Home Menu

Menu


Woodworking (rec.woodworking) Discussion forum covering all aspects of working with wood. All levels of expertise are encouraged to particiapte.

DIYbanter » Do - it - Yourself » Woodworking > OT - Coulter
Reply
Page 4 of 6 123 4 56
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #121   Report Post  
Rafe B.
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT - Coulter
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 21:05:03 -0700, "Jerry McG"
wrote:

"Hey, everybody, check out the leftist lies on their favorite web sites
below!"

(Oh, now, now, don't ask for any confirmation or actual facts, etc., cause
if it's from us anarchists & commies, it's gotta be the truth!)

Give me a friggin' break with this leftist paranoia, ass wipe!


Sorry, Jerr. You're a very sick puppy.

FoxNews one of your "lefties and commies" sites?

How about the US Department of State?

The bigotry, prejudice and xenophobia that you're
expressing is exactly what greeted your ancestors
as they entered this country.

You have no shame. And I'm ashamed to have
you as a fellow citizen.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #123   Report Post  
Robert Monsen
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT - Coulter

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
s.com...
In article ,
says...
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:46:08 GMT, "Tom"
wrote:


Which tax cuts are now paying off nicely... It probably irks you no end
that
the economy is turning around, in part because of those cuts, doesn't
it?

Sucks being you, when your only hope is doom and gloom, doesn't it?


The three million jobs lost since shrub's reign began
aren't back yet.

You guys need to get your stories straight, some other leftwinger has
the number at 20 million.


Nobody said that. The number is 3 million. Look it up. You seem to have some
dexterity with statistics. However, I don't think we can pin these jobs on
the Bush administration. Not that he did anything to try to staunch the flow
of blood, but the US has been leaking jobs for some time now. Something to
do with globalization, I think...


You can always liven up an economy with defecit
pending. Democrats have played that game also,
Question is how much "livening" you get for how much
defecit spending. How much debt can the USA pile
on? Someone's got to pay, eventually. With shrub's
rules, it's the poor and the middle that pay, and the
rich that make off with the proceeds.


Unfortunately for you, the numbers belie your rant. Who pays the
taxes in the US? According to IRS 2001 statistics, the top 50% of wage
earners pay over 96% of all income taxes. The top 10% pay almost 65%
(64.89% to be precise). The top 5% pay 53.25% of all income taxes. Top
50% earn 86.2% of all income, top 10% earn 43.11% of all earnings, top
5% earns 31.99% of all income. Again, the source here is the IRS
statistics for 2001.

Now, given that the top 50% are paying 96% of all taxes, and the top
5% are paying 53.25%, who has any chance of benefiting from tax breaks
but the people who are paying the taxes.

You know, lies, damned lies, and statistics...

Income taxes, not payroll taxes. Payroll taxes (you know, fica, ss, etc) are
the majority of federal taxes for many if not the majority of people. As the
income tax goes down, the payroll tax stays the same.

Thus, the rich's taxes go down while the poor's taxes stay the same. Taxes
on unearned income, and estate taxes were also cut by bush. Again, to
benefit the rich.

Now, since the federal government is back to its old, pre-Clinton ways of
deficit spending, and there is that big old pile of money in the social
security trust fund, I guess bush can use that to pay for essential
services, right? That trust fund was built up using an additional 1% payroll
tax that was imposed in the 80s. You've been adding to it with your paycheck
every year since it was created so social security wouldn't fold in 2010.

Unfortunately, giving the budget surplus to the rich will bankrupt social
security (which before the tax cut would have lasted another 50 years) in 10
years. Medicare will follow. Won't Grover Norquist be a happy camper when
that happens?

That tax cut doesn't seem like such a good idea now, does it? How about in
10 years, when you retire?



Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #124   Report Post  
Robert Monsen
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT - Coulter

"Giftzwerg" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

Which tax cuts are now paying off nicely... It probably irks you no end
that
the economy is turning around, in part because of those cuts, doesn't
it?

