If liberals care more for the little guy, why do conservatives give more to charity?

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: HomeAppraiser
Cheney donated his Halliburton blood money to take advantage of the 2005 Katrina tax loop hole that allowed 100% of his gift to reduce his tax burden. He is no saint, but neither are the Democrats or any politician for that matter. So can we stop the page long posts of name calling and "just all try to get along"?

Are you dead, retarded, or do you just like to ignore the facts, which were clearly laid out for you.

Cheney's donation had absolutely no effect whatsoever on his tax rate. He would have paid exactly the same amount in taxes on his income had he not made the donation. Katrina had nothing to do with it. If you look at the numbers, he received a 25% tax write off on that donation, which directly offset the portion of the donation
which he was taxed on. This left it a tax neutral transaction.

You saw the math, you tried unsuccessfully to dispute it, and now you keep spouting your BS like it never happened. We can't "all get along" as long as you keep posting lies.

Stop talking about something if you obviously have no intent of representing the truth of the matter.

I concede that you are right about Cheney's tax rate not being as effected as it appears (even though his tax bracket dictates that he pay about 35% and not the 27% that he did).

But this still brings up a simple question for you.....

If Cheney didn't slimely take advantage of the tax loophole created and intended for those that were wanting to help out the Katrina victims....would his REFUND have been as large?

That is where his real morally bankrupt transaction benefited him.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: HomeAppraiser
Cheney donated his Halliburton blood money to take advantage of the 2005 Katrina tax loop hole that allowed 100% of his gift to reduce his tax burden. He is no saint, but neither are the Democrats or any politician for that matter. So can we stop the page long posts of name calling and "just all try to get along"?

Are you dead, retarded, or do you just like to ignore the facts, which were clearly laid out for you.

Cheney's donation had absolutely no effect whatsoever on his tax rate. He would have paid exactly the same amount in taxes on his income had he not made the donation. Katrina had nothing to do with it. If you look at the numbers, he received a 25% tax write off on that donation, which directly offset the portion of the donation
which he was taxed on. This left it a tax neutral transaction.

You saw the math, you tried unsuccessfully to dispute it, and now you keep spouting your BS like it never happened. We can't "all get along" as long as you keep posting lies.

Stop talking about something if you obviously have no intent of representing the truth of the matter.

I concede that you are right about Cheney's tax rate not being as effected as it appears (even though his tax bracket dictates that he pay about 35% and not the 27% that he did).

But this still brings up a simple question for you.....

If Cheney didn't slimely take advantage of the tax loophole created and intended for those that were wanting to help out the Katrina victims....would his REFUND have been as large?

That is where his real morally bankrupt transaction benefited him.

Oh please, you were one of the many who told me Kerry's 11% tax rate on 5.6 million in 2003 was his duty to pay as little as possible. My my how the opinion changes when it is darth cheney taking advantage of the loopholes.

 

[imported_Crusader]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
You said in an earlier post that republican does not equal conservative and I asked who you voted for. You have vigorously defended Bush and all his policies and want to attack yet another country and expand the Patriot Act.

Obviously you are a republican, not a conservative and that was what I was wondering about.

My Dad is a WW2 vet and has 2 purple hearts. He is very conservative and he was against invading Iraq from the get go. He didn't vote for Bush in the last presidential election and it was probably one of the few (possibly the first) time he never voted a straight GOP ticket. Although he didn't want the GOP to lose control of the House, he was hoping they would lose control of the Senate.

You didnt read my post at all then.

Because I said I'm outraged at how Bush ties the militarys hands. I'm also outraged at how we bend over for terrorists. How weak the Patriot Act is.

How is that "defending" Bush?

You have no point.
I'm UNHAPPY with alot of what Bush has done. Hes NOT conservative. Hes spent alot, and hasnt killed enough to fix the islamic problem.

I'm a conservative, not a republican.
Though I'm not saying its all HIS fault, I believe he'd do more given less political restrains, a large population of useful idiots, a leftist media.. and the communists and socialists who are working very hard to defeat the USA (which equals democracy and capitalism).

I support democracy and capitalism as the way to give the majority of people the best living conditions possible.. Thus I support the USA.


And just to prove a point I said earlier in the thread, about people who are against the USAs mideast actions because we are promoting Democracy and Capitalism?
I just read this today.. Link
"Many European governments, not just Socialist ones, have above all been angered by Bush's war in Iraq and what has been seen as the U.S. failure to work with allies in international affairs."

Its about stopping America from defeating socialism and the leftists in the world and their ideology which fails in real-world practice. Which is available for anyone to see if they care to read a history book.


edit to add- about your dad, old men get foolish in their old age. They want to protect their children. It is ok for THEM to go to war, but they get old and love their children to much. Not to mention they are easily confused and with a leftist fear-mongering media they are fooled into becoming useful idiots.
Its sad, but old people are just, old. They dont drive well either.. you shouldnt take their 80+ year old mind as the best judge of a geopolitical situation.

Some things ARE worth dying for, mainly your family. Which is what a nation is an extension of. Esp if you are a nationalist..
and we return to the fundamental differences between a socialist liberal who believes nationalism is outdated and unnecessary.. and more traditional conservatives who believe that democracy, capitalism.. and the nation-state is the best way to provide the best way of life for the majority of the people.

Its clear it is, from real world results. The USA is a perfect example. I'm very happy having the opportunities I have as an American. Love this country, I bet you and the leftists here wish you had a strong belief in the nation-state so you could wave the flag as well with the rest of us who love this nation.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Crusader
Hes spent alot, and hasnt killed enough to fix the islamic problem.

Right. Because killing muslims is really gonna do a lot. Its not like theres over a billion of them or anything.

Originally posted by: Crusader
Though I'm not saying its all HIS fault, I believe he'd do more given less political restrains, a large population of useful idiots, a leftist media.. and the communists and socialists who are working very hard to defeat the USA (which equals democracy and capitalism).

Naturally the "leftist media" is just a communist conspiracy to take over the USA. Lol.

