McCain Pledges No New Taxes
February 18th, 2008 at 06:14am Mark Noonan
Ever more clearly differentiating himself from the two extremist liberals contending for the Democratic nomination:
Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the likely Republican nominee for president who is seeking to shore up support among conservatives, said today that he would not raise taxes under any circumstances.
“In fact, I could see an argument if our economy continues to deteriorate, for lower interest rates, lower tax rates and certainly decreasing corporate tax rates, which are the second-highest in the world,” McCain said on ABC’s “This Week.”
Even though McCain has neared locking up the GOP nomination, he still faces wariness among many fiscal conservatives because he voted twice against President Bush’s tax cut proposals.
It is fundamental to the conservative economic view that taxes should be as low as possible in order to both maximise economic growth as well as government revenues, and John McCain is showing that he’s learned the supply-side lesson of both the Reagan and Bush tax cuts. Especially in a time of economic uncertainty we must have a President who understands that the private sector will get us out of any economic doldrums, not government programs.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Economy, Republicans
74 Comments
1. Eric T | February 18th, 2008 at 6:50 am
With today beign Presidents Day, I have to say “God bless, President George W. Bush”.
President Bush has been very constistant on not oppressing the American people with new taxes. He has not raised taxes once that I can think of. I liked Bush appointing conservative judges to the bench. Bush defended the 2nd Amendment and has prevented freedom crushing gun bans or ammo bans, like the ones that were forced on the American people by the democrats.
You can’t top the rebate checks, that is great stuff there. George W Bush is one of the best presidents this country has ever had.
McCain was against the Bush Tax cuts, I think voting McCain is taking the GOP too far to the left. Mike Huckabee is by far the best choice out there to replace G.W. Bush.
No “cut and run” or timetables for withdrawl till there is 1191 delagates.
Go Governor Mike!
2. Christian Wright | February 18th, 2008 at 7:18 am
By stating that he would lower interest rates even more than they are already, McCain has proved he is not qualified to be president.
Lowering interest rates will create super-inflation.
Our dollar has lost enough value against other currencies.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/IJ30Dj01.html
3. Christian Wright | February 18th, 2008 at 7:34 am
Eric T: Bush has oppressed the poor by cutting programs that benefitted the poor.
All the money he cut from programs for the poor went to the rich in the form of tax rebates and tax cuts.
The top 10% of the income earners received more than 50% of the total tax rebates. That means 90% of the people had to split the other 50%. I cannot buy an after school program for my child with the pittance I received with my rebate, but all the tax dollars put together would buy that program, school lunch programs, summer job programs, retraining programs for parents who lost their jobs to China or Mexico.
Bush has done nothing but oppress the poor and middle class since the day he was sworn in, but back to topic.
McCain said himself he knows nothing about economics and his pledge to cut interest rates even further proves it. The poor don’t have the cash to spend on food, gas, or heating oil if he lowers interest rates and causes super-inflation.
I included an article which looks at the way federal policy differences can drastically affect our lives. It compares Mr. V to Mr. G.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GI14Dj01.html
4. Eric T | February 18th, 2008 at 7:41 am
Christian-
I agree,
I notice when they reduce interest rates, oil and metal rallies, the dollar falls, and that creates inflation.
When they raise interest rates oil and metals usually falls.
5. Eric T | February 18th, 2008 at 7:50 am
The top 10% of the income earners received more than 50% of the total tax rebates.
Bush got delt a bad hand with the 911 attacks, to get the economy fired up, Tax breaks had to be aimed at job creators, me or you can’t go out and make millions with a tax cut. GE or Exxon or the many small business owners that employ a majority of the people can. I would have liked my taxes cut, but, Is it is better that my employer gets the cut and can go buy a new truck and create some jobs or would giving it to me to spend be better, once its gone and I don’t have a job, I’d wish he gave it to my employer.
6. Eric T | February 18th, 2008 at 8:06 am
Christian-
I hear you about the hard times, but what the democrats are offering is B.S. They are on both sides of every issue and telling everybody what they want to hear. A perfect example is when they were running in 2006, they told everyone how they were going to recover oil profits, and made it sound as if they were going to fight those “evil” oil companies and look out for the people. Well, what did they actually do, you seen all drilling measures blocked and they increased the royalty lease payments on the offshore leases. Two steps that drove (up) the cost to get crude oil. So the U.S Treasury may have recovered oil profits, but this sure didn’t help me or you at all. Thanks Dems!!!
What the author of the post wrote “Especially in a time of economic uncertainty we must have a President who understands that the private sector will get us out of any economic doldrums, not government programs”.
I believe this is true.
7. liberalT | February 18th, 2008 at 8:34 am
I wonder how you plan to fund the Iraq war and the multiple ‘future wars’ McCain so ineloquently speaks about all the time. Perhaps you could just cut aid to veterans all together - after all those lazy bastards apparently deserve it…
8. plainjane | February 18th, 2008 at 8:57 am
I understand McCain admits not being with it when it comes to economics. I sure hope someone has told him President Bush used up the surplus given to him by President Clinton for the tax cuts he voted against.
Massive debts are rising. This rising defecit does not include the fact the 2 Trillion dollars for the Iraq civil war he supports is off book.
Can’t wait to hear the details of his first balanced budget during the fall debates.
9. Taxes&hellip | February 18th, 2008 at 9:17 am
[...] Mosheh Oinounou wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt“In fact, I could see an argument if our economy continues to deteriorate, for lower interest rates, lower tax rates and certainly decreasing corporate tax rates, which are the second-highest in the world,” McCain said on ABC’s “This … [...]
10. felix the cat | February 18th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Nice choice of words in the opening sentence Mark, “extremists”. Certainly not what one finds here! Always the voice of level headed moderation and thoughtful, reasoned discourse.
I can’t wait to spend my welfare…errrr “reabte” check on a sack of groceries and a tank of gas to get me to the grocery store. I may even have enough left over to take the family to McDonalds!
11. GOP4ME | February 18th, 2008 at 10:57 am
President Bush used up the surplus given to him by President Clinton
Um , you dumb leftist, the surplus wasn’t given to him by Slick Willy, it was given to him by we, the US taxpayers. Get it?
Clinton enacted the largest tax increase in the history of the country and you slobbering soclialists mumble “the surplus, the surplus” while your knuckles grow bloody from dragging on the ground.
Why not elevate your economic viewpoint above that of a two year old?
