"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 07:11:46 -0400, Dave Hall wrote:

In Iraq, there is no superpower supplying arms to the terrorists. Once
we cut off their supply lines completely, they'll soon be reduced to
throwing rocks.

Point taken about arms supply, but I wouldn't underestimate the power of a
rock. A motivated and resourceful enemy will find a way to kill. I think
this has been established in our not so distant past.

Yes. The VC moved quite a lot of material down the Ho Chi Minh trail, with
the stuff strapped to bicycles and pushcarts. They did it wearing sandles
and little not much else but rice.

Tiffany's didn't report record profits in the quarter the tax rebates and
tax cut went into effect...but Wal-mart did. I think you best be consultin'
with some new economics gurus.





"jps" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

Clark's candidacy is being orchestrated by the Clintonista's...and most
people know that "Clinton" and "truth" should not even appear in the
same
sentence.

THere's more honor and forthrightness in any Clinton bone (yes, including
that one) than in any of the buffoons who inhabit and control the White
House currently, apart from Colin Powell.

Even if Clark says that he'll roll back tax cuts, he'll make it sound
like
heaven in comparison to four more years of moronic moves by the
buffoon
in
office now.

Rolling back tax cuts during a rebounding economy would result in a
double
dip recession...and possibly a depression. That sound like "heaven" to
you?

Rolling back tax cuts on the richest Americans regains us close to $100
billion dollars in our annual budget. You think that'll cause a double
dip
recession? Starting where, at Tiffany's?

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Tiffany's didn't report record profits in the quarter the tax rebates and
tax cut went into effect...but Wal-mart did. I think you best be
consultin'
with some new economics gurus.

That's the effect of several hundred thousand checks going out for between
400 and 800 dollars. It's not an every week thing bozo. Think what would
happen to our economy if the tax cuts were actually aimed at the folks who'd
spend money at WalMart. That's right, it'd go through the roof and we'd be
manufacturing jobs. The only problem with the Bush tax cut is that the
lower and middle classes were paid to keep their mouths shut with a one time
payment, while the wealthy will be banking some nice profits for the balance
of the year.

Wake up there doc, you're a member of the White Party of the Selfish.

There isn't a single economist who endorsed Bush's theory on tax cuts, other
than the shills he keeps in the administration.

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...


He'll get mauled by Bush in the pressing palms and kissing babies
arena.


So what. Anyone who bases votes on a handshake is an idiot anyway.

Unfortunately, it's the "swing" voters that vote this way. They make up
less than 7% of the electorate, and there's no common theme that appeals
to
them. They vote for the guy they like best, many times basing their
vote on
nothing more than charisma.


Of course. How do you think a guy like Clinton could actually win....

Clinton is a prime example of someone who is long on charisma, and short
on character.

Dave

Once again, your dependence on kindergarten-level news is obvious.

Oh? Where am I wrong then?


After BOTH Clinton's and Bush's successful elections, NPR sent a reporter
wandering around a couple of college campuses, asking students why they
voted the way they did. Regarding both candidates, many young women said
they voted for the winner because "he was cute", or they liked the way his
eyebrows wrinkled when making an important point in a speech.

Thank you for making my point for me.


NOYB was making a generic statement.

Which I applied to a specific individual, as a testiment to the validity
of the point.

Dave

Doug Kanter wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 07:11:46 -0400, Dave Hall wrote:

In Iraq, there is no superpower supplying arms to the terrorists. Once
we cut off their supply lines completely, they'll soon be reduced to
throwing rocks.

Point taken about arms supply, but I wouldn't underestimate the power of a
rock. A motivated and resourceful enemy will find a way to kill. I think
this has been established in our not so distant past.

Yes. The VC moved quite a lot of material down the Ho Chi Minh trail, with
the stuff strapped to bicycles and pushcarts. They did it wearing sandles
and little not much else but rice.

