God I hate the fvcking fox news channel!

[Pers]

Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce

Originally posted by: Judgement

Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce

Originally posted by: Mrburns2007
People believe what they want and others won't believe even when the evidence is overwhelming.


Are there terrorist groups operating in Syria......probably.


PS: The middle east is the slums of the world, I really don't care how it happens but they need to be modernized some how some way. War is ugly and brutual but we need something to break the stranglehold these arab governments have over there own people.

Even if there are terrorist groups operating out of Syria, how are they a direct threat to the US? As far as I know, all the terrorists groups that have somehow hurt the US came out of Saudi Arabia. Secondly. And what makes you say the ME is the slum of the world? And even if it was, what right do we have to "modernize" it as you put is? Why are we not modernizing Africa? As far as I know, they are a lot more behind than the ME is. Oh, and stranglehold of the arab govs, what about China? You see, you obviusly don't know all the facts. We cannot help everyone, and we know it, so we "help" those who have things that we need, ie. oil, neutralizing threats to Israel, etc.

As for Fox, they are about as fair and balanced as some of the conservatives in this forum. Oh wait, Fox is run by conservatives, so never mind.

Ok, maybe we shouldn't run any homeless shelters, because you and I know we can't help everyone in the US... why bother helping anyone, what a fncking waste of time! Those drug abuse clinics should all be shut down, its a well known fact some people will just refuse to let themselves be helped, and even worse there are some people we won't even be able to try and help because, as you and I know, there are just too many and its too difficult!

To denie the people we can help of aid because we can't help everyone is just fncking retarted. Can you blame the US for helping those who aren't supressed by a government with nuclear capabilities or have something to build off of to get a jump start first? And God forbid the U.S. has anything they might be getting out of their efforts in the ME, that would mean all of their policies and everything they did are the devil's work... the root of all evil, that is the US!

We should have just left everyone under Saddam, yes... that would have been the humanitarian thing to do; because if the US gets anything out of it then the Iraqi people would have been better off surpressed under Saddam... what was I thinking!

Why didn't we use the 100 billion that this war is costing to build more homeless shelters and drug clinics in the US? How about helping inner city schools? Why don't we help the Palestinians get a state and free them from Israeli occupation? I think that would help our national security infinetly more than "liberating" Iraq, who has NO proven nuclear capability and where we have yet to find ANY WMD. Why is it so hard for you to understand that helping the Iraqi people was probably the last consideration of the people planning this war? If like you said we decided to help Iraq out of altruistic reasons, that would just support my assertation that then we could have helped any one of the many countries whose population lives under brutal dictators. This war was political. We as Americans are compassionate people, our gov. is about politics first, compassion second.

ja ja - it's lucky he gets to hide behind his keyboard cause um...he just got owned

 

[Pers]

Originally posted by: railer
Andrew you're obviously too far gone to help. It's just too bad you weren't around in the 1930's and lived in nazi germany so you could have put that great patriotism of yours to use for the germans. You're exactly the type.

Now then, the true idiocy of your post really comes into focus when you talk about terrorists being "fundamentally cowards". I wish you had put that in your first line so I could have stopped wasting my time on your post then. Did you hear that on Fox news? Or was it MSNBC..."America's News Channel"? Pick your 10 favorite cowards of all time, and give them 2 choices: 1) Fly an F-16 at 30000 feet at Mach 1.5 and drop bombs on targets you can't even SEE, or 2) run up to something/someone with a bomb/gun whatver, and blow it up, shoot it, blow yourself up, whatever. Which one do you think the coward is going to choose?

If you want to argue about the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of attacking purely civilian targets, fine. Just don't goose-step along to that idiotic mantra that says terrorists are cowards and the military is brave. That's pure idiocy.

Secondly, I'll my opinions about "terrorism" or whatever else I want to post my opinion about, and there's nothing you can do about it. Move to China if you don't like it. If the most intelligent response that you can think of is to hurl personal insults, then I suggest you enroll yourself in some community college courses and at least get some sort of clue as to what your are talking about first.

Lastly, September 11 is NOTHING compared to the amount of death and horror that the people of Iraq have seen over the past 12 years. Nothing. Understand that. The true test of your intelligence is whether you read any anti-american sentiment in that last statement. It's simply a cold, hard, fact. I love america, but I will not be a brainwashed lackey.

omg...you are officially the smartest person on the forum

 

[Pers]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: railer
1) I love hearing you ignorant dummies rant on about personal responsibilty. As if there are a group of people who are opposed to personal responsibility, and you have to "fight" against them. You've been thoroughly brainwashed...congratulations. Put 10 of the worlds most liberal people into a room, and ask them if they are "for or against personal responsibity?". Is anyone in here honestly so daft as to thing that anyone is against that principle? People just dumb every argument down so far that it stops making sense.
No one is opposed to personal responibility you nitwit. Turn off Rush and Fox news for 10 minutes and THINK.

2) What's a terrorist?
a) A guy who blows up a bus filled with civilians, or
b) A guy who flies a plane with a flag painted on the side and drops a bomb on a "terrorist" and "accidently" kills civilians.

<brainless rant> But, but , but....the guy who blew the bus up targeted civilians on purpose, but the F-16 pilot didn't!!</brainless rant>

So give the "terrorists" SAM's, F-16's, and tanks, and then see how many civilains they target. NONE. They'd love to tackle tanks and airplanes, but they can't. So they do what they can with what they have. And Americans would do EXACTLY THE SAME THING given the same situations, GUARANTEED.

You should work for a polling company. Of course no one is going to admit that they are against holding people accountable for their actions. However, if you look at certain people's positions on certain issues (drug abuse, child abuse, "battered wife syndrome", etc.) there is a distinct and significant stride against personal accountability. It is no one's fault that they committed a crime because something in their past "made them do it". Look at the gun debate -- guns don't kill people; people kill people. Hackeneyed? Sure. True? Definitely. In no murder or killing has it ever been proven that a gun leapt from a holster, desk drawer, or pocket and fired itself while in the hands of the accused. Yet, you would think that, according to HCI, if you eliminated guns you would eliminate murder. I guess murder only became a problem in the Renaissance when guns were created.

Now, I'll stop being nice. You're a little fscking pissant piece of trash for equating those in the military with the scum-sucking terrorists who killed nearly 3,000 on September 11th, not to mention the various vermin active throughout the world. You've just insulted every single person in uniform, and I really do hope you'll find the nearest military installation and spout off in person what you write anonymously online. You might be near Ft. Drum -- go tell the 10th what you think of them.