Go John Go
12. Retired Spook | February 18th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Perhaps you could just cut aid to veterans all together - after all those lazy bastards apparently deserve it…
LT, your posts just keep getting more bizarre and more offensive. Why don’t you just get lost.
13. anarchist | February 18th, 2008 at 11:31 am
“Especially in a time of economic uncertainty we must have a President who understands that the private sector will get us out of any economic doldrums, not government programs.” - Mark Noonan
McCain never said anything about government programs, he’s only talking about financing the government. He seems to want to replace taxes with debt and inflation financing. In alot of ways these are more destructive to the market as they distort price and production structures in less predictable ways than taxes, althouth these ways of financing government tend to shift more tax burden to the working class and those on fixed incomes, which some conservatives might find more equitable.
This guy is nuts about inflation and letting him apoint a fed cheif would be dangerous.
14. felix the cat | February 18th, 2008 at 11:41 am
GOP:
I think it is you who need to get it. Being against (and aghast!) at Bush and his policies does not ipso facto make one a “leftist” or a “socialist”. I doubt you can even render a working definition of those terms.
Without going into the genesis of who was responsible for the surplus that Bush inherited, the facts are it was under the Clinton presidency that the surplus was created and it has been under Bushs’ presidency that it was spent. Not only was it spent in very short order but with the aid of Bushs’ keen fiscal accumen and razor sharp intellect, we now have a deficit of over 9 trillion dollars. And we keep borrowing more and more money everyday, insist like a recalcitrint child to decrease revenue and spend at an expoential rate on things like; oh I don’t know, Iraq for instance? An analogy would be if the country were an individual bankrupcy would have happened long ago. Maybe it is you who needs to raise their economic cognitive skills above that of a rabidly partisan, cult of personality high school graduate.
15. EricT | February 18th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Yeah, thats right, AL Gore INVENTED the internet and Personal Computers that fueled the economic boom of the 90’s
In Reality the surplus was from Tax increases.
16. Ricorun | February 18th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
I think it is a fair question to ask… what IS McCain’s economic policy? Will he be a borrow-n’-spender like Bush, or will he be a pay-goer like Gramm and Gingrich? A new article in the Weekly Standard suggests it is hard to tell at this point. He has advisors of both types, although his history suggests he is more of a pay-goer. The author’s bottom-line description of the matter is: “McCain’s economics aren’t ideological but improvisational–a campaign with shifting fronts, running on indignation.”
So I think it’s incumbent upon us to try to nail him down and let us take a hard look at what’s under the hood — which hasn’t happened so far. Otherwise, his “no new taxes” pledge could be as much of a platitude as it was when Bush41 said it.
17. Diana Powe | February 18th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Well, that simplifies our view of Senator McCain’s self-admitted lack of knowledge about economics. No new taxes. Continued expenditures on wars, including the ones he anticipates. Ergo, more deficit budgets due to fiscal cowardice and a pathological unwillingness to own up to what you’re spending money on (the perpetual “emergency” spending bills for Afghanistan/Iraq operations from the Administration) and a greater national debt inherited by future Americans. Fantastic! What could be better?
18. Retired Spook | February 18th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
In Reality the surplus was from Tax increases.
“In reality” they weren’t, Eric. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, the cornerstone of which was a drop in the capital gains tax from 28% to 20%, timed right at the apex of the dot.com boom, unleashed a deluge of revenue to the federal coffers — one of Bill Clinton’s smarter moves, but the euphoria quickly evaporated when the bubble burst.
19. GOP4ME | February 18th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Felix,
Yeah, I mean why bother with facts right?
As for defining leftist and socialist, you morons do a pefectly splendid job of that all on your own. I could never hope to define these terms as eloquently as the drivel posted here by the sophmoric likes of you.
Oh, and where did I state that being against Bush makes one a leftist or socialist?
Unlike you robots on the left, we on the elightened right engage in independent thought and discourse. There are certainly policies enacted or supported by the POTUS that I disagree with. However, I do respect the man for keeping us safe these past years.
So, in closing, move along. Nothing to see here that your peebrained “intellect” could begin to grasp or add intelligently to.
Although, your feeble cognitive abilities do make Ms. Powe appear to be a semi-literate baboon. (no offense intended to the general population of baboons)
20. SteaM | February 18th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
I’d be much happier if McCain would say “no new wars” instead.
21. djp | February 18th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
It is fundamental to the conservative economic view that taxes should be as low as possible in order to both maximise economic growth as well as government revenues.
Only socialists believe in maximizing (I do note your british spelling, however, which is telling) government revenue. Why on earth would a “conservative” support a policy which he believed maximized revenue to the government? you do realize that when you maximize revenue, you maximize the taxes taken from people. Why do you support that?
22. felix the cat | February 18th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
GOP:
I suggest you re-familiarize yourself with what you wrote on #11. You conflate being leftist and socialist with Bill Clinton. Furthermore, “we the taxpayers” have no control how our tax money is managed regardless of your protestations and feigned insight into such matters.
Now, lets examine the words you use in #19 to respond to my post, explore their meaning and see just whom is more intellectually capable of a reasoned, dispassionate debate.
Moron.
Drivel
Sophomoric (wow! 4 sylables.)
Robots.
Peebrained.
Semi-literate.
Baboon.
Oh, and by the way. Claiming that Bush has kept us safe is like pointing out how many banks haven’t been robbed or how many buildings didn’t catch on fire.
So much for your claim of an ability to think independently. You can’t even pretend well. The words you use to frame your arguements against mine is like comparing an MP3 player to a RCA Victrola. Ali to Spinks. It isn’t even a fair fight. It’s pathetic and weak.
23. NeoClown | February 18th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Yeah, John McCain has a chance of being elected in Novenber. - Not.
Thanks to Dubya, for the next 8 years the only republicans in the White House will be pushing mops.
24. Retired Spook | February 18th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Claiming that Bush has kept us safe is like pointing out how many banks haven’t been robbed or how many buildings didn’t catch on fire.
Actually, Felix, that analogy has been made my Lefties here before. It was a false analogy then, and it still is. WRT terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, we can say with certainty that there has NOT BEEN ONE since 9/11/01, so in that respect, we HAVE been safer than we were prior to 9/11. With fires and bank robberies, we can say that, since (pick a date) they have increased, decreased or stayed the same. But it is the type of intellectually dishonest rhetoric we’ve come to expect from you moonbats, and you seldom disappoint. Thanks for playing; you can pick up your prize on the way out.
