STORM2K

AND JUST WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "PEACE" MY GOOD SIR?

George Bush arrives in England today for a visit with Tony Blair. He will be visiting a country where 60% of the people think that Bush is a threat to world peace, 37% of the people think that he is "stupid" and where only 7% consider Bush to be a world leader.

First ... this "threat to world peace" thing. Remember, my friends, to always try to discern how people are defining words. When a race warlord uses the term "racist" he does not necessarily mean someone who believes in the inherent genetic superiority of one race of people over another. In most cases the word "racist" is now used to describe anyone who voices any opposition to the personal or political agenda of anyone who calls himself a civil rights leader. "Racist" is also used to describe anyone who believes that the government should be colorblind in all matters relating to the treatment of citizens.

During the cold war the Soviet Communists were fond of the "peace" word also. To Soviets "peace" was defined as an absence of opposition to the communist movement. The Soviets and their fellow travelers loudly proclaimed that the USA was a threat to world peace. By their definition they were exactly right. We were, thank god.

So, what do these 60% of Brits who think that Bush is a threat to world peace mean by the word? Dictionary.com defines peace as "the absence of war or other hostilities." Well, we are most certainly at war, a war against Islamic terrorism; and it is George Bush who declared that war and it is George Bush who is pursuing it. George Bush has made it clear that as long as he is in the White House he will pursue and attempt to destroy anyone who threatens the safety and security of Americans either in their homeland or abroad. Islamic terrorists have made their pledge to attack, destroy and kill Americans wherever they find them. They have already attacked us on our soil. Bush has responded with war.

I guess the bottom line here is that there are times when peace is not the goal, when peace is not the preferred state of affairs. When you have a group of well armed and financed religious fanatics, in many cases state sponsored, threatening to kill as many Americans as they can, you have a need to respond ... with force. It's no time for peace. Peace can return when the threat is ended.

I think what the protestors are saying is they fear Bush and the US. Frankly, I have no problem with that.

I don't read it that way at all. I see no indication that the British people are afraid of Bush or the U.S.

http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20031002
http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20031003
http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20031004

I don't feel that everything Clinton (or anyone else does) is right, though.

PaolofromRome wrote:http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20031002
http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20031003
http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20031004

I know...Doonesbury is a satirical Liberal Cartoon. I can find the some junk on Italy (or any place else for that matter):

http://www3.baylor.edu/~Ben_Rogers/Italy/images/italy5.jpg
http://www3.baylor.edu/~Ben_Rogers/Italy/images/italy10.jpg
http://www3.baylor.edu/~Ben_Rogers/Italy/images/italy4.jpg
http://www3.baylor.edu/~Ben_Rogers/Italy/images/italy2.jpg
http://www3.baylor.edu/~Ben_Rogers/Italy/images/italy1.jpg

That's not satyric! That's the truth!!!!

Bush is a power monger just like his old man, he has done little for this country and allot for his power hungery ego, Clinton might have lied about his sexual affairs but he was a GREAT President and our economy showed it.

PaolofromRome wrote:That's not satyric! That's the truth!!!!

Only in your mind. Its an old liberal technique...if you cannot win the arguement with facts then attack the man personally. President Bush has been smart enough to run circles around Democrats and the International Community. I'd take him over EU support anyday.

take it easy jara, I meant that those satirical comics about Italy aere exactly the truth ok? You got it now?

Ciao
Paolo

PaolofromRome wrote:take it easy jara, I meant that those satirical comics about Italy aere exactly the truth ok? You got it now?

Ciao
Paolo

I knew what you meant. My point is take care of your problems and we will handle ours.

So Long!

I knew what you meant. My point is take care of your problems and we will handle ours.

So Long!

That's ok as long as you remain within US bordelines. The way US is moving touches everyone in the world, then I guess we have (at least) the right to say "we agree" or "we disagree".

Imagine how boring is a place where everybody answers "yeah you're right, I'm with you" to everything you say/you do. (I know how to name these places, and you?).

Paolo

CaptinCrunch wrote:Bush is a power monger just like his old man, he has done little for this country and allot for his power hungery ego, Clinton might have lied about his sexual affairs but he was a GREAT President and our economy showed it.

OMG what planet are you from? Everyone knows that it takes a while for the economy to show a turn around. Clinton was reaping the benefits of the previous Bush administration turning the economy around. The economy was on a decline BEFORE Clinton was impeached. Then Bush Jr. came in to clean up the mockery Clinton left on the most important house in the United States. Then 9/11 happened which sent this country in a tail spin. 9/11 would never have happened if Clinton would have handled 8 years of attacks against our people and the attack on our military ship named the USS Cole.

Jara... you can't argue with a radical. You will only drive yourself crazy in doing so. Paolo is not part of this great country so he will never understand what this war is all about. Hopefully he will never experience what we experienced on 9/11 in his country, but it is coming.

To be fair about this is was the 8yrs of Ronald Wilson Reagan, 1981-1989 that got our economy going, Bush Sr. just road out his 1 term on the Reagen eara and William Jefferson Clinton, 1993-2001 keep that economy going and growing. It was not till the last hafe of Clinton's 2nd term that the economy started to decline. Yes it does take time to turn a bad economy into a good one, but after 2yrs in office now what has Bush Jr. done?? but cut taxes for the rich and pass the balance on to the lower income families, and raise the nations det. and start a war all at the same time.