What's ludicrous is that you apparently have no idea of history because Americans were the exact situation of being outgunned and outclassed militarily but still fought in manner befitting the time period in the late 1700's. I don't recall reading about any bombings of shopping areas or cafes in London during the Revolutionary War period.

Terrorists are not fighting a war by other means. One can argue that the IRA for a time operated in such a manner because they only targeted British troops and police instead of the citizenry. However, they changed their tactics when they started bombing tube stations, pubs, and shopping malls. Terrorists attack civilians because the terrorists are fundamentally cowards and because they seek to sow fear and horror and intimidate those who are in danger from their attacks. The military will never be cowed by attacks on it because that's what the military does -- fight. Civilians are neither accustomed to nor trained for armed conflict and are thus more susceptible to its effects, both in physical and psychological terms.

I think Mom and Dad need to install SurfWatch or something similar on your computer because you're obviously over your head.

how could they attack the british civilians when the battles were fought on American Soil?? were they going to fly over britain using British airlines, and suicide bomb the busiest starbucks? OMG you idiots are all the same i swear to god!

 

[Loralon]

Originally posted by: railer
RT: I'm not necessarily talking about Iraqi "terrorists". Ever point that you raise is valid, but if you were defending your country you (I hope!) would do EXACTLY THE SAME THING!!! You would want to draw the battle out as long as you could, you would want to kill as many of the enemy as you possibly could. <shrug> It's not that complicated. If you did all of those things, the other side would label you a terrorist, while your own people would call you a freedom fighter. It's all the same stuff...depends on which side you're on.

If a soldier was defending their country and implicitely that countries' citizens, then wouldn't using their own citizens as human shields be somewhat counterproductive? Human shield tactics don't seem to make much sense when the objective is to defend your nation. However, this tactic would be consistent with soldiers protecting a government that cares little for it's citizens.

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: Pers
how could they attack the british civilians when the battles were fought on American Soil??

So the terrorists who attacked the WTC are really fighting a war on our soil? I haven't seen a single battle on the news perhaps you have a link?

 

[railer]

If you care about your people then using citizens as human shields is sort of counter-productive. If you know that you are completely out-gunned, and you know that the enemy is going to hesitate when firing on civilians, you use them to try to prolong the war and extract as many enemy casualties as you possibly can, in the hopes of turning it into a war of attrition. I'm not a big fan of this stategy, but it oftentimes helps to understand that there almost always a logitcal reason why people do the things that they do. We too often have a tendancy to label things as good or evil, brave or cowardly, etc.
Of course the sept 11 hijackers were fighting a war on our soil. You're not allowed to fight if you don't have a few hundred M1A2's behind you? Is that a rule?

 

[CaptnKirk]

Richard Cohen, Washington Post on Murdoch/FOX:


Since 1917 the Pulitzer Prizes -- named for their creator, the 19th-century press baron Joseph Pulitzer -- have been awarded to encourage excellence in journalism. I happen to think that more could be accomplished with a prize for the worst in journalism. It should be called the Murdoch.
The first Murdoch would go to Rupert Murdoch himself, a media mogul who has single-handedly lowered the standards of journalism wherever he has gone. His New York Post and his Fox News Channel are blatantly political, hardly confining Murdoch's conservative political ideology to editorials or commentary but infusing it into the news coverage itself. It does this, of course, while insisting it does nothing of the sort.
The most repellent of Murdoch's products is the New York Post. (Full disclosure: My syndicated column appears in the competing New York Daily News.) The Post was the paper that, in the name of Americanism, called for a boycott of entertainment figures who opposed the war in Iraq. Under the headline "DON'T AID THESE SADDAM LOVERS," the paper's Page Six column on March 19 listed "appeasement-loving celebs." Among them were Tim Robbins, Sean Penn, Laurence Fishburne, Samuel L. Jackson, Susan Sarandon and Danny Glover. In some cases, the Post called for a boycott of their movies, never mind who else was in the movies or worked on them.
This is hardly Americanism. In the first place, none of the celebrities can fairly be called a "Saddam lover." They merely opposed the war. Second, they were not appeasers because, as the Bush administration itself said, this was a war of choice, not self-defense. Finally, dissent should be encouraged, not punished. This is how we learn. This is how we conduct a debate.
But the Murdoch way of conducting a debate is to yell treason or something very close to that. His organization did so, for instance, in a New York Post column that virtually called Peter Arnett, the former MSNBC correspondent, a traitor for what he said in his now-infamous interview with Iraqi state television. Arnett made himself impossible to defend, but bad judgment or even craven obsequiousness to a source (the Iraqis) is not treason. It is merely bad journalism.
The Fox News Channel thought otherwise. In a promotional spot, it said of Arnett: "He spoke out against America's armed forces; he said America's war against terrorism had failed; he even vilified America's leadership. And he worked for MSNBC."
Only the last sentence is true. The rest is such a stretch, such an exaggeration, that it amounts to a lie. Arnett never mentioned the "war against terrorism" and he never "vilified America's leadership." He was critical of the Bush administration -- but so was I on occasion, and I supported the war.
No single column could do justice to the injustices of the Murdoch empire -- or to its strange omissions. It went after Arnett with a vengeance but barely mentioned that its own reporter, that burlesque of a journalist, Geraldo Rivera, was given the boot by the military for essentially reporting the position of the unit he was with at the time. Must have been a busy news day.
It would be fun to imagine how the Murdoch press would cover Murdoch. It might have noticed that he abandoned his Australian citizenship and embraced America, apparently to comply with an FCC rule that prohibited foreigners from owning more than 25 percent of a TV license -- a touching immigrant saga. He dropped the BBC from his Star TV satellite operation in China because Beijing had a problem with its unbiased reporting. The New York Post and Fox might call him what they repeatedly called the French and others -- a "weasel." Alas, that would be editorializing.
Pulitzer and even William Randolph Hearst were pikers compared with Murdoch, the first truly global media baron. He controls 175 newspapers around the world, with 40 percent of the newspaper circulation in Britain. He owns satellite TV worldwide and, in America, a movie studio and book publisher as well as newspapers and TV outlets. His political influence is immense as well as baleful. MSNBC now has conservative hosts, and all the cable outlets either flew the American flag somewhere on the screen or in some other way insulated themselves from potential criticism from the right.
A piece of me admires Murdoch. He is a buccaneer, a risk-taker who, seemingly, cares not one whit for the opinion of journalists such as myself. But as the war in Iraq has shown, he has infected American journalism with jingoism and intolerance. For that, he gets the very first Murdoch Prize -- a formal citation listing his sins and a bucket of slime with his name on it. It is well earned.