25. winnowhead | February 18th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
For once, I agree with you. John McCain has learned that Republicans won’t vote for him unless he parrots the fairy tale of trickle down economics. You’ve come a long way, John.
26. Ricorun | February 18th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
I have a question: would a revenue neutral tax reorganization qualify under McCain’s “no new taxes” pledge?
27. NeoClown | February 18th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Spook,
We went from February 1993 until September 2001 without a terrorist attack on US soil. That’s 7 years and 7 months.
It has only been 6 years and 5 months since the last terrorist attack on US soil. We are less safe now.
If we make it another 15 months without an attack your point will be valid.
28. ozarker | February 18th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Retired Spook, you don’t consider the anthrax murders terrorism? They were post 9/11. Also those of us on campuses think that the brutal attacks on students at Virginia Tech and most recently NIU qualify as terrorism. We have little to show for our “war on terrorism” other than lessened freedom.
29. felix the cat | February 18th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Ahhh, the lefty acusation. An indoctrinated mind vis a vis the re-education camps so popular in the far east in the far past. (As far as we were told I might add.)
Just stating the obvious Retired. Perhaps if you were more involved in contemporary events instead of passing judgement from your rocking chair you might have more of a well thought out retort.
9/11 was the exception not the rule and I do not credit Bush with anything positive. I do not feel threatened nor do I live in fear of another attack. You do, so rationalize all you want.
And please, use a more descriptive term other than “moonbat”. What exactly IS a moonbat?
Inquiring minds want to know. Talk about a weak intellect. Keep trying to make yourself look superior by these alleged put downs and nebuliously vague bottom feeder adjectives. Improve your vocabulary. Being retired and scared (Spook) you have plenty of time. And I doubt you were a ever spy. Probably some James Bond fantasy-hero worship role playing- psychological dysfunction that you suffer from….
30. bongoman | February 18th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
9. Taxes… | February 18th, 2008 at 9:17 am wrote:
“Mosheh Oinounou wrote an interesting post today…”
Who is Mosheh Oinounou? In fact, who is “Taxes” in comment 9 above and what are these spammy comments that appear from time to time?
31. Retired Spook | February 18th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Spook, We went from February 1993 until September 2001 without a terrorist attack on US soil. That’s 7 years and 7 months.
Actually, neoclown, the 2 American embassies in Africa that Al Qaeda bombed in 1998 are considered U.S. soil, and the U.S.S. Cole, while not American soil, is certainly an American asset, so I would tend to disagree with your assessment.
Retired Spook, you don’t consider the anthrax murders terrorism?
That’s debatable. The only suspect the FBI ever investigated was an American.
Also those of us on campuses think that the brutal attacks on students at Virginia Tech and most recently NIU qualify as terrorism.
All that shows is your incredible ignorance.
Just stating the obvious Retired.
No you weren’t, Felix, you were trying to equate two things that aren’t even remotely related. Probably read it on some Lefty blog and decided it had a nice sound-bite ring to it.
Perhaps if you were more involved in contemporary events instead of passing judgement from your rocking chair you might have more of a well thought out retort.
Another Lefty tactic — make assumptions about those you disagree with that have NO basis in fact. And, actually, it was your original retort that was not well thought out.
I do not feel threatened nor do I live in fear of another attack. You do, so rationalize all you want.
Again, assuming facts not in evidence. How could you possibly know whether or not I live in fear of another attack? Actually, because of where I live (rural northeastern Indiana), I have virtually zero fear of another attack.
And please, use a more descriptive term other than “moonbat”. What exactly IS a moonbat?
Actually, “moonbat” was one of the nicer things I could have called you.
And I doubt you were a ever spy.
I have never claimed I was. Most everyone who has posted here for any length of time knows I am a retired Navy signals intelligence officer.
32. Casper | February 18th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
“Actually, neoclown, the 2 American embassies in Africa that Al Qaeda bombed in 1998 are considered U.S. soil, and the U.S.S. Cole, while not American soil, is certainly an American asset, so I would tend to disagree with your assessment.”
Spock,
Does that mean the attacks on our embassy in Iraq count? There have been several of them in the last couple of years.
33. Retired Spook | February 18th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Does that mean the attacks on our embassy in Iraq count? There have been several of them in the last couple of years.
That’s a good question, Casper. Since it’s just a civil war, and there aren’t any terrorists in Iraq, I would say it probably doesn’t count, heh, heh.
34. congressive | February 18th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Ah, yes. Neocons take credit for the attacks that didn’t come, just like taking credit for destroying the weapons Saddam didn’t have, and protecting all the women Blackwater didn’t rape, and especially taking credit for all the millions and millions of Iraqi civilians they DIDN’T kill.
♫ God bless my underwear ♫
- come on, everyone sing -
♫ ’cause it’s my only pair ♫
- LOUDER! —
35. NeoClown | February 18th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Spook,
When you are wrong, you are really wrong. Based on your criteria the US has never been this unsafe.
September 12. 2006
DAMASCUS, Syria (CNN) — Tuesday’s attack on the U.S. Embassy in Damascus - Fourteen people were wounded, including the suspect, an embassy policeman, a security worker and 11 civilians, among them two Iraqis and a Chinese official, according to Syria’s state-run news agency, SANA.
Sunday, January 30, 2005
BAGHDAD, Iraq — U.S. forces on Saturday captured seven suspected insurgents believed to be behind an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad that killed two Americans and wounded six.
February 19, 2005
JAKARTA, Indonesia - Hundreds of Muslims protesting caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad stormed the U.S. Embassy on Sunday, smashing the windows of a guard post. Several people were injured.
Tuesday, December 7, 2004
A Saudi group linked to al Qaeda claimed responsibility early Tuesday for the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, in which at least five employees and four attackers were killed.
January 25, 2007
ATHENS: A Greek terror group claimed responsibility for the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Athens two weeks ago, saying in a five-page proclamation published Thursday that the grenade attack was an “act of retaliation” against American military involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Middle East and Somalia.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
U.S. embassy in Syria warns of sex attacks
WASHINGTON — The United States has alerted American women to be on guard against sexual offenses in Syria.
36. neocon | February 18th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Clown,
The following is a short list of Islamic extremism violence dating back to 1979. My question is what did Bush do to cause it?