Sucks being you, when your only hope is doom and gloom, doesn't it?


NY Times Business section, 11/29/03

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/30/bu...ey/30view.html

laughter

Why not just cite Tom Daschle? Or some other DNC lickspittle?



What, should we cite the American Spectator? How about the Washington Times?
Fox News? Rush Limbaugh?

They might agree with you.


Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #125   Report Post  
Robert Monsen
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT - Coulter
"Jerry McG" wrote in message
...
The Bush administration has set up a fascist regime where people can be
detained indefinitely without access to attorneys-

PEOPLE?? What friggin people, those terrosit scumbags in Gitmo? You want
those pieces of **** treated like normal, law abiding citizens? Of WHAT
COUNTRY, ass wipe? They are terrorist scum and should have been shot or
worse! What planet did you come from?

They have turned our justice system into a joke, and not a very funny
one
at that.

What "justice system", the one you leftists used to get OJ off ? What
bigger joke can there be than that? You trial lawyer leftist buddies are
just ****ed because the military will dispense with these PRISONERS OF WAR
rather than Johnny Cochran and his pals.



They are ENEMY COMBATANTS, not terrorists. Do you want american soldiers
treated that way? Gotta play by the rules if you want equal treatment. Even
if you don't, can you envision a situation where some soldier in the field
sees somebody with bushy eyebrows, and sez, hey, he must be Taliban! Lets
lock him up? And gets it wrong? And some family goes without a father for 3
years while the geniuses at Guantanamo figure it out?

Whats wrong with you guys? Thats the way the Nazis worked. And the
communists under Stalin. We don't want to be that way, do we? I don't.

What the HELL is wrong with giving these folks a fair trial? Due process?
That doesn't mean letting them all go, it means dealing with them according
to the rule of law.

Sheesh.


Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #130   Report Post  
trotsky
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT - Coulter


Jerry McG wrote:
Meanwhile, there have been so many illegal activities tallied by Lay,

Cheney, and Bush, it would take a federal prosecutor months just to tabulate
them all. Your double standard is a mile wide.

Ok, name one "illegal activity" of either Cheney or Bush, name ONE that's
actually indictable and not just something that's been concocted by leftist
crybabies.


Wasn't "Why isn't Ken Lay in prison?" good enough? Both of their heads
should roll for that reason alone.


Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #131   Report Post  
trotsky
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT - Coulter


Jerry McG wrote:
Right, and Madeline Albright was the last person to negotiate with the

North Koreans--you know, in the old days, when we had the brains and the
balls to actually have a foreign policy. Clinton got the job done.

WHAT!!!!???? The North Koreams are still laughing their asses off at
Clinton, they broke that agreement the minute they signed it, knowing fully
well that spineliess ******* wouldn't lift a finger to stop them.


Oh, my mistake, I should've known that some anonymous guy on Usenet
would have the definitive look into the N. Korean mindset.

Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #132   Report Post  
trotsky
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT - Coulter


Jerry McG wrote:
And why would there be? Who wants to be detained indefinitely without

access to attorneys because you've done something the administration doesn't
like?

Yeah, like planning to blow up innocents,


How many innocents were killed by the U.S. as "collateral damage"? When
is killing women and children deemed okay in your goosestepping brain?


kill Afganis & US troops. If you'd
had your way we'd have had a trial for every Nazi Stornm Trroper captured
during WWII! All the more miney for your asshole trial lawyer buddies.


The miney is the wurst.


Does anybody really believe the U.S. government isn't

currently committing war crimes?

Yes, everybody except a small bunch of loud mouth, America hating leftist
idiots who have far bigger imaginations than general deductive mental
capacities.


Wouldn't be funny if the terrorists started referring to those they had
killed as "collateral damage"? The shoe would be on the other foot, eh
McG? Stick to "Charlie's Angels" movies.


Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #133   Report Post  
trotsky
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT - Coulter


Jerry McG wrote:
The Bush administration has set up a fascist regime where people can be

detained indefinitely without access to attorneys-

PEOPLE?? What friggin people, those terrosit scumbags in Gitmo? You want
those pieces of **** treated like normal, law abiding citizens? Of WHAT
COUNTRY, ass wipe? They are terrorist scum and should have been shot or
worse! What planet did you come from?


That's probably exactly the same thing Saddam said about those that he
locked up. If he was smart he would've deemed those that he killed
"collateral damage."


They have turned our justice system into a joke, and not a very funny one

at that.

What "justice system", the one you leftists used to get OJ off ?


In criminal court or civil court? Just trying to gauge how confused you
are.


What
bigger joke can there be than that? You trial lawyer leftist buddies are
just ****ed because the military will dispense with these PRISONERS OF WAR
rather than Johnny Cochran and his pals.


"Prisoners of War"? So you are disagreeing with the Bush adminstration
and saying they should be given the rights accorded to them by the
Geneva Convention? Try to get your story straight.


Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #138   Report Post  
NJH
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT - Coulter

"trotsky" wrote in message
...


NJH wrote:
[ . . . ]

Clinton's deliberate destruction of civilian infrastructure (TV
stations,
water supplies, power grids, etc.) was *by definition* a series of war
crimes. Of course, Clinton paid about as much attention to the Geneva
Convention as he did to any other legally binding agreement.


That's funny, because I just got through watching Rumsfeld on "NBC
Nightly News" pitch a bitch because Iraqi TV has the freedom to
broadcast whatever they want.

I doubt he bitched about Iraqi freedom to broadcast. Bush hasn't bombed
their TV stations, has he?


He and his ilk truly despise freedom.

Your notion of what "freedom" means is questionable, to say the least. Mine
is embodied in the U.S. Constitution, which is defended by Bush and those
like him.

Neil


Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #139   Report Post  
NJH
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT - Coulter

"trotsky" wrote in message
...


Jerry McG wrote:
And why would there be? Who wants to be detained indefinitely without

access to attorneys because you've done something the administration
doesn't
like?

Yeah, like planning to blow up innocents,


How many innocents were killed by the U.S. as "collateral damage"?

Probably fewer than by Clinton in his 81-day round-the-clock bombing of
Serbia, a country which neither did nor intended any harm to the U.S., did
not support terrorism, had no weapons of mass destruction or plans to build
any, and had invaded no other country. Nor did Clinton's war accomplish a
single thing. After he'd finished spending billions and exhausting our
supply of cruise missiles, Milosevich was still there.

Well, his war did get Monica Lewinsky off the front pages. I suppose that is
an accomplishment of sorts.

Neil


Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #141   Report Post  
Jerry McG
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT - Coulter
..................... and there is that big old pile of money in the social
security trust fund, I guess bush can use that to pay for essential
services, right? That trust fund was built up using an additional 1% payroll
tax that was imposed in the 80s. You've been adding to it with your paycheck
every year since it was created so social security wouldn't fold in 2010.

First of all it isn't 1%, it's 2.5%. Your employer withoulds the other half
from your total compensation and pays it on your behalf. It was a rip off of
the tallest order, driven by your friendly tax & spend Democratic
politicians. Clinton hoped to tap into the strategy with Nationalized health
care in the '90's, which would have increased the tax burden to at least
10%, over and above the 15%+ FICA taxes, but was stopped dead in his tracks
when the public saw what was coming and elected a Republican congress to end
the madness.

STOP!!!! Big News Flash: There is NO "Social Security Trust Fund!"