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: railer
If you know that you are completely out-gunned, and you know that the enemy is going to hesitate when firing on civilians, you use them to try to prolong the war and extract as many enemy casualties as you possibly can, in the hopes of turning it into a war of attrition.

You also might succeed in getting alot of your own innocents killed needlessly. But you can blame that on the enemy so who cares right?

I'm not a big fan of this stategy,

Well jeebus peete that is quite a relief.

but it oftentimes helps to understand that there almost always a logitcal reason why people do the things that they do. We too often have a tendancy to label things as good or evil, brave or cowardly, etc.

Hiding behind civilians is both evil and cowardly...no matter how you would like to dress it up.

 

[Ornery]

Ah, this clears things up. Flying the American flag somewhere on the screen makes a news network jingoistic! There ought to be a law...

 

[ConclamoLudus]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Richard Cohen, Washington Post on Murdoch/FOX:


Since 1917 the Pulitzer Prizes -- named for their creator, the 19th-century press baron Joseph Pulitzer -- have been awarded to encourage excellence in journalism. I happen to think that more could be accomplished with a prize for the worst in journalism. It should be called the Murdoch.
The first Murdoch would go to Rupert Murdoch himself, a media mogul who has single-handedly lowered the standards of journalism wherever he has gone. His New York Post and his Fox News Channel are blatantly political, hardly confining Murdoch's conservative political ideology to editorials or commentary but infusing it into the news coverage itself. It does this, of course, while insisting it does nothing of the sort.
The most repellent of Murdoch's products is the New York Post. (Full disclosure: My syndicated column appears in the competing New York Daily News.) The Post was the paper that, in the name of Americanism, called for a boycott of entertainment figures who opposed the war in Iraq. Under the headline "DON'T AID THESE SADDAM LOVERS," the paper's Page Six column on March 19 listed "appeasement-loving celebs." Among them were Tim Robbins, Sean Penn, Laurence Fishburne, Samuel L. Jackson, Susan Sarandon and Danny Glover. In some cases, the Post called for a boycott of their movies, never mind who else was in the movies or worked on them.
This is hardly Americanism. In the first place, none of the celebrities can fairly be called a "Saddam lover." They merely opposed the war. Second, they were not appeasers because, as the Bush administration itself said, this was a war of choice, not self-defense. Finally, dissent should be encouraged, not punished. This is how we learn. This is how we conduct a debate.
But the Murdoch way of conducting a debate is to yell treason or something very close to that. His organization did so, for instance, in a New York Post column that virtually called Peter Arnett, the former MSNBC correspondent, a traitor for what he said in his now-infamous interview with Iraqi state television. Arnett made himself impossible to defend, but bad judgment or even craven obsequiousness to a source (the Iraqis) is not treason. It is merely bad journalism.
The Fox News Channel thought otherwise. In a promotional spot, it said of Arnett: "He spoke out against America's armed forces; he said America's war against terrorism had failed; he even vilified America's leadership. And he worked for MSNBC."
Only the last sentence is true. The rest is such a stretch, such an exaggeration, that it amounts to a lie. Arnett never mentioned the "war against terrorism" and he never "vilified America's leadership." He was critical of the Bush administration -- but so was I on occasion, and I supported the war.
No single column could do justice to the injustices of the Murdoch empire -- or to its strange omissions. It went after Arnett with a vengeance but barely mentioned that its own reporter, that burlesque of a journalist, Geraldo Rivera, was given the boot by the military for essentially reporting the position of the unit he was with at the time. Must have been a busy news day.
It would be fun to imagine how the Murdoch press would cover Murdoch. It might have noticed that he abandoned his Australian citizenship and embraced America, apparently to comply with an FCC rule that prohibited foreigners from owning more than 25 percent of a TV license -- a touching immigrant saga. He dropped the BBC from his Star TV satellite operation in China because Beijing had a problem with its unbiased reporting. The New York Post and Fox might call him what they repeatedly called the French and others -- a "weasel." Alas, that would be editorializing.
Pulitzer and even William Randolph Hearst were pikers compared with Murdoch, the first truly global media baron. He controls 175 newspapers around the world, with 40 percent of the newspaper circulation in Britain. He owns satellite TV worldwide and, in America, a movie studio and book publisher as well as newspapers and TV outlets. His political influence is immense as well as baleful. MSNBC now has conservative hosts, and all the cable outlets either flew the American flag somewhere on the screen or in some other way insulated themselves from potential criticism from the right.
A piece of me admires Murdoch. He is a buccaneer, a risk-taker who, seemingly, cares not one whit for the opinion of journalists such as myself. But as the war in Iraq has shown, he has infected American journalism with jingoism and intolerance. For that, he gets the very first Murdoch Prize -- a formal citation listing his sins and a bucket of slime with his name on it. It is well earned.

Such are the evils of Freedom of Press. Is your form of debate not to have the Rupert Murdoch's of the world? There are plenty of places in the world to get your news elsewhere. Vote with your wallet. And for how much Murdoch owns there will always be more sources elsewhere. Or is it the ratings that anger you? If hiring conservative hosts has become good for business than maybe the country itself is taking a swing to the right. The mid-term election would be a good indicator. I wouldn't worry too much, it will swing left again eventually, it always does. The swing game.

You've got some good points in there, albeit exaggerated in my opinion, but what would be your solution?

I'll continue to watch Fox news, but that will be one source out of a great many. There is no such thing as fair & balanced. It does not exist. Fox news or anywhere else.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: Ornery
Ah, this clears things up. Flying the American flag somewhere on the screen makes a news network jingoistic! There ought to be a law...

Read some of the threads on FOX, News Corp. and Rupert Murdoch and get it out of your head that the only thing that makes Fox jingoistic and sensationalist is the flying of the American flag. Feigned ignorance is always a great argument, right?