November 1979: Muslim extremists (Iranian variety) seized the U.S. embassy in Iran and held 52 American hostages for 444 days, following Democrat Jimmy Carter’s masterful foreign policy granting Islamic fanaticism its first real foothold in the Middle East.
1982: Muslim extremists (mostly Hezbollah) began a nearly decade-long habit of taking Americans and Europeans hostage in Lebanon, killing William Buckley and holding Terry Anderson for 6 1/2 years.
April 1983: Muslim extremists (Islamic Jihad or possibly Hezbollah) bombed the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 16 Americans.
October 1983: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) blew up the U.S. Marine barracks at the Beirut airport, killing 241 Marines.
December 1983: Muslim extremists (al-Dawa) blew up the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait, killing five and injuring 80.
September 1984: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) exploded a truck bomb at the U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut, killing 24 people, including two U.S. servicemen.
December 1984: Muslim extremists (probably Hezbollah) hijacked a Kuwait Airways airplane, landed in Iran and demanded the release of the 17 members of al-Dawa who had been arrested for the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait, killing two Americans before the siege was over.
June 14, 1985: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) hijacked TWA Flight 847 out of Athens, diverting it to Beirut, taking the passengers hostage in return for the release of the Kuwait 17 as well as another 700 prisoners held by Israel. When their demands were not met, the Muslims shot U.S. Navy diver Robert Dean Stethem and dumped his body on the tarmac.
October 1985: Muslim extremists (Palestine Liberation Front backed by Libya) seized an Italian cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, killing 69-year-old American Leon Klinghoffer by shooting him and then tossing his body overboard.
December 1985: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed airports in Rome and Vienna, killing 20 people, including five Americans.
April 1986: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed a discotheque frequented by U.S. servicemen in West Berlin, injuring hundreds and killing two, including a U.S. soldier.
December 1988: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing all 259 on board and 11 on the ground.
February 1993: Muslim extremists (al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya, possibly with involvement of friendly rival al-Qaida) set off a bomb in the basement of the World Trade Center, killing six and wounding more than 1,000.
Spring 1993: Muslim extremists (al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya, the Sudanese Islamic Front and at least one member of Hamas) plot to blow up the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, the U.N. complex, and the FBI’s lower Manhattan headquarters.
November 1995: Muslim extremists (possibly Iranian “Party of God”) explode a car bomb at U.S. military headquarters in Saudi Arabia, killing five U.S. military servicemen.
June 1996: Muslim extremists (13 Saudis and a Lebanese member of Hezbollah, probably with involvement of al-Qaida) explode a truck bomb outside the Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds.
August 1998: Muslim extremists (al-Qaida) explode truck bombs at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224 and injuring thousands.
October 2000: Muslim extremists (al-Qaida) blow up the U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole, killing 17 U.S. sailors.
Sept. 11, 2001: Muslim extremists (al-Qaida) hijack commercial aircraft and fly planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania, killing nearly 3,000 Americans.
37. neocon | February 18th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
>>>By stating that he would lower interest rates even more than they are already, McCain has proved he is not qualified to be president. - Christian Wright<<<
Despite the fact that US corporate taxation is the second highest in the world. Christian’s ignorance never lets me down.
38. Some Assembly Required | February 18th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Con,
Corporate taxation and interest rates, two completely different things. Cutting interest rates will cause inflation, which will in-turn lead to a further decline into a recession… oh wait, there not using that word yet, but it’s getting close. Nevermind Ford just laid off a record number of workers, or how about the largest beef re-call in US history, thats not gonna have an impact on the economy and trade. Georgy said so. I love how you project ignorance unto everyone who has an opposing stance.
39. congressive | February 18th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Where have I heard this before? Hmmm… no new taxes… no new taxes… I remember reading someone’s lips…
You falling for it again? Or you have no choice but to drink the kool-aide? Again?
Given conservative’s distaste for McCain, this seems to be a bizarro case of “Love the lie, hate the liar.”
40. neocon | February 18th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
SAR,
What is the universally accepted definition of a recession?
I was amiss on this reading of Christians post. In an earlier thread he mused that lowering corporate taxes would further hurt the economy. I again thought he said taxes and I realize now he stated interest rates. Nevertheless, Fords problems and the beef recall have nothing to do with low interest rates. It could be argued that restrictive CAFE standards (which accomplish nothing and add to the price of cars) and poor engineering are more of the cause of Fords problems and the beef recall is just one campanies isoalted internal problems and will hardly have an effect on the overall economy.
Cheers.
41. neocon | February 18th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
congressive,
I think many of us here have voiced our displeasure with McCain, but he certainly is the more attractive choice considering the alternatives.
If I were you, I would be more concerned about the impending Clinton destruction of the Democratic party. Bill and Hillary will not go away quietly and will bring the party down with them if they lose. You can go to the bank on that. So if you HOPE for CHANGE, just know that that CHANGE may bring no HOPE.
42. Casper | February 18th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
“That’s a good question, Casper. Since it’s just a civil war, and there aren’t any terrorists in Iraq, I would say it probably doesn’t count, heh, heh.”
LOL Nice comeback.
43. Casper | February 18th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
“If I were you, I would be more concerned about the impending Clinton destruction of the Democratic party. Bill and Hillary will not go away quietly and will bring the party down with them if they lose.”
Not going to happen. It would totally ruin Chelsea’a chances in 2024.
44. Christian Wright | February 18th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Neocon:
The recall of beef has to do with cuts made to the FDA. The FDA cut its remote labs in half last year.
The head of the FDA, a Bush appointee, declined an increase of funding. They are trying to protect agriculture corporations by playing “See no Evil”.
The removed whistle-blower protections so people will not come forward to expose unsafe practices “Hear no Evil”.
And they never say anything bad about global warming, genetically modified foods, BSE in cattle, for “Speak no Evil”.
What deregulation gets us is unsafe drugs, unsafe food, unsafe water, and, of course, the sub-prime mess.
Corporations have one goal and that is to make a profit for its share holders. The safety of the people that use their products is secondary if that.
45. Some Assembly Required | February 18th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Con,
I understand where you were coming from now. I agree what I mentioned about Ford and the Beef recall have nothing to do with interest rates, I never stated otherwise. The simple fact is Ford has been in a downhill slide for a couple years now. They are finding it next to impossible to compete with such companies as Toyota and Subaru. It’s a problem with sustainability in my mind. The last ford escape I had seemed to be recalled every 3 months and had nothing but problems. I’m yet to buy a Toyota, though I have friends that swear by them. There almost impossible to kill I’m told. Regardless the job losses will impact the economy, as will the recall on beef. The mad cow scare certainly did for Alberta beef. Different, but similar whereas the recall on the beef was for a health issue.