Originally posted by: Crusader
And just to prove a point I said earlier in the thread, about people who are against the USAs mideast actions because we are promoting Democracy and Capitalism?

Do you honestly believe that we invaded Iraq to promote Democracy? Do you realize that some of our allies in our "War on Terror" are just as evil as Iraq was pre-invasion? Iraq was invaded purely for political reasons. Here's a quote from Donald Rumsfeld himself. "We urge you to... enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power." Linky

Originally posted by: Crusader
Which is available for anyone to see if they care to read a history book.

A rather ironic statement considering that a history book would clearly show us that trying to spread Democracy through bloodshed is destined for failure.

Originally posted by: Crusader
Love this country, I bet you and the leftists here wish you had a strong belief in the nation-state so you could wave the flag as well with the rest of us who love this nation.

Who's been indoctrinating you with this bullshit? Liberals love this country just as much as you do. I don't oppose the War in Iraq because they I America. I oppose the War in Iraq because I love America. I don't want to see our country go down the gutter because we got stuck in a stupid war. We've poured billions into Iraq and have ignored security issues here. Are our train systems secure? Not at all. Are our cargo systems secure? Not at all. Are our airplanes secure? The answer is no, according to undercover security tests. Whats the point of confronting the terrorists in their homeland if they can easily just walk into ours?

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: HomeAppraiser
Cheney donated his Halliburton blood money to take advantage of the 2005 Katrina tax loop hole that allowed 100% of his gift to reduce his tax burden. He is no saint, but neither are the Democrats or any politician for that matter. So can we stop the page long posts of name calling and "just all try to get along"?

Are you dead, retarded, or do you just like to ignore the facts, which were clearly laid out for you.

Cheney's donation had absolutely no effect whatsoever on his tax rate. He would have paid exactly the same amount in taxes on his income had he not made the donation. Katrina had nothing to do with it. If you look at the numbers, he received a 25% tax write off on that donation, which directly offset the portion of the donation
which he was taxed on. This left it a tax neutral transaction.

You saw the math, you tried unsuccessfully to dispute it, and now you keep spouting your BS like it never happened. We can't "all get along" as long as you keep posting lies.

Stop talking about something if you obviously have no intent of representing the truth of the matter.

I concede that you are right about Cheney's tax rate not being as effected as it appears (even though his tax bracket dictates that he pay about 35% and not the 27% that he did).

But this still brings up a simple question for you.....

If Cheney didn't slimely take advantage of the tax loophole created and intended for those that were wanting to help out the Katrina victims....would his REFUND have been as large?

That is where his real morally bankrupt transaction benefited him.

Again...

This refund returns the Cheneys to a neutral position of no personal financial benefit or financial detriment resulting from the transactions under the Gift Administration Agreement. Thus, the Cheneys received no financial benefit from the stock options.

It's as if the stock options went straight to the charity, without even touching Cheney. think of it that way.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Oh please, you were one of the many who told me Kerry's 11% tax rate on 5.6 million in 2003 was his duty to pay as little as possible. My my how the opinion changes when it is darth cheney taking advantage of the loopholes.

I'm sure that you won't have a problem producing that post from me, will ya?

 

[imported_Crusader]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Crusader
Hes spent alot, and hasnt killed enough to fix the islamic problem.

Right. Because killing muslims is really gonna do a lot. Its not like theres over a billion of them or anything.

I dont know what the final solution is. But what we havent raised death tolls on their side high enough to have conclusive evidence that it wont work.
Obviously if we kill them all, the problem is solved.. and thats within the realm of possiblity.
But something must be done here.

Originally posted by: Crusader
Though I'm not saying its all HIS fault, I believe he'd do more given less political restrains, a large population of useful idiots, a leftist media.. and the communists and socialists who are working very hard to defeat the USA (which equals democracy and capitalism).

Naturally the "leftist media" is just a communist conspiracy to take over the USA. Lol.

No, but they are leftists and thus would prefer the far left dominate, than center or center-right.
Good journalism is about attempting to remove as much of your personal bias as possible.
I dont think Dan Rather did that.

Originally posted by: Crusader
And just to prove a point I said earlier in the thread, about people who are against the USAs mideast actions because we are promoting Democracy and Capitalism?

Do you honestly believe that we invaded Iraq to promote Democracy? Do you realize that some of our allies in our "War on Terror" are just as evil as Iraq was pre-invasion? Iraq was invaded purely for political reasons. Here's a quote from Donald Rumsfeld himself. "We urge you to... enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power." Linky

If you dont think a large part of the Iraqi invasion was to promote democracy.. you dont know much about diehard neocons behind it. Such as Richard Perl, Wolfowitz ect.

Yes, they do have a firm and stout (and rather admirable) POV on expanding democracy.

I'm sorry that bursts your leftist agenda bubble of all right wingers being somehow "bad" and "evil".. but its the truth. Lots of leftists and right-wingers like myself respect that crowd.

Its the morons that are like NEOCON BAD MAN! NEOCON BAD MAN! That is pathetic, and ignorant.

Originally posted by: Crusader
Which is available for anyone to see if they care to read a history book.

A rather ironic statement considering that a history book would clearly show us that trying to spread Democracy through bloodshed is destined for failure.

Whys that pretell?
It worked with Christianity.

I dont follow your logic.

Originally posted by: Crusader
Love this country, I bet you and the leftists here wish you had a strong belief in the nation-state so you could wave the flag as well with the rest of us who love this nation.

Who's been indoctrinating you with this bullshit? Liberals love this country just as much as you do. I don't oppose the War in Iraq because they I America. I oppose the War in Iraq because I love America. I don't want to see our country go down the gutter because we got stuck in a stupid war. We've poured billions into Iraq and have ignored security issues here. Are our train systems secure? Not at all. Are our cargo systems secure? Not at all. Are our airplanes secure? The answer is no, according to undercover security tests. Whats the point of confronting the terrorists in their homeland if they can easily just walk into ours?

Its not bullshit.. how much do you actually know about Western political history?