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: railer
1) I love hearing you ignorant dummies rant on about personal responsibilty. As if there are a group of people who are opposed to personal responsibility, and you have to "fight" against them. You've been thoroughly brainwashed...congratulations. Put 10 of the worlds most liberal people into a room, and ask them if they are "for or against personal responsibity?". Is anyone in here honestly so daft as to thing that anyone is against that principle? People just dumb every argument down so far that it stops making sense.
No one is opposed to personal responibility you nitwit. Turn off Rush and Fox news for 10 minutes and THINK.

2) What's a terrorist?
a) A guy who blows up a bus filled with civilians, or
b) A guy who flies a plane with a flag painted on the side and drops a bomb on a "terrorist" and "accidently" kills civilians.

<brainless rant> But, but , but....the guy who blew the bus up targeted civilians on purpose, but the F-16 pilot didn't!!</brainless rant>

So give the "terrorists" SAM's, F-16's, and tanks, and then see how many civilains they target. NONE. They'd love to tackle tanks and airplanes, but they can't. So they do what they can with what they have. And Americans would do EXACTLY THE SAME THING given the same situations, GUARANTEED.

1)Obviously nobody will say they are against personal responsiblity. But our whole welfare system discourages personal responsibility. It is far easier to let the government take care of you than to take responsibility and work hard to provide for yourself. What motivation does someone, getting their housing and food paid for, have to get a job? If they get a minimum wage job, they will lose close to or more in govt benefits than what they will earn from the job. So the choice the system is giving them is to work hard and get no help, or not work at all and get taken care of. How exactly does this encourage personal responsibility?

2) Almost too ridiculous to respond to. So you are saying that there is NO difference between someone driving down the freeway and getting in an accident that kills someone and someone who sees a pedestrian, swerves onto the sidewalk and intentionally runs them over? I mean everyone knows that if you are driving on the freeway, there is a chance that you will be in an accident and kill someone. I dont' even know how to argue with that mentality so I won't even try.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce

Why didn't we use the 100 billion that this war is costing to build more homeless shelters and drug clinics in the US?

Because I am willing to spend my tax money to help rid the world of a dictator who enjoys using the murder, rape, and torture of men, women and children to stay in power and keep his people oppressed and impoverished. And who has admitted having tons of chemical and biological weapons, a nuclear weapons development program, and who hates America.

I do NOT want my tax money being given to lazy people so they don't have to work. I do NOT want my tax money being used for someone to go to a drug rehab for the 10th time at $5000 a pop. I do NOT want my tax money paying for someone's methadone because they are too weak minded and selfish to stay off heroin without it.

I do not want to live in a society where people are punished for working hard and being succesful and are rewarded for sitting on their lazy asses and doing NOTHING. I want to live in a society where personal responsibility and hard work mean something.

Does it ease your selfish mind to tell yourself that everyone who is impoverished deserves it?

Did I use the word "everyone"?
Did I say anyone "deserved" it?
If so, could you please show me where?
Does it ease your mind to mis-state peoples posts to try to make some political point?

Let me clarify a few things.

First, I'm not talking about other countries. I'm talking about the U.S.

Second, I'm not talking about mentally ill people. A large portion of the homeless in the U.S. are mentally ill and we have a moral duty to help these people. Although many of these mentally ill homeless people don't want our help and choose to live on the streets.

Third, I am not opposed to all welfare. I think as a country, we should help each other out in times of need. Nobody should have to go without food or medical care. I am actually fairly liberal when it comes to medical care. We need to find better ways of doing it, but I think medical care is a basic human right. So I am not opposed to the concept of those who can afford it, helping those who cannot.

But I see rampant abuse of this system. I see able-bodied, able-minded people getting HUD to pay their rent and food stamps to buy their food, and government subisidies to pay their utility bills, while they are taking one art class in college once a week and spending the rest of their time mountain biking, playing music, going on vacations, and just sitting at home. When I'm working 50 hours a week, getting no government help, and paying 25% of my paycheck in taxes, it pisses me off. Does that make me selfish? I don't think so. I agree that the 60% of Americans that actually pay taxes should be helping the rest, but that does not mean taking care of them for life so they don't have to work. Not all impoverished people are lazy. But a very large number of the ones living off of my tax money are. Hell, I occasionally think about quitting my job and collecting welfare and food stamps instead. I don't blame them. They are simply taking advantage of the system that is there.

The simple fact that many liberals will not admit, is that virtually everyone in this country, no matter what their background or situation has the opportunity to be prosperous and take care of themselves. We hear all these arguments about how poor people just can't afford to go to college. This is spouted off by liberal politicians so much that many poor people end up believing it. The fact is, our government provides financial aid to anyone who needs it and wants it. No, people who come from subpar elementary and high schools are not as likely to get into Harvard or MIT. But there are thousands and thousands of community colleges in this country with NO minimum academic requirements. No matter what your early education is like, anyone who wants to can go to community college and the government will pay for part of it and loan you the rest of the money, living expenses included. Two years of working hard at community college will get you into 90% of the countries Universities. Tell me one reason why this is not an option for anyone in this country. Even without college, anyone who is willing to work hard can get a job and make a living. Enough to support themselves and their families.

People have choices. People can overcome disadvantages. This country has the greatest opportunity of any in the world. The problem is that there are too many liberals telling people they are victims, disadvantaged, and need government help. These people listen and believe it. It is always much easier to blame your problems and situation on someone else rather than taking "personal responsibility". And it is way too easy for people to live off the government instead of supporting themselves and their own families

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce

Originally posted by: Judgement

Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce

Originally posted by: Mrburns2007
People believe what they want and others won't believe even when the evidence is overwhelming.


Are there terrorist groups operating in Syria......probably.


PS: The middle east is the slums of the world, I really don't care how it happens but they need to be modernized some how some way. War is ugly and brutual but we need something to break the stranglehold these arab governments have over there own people.

Even if there are terrorist groups operating out of Syria, how are they a direct threat to the US? As far as I know, all the terrorists groups that have somehow hurt the US came out of Saudi Arabia. Secondly. And what makes you say the ME is the slum of the world? And even if it was, what right do we have to "modernize" it as you put is? Why are we not modernizing Africa? As far as I know, they are a lot more behind than the ME is. Oh, and stranglehold of the arab govs, what about China? You see, you obviusly don't know all the facts. We cannot help everyone, and we know it, so we "help" those who have things that we need, ie. oil, neutralizing threats to Israel, etc.