Recession “a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months.”
What is interesting to note is the predictors of a recession in the article. (Though there are no totally reliable predictors only possible ones.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession
Cheers
46. neocon | February 18th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Recession - negative real economic growth, for two or more successive quarters of a year.
We haven’t even had yet one quarter of negative growth. Cheers.
>>>The recall of beef has to do with cuts made to the FDA. The FDA cut its remote labs in half last year.<<<
No it doesn’t Christian, it has more to do with one irresponsible company that was having financial difficulty and scaled back their own safety proceedures, and now they are completely out of business. However I will agree that inspections have been cut back, which definitely needs to be reconsidered.
47. neocon | February 18th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Casper,
You don’t the Clintons very well. Hillary has been focused on this opportunity her entire life and she will NOT go away quietly.
48. Freedom1 | February 18th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Obama’s Global Tax Barack Obama is scary. Really, really scary. His bill cedes US sovereignty to the UN.
Barack Obama’s Global Tax Proposal Up for Senate Vote - National Ledger
49. Freedom1 | February 18th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
John McCain is looking better and better by comparison to Obama/Hillary every single day.
Action Alert: Call or email your Senators and tell them to kill Obama’s “Global Poverty Act” bill! It’s dangerous to the sovereignty of America.
50. Retired Spook | February 18th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Spook, When you are wrong, you are really wrong.
Yeah, my bad, Neoclown. I didn’t have time this afternoon to do due diligence on embassy attacks.
I would appreciate it, though, if you would clarify something for me. It’s always puzzled me how you Lefties can say, on one hand, that you don’t live in constant fear of another attack, but on the other hand, we’re not safer than we were prior to 9/11. How do you reconcile those two positions?
Freedom1, there IS a reason that Obama was recently rated THE NUMBER ONE MOST LIBERAL U.S. SENATOR. Well, actually there are a number of reasons, and you’ve listed a few of them.
51. Diana Powe | February 18th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Freedom1,
What complete nonsense. If you had bothered to read the bill’s text instead of some scare story about the text you would know that the super-scary result of the Global Poverty Act would be to to compel the President to “develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty”. The strategy “should include” eight components with the only one even close to your ultra-scary “cedes US sovereignty to the UN” meme being this:
Additional assistance “as appropriate”! Oh, no! The sky is falling! What is the absolute requirement on the President contained in the bill? The President has to deliver reports to Congress. Yes, the end is nigh.
Be in favor of Senator McCain and opposed to Senator Obama, by all means. However, if you’re going to put the knock on somebody, try to have the facts on your side rather than just some retread paranoid schizophrenic fantasy about the United Nations.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-2433
52. Diana Powe | February 18th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
Retired Spook,
The only real issue I see in your trading broadsides with Neoclown is the fact that you can’t prove the negative. We know there were attacks on the continental United States on 09/11/01 by Islamic extremists. We haven’t had any attacks on the continental U.S. by Islamic extremists since then. Why is that?
The Administration and its admirers would say it was because of the efforts of the United States government. That may well be true. However, no rational analysis would assume that as the only possible explanation. It might be the most probable, but it might also be for reasons that no one has even thought about, including a desire to focus efforts elsewhere. Americans like to think of themselves as the center of the universe but there are lots of people various radical Islamists don’t like besides us.
53. Freedom1 | February 18th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Retired Spook, you bet!
Diana Powe - get lost.
Here’s one more even more terrifying story than the Obama bill. The UK government is literally selling Britain to Muslim Middle-Easterns. Madness! Absolute Madness! Britain’s ‘Islamic Bonds’ (via Lgf), “The Archbishop of Canterbury’s vision of sharia in Britain is quickly coming true”:
The DailyMail.com - New sharia row over Chancellor’s plans for ‘Islamic bonds’.
54. Casper | February 18th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
neocon
“Casper,
You don’t the Clintons very well. Hillary has been focused on this opportunity her entire life and she will NOT go away quietly.”
I was being sarcastic.
55. neocon | February 18th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
>>>would be to to compel the President to “develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty”. - Diana<<<<<
So you lecture us on how America should not be the world’s policeman but then advocate that we need to be the world’s mom?
Interesting.
56. Diana Powe | February 18th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
neocon,
Well, since you’re the one bringing up the non-specific terms “world’s policeman” and “world’s mom”, perhaps you’d like to define them? If this is an outgrowth of my critiquing Freedom1’s nonsense about the Global Poverty Act then you might take note that I said nothing about supporting the legislation, I just said that the cited criticism was idiotic, which it is.
57. NeoClown | February 19th, 2008 at 1:52 am
Retired Spook,
In post # 50 you ask:
“I would appreciate it, though, if you would clarify something for me. It’s always puzzled me how you Lefties can say, on one hand, that you don’t live in constant fear of another attack, but on the other hand, we’re not safer than we were prior to 9/11. How do you reconcile those two positions?”
Spook,
I don’t live in constant fear because I understand that dying is a part of living. It doesn’t matter who’s in the White House, you and I are both going to die and that is a guaranteed fact. I accept that fact, and go on with my life.
When I say we’re not safer than we were prior to 9/11 it is because I understand human nature.
I understand that there is a group of Islamic extremist terrorists and they hate Americans.
I understand that the power of hate can move mountains.
I know that this group tried to blow-up the World Trade Center in 1993 and failed - but they didn’t give up. I know that for years they worked, and planned, and practiced.
I know they tried again 8 years later in 2001, and they were successful.
Yes the terrorists are determined little buggers, but their impact on the general population is infinitesimally small. Count up all the people that have died in the US in the past 100 years, and then sort out all of the people that have died at the hands of Islamic terrorists. What do you think the percentage will be? I bet more people have died from drowning in their own bathtubs.
Just remember, when you walk out your front door tomorrow, you have a bull’s-eye painted on your back, and the overwhelming odds are you’re going to die in a car crash, a slip and fall, or heart disease.
Doesn’t the fact that Bushco is trying to scare you with terrorism and illegal wiretaps piss you off?
It does me.
58. Mark Noonan | February 19th, 2008 at 2:10 am
NeoClown,
Interesting - as long as the relative number of people killed is small, no big deal?