Just as a quick source, wikipedia will work for this conversation-
"Political movements of the left have often been suspicious of nationalism, again without necessarily seeking the disappearance of the existing nation-states. Marxism has been ambiguous towards the nation-state, and in the late 19th century some Marxist theorists rejected it completely. For some Marxists the world revolution implied a global state (or global absence of state); for others it meant that each nation-state had its own revolution. A significant event in this context was the failure of the social-democratic and socialist movements in Europe to mobilise a cross-border workers' opposition to World War I. At present most, but certainly not all, left-wing groups accept the nation-state, and see it as the political arena for their activities."
source

So no its not DEFINITIVE all liberals and leftists are against nationalism and the nation-state wholly.. but it is a MAJOR force in leftist dogma.
Enough that I'm convinced that leftists on the whole, need to be stopped.

As far as the rest of your post about port security ect, I would actually agree with it.. besides the fact that Bush HAS kept us safe for the past 6 years, therefore I am inclined to give credit where its due.

President Bush HAS indeed done a great job keeping us safe, hes the man in charge who gets ripped when something goes wrong.. and he deserves to be praised when something goes right. He is the man in charge, afterall and I hate it when he only gets the negative press that he deserves.

This is interesting, I'm getting actual points and not just hate from leftists here. Very interesting.. but strange.
I'm expecting the hate to flow in any second, and the conversation points to end soon. I probably am a bad man (I dont support the welfare state, this is true ) after all.

edit to add- and since you want to stop people from walking in our country, you want to shut down illegal immigration with me and the rest of the right wing.. correct? Cuz we've been pissed at Bush for that.. for a LONG time now. :thumbsdown:

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Crusader

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
You said in an earlier post that republican does not equal conservative and I asked who you voted for. You have vigorously defended Bush and all his policies and want to attack yet another country and expand the Patriot Act.

Obviously you are a republican, not a conservative and that was what I was wondering about.

My Dad is a WW2 vet and has 2 purple hearts. He is very conservative and he was against invading Iraq from the get go. He didn't vote for Bush in the last presidential election and it was probably one of the few (possibly the first) time he never voted a straight GOP ticket. Although he didn't want the GOP to lose control of the House, he was hoping they would lose control of the Senate.

You didnt read my post at all then.

Because I said I'm outraged at how Bush ties the militarys hands. I'm also outraged at how we bend over for terrorists. How weak the Patriot Act is.

How is that "defending" Bush?

You have no point.
I'm UNHAPPY with alot of what Bush has done. Hes NOT conservative. Hes spent alot, and hasnt killed enough to fix the islamic problem.

I'm a conservative, not a republican.
Though I'm not saying its all HIS fault, I believe he'd do more given less political restrains, a large population of useful idiots, a leftist media.. and the communists and socialists who are working very hard to defeat the USA (which equals democracy and capitalism).

I support democracy and capitalism as the way to give the majority of people the best living conditions possible.. Thus I support the USA.


And just to prove a point I said earlier in the thread, about people who are against the USAs mideast actions because we are promoting Democracy and Capitalism?
I just read this today.. Link
"Many European governments, not just Socialist ones, have above all been angered by Bush's war in Iraq and what has been seen as the U.S. failure to work with allies in international affairs."

Its about stopping America from defeating socialism and the leftists in the world and their ideology which fails in real-world practice. Which is available for anyone to see if they care to read a history book.


edit to add- about your dad, old men get foolish in their old age. They want to protect their children. It is ok for THEM to go to war, but they get old and love their children to much. Not to mention they are easily confused and with a leftist fear-mongering media they are fooled into becoming useful idiots.
Its sad, but old people are just, old. They dont drive well either.. you shouldnt take their 80+ year old mind as the best judge of a geopolitical situation.

Some things ARE worth dying for, mainly your family. Which is what a nation is an extension of. Esp if you are a nationalist..
and we return to the fundamental differences between a socialist liberal who believes nationalism is outdated and unnecessary.. and more traditional conservatives who believe that democracy, capitalism.. and the nation-state is the best way to provide the best way of life for the majority of the people.

Its clear it is, from real world results. The USA is a perfect example. I'm very happy having the opportunities I have as an American. Love this country, I bet you and the leftists here wish you had a strong belief in the nation-state so you could wave the flag as well with the rest of us who love this nation.

You have the same problem Bush has, you think since you live in the most powerfull naiton in the world that your ****** don't stink. I think there is no poorer example of an American then one who hides behind flag waving and quaint notions of nationalism.

You claim to be a "conservative", yet you spout crap like this:

"I'm UNHAPPY with alot of what Bush has done. Hes NOT conservative. Hes spent alot, and hasnt killed enough to fix the islamic problem."

So Bush hasn't gotten enough death out of each dollar? Is that what you think it means to be a conservative? The conservative view is one of having a strong DEFENSE, not a strong offense. A true conservative doesn't support going around making pre-emptive strikes without absolute proof that there is a real danger. Bush made up stories to start this war and yet you still support him. That makes you as guilty (or as stupid) as he is. In either case, your not following the conservative ideal and your certainly not a conservative.

Now, about your comment:

"edit to add- about your dad, old men get foolish in their old age. They want to protect their children. It is ok for THEM to go to war, but they get old and love their children to much. Not to mention they are easily confused and with a leftist fear-mongering media they are fooled into becoming useful idiots.
Its sad, but old people are just, old. They dont drive well either.. you shouldnt take their 80+ year old mind as the best judge of a geopolitical situation."

Perhaps if you had any real experience at war (besides playing America's Army) you would be singing a different tune. Just last week-end my Dad, my brother, and myself were sitting in the trailer house at the farm toasting to the conclusion of a very sucesseful deer hunt.

During our disscussion I brought up the fact that I had been looking on Ebay for over a year to buy a bayonet for my M-1 Garand and they had come up 50% in price in the last year, especially the ones with the 16 inch blades which is what I want. That started my Dad remeniescing about when he qualified for bayonet back in boot camp. He said he looked at his 16 inch bayonet and asked himself "What the hell did I get myself into??".