Social Security and Medicare are not "savings accounts", they're pay-as-you
go taxes. The "Trust Fund" slogan was created by Democratic politicians to
fool people into thinking those FICA taxes were going into a savings account
for them somewhewre, and nothing is further from the truth. That money's
being spent as fast as it's collected. Worse, it's being spent on the
general expenses, not just Grandpa's Social Security and Medicare, and all
the asshole politicians do is write "IOUs" which have to be paid later on.
This means either we all pay higher FICA/Medciare taxes, or grandpa's Social
Security check gets cut.

Now, you ask, who started tapping into Social Security, those bad, evil
Republicans? NO! It was Democrat Lyndon "tax & spend" Johnson back in '65.
Think any politician has the guts to call this mess for what it is? **** No!

Unfortunately, giving the budget surplus to the rich will bankrupt social
security (which before the tax cut would have lasted another 50 years) in 10
years. Medicare will follow. Won't Grover Norquist be a happy camper when
that happens?

Social Security is an oxymoron. This is the worst program ever forced on the
Amrican people and the sooner it's gone the better. All of us could be
millionaires if the money stolen from us every week for that porgram could
be invested in private savings, simple, period end of argument. The govt are
a bunch of self-agrandizing thieves and liars and this program is the worst
example.

That tax cut doesn't seem like such a good idea now, does it? How about in
10 years, when you retire?

The penny comes due much later than that, but it's still a giant scam that
need to DIE through a phase-out. The short term consequences keep everyone
from admitting what a joke the entire mess is.


Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #142   Report Post  
Jerry McG
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT - Coulter

"Rafe B." wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 21:05:03 -0700, "Jerry McG"
wrote:

"Hey, everybody, check out the leftist lies on their favorite web sites
below!"

(Oh, now, now, don't ask for any confirmation or actual facts, etc.,
cause
if it's from us anarchists & commies, it's gotta be the truth!)

Give me a friggin' break with this leftist paranoia, ass wipe!


Sorry, Jerr. You're a very sick puppy.

FoxNews one of your "lefties and commies" sites?

How about the US Department of State?

The bigotry, prejudice and xenophobia that you're
expressing is exactly what greeted your ancestors
as they entered this country.

You have no shame. And I'm ashamed to have
you as a fellow citizen.

Better get used to it, commie, more than half the public stands with me. You
leftists concoct this crap and spread it around like it's fact, and nothing
could be further from the truth. Further, when things don;t go your way
(which common sense dictates they rarely do) you're the first to cry
"corporate media lies", yet you turn right around an quote FOX!!!!??? What a
bunch of hypocrites....



Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #143   Report Post  
Jerry McG
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT - Coulter
They are ENEMY COMBATANTS, not terrorists. Do you want american soldiers
treated that way?

If captured by these bags of evil pus you call "enemy combatants", American
soldiers are tortured and murdered on the spot. They are not fed, clothed
humanely treeated, etc.

THESE PEOPLE ARE SCUM AND DESERVE TO BE DEAD!!!!! What is it you can't
understand about this?

Gotta play by the rules if you want equal treatment.

WHat RULES? These people don't respect any RULES!!! If they'd been captured
by an opposing militia they'd have been gutted or skinned alive.

Even if you don't, can you envision a situation where some soldier in the
field sees somebody with bushy eyebrows, and sez, hey, he must be Taliban!
Lets lock him up? And gets it wrong? And some family goes without a father
for 3 years while the geniuses at Guantanamo figure it out?

Figure WHAT out? These creatures are lucky to be alive at all, and if
turned lose wouldn't spare a moment to kill everyone within range so they
could screw 72 virgins. Get out of your dream world, these people are human
vermin.

Whats wrong with you guys? Thats the way the Nazis worked. And the
communists under Stalin. We don't want to be that way, do we? I don't. What
the HELL is wrong with giving these folks a fair trial? Due process?

Cause it won't be a fair trial. Look at the Lousaui mess, that guy should
have been tried by a military court and executed two years ago.

That doesn't mean letting them all go, it means dealing with them
according to the rule of law.

Whose lawe, Johnny Cochran's? Give me a friggin break!


Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #144   Report Post  
Jerry McG
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT - Coulter
WHAT!!!!???? The North Koreams are still laughing their asses off at
Clinton, they broke that agreement the minute they signed it, knowing fully
well that spineliess ******* wouldn't lift a finger to stop them.

Oh, my mistake, I should've known that some anonymous guy on Usenet would
have the definitive look into the N. Korean mindset.

And WE all know that trotsky, when confronted by the incontrovertible facts,
will always deflect and not answer the obvious: CLINTON WAS AN IDIOT with
foriegn policy and created the mess we're in now.


Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #145   Report Post  
Jerry McG
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT - Coulter
The miney is the wurst.

Once again trotsky can't deal with reality.

Wouldn't be funny if the terrorists started referring to those they had
killed as "collateral damage"? The shoe would be on the other foot, eh McG?


Wht the Hell do you think they're doing when they kill your grandmother with
a car bomb?


Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #146   Report Post  
Jerry McG
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT - Coulter
"Prisoners of War"? So you are disagreeing with the Bush adminstration
and saying they should be given the rights accorded to them by the Geneva
Convention?

They're getting all the rights afforded them under Geneva, thay're fed,
watered, clothed and INTERROGATED, as permitted under Geneva. Thsoe rights
DO NOT include being tried in American courts as "criminals" or whatever you
lefty's want to call them, and getting taxpayer paid legal counsel from
Jonhnny Cochrans and his merry band of men.

The sooner we load up the firing squads and get rid of these *******s the
better.

Try to get your story straight.

Try to get your idiotic sensitivity training out of your head, lefty, these
people are lucky they weren't captured and ritually tortured by the Afghan
militias. They probably live better now than they ever did fighting for your
comrades and fellow-travellers the Taliban!


Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #147   Report Post  
Jerry McG
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT - Coulter
What "due process" consigned, say, a Japanese WW2 combatant to
imprisonment for the duration of the war? I mean, surely you understand
that they were not afforded access to counsel, eh? Or do you imagine that
the Allies held several million teeny little individual trials for each
enemy captured between 1939 and 1945?

Don't waste your breath on this lefty, Giftz, he looks upon these vermin as
comrades fighting the evil Bush and his rich usurpers of human rights, etc.
Add to this all the other leftist idiocy and you'll realize he won't be
happy until they were all set free and returned to the terror camps first
class by United Airlines. Hey, even better, maybe in the process these scum
bags could hijack the planes and kill 10,000 more people, all of which the
left would laud as part of a plan to create their own "world order" of
Socialist brotherhood....that is until these vermin start killing THEM! Then
it will be another story.


Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #148   Report Post  
Mark & Juanita
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT - Coulter
In article XOfyb.255500$mZ5.1890893@attbi_s54,
says...
.... snip


You can always liven up an economy with defecit
pending. Democrats have played that game also,
Question is how much "livening" you get for how much
defecit spending. How much debt can the USA pile
on? Someone's got to pay, eventually. With shrub's
rules, it's the poor and the middle that pay, and the
rich that make off with the proceeds.


Unfortunately for you, the numbers belie your rant. Who pays the
taxes in the US? According to IRS 2001 statistics, the top 50% of wage
earners pay over 96% of all income taxes. The top 10% pay almost 65%
(64.89% to be precise). The top 5% pay 53.25% of all income taxes. Top
50% earn 86.2% of all income, top 10% earn 43.11% of all earnings, top
5% earns 31.99% of all income. Again, the source here is the IRS
statistics for 2001.

Now, given that the top 50% are paying 96% of all taxes, and the top
5% are paying 53.25%, who has any chance of benefiting from tax breaks
but the people who are paying the taxes.

You know, lies, damned lies, and statistics...


Real numbers, real data from the IRS -- no spin, nothing but the facts
in the above.