Outside of that bit of weirdness, you’re failing to see the message of your own information - the enemy, as you correctly put it, won’t quit…and eventually it won’t be 3,000 dead in a day, but 30,000…and then 300,000…and then 3,000,000. The only reason they haven’t, for instance, set off a nuclear device in a large American city is because they haven’t had the capability. Let this go on long enough, and they will obtain that ability.
In 1972, the first spectacular act of international terrorism occured - in it, 11 Israeli althletes died. This shocked the whole world. I remember it, even though I was only 7 at the time - the pictures of masked terrorists on television, the thrill of shock and fear which went through the adults. 11 victims (not counting the eventually dead terrorists and one German cop).
Going back a bit further, part of the proximate cause of the 1967 Arab/Isreali war was the rise in terrorist attacks in Israel…which, as far as I can recall right now, didn’t kill anyone - but the still shocked the Isaeli people and put them in a mind to take stern actions against their enemies.
So: no dead. 11 dead. Higher and higher it goes, year by year…until 9/11, when 3,000 are killed almost at once. But, hey, its still small beans…and maybe if we just not worry about it and let the cops try to work up legal cases against the terrorists, it won’t get worse…
You’re living in a fool’s paradise, NeoClown.
59. french student | February 19th, 2008 at 2:11 am
freedom1 :
And how much of the US foreign debt is owned by the saudi royal familly, again?
60. Freedom1 | February 19th, 2008 at 2:54 am
French student, “And how much of the US foreign debt is owned by the saudi royal familly, again?”
Are you suggesting that we go to war with Saudi Arabia, Wahhabbi hellhole extraordinare, home of Osama bin Laden and 15 of the 19 9/11 Islamic hijackers?
61. NeoClown | February 19th, 2008 at 2:54 am
Neocon,
In post # 36 you ask:
“The following is a short list of Islamic extremism violence dating back to 1979. My question is what did Bush do to cause it?”
Regarding Iran:
In 1979 the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. This had nothing to do with Jimmy Carter. A few months later the Iranian Revolution began.
November 1979: Muslim extremists (Iranian variety) seized the U.S. embassy in Iran and held 52 American hostages for 444 days.
Ronald Regan or George HW Bush was in the White House from 1981 until 1993:
1982: Muslim extremists (mostly Hezbollah) began a nearly decade-long habit of taking Americans and Europeans hostage in Lebanon, killing William Buckley and holding Terry Anderson for 6 1/2 years.
April 1983: Muslim extremists (Islamic Jihad or possibly Hezbollah) bombed the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 16 Americans.
October 1983: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) blew up the U.S. Marine barracks at the Beirut airport, killing 241 Marines.
December 1983: Muslim extremists (al-Dawa) blew up the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait, killing five and injuring 80.
September 1984: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) exploded a truck bomb at the U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut, killing 24 people, including two U.S. servicemen.
December 1984: Muslim extremists (probably Hezbollah) hijacked a Kuwait Airways airplane, landed in Iran and demanded the release of the 17 members of al-Dawa who had been arrested for the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait, killing two Americans before the siege was over.
June 14, 1985: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) hijacked TWA Flight 847 out of Athens, diverting it to Beirut, taking the passengers hostage in return for the release of the Kuwait 17 as well as another 700 prisoners held by Israel. When their demands were not met, the Muslims shot U.S. Navy diver Robert Dean Stethem and dumped his body on the tarmac.
October 1985: Muslim extremists (Palestine Liberation Front backed by Libya) seized an Italian cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, killing 69-year-old American Leon Klinghoffer by shooting him and then tossing his body overboard.
December 1985: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed airports in Rome and Vienna, killing 20 people, including five Americans.
April 1986: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed a discotheque frequented by U.S. servicemen in West Berlin, injuring hundreds and killing two, including a U.S. soldier.
December 1988: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing all 259 on board and 11 on the ground.
February 1993: Muslim extremists (al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya, possibly with involvement of friendly rival al-Qaida) set off a bomb in the basement of the World Trade Center, killing six and wounding more than 1,000.
Spring 1993: Muslim extremists (al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya, the Sudanese Islamic Front and at least one member of Hamas) plot to blow up the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, the U.N. complex, and the FBI’s lower Manhattan headquarters.
I had no idea that the terrorists did so much and Regan and Bush did so little in response. Wow. Thanks for the history lesson.
1994 Republicans win control of Congress.
November 1995: Muslim extremists (possibly Iranian “Party of God”) explode a car bomb at U.S. military headquarters in Saudi Arabia, killing five U.S. military servicemen.
June 1996: Muslim extremists (13 Saudis and a Lebanese member of Hezbollah, probably with involvement of al-Qaida) explode a truck bomb outside the Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds.
August 1998: Muslim extremists (al-Qaida) explode truck bombs at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224 and injuring thousands.
At this point any action taken by President Clinton against the terrorists is attacked by the republican congress and called “Wag the Dog.”
October 2000: Muslim extremists (al-Qaida) blow up the U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole, killing 17 U.S. sailors.
George W Bush is now President.
Sept. 11, 2001: Muslim extremists (al-Qaida) hijack commercial aircraft and fly planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania, killing nearly 3,000 Americans.
Neocon,
You ask what George Bush did to cause any of this. My answer is he did nothing to cause any of that. Dubya’s actions have created the next generation of terrorists.
62. Freedom1 | February 19th, 2008 at 4:00 am
“The only reason they haven’t, for instance, set off a nuclear device in a large American city is because they haven’t had the capability. Let this go on long enough, and they will obtain that ability.” - Mark Noonan
If Musharraf’s party goes down in defeat (that’s likely) and Islamists in Parliament impeach him, then Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal could fall into the hands of radical Muslim terrorists. Or…Iran could develop a nuclear bomb.
Update: Islam’s War Against The West
There have been 10, 582 deadly Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11.
Recent Islamic Headlines (from just the last few weeks): (links)
“Republican Congressman Wolf Concerned About the huge donations accepted by Georgetown University from the religious totalitarian kingdom of Saudi Arabia”
(links)
2/17/2008 (Baghdad, Iraq) - A female sucide bomber at a marketplace sends three shoppers to Allah.
2/17/2008 (Mosul, Iraq) - Jihadis kill four Iraqis with a remote-controlled bomb.