I think you could learn alot by being put into a similar situation, that is why I support re-instating the draft. So many of the tough guy, "keyboard warriors" would be singing a different tune if their was even a slight chance they would actually have to risk their lives in defense of this country. I firmly believe that if GWB had actually been to war himself (instead of using his daddie's political coonnections to get him in the infamous "playboy squadron" of the TANG) he might not have been so quick to play tough guy with other people's lives.

You think they wanted to go to war? We were attacked and they had no choice but to go to war. I beilief we were jsutified in going into Afghanistan, but invading Iraq was a big, big, mistake and you are lying to yourself in order to justify it in your mind.

 

[Craig234]

I'm not going to say much about Crusader's post of evil here for now, but I'm having a hard time recalling someone who more represents evil.

He doesn't know it; but that's typical of many of the most evil people in history. They nearly all had some 'good cause' and would say they were battling evil.

I dont know what the final solution is. But what we havent raised death tolls on their side high enough to have conclusive evidence that it wont work.
Obviously if we kill them all, the problem is solved.. and thats within the realm of possiblity.

Apparently you *do* think you know what the 'final solution' is, Herr Crusader.

How could he set himself up that badly with that phrasing?

I also love how the 25 year old kool-aid drinking ideologue generalizes about 'old men' who lack the ability to comment on world affairs, rather than recognizning it's the young idiot men his age who have always been easily manipulated to serve any evil leader du jour, and it's the older men who have the perspective to see through the manipulations.

Do I need to break out the quotes from the highest decorated marine in US history at the time, General Smedley Butler, who at his retirement at serving for decades in many conflicts, wrote that "War is a racket" - the title of his book - and how he had come to see that his long list of battles was nothing more than serving wealthy men by killing people in their way? I'm sure all the young soldiers better understood the conflict than he did.

Crusader may be capable enough that with several years of maturing and learning under his belt, he comes to feel great shame about his words now.

It seems clear that the arrogance which causes 'absolute power to corrupt absolutely', the same attitude which had Europeans convinced they were justified in wiping out tens of millions in native civiliations in the Americas or the Nazis convinced of the same regarding non-Aryans or the Japanese with some other Asians and so on, is strong in 'Crusader'. He's clearly someone with an utterly bankrupt sense of perspective and morality who fails to treat his fellow human beings with the respect they deserve.

And his hiding behind 'democracy and capitalism', as if they have any justification for his 'voting' under democracy to call for killing masses of other human beings.

I guess I said a bit more than I'd planned.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Genx87

Oh please, you were one of the many who told me Kerry's 11% tax rate on 5.6 million in 2003 was his duty to pay as little as possible. My my how the opinion changes when it is darth cheney taking advantage of the loopholes.

I'm sure that you won't have a problem producing that post from me, will ya?

I wont dig up your dirt. You can prove me wrong by saying Kerry is as big or bigger a scam artist as Darth Cheney.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Genx87

Oh please, you were one of the many who told me Kerry's 11% tax rate on 5.6 million in 2003 was his duty to pay as little as possible. My my how the opinion changes when it is darth cheney taking advantage of the loopholes.

I'm sure that you won't have a problem producing that post from me, will ya?

I wont dig up your dirt. You can prove me wrong by saying Kerry is as big or bigger a scam artist as Darth Cheney.

Absent the original post, he can contradict you simply by denying that it was Kerry's duty to pay as little as possible, well below the 'as bad as Cheney' comment you ask for.

I have few if any concerns about in this area - my concerns are about his horrible policies as an elected official, and the revolving door between government and business.

If anyone can't see the problem between Cheney being completely pro-sanction, pro-war on Iraq as VP, but having lobbied the government to allow him to profit off of Iraq by ending the sanctions while CEO of Halliburton - that's unfortunate. We cannot afford to have these businesses with vast sums of profits to make to be able to pay government officials with bribes disguised as jobs later or even actual, lucrative jobs, which can compromised their loyalty to the public while representing the public.

It's an atrocious disaster which corrupts our political system.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Genx87

Oh please, you were one of the many who told me Kerry's 11% tax rate on 5.6 million in 2003 was his duty to pay as little as possible. My my how the opinion changes when it is darth cheney taking advantage of the loopholes.

I'm sure that you won't have a problem producing that post from me, will ya?

I wont dig up your dirt. You can prove me wrong by saying Kerry is as big or bigger a scam artist as Darth Cheney.

I would help you pulling up that previous post of mine....but it doesn't exist so it might be a little difficult.

As for Kerry's actions....when it comes to their money, I wouldn't trust a politician to be ethical any more than I would trust a cannibal to turn vegetarian.

I honestly don't have much of a problem with Cheney only paying 27% as opposed to his bracket's mandated 35%. What I take issue with is the bullsh1t mis characterization of this as something other than him trying to a) avoid future tax penalties and/or b) him trying to maximize a refund by unethically (not illegally however) circumventing the tax laws that were intended to be write offs for donations to help the Katrina victims.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Genx87

Oh please, you were one of the many who told me Kerry's 11% tax rate on 5.6 million in 2003 was his duty to pay as little as possible. My my how the opinion changes when it is darth cheney taking advantage of the loopholes.

I'm sure that you won't have a problem producing that post from me, will ya?

I wont dig up your dirt. You can prove me wrong by saying Kerry is as big or bigger a scam artist as Darth Cheney.

I would help you pulling up that previous post of mine....but it doesn't exist so it might be a little difficult.

As for Kerry's actions....when it comes to their money, I wouldn't trust a politician to be ethical any more than I would trust a cannibal to turn vegetarian.

I honestly don't have much of a problem with Cheney only paying 27% as opposed to his bracket's mandated 35%. What I take issue with is the bullsh1t mis characterization of this as something other than him trying to a) avoid future tax penalties and/or b) him trying to maximize a refund by unethically (not illegally however) circumventing the tax laws that were intended to be write offs for donations to help the Katrina victims.