As for Fox, they are about as fair and balanced as some of the conservatives in this forum. Oh wait, Fox is run by conservatives, so never mind.

Ok, maybe we shouldn't run any homeless shelters, because you and I know we can't help everyone in the US... why bother helping anyone, what a fncking waste of time! Those drug abuse clinics should all be shut down, its a well known fact some people will just refuse to let themselves be helped, and even worse there are some people we won't even be able to try and help because, as you and I know, there are just too many and its too difficult!

To denie the people we can help of aid because we can't help everyone is just fncking retarted. Can you blame the US for helping those who aren't supressed by a government with nuclear capabilities or have something to build off of to get a jump start first? And God forbid the U.S. has anything they might be getting out of their efforts in the ME, that would mean all of their policies and everything they did are the devil's work... the root of all evil, that is the US!

We should have just left everyone under Saddam, yes... that would have been the humanitarian thing to do; because if the US gets anything out of it then the Iraqi people would have been better off surpressed under Saddam... what was I thinking!

Why didn't we use the 100 billion that this war is costing to build more homeless shelters and drug clinics in the US? How about helping inner city schools? Why don't we help the Palestinians get a state and free them from Israeli occupation? I think that would help our national security infinetly more than "liberating" Iraq, who has NO proven nuclear capability and where we have yet to find ANY WMD. Why is it so hard for you to understand that helping the Iraqi people was probably the last consideration of the people planning this war? If like you said we decided to help Iraq out of altruistic reasons, that would just support my assertation that then we could have helped any one of the many countries whose population lives under brutal dictators. This war was political. We as Americans are compassionate people, our gov. is about politics first, compassion second.

Why not spend the 100 billion dollars on an island out in the middle of nowhere, alot of boats and umm ship all the cons and leeches out of here, then in 2 years time our deficit would be paid off? Could set up cameras on the island as well and watch welfare Bob call big Jimbo, Daddy....sell it on pay per view in San Fran and a few other select locals. This would pay for the maintenance on the boats as well as gas to ship more useless people who call themselves Americans but are just weighing us down..

A chain is only as strong as the weakest Moony...I mean't....Morph...I mean't BarneyFife...I mean't link

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce

Why didn't we use the 100 billion that this war is costing to build more homeless shelters and drug clinics in the US?

Because I am willing to spend my tax money to help rid the world of a dictator who enjoys using the murder, rape, and torture of men, women and children to stay in power and keep his people oppressed and impoverished. And who has admitted having tons of chemical and biological weapons, a nuclear weapons development program, and who hates America.

I do NOT want my tax money being given to lazy people so they don't have to work. I do NOT want my tax money being used for someone to go to a drug rehab for the 10th time at $5000 a pop. I do NOT want my tax money paying for someone's methadone because they are too weak minded and selfish to stay off heroin without it.

I do not want to live in a society where people are punished for working hard and being succesful and are rewarded for sitting on their lazy asses and doing NOTHING. I want to live in a society where personal responsibility and hard work mean something.

Does it ease your selfish mind to tell yourself that everyone who is impoverished deserves it?

Did I use the word "everyone"?
Did I say anyone "deserved" it?
If so, could you please show me where?
Does it ease your mind to mis-state peoples posts to try to make some political point?

Let me clarify a few things.

First, I'm not talking about other countries. I'm talking about the U.S.

Second, I'm not talking about mentally ill people. A large portion of the homeless in the U.S. are mentally ill and we have a moral duty to help these people. Although many of these mentally ill homeless people don't want our help and choose to live on the streets.

Third, I am not opposed to all welfare. I think as a country, we should help each other out in times of need. Nobody should have to go without food or medical care. I am actually fairly liberal when it comes to medical care. We need to find better ways of doing it, but I think medical care is a basic human right. So I am not opposed to the concept of those who can afford it, helping those who cannot.

But I see rampant abuse of this system. I see able-bodied, able-minded people getting HUD to pay their rent and food stamps to buy their food, and government subisidies to pay their utility bills, while they are taking one art class in college once a week and spending the rest of their time mountain biking, playing music, going on vacations, and just sitting at home. When I'm working 50 hours a week, getting no government help, and paying 25% of my paycheck in taxes, it pisses me off. Does that make me selfish? I don't think so. I agree that the 60% of Americans that actually pay taxes should be helping the rest, but that does not mean taking care of them for life so they don't have to work. Not all impoverished people are lazy. But a very large number of the ones living off of my tax money are. Hell, I occasionally think about quitting my job and collecting welfare and food stamps instead. I don't blame them. They are simply taking advantage of the system that is there.

The simple fact that many liberals will not admit, is that virtually everyone in this country, no matter what their background or situation has the opportunity to be prosperous and take care of themselves. We hear all these arguments about how poor people just can't afford to go to college. This is spouted off by liberal politicians so much that many poor people end up believing it. The fact is, our government provides financial aid to anyone who needs it and wants it. No, people who come from subpar elementary and high schools are not as likely to get into Harvard or MIT. But there are thousands and thousands of community colleges in this country with NO minimum academic requirements. No matter what your early education is like, anyone who wants to can go to community college and the government will pay for part of it and loan you the rest of the money, living expenses included. Two years of working hard at community college will get you into 90% of the countries Universities. Tell me one reason why this is not an option for anyone in this country. Even without college, anyone who is willing to work hard can get a job and make a living. Enough to support themselves and their families.

People have choices. People can overcome disadvantages. This country has the greatest opportunity of any in the world. The problem is that there are too many liberals telling people they are victims, disadvantaged, and need government help. These people listen and believe it. It is always much easier to blame your problems and situation on someone else rather than taking "personal responsibility". And it is way too easy for people to live off the government instead of supporting themselves and their own families

Man so many problems with your post but this is the wrong forum. But ya I'm also against the rich bankers being able to borrow money directly from the government at the sweet prime rate then loan it out to joe blow middle class and student a few points above that rate while tighting the bankruptcy laws on joe blow while loosinging them on corporate bankruptcys.

But just show me one leader or officer of a fortune 500 company or in goverment who made his bones a community college? I know all my companies leadership comes from schools costing $35,000 a year total, far below the undergraduate maximuns of $5000.

Someday you may realise over the last 20 years transfer of wealth is from poor and middle class to the rich not the other way around.
Continue your flag waving though if it makes you feel better but know you will always work for a living until you understand how economics realy work in this country.