Income taxes, not payroll taxes. Payroll taxes (you know, fica, ss, etc) are
the majority of federal taxes for many if not the majority of people. As the
income tax goes down, the payroll tax stays the same.


Totally separate animal. Also, payroll taxes for everyone are 7.8%
who make above the social security minimum, 15% if you are self-
employed.


Thus, the rich's taxes go down while the poor's taxes stay the same. Taxes
on unearned income, and estate taxes were also cut by bush. Again, to
benefit the rich.


Wow, people can spin anything to benefit their point of view I
suppose. Especially when you couple it with the comments below

Now, since the federal government is back to its old, pre-Clinton

More precisely pre-1994 Republican congressional control days.
Clinton was doing nothing to reduce deficit spending and in fact had
projected deficits for 10 years into the future before the 1994
elections.

ways of
deficit spending, and there is that big old pile of money in the social
security trust fund,

Still a beleever in the SS "trust fund" or "lock box"? What do you
think that trust fund is, a pile of cash somewhere, or investments? The
reality is that the "trust fund" you are talking about is simply US
treasury bonds i.e. federal debt bonds.

I guess bush can use that to pay for essential
services, right? That trust fund was built up using an additional 1% payroll
tax that was imposed in the 80s.

So, you would not advocate reducing SS taxes then?

You've been adding to it with your paycheck
every year since it was created so social security wouldn't fold in 2010.

Unfortunately, giving the budget surplus to the rich will bankrupt social
security (which before the tax cut would have lasted another 50 years) in 10
years. Medicare will follow. Won't Grover Norquist be a happy camper when
that happens?


Social Security is supposed to be a separate entity from the federal
budget funded by income taxes. The tax cut should have no effect upon
social security unless you are going to admit that the general fund is
being used to fund Social Security.


That tax cut doesn't seem like such a good idea now, does it? How about in
10 years, when you retire?


Given that the tax cut is funding investment and economic growth, I
think the tax cut is a *very* good idea. You have not provided any real
data to prove otherwise.





Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #149   Report Post  
Mark & Juanita
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT - Coulter
In article wSfyb.259411$9E1.1378928@attbi_s52,
says...

"Giftzwerg" wrote in message
...
In article ,
 says...

Which tax cuts are now paying off nicely... It probably irks you no end
that
the economy is turning around, in part because of those cuts, doesn't
it?

Sucks being you, when your only hope is doom and gloom, doesn't it?


NY Times Business section, 11/29/03

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/30/bu...ey/30view.html

laughter

Why not just cite Tom Daschle? Or some other DNC lickspittle?



What, should we cite the American Spectator? How about the Washington Times?
Fox News? Rush Limbaugh?

They would at least be more reliable, because people like you would
subject their commentary to excruciating analysis and verification,
unlike the simple acceptance you give to pronouncements from the NYT.


They might agree with you.



Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #150   Report Post  
Mark & Juanita
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT - Coulter
In article Q1gyb.260304$275.940212@attbi_s53,
says...
"Jerry McG" wrote in message
...
The Bush administration has set up a fascist regime where people can be
detained indefinitely without access to attorneys-

PEOPLE?? What friggin people, those terrosit scumbags in Gitmo? You want
those pieces of **** treated like normal, law abiding citizens? Of WHAT
COUNTRY, ass wipe? They are terrorist scum and should have been shot or
worse! What planet did you come from?

They have turned our justice system into a joke, and not a very funny
one
at that.

What "justice system", the one you leftists used to get OJ off ? What
bigger joke can there be than that? You trial lawyer leftist buddies are
just ****ed because the military will dispense with these PRISONERS OF WAR
rather than Johnny Cochran and his pals.



They are ENEMY COMBATANTS, not terrorists.

Do you have any idea what that really means? These are people
captured on a field of battle in combat, but not uniformed members of an
armed force. Do you know what other, previous conflicts would classify
these people as? Spies -- The Geneva convention is not very kind to
spies, the US is actually treating these people better than they would
have been treated in the past, where they could have been summarily shot
on the battlefield.