You still have yet to show any of that. I laid it out clear as day, and you can't see the writing right in front of your face.

How would you feel about this situation if Cheney's stock options were revoked, and the exact same options were given to a charitable organization, tax free?

 

[sothsegger]

Originally posted by: daniel49
cheney $6.87 million dollars to charity in 2005
Gore when he was VP in 1997? $367.00
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1623660/posts

null

"Liberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable"

Liberals are not as rich as corporate capitalist conservatives.

 

[imported_Crusader]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Crusader

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
You said in an earlier post that republican does not equal conservative and I asked who you voted for. You have vigorously defended Bush and all his policies and want to attack yet another country and expand the Patriot Act.

Obviously you are a republican, not a conservative and that was what I was wondering about.

My Dad is a WW2 vet and has 2 purple hearts. He is very conservative and he was against invading Iraq from the get go. He didn't vote for Bush in the last presidential election and it was probably one of the few (possibly the first) time he never voted a straight GOP ticket. Although he didn't want the GOP to lose control of the House, he was hoping they would lose control of the Senate.

You didnt read my post at all then.

Because I said I'm outraged at how Bush ties the militarys hands. I'm also outraged at how we bend over for terrorists. How weak the Patriot Act is.

How is that "defending" Bush?

You have no point.
I'm UNHAPPY with alot of what Bush has done. Hes NOT conservative. Hes spent alot, and hasnt killed enough to fix the islamic problem.

I'm a conservative, not a republican.
Though I'm not saying its all HIS fault, I believe he'd do more given less political restrains, a large population of useful idiots, a leftist media.. and the communists and socialists who are working very hard to defeat the USA (which equals democracy and capitalism).

I support democracy and capitalism as the way to give the majority of people the best living conditions possible.. Thus I support the USA.


And just to prove a point I said earlier in the thread, about people who are against the USAs mideast actions because we are promoting Democracy and Capitalism?
I just read this today.. Link
"Many European governments, not just Socialist ones, have above all been angered by Bush's war in Iraq and what has been seen as the U.S. failure to work with allies in international affairs."

Its about stopping America from defeating socialism and the leftists in the world and their ideology which fails in real-world practice. Which is available for anyone to see if they care to read a history book.


edit to add- about your dad, old men get foolish in their old age. They want to protect their children. It is ok for THEM to go to war, but they get old and love their children to much. Not to mention they are easily confused and with a leftist fear-mongering media they are fooled into becoming useful idiots.
Its sad, but old people are just, old. They dont drive well either.. you shouldnt take their 80+ year old mind as the best judge of a geopolitical situation.

Some things ARE worth dying for, mainly your family. Which is what a nation is an extension of. Esp if you are a nationalist..
and we return to the fundamental differences between a socialist liberal who believes nationalism is outdated and unnecessary.. and more traditional conservatives who believe that democracy, capitalism.. and the nation-state is the best way to provide the best way of life for the majority of the people.

Its clear it is, from real world results. The USA is a perfect example. I'm very happy having the opportunities I have as an American. Love this country, I bet you and the leftists here wish you had a strong belief in the nation-state so you could wave the flag as well with the rest of us who love this nation.

You have the same problem Bush has, you think since you live in the most powerfull naiton in the world that your ****** don't stink. I think there is no poorer example of an American then one who hides behind flag waving and quaint notions of nationalism.

I have the same problem that Bush has, which according to you.. I'm to patriotic? Conservatives dont stand behind the flag, they stand next to it.
Not burn it.

This is a great and powerful nation, I'm sorry to break it to you. For a liberal to exist and thrive, this must be disproven and negated in everyway possible.

You claim to be a "conservative", yet you spout crap like this:

"I'm UNHAPPY with alot of what Bush has done. Hes NOT conservative. Hes spent alot, and hasnt killed enough to fix the islamic problem."

So Bush hasn't gotten enough death out of each dollar? Is that what you think it means to be a conservative? The conservative view is one of having a strong DEFENSE, not a strong offense. A true conservative doesn't support going around making pre-emptive strikes without absolute proof that there is a real danger. Bush made up stories to start this war and yet you still support him. That makes you as guilty (or as stupid) as he is. In either case, your not following the conservative ideal and your certainly not a conservative.

The best defense is a good offense. Now that our eyes were opened after 9/11.. thats the best strategy. They arent going to quit until they win.. why should we.

It wasnt a preemptive strike at all. 9/11 and the attacks before were proof enough.

Now, about your comment:

"edit to add- about your dad, old men get foolish in their old age. They want to protect their children. It is ok for THEM to go to war, but they get old and love their children to much. Not to mention they are easily confused and with a leftist fear-mongering media they are fooled into becoming useful idiots.
Its sad, but old people are just, old. They dont drive well either.. you shouldnt take their 80+ year old mind as the best judge of a geopolitical situation."

Perhaps if you had any real experience at war (besides playing America's Army) you would be singing a different tune. Just last week-end my Dad, my brother, and myself were sitting in the trailer house at the farm toasting to the conclusion of a very sucesseful deer hunt.

Yes yes, you can attack me personally.. that is nice. You are a big man I'm sure.
Sad thing for you is, most of the vietnam vets are conservatives. I grew up around them, they'd string you and your family up by your toes if they caught you out in a bar.

But the fact is, you dont see war worth anything.. not even the defense of your own nation. Not your freedom, not your liberty, and CERTAINLY not your American way of life.. now that is just the epitomy of evil for a liberal.
Not willing to do anything for your nation (while hiding behind your father, which is nice you coward).. thats what makes you a leftist.

During our disscussion I brought up the fact that I had been looking on Ebay for over a year to buy a bayonet for my M-1 Garand and they had come up 50% in price in the last year, especially the ones with the 16 inch blades which is what I want. That started my Dad remeniescing about when he qualified for bayonet back in boot camp. He said he looked at his 16 inch bayonet and asked himself "What the hell did I get myself into??".