We only have 2yrs left on good old George Bush Jr.

Lindaloo wrote:Paolo is not part of this great country so he will never understand what this war is all about. Hopefully he will never experience what we experienced on 9/11 in his country, but it is coming.

It's coming? I thought you were fighting just to avoid another one! Don't tell me now that we might be unsafe!!!

I might surprise you, I might understand what 9/11 meant. Probably it might be you that don't understand what a big mistake is having attacked Iraq.

First mistake: democracy cannot be imposed, it must be conquested.
Second mistake: Iraq is not an homogeneous country, too many different races (and religions) cohabit.
Third: they live different. Their customs are different. Ask US marine women in Saudi Arabia if they can go out as they normally do (would you say Saudi Arabia is a democratic place?), so how can we impose our idea of democracy there?
Fourth: war on terror means police actions to stop terrorists, not invading a country giving terrorist more strength, turning'em all in martyrs.

CaptinCrunch wrote:To be fair about this is was the 8yrs of Ronald Wilson Reagan, 1981-1989 that got our economy going, Bush Sr. just road out his 1 term on the Reagen eara and William Jefferson Clinton, 1993-2001 keep that economy going and growing. It was not till the last hafe of Clinton's 2nd term that the economy started to decline. Yes it does take time to turn a bad economy into a good one, but after 2yrs in office now what has Bush Jr. done?? but cut taxes for the rich and pass the balance on to the lower income families, and raise the nations det. and start a war all at the same time.

We only have 2yrs left on good old George Bush Jr.

So what you are telling me is that Bush should have given money to the poor who never has to pay taxes? I am confused.

Paolo... talk to the hand buddy.

Lindaloo wrote::lol:

this icon really hurts me!

LMAO!!

Poverty rises, income levels fall

Sept. 26 — In a report that offered fresh ammunition to critics of President Bush’s economic policy, the government said Friday that the nation’s median income fell nearly $500 in 2002 and the poverty rate climbed for a second straight year. Poverty rate at 12.5 percent, up from 11.7 percent in 2002. The unemployment rate has risen from 4 percent to the current 6.1 percent, and the economy has lost a net 950,000 jobs.

Declining federal income taxes had little impact on median household income last year. After adjusting for the impact of taxes, median household income fell 0.8 percent, the bureau said. "The tax cut on dividends would only benefit the minority of stockholders who own stock outside of 401(k)-type retirement accounts. "Workers who hold stock in 401(k) plans would get no tax break whatsoever from a change in the tax treatment of dividends."

When George Bush first took office, he gave wealthy Americans a huge tax cut and called it an “economic stimulus”. Experts predicted huge deficits and called the “economic stimulus” claim bogus. The Republican congress, eager to please the President and their wealthy donors, passed the Bush tax cut anyway.

Over the next year, the economy got weaker while unemployment soared. Interest rates rose. America rightly went after Al Queda in Afghanistan and began a war alone in Iraq— both proving to be more costly than originally thought. Many of us hoped that President Bush would see his tax cut for the mistake that it was and scrap at least part of it in order to meet the challenges that faced the nation.

Instead, George Bush and the congressional Republicans rammed through ANOTHER huge tax cut for the wealthy. It didn’t take experts to predict disaster this time. We, as a nation, are running the highest budget deficit of any country in the history of the world. We are piling up debt for our children faster than at any time in human history.

CaptinCrunch wrote:To be fair about this is was the 8yrs of Ronald Wilson Reagan, 1981-1989 that got our economy going, Bush Sr. just road out his 1 term on the Reagen eara and William Jefferson Clinton, 1993-2001 keep that economy going and growing. It was not till the last hafe of Clinton's 2nd term that the economy started to decline. Yes it does take time to turn a bad economy into a good one, but after 2yrs in office now what has Bush Jr. done?? but cut taxes for the rich and pass the balance on to the lower income families, and raise the nations det. and start a war all at the same time.

We only have 2yrs left on good old George Bush Jr.

R we back to this. Okay...listen now! If you cut taxes, it means you are reducing the tax people pay. This is the only place were we have people who are expected to pay the bulk of taxes but not get the bigger cut if we reduce them.

The Internal Revenue Service issued a report on tax revenues in the year 2000. On average, the people in the upper 10% of wage earners suffered an 18% drop in income do to the slow economy. This resulted in a 6.5% loss in tax revenue. The moral being is if the "rich" get poor, then we will lose tax revenue. The poor actually have an interest in the rich maintaining revenue because its the "poors" money in the form of welfare and entitlements. You cut taxes, this increases income earned and thus income invested causing economic growth. As the economy grows, so do salaries and therefore, tax revenue. You notice that the deficit got smaller during times of economic growth. It works the other way. If there is a 18% growth in income then it is likely there will be a 6% growth in tax revenue.

The marriage penalty is for upper income huh? I pay the marriage penalty and my wife and I make about 70K between us. I do not think I am rich.

Why is the budget in deficit? Here is what comes in:





Here is where it goes:






38% of budget goes to entitlements. Government handouts that only get bigger every year. These handouts were delivered with price tags that seem small at the time but now grow faster then the rate of inflation. Do you see the poor getting less poor because of all this spending? Has education gotten better? How much money do you think it will take? If we continue to expect all things from the government, then a 50% tax rate will not be able to keep up.