Do you want american soldiers
treated that way? Gotta play by the rules if you want equal treatment.

We are playing by the rules, problem is, the other side is not.

Even
if you don't, can you envision a situation where some soldier in the field
sees somebody with bushy eyebrows, and sez, hey, he must be Taliban! Lets
lock him up? And gets it wrong? And some family goes without a father for 3
years while the geniuses at Guantanamo figure it out?


You don't quite understand how the whole thing works, do you? More
realistically, the scenario is a soldier in the field seeing some guy
with bushy eyebrows and a rocket propelled grenade launcher and sez,
"Hey, I bet that guy isn't trying to sell me a satellite dish!"

Whats wrong with you guys? Thats the way the Nazis worked. And the
communists under Stalin. We don't want to be that way, do we? I don't.

What the HELL is wrong with giving these folks a fair trial?

How many US soldiers are you willing to get killed through this
process? The information in such a trial becomes public; methods and
means of surveillance, troop deployment and tactics are then available
to an adversary to devise countermeasures. ... and your side is the one
screaming about soldiers coming home in body bags?

Due process?
That doesn't mean letting them all go, it means dealing with them according
to the rule of law.


Contrary to your rantings, we are treating them according to the rule
of law, and even going out of our way to accord them humane and civil
treatment when the rule of military law (under which enemy combatants
fall) would allow far worse.

Sheesh.



as soon as you come up with an example of a single US citizen being
treated in a manner that denies them due process, you will have a point
from which to make a valid argument.



Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #153   Report Post  
trotsky
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT - Coulter


NJH wrote:
"trotsky" wrote in message
...


NJH wrote:

[ . . . ]


Clinton's deliberate destruction of civilian infrastructure (TV

stations,

water supplies, power grids, etc.) was *by definition* a series of war
crimes. Of course, Clinton paid about as much attention to the Geneva
Convention as he did to any other legally binding agreement.


That's funny, because I just got through watching Rumsfeld on "NBC
Nightly News" pitch a bitch because Iraqi TV has the freedom to
broadcast whatever they want.


I doubt he bitched about Iraqi freedom to broadcast. Bush hasn't bombed
their TV stations, has he?


It sure seems like Rumsfeld wants to. Kind of puts him between Iraq and
a hard place, doesn't it.


He and his ilk truly despise freedom.


Your notion of what "freedom" means is questionable, to say the least. Mine
is embodied in the U.S. Constitution, which is defended by Bush and those
like him.


Sure it is, "Neil." Meanwhile, ****zwerg's best efforts to emulate
WWII's mores go unnoticed, right?

Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #154   Report Post  
trotsky
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT - Coulter


NJH wrote:
"trotsky" wrote in message
...


Jerry McG wrote:

And why would there be? Who wants to be detained indefinitely without

access to attorneys because you've done something the administration

doesn't

like?

Yeah, like planning to blow up innocents,


How many innocents were killed by the U.S. as "collateral damage"?


Probably fewer than by Clinton in his 81-day round-the-clock bombing of
Serbia,


Oh, so that makes killing and dismembering children permissible? Hell,
at least people working in the WTC were largely adults.


a country which neither did nor intended any harm to the U.S., did
not support terrorism, had no weapons of mass destruction or plans to build
any, and had invaded no other country. Nor did Clinton's war accomplish a
single thing. After he'd finished spending billions and exhausting our
supply of cruise missiles, Milosevich was still there.


Sure, there's no analogy between Milosevich and Hussein. Apparently
what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander.


Well, his war did get Monica Lewinsky off the front pages. I suppose that is
an accomplishment of sorts.


She would never have been there if the Republicans didn't have Ken Starr
go on his witch hunt.


Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #155   Report Post  
David Hall
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT - Coulter
You know, lies, damned lies, and statistics...