I think you could learn alot by being put into a similar situation, that is why I support re-instating the draft. So many of the tough guy, "keyboard warriors" would be singing a different tune if their was even a slight chance they would actually have to risk their lives in defense of this country. I firmly believe that if GWB had actually been to war himself (instead of using his daddie's political coonnections to get him in the infamous "playboy squadron" of the TANG) he might not have been so quick to play tough guy with other people's lives.

Hey you reinstitute the draft, since you supported it you can go on the front line. You and charlie rangel.

I'll certainly go WITH PRIDE if drafted, you pitiful shell of man. You have no sense of pride or dignity, nor self respect.

Nothing besides your own personal safety matters to you.
Yet you are attempting the age-old "you arent in the war therefore you have no credibility!" act.. and unfortuantely for you.. I have just as much of a claim to an opinion as you or anyone else.

At least mine has Americas best interests in concern. Rather than my own personal safety, or hiding behind my father like you.

Our volunteer army is fine, if you dont want to go, then dont sign up. I though, think the Americans that are there deserve far more money (we need to raise defense spending 10fold) and keep your kind (who spit on soldiers that came back from Vietnam) shut up.
Are you even CONSIDERING signing up for the War on Terror? Thought not. I am, and I guarantee I'm more educated than you are and probably have far more potential than you do.

But if the shat ever really hits the fan and we get hit with a dirty nuke (which I believe will happen with our current policy of going easy on the terrorists), I guarantee I'll be the one going to the middle east for the nation.. you will be continuing to hide in your barn with your father talking about how evil our elected President is.
Most likely, you'll run to canada to avoid doing something for the greater good.

You think they wanted to go to war? We were attacked and they had no choice but to go to war. I beilief we were jsutified in going into Afghanistan, but invading Iraq was a big, big, mistake and you are lying to yourself in order to justify it in your mind.

Yes yes.. follow the same old party line. "Afghanistan was OK, but Iraq was JUST TO FAR"..
wel then you should be equally angry at both democrats or republicans then.

Iraq was ALL of Americas idea at the time.. not just the Presidents or congress.

The two types of Americans that exist now are the ones who make hasty decisions like Iraq, then back you (thats you).. and those who believe in following through with what we set out to do (that would be myself and the rest of the right-wing).

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: Crusader
But I fully support our elected officials and our troops. And I am EXTREMELY angered when our troops kill someone they feel is a threat, and they are brought home on MURDER charges.

This is a war. We voted to send them there through our officials and if anyone has a problem with a soldiers conduct, I think they automatically should get to take their place.

Maybe some of these bleeding heart liberals can show us how to fight a "proper war".. since our boys kill "innocents".

Theres no innocents in war, the soldier is acting on our authorization and if he felt someone was a threat (and over there that can be a child).. then I stand behind him all the way.

No more troops charged for crimes during war. They are doing our nations will. And thats my biggest problem with the current administation.

Ok, right there you crossed a huge line. There innocents in war, they are people who are not fighting. When you kill them intentionally, its called murder. It is not a difficult concept to understand, I'm sure you could understand it eventually.

Its a good thing you are too big a coward to serve, because I can imagine how much damage you would do in Iraq to innocent people. Would you be the guy who shoots a kid for sport? Or would you rape a girl then kill her family to cover it up?

If there are no innocents in war, then someone blowing himself up at your house would be perfectly justified. Because, hey, we are at war, and you are an enemy combatant.

Please get out of my country. I mean it, leave. Take your fascist undertones with you.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Crusader
The best defense is a good offense.

No. A better defense is one coupled with a good offense. The problem right now is that we don't have any defense so an offense won't create one. We certainly won't improve our security by attacking Iraq, which had no significance to the war on terror.

Originally posted by: Crusader
Now that our eyes were opened after 9/11.. thats the best strategy. They arent going to quit until they win.. why should we.

I really need to create a thread detailing the realities about Osama's goals. Al-Queda's goal is a purification of Islam. "Fake" Muslims, those who don't follow strict Islamic doctrine, are viewed much more negatively than people like ourselves who have never practiced Islam. Osama's efforts in the middle east have been relatively unsucessful. They had Afghanistan but little else. Most revolutions incited by them or related groups have been unsuccessful. The war on America is a ploy to get people to join their cause. They know that America is viewed negatively by many in the Middle East, so they use us as a focal point to gain new recruits.

Osama's motives really needs a separate thread.

Originally posted by: Crusader
It wasnt a preemptive strike at all. 9/11 and the attacks before were proof enough.

Saddam and Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

Originally posted by: Crusader
But the fact is, you dont see war worth anything.. not even the defense of your own nation.

This is a lie. The vast majority of Americans supported the war in Afghanistan, which was for our own defense. The war in Iraq was not for our own defense by any reasonable standards.

Originally posted by: Crusader
At least mine has Americas best interests in concern.

We all have America's best interests in concern. We just have different methods of achieving our goals

Originally posted by: Crusader
Iraq was ALL of Americas idea at the time.. not just the Presidents or congress.

No it wasn't. It was the idea of most of America's politicians, who, unfortunately, decided to enter a stupid war.

Originally posted by: Crusader
The two types of Americans that exist now are the ones who make hasty decisions like Iraq, then back you (thats you).. and those who believe in following through with what we set out to do (that would be myself and the rest of the right-wing).