2/17/2008 (Mogadishu, Somalia) - A young child is killed when Islamic fundamentalists toss a grenade into a crowd watching a soccer match on TV.
2/16/2008 (Tadmait, Algeria) - Three local soldiers are killed in an ambush by Islamic fundamentalists.
2/16/2008 (Arghandab, Afghanistan) - A suicide bomber blows himself up in a crowd of spectators watching a dog-fighting event, killing over one-hundred.
2/16/2008 (Swat, Pakistan) - A Fedayeen suicide bomber kills two civilians.
“Canadian Taxpayers Subsidize Muslim Polygamy…”
“al-Qaeda Stalks Iraqis after Dark…”
“Cleric Offers to Pay for Killing of Author over ‘Hurt Sentiments’”
“Father Stones Teen Daughter to Death over Relationship…”
(UK) “Rapist Filmed Attack on 14-Year-Old Girl…”
“Allah will ‘Punish’ Iranians Who Do Not Support Nuclear Program”
“British Man Taught 5-Year-Old Son to Behead…”
“Women Prevented from Voting in Islamist Area of Pakistan…”
(Nigeria)”18 Face Sharia Death Sentence for Homosexuality…”
“Teacher Loses Bid to Leave Islam…”
(Qatar) “Muslim ‘Intellectuals’ Opposed to First Church…”
(UK) “Pakistani Father Killed in ‘Racist’ Arson Attack…”
“Dog-Fighting Ring Busted the Religion of Peace, 80 Dead…”
(Turkey) “Property Restrictions on Non-Muslims to be ‘Eased’?…”
“UK Blogger Seeks Asylum in the US…”
“Islamic Law Applied in US Courts?…”
“Danish Police Blame Muslim Riots on Mild Weather…”
“British Government to Issue Sharia Bonds…”
“40% of British Muslims Back Sharia…”
(Darfur) “Hundreds of Children Missing Following Attack…”
“Telephone Marriages Widen Muslim Immigration to Canada…”
“Tortured by Iran, Man Sues Australia (and Sews Lips Shut)…”
“Danish Authorities ‘at a Loss’ to Explain Muslim Rioting…”
“Pepsi Offends Muslims in Turkey”
“FL Attorney General Genuflects to CAIR, MPAC…”
“Hospital Director Supplied al-Qaeda with Mentally-Impaired for Suicide Attacks…”
“Canadian Woman Attacked in Her Home after Complaining of Abuse by Muslim Leader…”
“Priest Sentenced to Year in Jail for Leading Christian Service…”
“Christian Library Bombed in Gaza”
“Saudis Threaten Britain with ‘another 7/7′ Bombing…”
“Seminaries Turn Teenagers into Suicide Bombers (Pakistan)…”
“More Multiculturalism = More Terror in Britian…”
“Saudis Plan to Behead ‘Witch’…”
(Italy) “Women in Chains from ‘the Kitchen to the Bathroom’…”
“Beheading Videos Seized from Would-Be Australian Terrorists…”
“Candidate Seeks to Become Second Muslim in US Congress…”
“Female Bombers Use ‘Pregnancy Prosthetics’ to Hide Explosives?”
“Palestinians Declare Joseph a Muslim - Burn His Tomb…”
“Arab Militias Rape 10-Year-Old Girl in Attack on African Village…”
“Iran One Step Closer to Enriching Uranium…”
“European Muslim Praises Stoning, Awarded $1 Million…”
“Iranian Kurd (Almost) Survives Torture…”
(UK) “Shop-Owners Fined for Selling Feces-Laced Cake…”
“Australian Jihadis Planned Attacks on Soccer Games…”
“Woman’s Marriage to Cousin Turns Out Badly…”
“Iraqi Children Killed with Poisoned Cake…”
“Hindu, Christian, Sikh Blood Saves Muslim Girl…”
“Honor Killing Suspected in Push from Balcony (Sweden)…”
“Arrests in Plot to Kill 73-Year-Old Danish Cartoonist…”
“Islamic Terror Paying Off in Thailand…”
“Pal. Childrens TV: “I Will Finish Off the Jews and Eat Them’…”
“Hindu Girl Abducted, Gang-Raped in Bangladesh…”
“Religious Police Ban Red Roses Ahead of Valentines Day…”
“Turkey PM Tells German Turks ‘Assimilation is a Crime’…”
“Controversial Muslim to Leave Pentagon Job…”
” ‘Religious Education’ Class Proves Explosive…”
“al-Qaeda Admits ‘Crisis’ Following Sunni ‘Betrayal’…”
“Christian Boy Kidnapped for Trying to Marry Muslim…”
“Sudan Arrests 2 Islamists in Killing of US Diplomat…”
“8-Year-Old Israeli Boy Loses Leg Following Hamas Attack…”
63. neocon | February 19th, 2008 at 4:32 am
Interesting mindset Clown. Excusing any and all of the terrorists actions and blaming them on American administrations. Tell me, what did Clinton do to cause the 1993 WTC and USS Cole attacks amongst the many others in the ’90s? You also might want to read up on Jimmah Carter and his attempted bribe of the Shah to get a glimpse into the Iranian Revolution.
Proving once again that you are a complete waste of good brain cells.
64. neocon | February 19th, 2008 at 4:34 am
Diana,
I have no doubt that you support that legislation. Prove me wrong.
65. NeoClown | February 19th, 2008 at 5:16 am
• NeoClown,
“Interesting - as long as the relative number of people killed is small, no big deal?”
Mark, it’s called a measured response.
“X” amount of people die each day from peanut allergies, “x” amount from bicycle wrecks. Is it time to outlaw peanuts and bicycles? You have to agree that they are both dangerous and they do kill Americans everyday.
On a per death basis I would say the US spends less than 10 cents toward each automobile accident death, and more than 1 billion dollars toward each Islamist terrorist death. I don’t care how scared you are - that’s crazy.
Outside of that bit of weirdness, you’re failing to see the message of your own information - the enemy, as you correctly put it, won’t quit…and eventually it won’t be 3,000 dead in a day, but 30,000…and then 300,000…and then 3,000,000. The only reason they haven’t, for instance, set off a nuclear device in a large American city is because they haven’t had the capability. Let this go on long enough, and they will obtain that ability.