You think that paltry AFDC/student grant buget of around 120 billion/2.4 trillion is breaking the bank?

 

[Gnurb]

I like watching Fox just get to see the other (wrong :0 ) side of politics. And O'Reilly is just funny because he's so blatantly, blindly Right wing.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce

Why didn't we use the 100 billion that this war is costing to build more homeless shelters and drug clinics in the US?

Because I am willing to spend my tax money to help rid the world of a dictator who enjoys using the murder, rape, and torture of men, women and children to stay in power and keep his people oppressed and impoverished. And who has admitted having tons of chemical and biological weapons, a nuclear weapons development program, and who hates America.

I do NOT want my tax money being given to lazy people so they don't have to work. I do NOT want my tax money being used for someone to go to a drug rehab for the 10th time at $5000 a pop. I do NOT want my tax money paying for someone's methadone because they are too weak minded and selfish to stay off heroin without it.

I do not want to live in a society where people are punished for working hard and being succesful and are rewarded for sitting on their lazy asses and doing NOTHING. I want to live in a society where personal responsibility and hard work mean something.

Does it ease your selfish mind to tell yourself that everyone who is impoverished deserves it?

Did I use the word "everyone"?
Did I say anyone "deserved" it?
If so, could you please show me where?
Does it ease your mind to mis-state peoples posts to try to make some political point?

Let me clarify a few things.

First, I'm not talking about other countries. I'm talking about the U.S.

Second, I'm not talking about mentally ill people. A large portion of the homeless in the U.S. are mentally ill and we have a moral duty to help these people. Although many of these mentally ill homeless people don't want our help and choose to live on the streets.

Third, I am not opposed to all welfare. I think as a country, we should help each other out in times of need. Nobody should have to go without food or medical care. I am actually fairly liberal when it comes to medical care. We need to find better ways of doing it, but I think medical care is a basic human right. So I am not opposed to the concept of those who can afford it, helping those who cannot.

But I see rampant abuse of this system. I see able-bodied, able-minded people getting HUD to pay their rent and food stamps to buy their food, and government subisidies to pay their utility bills, while they are taking one art class in college once a week and spending the rest of their time mountain biking, playing music, going on vacations, and just sitting at home. When I'm working 50 hours a week, getting no government help, and paying 25% of my paycheck in taxes, it pisses me off. Does that make me selfish? I don't think so. I agree that the 60% of Americans that actually pay taxes should be helping the rest, but that does not mean taking care of them for life so they don't have to work. Not all impoverished people are lazy. But a very large number of the ones living off of my tax money are. Hell, I occasionally think about quitting my job and collecting welfare and food stamps instead. I don't blame them. They are simply taking advantage of the system that is there.

The simple fact that many liberals will not admit, is that virtually everyone in this country, no matter what their background or situation has the opportunity to be prosperous and take care of themselves. We hear all these arguments about how poor people just can't afford to go to college. This is spouted off by liberal politicians so much that many poor people end up believing it. The fact is, our government provides financial aid to anyone who needs it and wants it. No, people who come from subpar elementary and high schools are not as likely to get into Harvard or MIT. But there are thousands and thousands of community colleges in this country with NO minimum academic requirements. No matter what your early education is like, anyone who wants to can go to community college and the government will pay for part of it and loan you the rest of the money, living expenses included. Two years of working hard at community college will get you into 90% of the countries Universities. Tell me one reason why this is not an option for anyone in this country. Even without college, anyone who is willing to work hard can get a job and make a living. Enough to support themselves and their families.

People have choices. People can overcome disadvantages. This country has the greatest opportunity of any in the world. The problem is that there are too many liberals telling people they are victims, disadvantaged, and need government help. These people listen and believe it. It is always much easier to blame your problems and situation on someone else rather than taking "personal responsibility". And it is way too easy for people to live off the government instead of supporting themselves and their own families

It's easy to group impoverished people into one large lump of lazy bums whose only goal in life is to exploit YOU for YOUR hard-earned money. Most of the time, it isn't as cut and dry as "just try harder." Sure, you can pull examples of people who were born into poverty and have pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps and are now CEOs or Judges or whatever. But the vast, vast majority of children born into poor (below the poverty line) homes never make anything of themselves and end up in jail, prison or on the street. To suggest that the maybe hundred people who go mountain biking while collecting government subsidies represents the whole of the millions of destitute people in the US is assinine and obtuse.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce

Why didn't we use the 100 billion that this war is costing to build more homeless shelters and drug clinics in the US?

Because I am willing to spend my tax money to help rid the world of a dictator who enjoys using the murder, rape, and torture of men, women and children to stay in power and keep his people oppressed and impoverished. And who has admitted having tons of chemical and biological weapons, a nuclear weapons development program, and who hates America.

I do NOT want my tax money being given to lazy people so they don't have to work. I do NOT want my tax money being used for someone to go to a drug rehab for the 10th time at $5000 a pop. I do NOT want my tax money paying for someone's methadone because they are too weak minded and selfish to stay off heroin without it.

I do not want to live in a society where people are punished for working hard and being succesful and are rewarded for sitting on their lazy asses and doing NOTHING. I want to live in a society where personal responsibility and hard work mean something.

Does it ease your selfish mind to tell yourself that everyone who is impoverished deserves it?

Did I use the word "everyone"?
Did I say anyone "deserved" it?
If so, could you please show me where?
Does it ease your mind to mis-state peoples posts to try to make some political point?

Let me clarify a few things.

First, I'm not talking about other countries. I'm talking about the U.S.

Second, I'm not talking about mentally ill people. A large portion of the homeless in the U.S. are mentally ill and we have a moral duty to help these people. Although many of these mentally ill homeless people don't want our help and choose to live on the streets.

Third, I am not opposed to all welfare. I think as a country, we should help each other out in times of need. Nobody should have to go without food or medical care. I am actually fairly liberal when it comes to medical care. We need to find better ways of doing it, but I think medical care is a basic human right. So I am not opposed to the concept of those who can afford it, helping those who cannot.