The VC were also being covertly supplied by the former Soviets. The VC
were very determined, and resourceful. The terrorists in Iraq are likely
equally motivated and resourceful. But they lack the "man behind the
curtain" supplying them the arms.

Dave

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
om...

"Mark Browne" wrote in message
news:9dR9b.369154

Now, back to the issue at hand - you did not answer my question: What
sorts
of signs would you accept that things are not working out - at what
point
would you make the call that it *is* time to cut and run?


I certainly *did* answer your question:

"We remain in our bases indefinitely to assure that no Baathists seize
the
country via a coup. If the newly democratically-elected government feels
secure enough and asks us to leave, then we should consider leaving."



You did NOT answer his question:

"What sorts of signs would you accept that things are not working out - at
what point would you make the call that it *is* time to cut and run?"

I'd cut and run only if Saddam Hussein reemerges and is welcomed with open
arms by the majority of the population.

In any other scenario, we stay.

Just because you don't like the answer, doesn't mean it's not a *straight*
answer.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Mark Browne" wrote in message
news:9dR9b.369154$Oz4.147719@rwcrnsc54...

Now, back to the issue at hand - you did not answer my question: What
sorts
of signs would you accept that things are not working out - at what
point
would you make the call that it *is* time to cut and run?


Mark, the Bush-bots NEVER provide a straight answer to your question.

jps wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

Clark's candidacy is being orchestrated by the Clintonista's...and most
people know that "Clinton" and "truth" should not even appear in the same
sentence.

THere's more honor and forthrightness in any Clinton bone (yes, including
that one) than in any of the buffoons who inhabit and control the White
House currently, apart from Colin Powell.

Blinded by partisanism eh? Clinton was a slippery as a greased pig. Who
else would try to define ther word "Is"? The Clinton presidency was a
prime example of setting policy by poll numbers, versus by character and
conviction to principles.


Even if Clark says that he'll roll back tax cuts, he'll make it sound
like
heaven in comparison to four more years of moronic moves by the buffoon
in
office now.

Rolling back tax cuts during a rebounding economy would result in a double
dip recession...and possibly a depression. That sound like "heaven" to
you?

Rolling back tax cuts on the richest Americans regains us close to $100
billion dollars in our annual budget. You think that'll cause a double dip
recession? Starting where, at Tiffany's?

Rolling back my tax break will do nothing but **** me off. And where do
you get off calling me "rich"? That's the biggest lie that the
Democtrats have been trying to pull over everyone's eyes. The tax break
was across the board, which means we ALL got a break, proportional to
what we put in. I'd never vote for anyone who is in favor of taking more
money from me.

Dave

4 months, 2 years, and 4 years. That's why I want those maniacs dealt with
now.

3000 people likely wouldn't have died in the WTC if a certain prior
President dealt with bin Laden when he had the chance...and the 300 or so
soldiers that recently were killed in Iraq likely wouldn't have died if Bush
41 didn't worry so much about what the UN thought, and marched Schwarzkopff
into Baghdad in the first Gulf War.



"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
om...
Mark,
I think the absolute worst thing that could happen would be if a guy
like
Dean won the Presidency and pulled us out of Iraq too soon. The
repercussions would be awful. "Rack up enough US casualties, get the
media
to play along, and we can control the infidels".

At least if a guy like World War III Wesley was in charge, we could be
sure
he'd probably nuke someone over there before long...and that can't be
*all*
bad.


Hey...you're starting to sound like my father, around 1968-1969, who
thought
we should "throw everything we've got" at North Vietnam. Suddenly, when I
got my draft card, he got a little antsy about what was going on over
there.

How old are YOUR kids, NOYB?

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

Rolling back my tax break will do nothing but **** me off. And where do
you get off calling me "rich"? That's the biggest lie that the
Democtrats have been trying to pull over everyone's eyes. The tax break
was across the board, which means we ALL got a break, proportional to
what we put in. I'd never vote for anyone who is in favor of taking more
money from me.

How much did your "tax break" amount to this year, as a function of
percentage?