never thought the US would actually invade.
 

stellarcomics

Registered User
Jul 25, 2005
6,948
1,577
658
#16
So since you got a tax cut while W was POTUS that means you're rich!

Every federal income tax rate went down while W was POTUS and the lower rates went down more than the higher rates, so whenever anyone says tax cuts for the rich they are either an ignorant rube or just a liar.
OK, I'll concede that, however tax cuts are also historically more trouble than they're worth. Lower taxes don't necessarily create jobs or keep the poor fed. The nation paid the highest taxes during the Clinton administration; historically one of our largest eras of GDP growth.
 

Hoffman

Guess who's back? Hoffman's back
Sep 28, 2006
34,674
2,022
458
Northern VA
#17
Was he really?

He never said after the fact that the intelligence that he acted on was knowing wrong, at the time he believed it just like everyone else, and the Iraqis made sure everyone thought they had WMDs so the Iranians would be afraid of them, they just never thought the US would actually invade.
Ok, perhaps my term was a bit harsh. However, let's not act like a thorough review of that "intel" was performed before making the decision.
 

CousinDave

Registered User
Dec 11, 2007
25,297
198
393
Ohio
#18
OK, I'll concede that, however tax cuts are also historically more trouble than they're worth. Lower taxes don't necessarily create jobs or keep the poor fed. The nation paid the highest taxes during the Clinton administration; historically one of our largest eras of GDP growth.

You're mistaking revenue collected with income tax rates and they are not the same thing, when the Capital Gains taxes were cut while Clinton was POTUS, tax revenues increased even though the rate went down. Historically when rates are lowered revenue collections go up and when rates go up revenue collected goes down - ask NY & MD how much more they are collecting from their millionaire surtax they passed a couple of years ago - they're getting less money now than they were before because people moved.

Never give the gov't any more money for any reason: money = power in the hands of the gov't and I don't care how much you want to suck the current POTUS's cock, some day there will be a gov't in power that you don't like and that power you happily gave the gov't that you loved, will be used against you by the new gov't.
 

CousinDave

Registered User
Dec 11, 2007
25,297
198
393
Ohio
#20
Ok, perhaps my term was a bit harsh. However, let's not act like a thorough review of that "intel" was performed before making the decision.

Maybe, but at the time everybody including most of the prominent Democrats & Republicans were for it - it was only guys like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich who were against it at the time.

I've always been interested in knowing why the intel was wrong, but two separate administrations haven't cared enough to figure out why, which means it was just an error and the info wasn't cooked to get a predetermined outcome otherwise once Barry became POTUS they would have been all over it.
 

fletcher

Darkness always says hello.
Donator
Feb 20, 2006
59,523
19,737
513
jersey
#22
8:30 and still on the first page? What gives?
 

ruckstande

Posts mostly from the shitter.
Apr 2, 2005
15,489
4,842
693
South Jersey
#23
OK, I'll concede that, however tax cuts are also historically more trouble than they're worth. Lower taxes don't necessarily create jobs or keep the poor fed. The nation paid the highest taxes during the Clinton administration; historically one of our largest eras of GDP growth.
How about this as a comparison. Last night, we voted on the budget for our condo. The old fucks wanted to raise the association fees for everyone in the community. We as a board voted to keep the budget exactly the same. Our point being, the economy sucks and most younger people pay a mortgage and condo fees. The old folks own their condo so who gives a shit if they raise the fees, they only pay $250 a month to live there anyway? My point and the feeling of other members are, most people are hanging on by the skin of their teeth, if we raise the fees, we may lose another unit owner and lose more income and not be able to sell the unit. No units are selling and we are already at a 10% delinquency rate. I'd rather give people more wiggle room to continue living at our stupid community than risk owners walking away from their units.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.