The war in Iraq was based off of unrealistic idealist ideas. The administration honestly expected us to be welcomed with open arms, despite strong historical evidence to the contrary. Look at the successful examples of nation rebuilding such as WWII with Japan and Germany or even before that with our own Civil War. What do they all have in common? We didn't just beat the enemy, we destroyed them. What did we do with Japan? We nuked them... twice. What did we do with Germany? We firebombed them and killed millions of civilians. What did the north do in the Civil War? They burned the south to the ground. I'm not saying any of these acts were unjustified, but this is the exact scale of damage we will have to use to "win" in Iraq.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: daniel49
cheney $6.87 million dollars to charity in 2005
Gore when he was VP in 1997? $367.00
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1623660/posts

null

"Liberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable"

Real charities?:roll: Like Barb Bush's Katrina charity where money donated goes into a family member's company?:shocked: Or ones that take out 90%, loses 6%, and passes 4% on to the needy they are collecting for? Who did cheney donate to?:lips:

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: daniel49
cheney $6.87 million dollars to charity in 2005
Gore when he was VP in 1997? $367.00
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1623660/posts

null

"Liberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable"

Real charities?:roll: Like Barb Bush's Katrina charity where money donated goes into a family member's company?:shocked: Or ones that take out 90%, loses 6%, and passes 4% on to the needy they are collecting for? Who did cheney donate to?:lips:

enquiring minds read the whole thread

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Crusader

Hey you reinstitute the draft, since you supported it you can go on the front line. You and charlie rangel.

I'll certainly go WITH PRIDE if drafted, you pitiful shell of man. You have no sense of pride or dignity, nor self respect.

Nothing besides your own personal safety matters to you.
Yet you are attempting the age-old "you arent in the war therefore you have no credibility!" act.. and unfortuantely for you.. I have just as much of a claim to an opinion as you or anyone else.

At least mine has Americas best interests in concern. Rather than my own personal safety, or hiding behind my father like you.

LOL, nice attempt at diverting from my point that your just another keyboard warrior playing tough guy with other people's lives. You will go with PRIDE...... if drafted and sincee we have no draft you can feel pretty safe talking tough with realitive certainity that it won't be you forfieting your life. Your too educated and therefore too smart for that, right? ROFLMFAO!! What drama queens you and your types are.

Our volunteer army is fine, if you dont want to go, then dont sign up. I though, think the Americans that are there deserve far more money (we need to raise defense spending 10fold) and keep your kind (who spit on soldiers that came back from Vietnam) shut up.
Are you even CONSIDERING signing up for the War on Terror? Thought not. I am, and I guarantee I'm more educated than you are and probably have far more potential than you do.

LOL, me sign up?? For a war I don't believe in? Not likely. In the first place that would be your generation's job, unless of course your just a BLOWHARD!! In the second place I haven't been convinced that this nation is in any real danger... except possibly from still wet-behind-the-ears, know-it-all, blowhard brats like you. I swear, I'm constantly amazed at the rationializations that chickenhawks will go to in order to justify that they expect others to do their dirty work for them. Is that what they are teaching you in college these days?

But if the shat ever really hits the fan and we get hit with a dirty nuke (which I believe will happen with our current policy of going easy on the terrorists), I guarantee I'll be the one going to the middle east for the nation.. you will be continuing to hide in your barn with your father talking about how evil our elected President is.
Most likely, you'll run to canada to avoid doing something for the greater good.

So once a dirty nuke hits the US then you will go to the ME. Which country? To fight who?

Well, then why not go right now? That is what you claim this war is all about, to prevent that, but you aren't willing to risk your life until we actually have an event and you get drafted yet you expect others too?? :laugh: Some f'in patriot you are. Hey, you better start waving your flag a little harder beause I see right through you and I really don't like what I see.

You think they wanted to go to war? We were attacked and they had no choice but to go to war. I beilief we were jsutified in going into Afghanistan, but invading Iraq was a big, big, mistake and you are lying to yourself in order to justify it in your mind.

Yes yes.. follow the same old party line. "Afghanistan was OK, but Iraq was JUST TO FAR"..
wel then you should be equally angry at both democrats or republicans then.

Iraq was ALL of Americas idea at the time.. not just the Presidents or congress.

Wrong, it was the neocon chickenhawks idea and was rammed down american's throats with disinformation. Nobody actually voted for invading Iraq, that was your fearless chickenhawk leader's descision. Remember, WMD's... no, a regime change and a democracy, how about "bring it on", and the "now we can fight all the terrorists in one place" strategy. You would have to be an idiot to not see the way they've been using you, but I guess as long as it isn't your ass getting shot at or your life being lost your willing to believe what your told like a good little neocon should.

The two types of Americans that exist now are the ones who make hasty decisions like Iraq, then back you (thats you).. and those who believe in following through with what we set out to do (that would be myself and the rest of the right-wing).

LOL, yeah, but your not willing to actually go to Iraq. I have to admire your "commitment" to finish what you started. :laugh: If you really felt so stongly about the US being nuked and that we could prevent it then you should quit what3ver it is your doing and join up ASAP, otherwise it's all just big talk and everyone knows that talk is cheap.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: daniel49
cheney $6.87 million dollars to charity in 2005
Gore when he was VP in 1997? $367.00
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1623660/posts

null

"Liberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable"

Real charities?:roll: Like Barb Bush's Katrina charity where money donated goes into a family member's company?:shocked: Or ones that take out 90%, loses 6%, and passes 4% on to the needy they are collecting for? Who did cheney donate to?:lips:

enquiring minds read the whole thread

Then show us the big picture. How much money has Cheney donated to charity every year, or was he just taking advantage of the Katrina loophole in order to avoid paying even more in taxes on the income later.

 

[imported_Crusader]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: Crusader
But I fully support our elected officials and our troops. And I am EXTREMELY angered when our troops kill someone they feel is a threat, and they are brought home on MURDER charges.

This is a war. We voted to send them there through our officials and if anyone has a problem with a soldiers conduct, I think they automatically should get to take their place.

Maybe some of these bleeding heart liberals can show us how to fight a "proper war".. since our boys kill "innocents".

Theres no innocents in war, the soldier is acting on our authorization and if he felt someone was a threat (and over there that can be a child).. then I stand behind him all the way.

No more troops charged for crimes during war. They are doing our nations will. And thats my biggest problem with the current administation.

Ok, right there you crossed a huge line. There innocents in war, they are people who are not fighting. When you kill them intentionally, its called murder. It is not a difficult concept to understand, I'm sure you could understand it eventually.

Its a good thing you are too big a coward to serve, because I can imagine how much damage you would do in Iraq to innocent people. Would you be the guy who shoots a kid for sport? Or would you rape a girl then kill her family to cover it up?