300,000 or 3,000,000 in a day will NEVER happen. You have to have more than the will to kill people; you have to have the technology to do it. According to most estimates, the blast at Hiroshima killed approximately 70,000 people. The death toll in Nagasaki was estimated to be 40,000 people. Nuclear weapons are “line of sight” weapons. Terrain such as hills, mountains, and valleys will protect you from the blast; this is why we detonated both Japanese bombs some 1500 feet up in the air. Even at 1500 feet the Nagasaki blast had a relatively low death toll due to the hilly terrain.
Every few years, India, North Korea, or Pakistan will detonate a device deep in the mountains of Kashmir or some out of the way place. The reason they hide the preparations of the bomb blast is because it takes 3 semi trailers to haul one of their weapons to the bomb site.
Okay, so you are in charge of al Qaeda and you want to kill infidels in the US with a nuclear bomb. Your first technological challenge is to develop an aircraft large enough to haul 3 semi trailers 10,000 miles to the US without being detected and drop your bomb and have it explode 1500 feet above an American city. You must also be on the look-out for radar and try not to get shot down. Give up?
Okay, plan “B”. You load your three semi trailers onto a ship and float the whole shebang over to New York, or San Francisco harbor. Along with the bomb, you are also going to need a team of 35, to 50 of your top scientists to hook it up. After you and your entourage clear customs you need to find some warehouse space, and 10,000 volts of electricity to get the bomb to go bang. The bomb is now at street level and almost useless.
In 1972, the first spectacular act of international terrorism occured - in it, 11 Israeli althletes died. This shocked the whole world. I remember it, even though I was only 7 at the time - the pictures of masked terrorists on television, the thrill of shock and fear which went through the adults. 11 victims (not counting the eventually dead terrorists and one German cop).
Going back a bit further, part of the proximate cause of the 1967 Arab/Isreali war was the rise in terrorist attacks in Israel…which, as far as I can recall right now, didn’t kill anyone - but the still shocked the Isaeli people and put them in a mind to take stern actions against their enemies.
I had to report to MCRD San Diego on September 9th 1972. I joined the Marine Corps in July and was enjoying my last few weeks of freedom while watching the Munich Games on September 5th. I remember when the news came on about the hostages. I remember thinking they would all be released unharmed. Then I remember the news of all the dead.
That was a spectacular act of international terrorism, but it wasn’t the first. The whole time I was growing up all I heard was the IRA exploding bombs in England. It was a regular occurrence in the 1960’s. We also had the body count from Vietnam every night on the 6 o’clock news..
So: no dead. 11 dead. Higher and higher it goes, year by year…until 9/11, when 3,000 are killed almost at once. But, hey, its still small beans…
Mark, take a deep breath. It’ll be okay.
and maybe if we just not worry about it and let the cops try to work up legal cases against the terrorists, it won’t get worse…
Mark, when we arrest bad guys in America we give them trials.
However, when we are in combat with bad guys we kill them. Sometimes we torture, interrogate, and then kill them. But we kill them.
What we don’t do is drag them home with us, lock them up in Cuba, and then parade them in front of the media for political points.
You’re living in a fool’s paradise, NeoClown.
You live in Vegas and you say I live in a fool’s paradise?
66. Freedom1 | February 19th, 2008 at 5:29 am
‘Honor Killing’ Epidemic in Britain
“A question of honour: Police say 17,000 women are victims every year” -The Independent UK
67. NeoClown | February 19th, 2008 at 5:34 am
Neocon,
I didn’t blame terrorist actions on American administrations, I simply pointed out that Neocon administrations were in power during the majority of terrorist attacks against the US.
I wonder why that is - don’t you?
Maybe while Ronald Regan was busy defeating the communists he didn’t pay enough attention to the Middle East? I don’t know, do you?
Can you tell me why RR was such a miserable failure in the GWOT?
Attack, after attack, after attack on American soil and what did RR or GHWB do?
Not much from the looks of it.
Their lack of action must have emboldened the Islamic terrorists. Don’t you agree?
68. NeoClown | February 19th, 2008 at 5:48 am
HAVANA (Reuters) - Ailing Cuban leader Fidel Castro said on Tuesday that he will not return to lead the country as president or commander-in-chief, retiring as head of state 49 years after he seized power in an armed revolution.
If Bushco doesn’t jump on this then they are more screwed-up then I think they are.
I’ve got ten bucks that says they’ll handle Cuba the way they did New Orleans/ Katrina. Any takers?
69. Rana Quijotesca | February 19th, 2008 at 8:21 am
The Private Sector will get us out of any economic bind? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
For example: Between the years of 1920 and 1940, there were a few thousand bank closures in the United States (a little something called the Great Contraction caused that), but there was exactly 1 in Canada… Why was that? Mainly (in my opinion), Canada had branch banking, and we didn’t (and wouldn’t until 1992 I believe). Why didn’t we have that? Simple: Lobbying groups within the banking industry kept Congress from legalizing Branch Banking.
In fact, the history of the banking industry in the United States shows them vigorously supporting policies and regulations that were anti-competitive, weakened the banking industry and the economy as a whole, yet made individual bankers more and more money. Sort of like how Deposit Insurance and subsequent deregulation under Reagan lead to the Savings and Loan Crisis (which, btw, cost the US taxpayer $500 [I think] per person) and the death of the SLIC.
There you have it… an important portion of the private sector that is routinely promoting its own self-interest by shafting the economy and the American people. I mean, honestly… do you really think that the banks didn’t know that giving people loans that they couldn’t afford was good for the economy? Hello Sub-Prime Lending Crisis!
70. Rana Quijotesca | February 19th, 2008 at 8:25 am
that should be: FSLIC… My Bad
71. Rana Quijotesca | February 19th, 2008 at 8:52 am
what should also be “…wasn’t good for the economy”
72. InDaVa | February 19th, 2008 at 9:23 am
The last time a Republican said he wouldn’t raise taxes, he ended up raising taxes. We are supposed to believe McCain because he says so?
” No New Taxes! No New Taxes!”
73. InDaVa | February 19th, 2008 at 9:26 am
Oh, and neocon….try to stay on topic.
74. neocon | February 19th, 2008 at 10:04 am
>>>I simply pointed out that Neocon administrations were in power during the majority of terrorist attacks against the US. - Clown<<<
That’s because they win more elections. How then do you explain the 1990’s?
During the 1980’s, RR, America was still in denial about Islamic terrorism. During the 1990’s, we should have known better and taken UBL when we had the chance. I wonder what Sandy Berger stole?
I can’t believe that was your rebuttal and obviously the best you got. Seriously Clown, you have your head up somewhere….