But I see rampant abuse of this system. I see able-bodied, able-minded people getting HUD to pay their rent and food stamps to buy their food, and government subisidies to pay their utility bills, while they are taking one art class in college once a week and spending the rest of their time mountain biking, playing music, going on vacations, and just sitting at home. When I'm working 50 hours a week, getting no government help, and paying 25% of my paycheck in taxes, it pisses me off. Does that make me selfish? I don't think so. I agree that the 60% of Americans that actually pay taxes should be helping the rest, but that does not mean taking care of them for life so they don't have to work. Not all impoverished people are lazy. But a very large number of the ones living off of my tax money are. Hell, I occasionally think about quitting my job and collecting welfare and food stamps instead. I don't blame them. They are simply taking advantage of the system that is there.

The simple fact that many liberals will not admit, is that virtually everyone in this country, no matter what their background or situation has the opportunity to be prosperous and take care of themselves. We hear all these arguments about how poor people just can't afford to go to college. This is spouted off by liberal politicians so much that many poor people end up believing it. The fact is, our government provides financial aid to anyone who needs it and wants it. No, people who come from subpar elementary and high schools are not as likely to get into Harvard or MIT. But there are thousands and thousands of community colleges in this country with NO minimum academic requirements. No matter what your early education is like, anyone who wants to can go to community college and the government will pay for part of it and loan you the rest of the money, living expenses included. Two years of working hard at community college will get you into 90% of the countries Universities. Tell me one reason why this is not an option for anyone in this country. Even without college, anyone who is willing to work hard can get a job and make a living. Enough to support themselves and their families.

People have choices. People can overcome disadvantages. This country has the greatest opportunity of any in the world. The problem is that there are too many liberals telling people they are victims, disadvantaged, and need government help. These people listen and believe it. It is always much easier to blame your problems and situation on someone else rather than taking "personal responsibility". And it is way too easy for people to live off the government instead of supporting themselves and their own families

Man so many problems with your post but this is the wrong forum. But ya I'm also against the rich bankers being able to borrow money directly from the government at the sweet prime rate then loan it out to joe blow middle class and student a few points above that rate while tighting the bankruptcy laws on joe blow while loosinging them on corporate bankruptcys.

But just show me one leader or officer of a fortune 500 company or in goverment who made his bones a community college? I know all my companies leadership comes from schools costing $35,000 a year total, far below the undergraduate maximuns of $5000.

Someday you may realise over the last 20 years transfer of wealth is from poor and middle class to the rich not the other way around.
Continue your flag waving though if it makes you feel better but know you will always work for a living until you understand how economics realy work in this country.

You think that paltry AFDC/student grant buget of around 120 billion/2.4 trillion is breaking the bank?

I don't know why I bother when people pay no attention to the content of the post and instead reply about things I never said.
I guess changing the subject and making statements that have nothing to do with what I said is a good strategy if you cannot dispute my arguments and opinions.
Did I say everyone can be a CEO of a major corporation?
NO.
I said everyone who wants to and works hard can support themselves and their families.
If you disagree, it might be helpful to point out something in my post that is incorrect and tell us why it is incorrect.
Otherwise, you are simply wasting space by even quoting me.

 

[Ornery]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: Ornery
Ah, this clears things up. Flying the American flag somewhere on the screen makes a news network jingoistic! There ought to be a law...

Read some of the threads on FOX, News Corp. and Rupert Murdoch and get it out of your head that the only thing that makes Fox jingoistic and sensationalist is the flying of the American flag. Feigned ignorance is always a great argument, right?

I'll read a link to a "Jingoistic" news story from Fox. Ball's in your court... PROVE IT!

Edit: Since konichiwa isn't good at providing any more than hot air, this challenge is open to anybody. Let's see the links!

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce

Why didn't we use the 100 billion that this war is costing to build more homeless shelters and drug clinics in the US?

Because I am willing to spend my tax money to help rid the world of a dictator who enjoys using the murder, rape, and torture of men, women and children to stay in power and keep his people oppressed and impoverished. And who has admitted having tons of chemical and biological weapons, a nuclear weapons development program, and who hates America.

I do NOT want my tax money being given to lazy people so they don't have to work. I do NOT want my tax money being used for someone to go to a drug rehab for the 10th time at $5000 a pop. I do NOT want my tax money paying for someone's methadone because they are too weak minded and selfish to stay off heroin without it.

I do not want to live in a society where people are punished for working hard and being succesful and are rewarded for sitting on their lazy asses and doing NOTHING. I want to live in a society where personal responsibility and hard work mean something.

Does it ease your selfish mind to tell yourself that everyone who is impoverished deserves it?

Did I use the word "everyone"?
Did I say anyone "deserved" it?
If so, could you please show me where?
Does it ease your mind to mis-state peoples posts to try to make some political point?

Let me clarify a few things.

First, I'm not talking about other countries. I'm talking about the U.S.

Second, I'm not talking about mentally ill people. A large portion of the homeless in the U.S. are mentally ill and we have a moral duty to help these people. Although many of these mentally ill homeless people don't want our help and choose to live on the streets.

Third, I am not opposed to all welfare. I think as a country, we should help each other out in times of need. Nobody should have to go without food or medical care. I am actually fairly liberal when it comes to medical care. We need to find better ways of doing it, but I think medical care is a basic human right. So I am not opposed to the concept of those who can afford it, helping those who cannot.

But I see rampant abuse of this system. I see able-bodied, able-minded people getting HUD to pay their rent and food stamps to buy their food, and government subisidies to pay their utility bills, while they are taking one art class in college once a week and spending the rest of their time mountain biking, playing music, going on vacations, and just sitting at home. When I'm working 50 hours a week, getting no government help, and paying 25% of my paycheck in taxes, it pisses me off. Does that make me selfish? I don't think so. I agree that the 60% of Americans that actually pay taxes should be helping the rest, but that does not mean taking care of them for life so they don't have to work. Not all impoverished people are lazy. But a very large number of the ones living off of my tax money are. Hell, I occasionally think about quitting my job and collecting welfare and food stamps instead. I don't blame them. They are simply taking advantage of the system that is there.

The simple fact that many liberals will not admit, is that virtually everyone in this country, no matter what their background or situation has the opportunity to be prosperous and take care of themselves. We hear all these arguments about how poor people just can't afford to go to college. This is spouted off by liberal politicians so much that many poor people end up believing it. The fact is, our government provides financial aid to anyone who needs it and wants it. No, people who come from subpar elementary and high schools are not as likely to get into Harvard or MIT. But there are thousands and thousands of community colleges in this country with NO minimum academic requirements. No matter what your early education is like, anyone who wants to can go to community college and the government will pay for part of it and loan you the rest of the money, living expenses included. Two years of working hard at community college will get you into 90% of the countries Universities. Tell me one reason why this is not an option for anyone in this country. Even without college, anyone who is willing to work hard can get a job and make a living. Enough to support themselves and their families.