If there are no innocents in war, then someone blowing himself up at your house would be perfectly justified. Because, hey, we are at war, and you are an enemy combatant.

Please get out of my country. I mean it, leave. Take your fascist undertones with you.

LOL hey tough guy... feel free to come get me yourself huh?

And no theres a huge difference between prosecuting our own men for murder when they are in a war. We declared war, they should not have their hands tied like they do today. Its wrong.

Since you have a probem with that, you should go take the place of the soldiers who get brought home on charges.
Thats the difference between you and me, you do the talk and wont backup the troops.
I'm not over there either, but at least I'm doing my part in supporting the mission. You are a traitor and you are engaged in sabotaging your nation.

 

[imported_Crusader]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Crusader
The best defense is a good offense.

No. A better defense is one coupled with a good offense. The problem right now is that we don't have any defense so an offense won't create one. We certainly won't improve our security by attacking Iraq, which had no significance to the war on terror.

We'll improve our security by having a presence in the middle east, which will draw the terrorists to our troops. Easy to kill that way. They want us out so bad, and many of you are playing right along.

Originally posted by: Crusader
Now that our eyes were opened after 9/11.. thats the best strategy. They arent going to quit until they win.. why should we.

I really need to create a thread detailing the realities about Osama's goals. Al-Queda's goal is a purification of Islam. "Fake" Muslims, those who don't follow strict Islamic doctrine, are viewed much more negatively than people like ourselves who have never practiced Islam. Osama's efforts in the middle east have been relatively unsucessful. They had Afghanistan but little else. Most revolutions incited by them or related groups have been unsuccessful. The war on America is a ploy to get people to join their cause. They know that America is viewed negatively by many in the Middle East, so they use us as a focal point to gain new recruits.

Osama's motives really needs a separate thread.

Originally posted by: Crusader
It wasnt a preemptive strike at all. 9/11 and the attacks before were proof enough.

Saddam and Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

I dont buy that premise, geopolitics are far more complicated than a simple write-off statement such as that one.
I have many friends from Saudi Arabia, that I talk to daily. Nearly all nations over there would be worthy of invading. The problem is SO big (the islamic problem) that we could pick any nation and invade and make positive progress.
My friends from SA admit readily that their nation needs to be invaded.

Originally posted by: Crusader
But the fact is, you dont see war worth anything.. not even the defense of your own nation.

This is a lie. The vast majority of Americans supported the war in Afghanistan, which was for our own defense. The war in Iraq was not for our own defense by any reasonable standards.

Anytime an American troop is being shot at by a terrorist, they are defending America.. pure and simple. American troops are battling out with terrorists everyday in Iraq.

Originally posted by: Crusader
At least mine has Americas best interests in concern.

We all have America's best interests in concern. We just have different methods of achieving our goals

I might buy that, if your viewpoint is a secular progressive socalist regime/world. That doesnt involve much nationalism though, and if you have America's best interests at heart, you are a nationalist. Furthermore, you'd be right wing.

Originally posted by: Crusader
Iraq was ALL of Americas idea at the time.. not just the Presidents or congress.

No it wasn't. It was the idea of most of America's politicians, who, unfortunately, decided to enter a stupid war.

Politicians you have elected to represent you and me. Any stupid decision any elected official makes reflects on all of us.
And the President and congress hold FAR more authority to act in the name of the people than any king ever could.

Originally posted by: Crusader
The two types of Americans that exist now are the ones who make hasty decisions like Iraq, then back you (thats you).. and those who believe in following through with what we set out to do (that would be myself and the rest of the right-wing).

The war in Iraq was based off of unrealistic idealist ideas. The administration honestly expected us to be welcomed with open arms, despite strong historical evidence to the contrary. Look at the successful examples of nation rebuilding such as WWII with Japan and Germany or even before that with our own Civil War. What do they all have in common? We didn't just beat the enemy, we destroyed them. What did we do with Japan? We nuked them... twice. What did we do with Germany? We firebombed them and killed millions of civilians. What did the north do in the Civil War? They burned the south to the ground. I'm not saying any of these acts were unjustified, but this is the exact scale of damage we will have to use to "win" in Iraq.

Thats what I've been saying!!
And not just in Iraq, the entire middle east would require this. I find the islamic fascist threat an equal one to nazi germany. Both are driven by religous beliefs of sorts, which is far to much of a motivator for my taste. I cant fathom blowing up my own children in the name of God.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: Crusader
[

LOL hey tough guy... feel free to come get me yourself huh?

And no theres a huge difference between prosecuting our own men for murder when they are in a war. We declared war, they should not have their hands tied like they do today. Its wrong.

Since you have a probem with that, you should go take the place of the soldiers who get brought home on charges.
Thats the difference between you and me, you do the talk and wont backup the troops.
I'm not over there either, but at least I'm doing my part in supporting the mission. You are a traitor and you are engaged in sabotaging your nation.

Do you know what happens when soldiers suddenly don't have any rules to follow in combat? Ask the Russians after Germany invaded in WW2, or ask anyone the Japanese captured as well.
Do you want to see proud footage of our soldiers lining people up in front of a wall and then machine gunning them? Starving prisoners? Working them to death? Well, actually, you probably do. I can imagine you watching that footage with a big grin and exclaiming to everyone else how "We show'd them A-RABS something good, look at how that woman with the baby was bayoneted!"

Ha ha, I'm a traitor because I think our soldiers shouldn't be mindless killers and our country shouldn't engage in meaningless wars. That is brilliant 8th grade level thinking there.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Crusader
You are a traitor and you are engaged in sabotaging your nation.

No you're a mouthy punk emboldened by the anonymity of the Internet. What you are advocating is the exact same thing that the Muslim Extremists/Terrorists are advocating except with different victims. The difference is at least they are willing to put their lives on the line however fscked up it is. Both of you are cowards its just that your level of cowardice is higher as you'd have someone else do your dirty work for you