Income taxes, not payroll taxes. Payroll taxes (you know, fica, ss, etc) are
the majority of federal taxes for many if not the majority of people. As the
income tax goes down, the payroll tax stays the same.

Thus, the rich's taxes go down while the poor's taxes stay the same. Taxes
on unearned income, and estate taxes were also cut by bush. Again, to
benefit the rich.

Now, since the federal government is back to its old, pre-Clinton ways of
deficit spending, and there is that big old pile of money in the social
security trust fund, I guess bush can use that to pay for essential
services, right? That trust fund was built up using an additional 1% payroll
tax that was imposed in the 80s. You've been adding to it with your paycheck
every year since it was created so social security wouldn't fold in 2010.
SNIP

Although I am truly sick to see the deficits and believe that Bush or anyone
else who deficit spends is destroying his grandchildren's future, that concept
of a SS "lockbox" is utter foolishness. What is in that "lockbox"? Nothing but
IOU's from the federal treasury. In other words a promise by one branch of the
federal gov't to tax future citizens to pay back another branch of the federal
gov't. (Kind of like saying you have a rich trust fund because you wrote
yourself an IOU). SS always has been and always will be a "pay-as-you-go"
system, until and unless the entire federal debt (some $7 trillion if I am not
mistaken) is paid off - at which time we would what, buy some corporate stock??

We should all be ashamed of ourselves for leaving behind this horrible debt
because we and our parents wanted things that we were unwilling to pay for. It
is as bad as a father who dies and leaves his children debt - a truly shameful
act in my opinion.

Dave Hall
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #156   Report Post  
Rafe B.
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT - Coulter
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 07:18:47 -0700, "Jerry McG"
wrote:


Better get used to it, commie, more than half the public stands with me. You
leftists concoct this crap and spread it around like it's fact, and nothing
could be further from the truth. Further, when things don;t go your way
(which common sense dictates they rarely do) you're the first to cry
"corporate media lies", yet you turn right around an quote FOX!!!!??? What a
bunch of hypocrites....


No, Jerr, I'll never get used to ignorant, red-
baiting, reactionary jerks such as yourself.

If I believed for a moment that you represent
the mainstream of US opinion, I'd be moving
to New Zealand.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #157   Report Post  
Rafe B.
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT - Coulter
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 07:29:51 -0500, Giftzwerg
wrote:

In article Q1gyb.260304$275.940212@attbi_s53,
says...

They are ENEMY COMBATANTS, not terrorists. Do you want american soldiers
treated that way?

Nice try, but American prisoners get treated like Danny Pearl.

Remember him?


Yeah, wasn't he one of those nasty left leaning commie
symp media types? Chrissake, you'd think the taliban
were doing a public service cutting his throat.

sarcasm off


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #158   Report Post  
Rafe B.
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT - Coulter
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 07:26:55 -0700, "Jerry McG"
wrote:


THESE PEOPLE ARE SCUM AND DESERVE TO BE DEAD!!!!! What is it you can't
understand about this?


That's surely how most moslem fundamentalists feel about us.



rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #159   Report Post  
Rafe B.
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT - Coulter
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:22:33 GMT, Mark & Juanita
wrote:


as soon as you come up with an example of a single US citizen being
treated in a manner that denies them due process, you will have a point
from which to make a valid argument.


Hard to do, since the federal government now has the
freedom to conduct all of its so-called "counter-terrorsim"
activities in absolute secrecy.

http://www.aclu.org/NationalSecurity/NationalSecurity.cfm?ID=10405&c=111



rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #160   Report Post  
Rafe B.
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT - Coulter
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 07:41:38 -0700, "Jerry McG"
wrote:


The sooner we load up the firing squads and get rid of these *******s the
better.


Funny, I feel that way about right wingers sometimes.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Reply
Page 4 of 6 123 4 56
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode

Posting Rules
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:05 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"

 

Contact Us DIY Banter Forum Home Privacy Statement