People have choices. People can overcome disadvantages. This country has the greatest opportunity of any in the world. The problem is that there are too many liberals telling people they are victims, disadvantaged, and need government help. These people listen and believe it. It is always much easier to blame your problems and situation on someone else rather than taking "personal responsibility". And it is way too easy for people to live off the government instead of supporting themselves and their own families

It's easy to group impoverished people into one large lump of lazy bums whose only goal in life is to exploit YOU for YOUR hard-earned money. Most of the time, it isn't as cut and dry as "just try harder." Sure, you can pull examples of people who were born into poverty and have pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps and are now CEOs or Judges or whatever. But the vast, vast majority of children born into poor (below the poverty line) homes never make anything of themselves and end up in jail, prison or on the street. To suggest that the maybe hundred people who go mountain biking while collecting government subsidies represents the whole of the millions of destitute people in the US is assinine and obtuse.

Do you read? Just curious because again, you misrepresent what I said in very clear terms and make no attempt to argue with any points I made.
I did not group everyone together. All I said was that there are way too many people who live off the system because it is easy. And again, I am not talking about everyone becoming CEO's or judges. I am talking about everyone having the opportunity to support themselves if they work hard. Do you know what opportunity means? Because I never said the majority of children born into poor homes would be rich and successul. I said everyone has the opportunity. The opportunity is there. That does not mean everyone will take advantage of that opportunity. That is the problem. Why is it my responsibility to take care of those who choose not to take advantage of that opportunity?

And if you think there are only a hundred people who live off the government because they don't feel like working, you need to open your eyes. Because in one town of 18,000 people that I lived in for 2 years, I met at least 50 of them. All of them got government assistance not because they truly needed it, but because they didn't want to work. Again, I didn't say all poor people. I said way too many. I also saw single mothers who could not afford childcare with the amount of money they would earn by working. Many of them were really in a tough place through no fault of their own or as a result of making the mistake of sleeping with a loser guy. Either way, they needed some help. If you had read my post, or understood any of what I said, you would have seen that I am not against helping people who need it. I just don't think we should be helping the people who don't need it.

Now maybe lazy is the wrong word. Maybe smart is a better word. They are smart enough to take advantage of the system to support them while I'm being dumb by working when you don't have to in this country. ONCE AGAIN, I DIDNT SAY EVERYONE, I SAID WAY TOO MANY PEOPLE. GET IT?

If anyone disagrees with me, it would be much more useful to actually point out something I have said that was wrong. So far, nobody has said anything to dispute my argument that virtually everyone in this country has the opportunity to earn their own living if they CHOOSE to take advantage of it and work hard.

 

[Ornery]

WTF did Electrode go? If nobody else can provide the link(s) I asked for, he flippin better be able to, since he started this lame ass topic.

 

[Zebo]

So far, nobody has said anything to dispute my argument that virtually everyone in this country has the opportunity to earn their own living if they CHOOSE to take advantage of it and work hard.

Maybe you missed all the very high skilled folks who have been looking for work they show daily on the evening news? Or you don't know about how Milton Friedman won a Nobel Prize for his discovery of the "natural rate of unemployment". I don't know what you problem is but I thought these things were generally taken for granted and did'nt need "proof" everytime they were uttered.

The point in my post was to illustrate life is'nt equal opportunity and I misunderstood you thought it was. Opportunity yes I agree (thanks to populist reforms to the capalist system). Also i was illustrating while you bitch about the tiny amounts the poor and students are grifting off the tax payer the rich do it even more so perhaps you should also include them in your compaining.

 

[IGBT]

According to NPR/Walter Cronkite special..Syria has been in the terrorism racket for years.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

So far, nobody has said anything to dispute my argument that virtually everyone in this country has the opportunity to earn their own living if they CHOOSE to take advantage of it and work hard.

Maybe you missed all the very high skilled folks who have been looking for work they show daily on the evening news? Or you don't know about how Milton Friedman won a Nobel Prize for his discovery of the "natural rate of unemployment". I don't know what you problem is but I thought these things were generally taken for granted and did'nt need "proof" everytime they were uttered.

The point in my post was to illustrate life is'nt equal opportunity and I misunderstood you thought it was. Opportunity yes I agree (thanks to populist reforms to the capalist system). Also i was illustrating while you bitch about the tiny amounts the poor and students are grifting off the tax payer the rich do it even more so perhaps you should also include them in your compaining.

My initial comments were simply to point out why I supported paying for the war while I do NOT think we need more of our tax money going to homeless shelters and drug clinics. I never said we shouldn't pay taxes or that we should cut all welfare. And I don't think the amount is tiny.

And what do you mean by the rich grifting off the tax payer. They ARE the tax payers. The wealthiest 1% of Americans pay more than 1/3 of all federal taxes. The wealthiest 5% pay more than half of all federal taxes. Why would I complain about the rich. They are the ones with by far the biggest tax burden. They are the ones who make everything this government spends money on possible. Do those 5% of Americans use half of all the federal services? I don't think so. They use less than 5% because they don't need the services. So what you have here is the wealthy americans footing the bill for the poor. I'm not saying they shouldn't help out, but come on. How fair is that?

I love it when liberals complain that a tax cut benefits the rich and not the poor. Of course, the rich are the ones paying the taxes. The poor pay virtually no taxes.

When I made 12,000 one year, I got a $3500 refund. And I had only had about 200 witheld from my checks. So not only do the poor not pay any taxes, but many of them get tax money back that they didn't even pay. How's that for redistributing the wealth from the rich to the poor.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: IGBT
According to NPR/Walter Cronkite special..Syria has been in the terrorism racket for years.

According to anyone with an IQ over a rusted can of dog food they have been in the business of funding terrorism, but then again 99.99% of the Middle East funds terrorism. Hell, Saudi Arabia is supposedly our friend and ally, they even allow us to have a military base there.... Of course their state religion advocates the killing of all jews and infidels, not to mention that 2/3 of the 9-11 suicide attackers were from Saudi Arabia....

Only proves that religious dictatorships are dangerous and need to be eliminated wherever they stand.