Derby Trail Forums
Page 5 of 7 « First < 34 5 67 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Derby Trail Forums (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/index.php)
-   The Steve Dellinger Discourse Den (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   This man is a nuts (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7725)

Downthestretch55 12-20-2006 12:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bababooyee
How do you tell the difference between a Shaker and an impotent epileptic?
Baba,
You got me there.
Does the answer have something to do with viagra or the law against "assault with a dead weapon"?

Rupert Pupkin 12-20-2006 12:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalakhani
What I think is hilarious is that not one but two republican presidents passed on Rumsfeld and Bush HW even went as far as push Cheney PAST Rumsfeld. Think he knew something? Think Reagan knew something? Obviously, Rumsfeld didnt do too well in this job SO THEY MUST HAVE KNOWN SOMETHING.

The FDA objected to passing Nutrasweet. Maybe you should go back and look up how that came about. Use that BA of yours.

Yes, the Carlyle group. Does anything more need to be said?

Rumsfeld was a complete failure as was this administration. A group of historians that were polled say that this will go down as one of the five WORST ever.

HMMMMMMMMMMM
I don't think Rumsfeld was interested in being Defense Secretary for Reagan or Bush senior. He was a little bit busy at the time running billion dollar companies.

Rumsfeld and the Admisistration did make one major blunder. They severely underestimated the strength of the insurgency. That was obviously a huge blunder. When you are in a position of power and you are constantly making tough decisions, you will probably make a poor decision eventually. If I was going to pick someone to run a company, Rumsfeld would still be at the top of my list.

You keep mentioning the Carlyle Group. Tell us what is wrong with the Carlyle Group. And tell us what Rumsfeld's relationship was to the group.

In addition to the B.A., I have an M.A. But I don't need the M.A. to figure out that Nutrasweet is still on the market today. The FDA has pulled thousands of things off the shelf. If there was conclusive evidence that Nutrasweet was dangerous, it would be pulled off the shelf. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't ingest Nutrasweet every day, but I wouldn't eat meat every day either.

Rupert Pupkin 12-20-2006 12:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GenuineRisk
I agree the tax code could be simplified and many loopholes should be closed (most having to do with corporate welfare), but how would you handle taxing dividends? The big problem with the flat tax proposals (besides the fact that it would effectively raise taxes on the poor and middle class because the wealthy would be the ones most benefiting from a flat tax) is that dividends are excluded from taxation. Which would permit the super-rich to live tax-free.

In my opinion, one needs to look at who is proposing a tax reform to figure out who would most benefit. Flat tax seems to be a pet of the super-rich. Wonder why? Because it will cost them less money and shift the burden onto the poor and middle-class.

Interestingly, the Earned Income Tax Credit is pretty popular with both parties because it's an efficient, inexpensive way to get a little extra money into the hands of working families. More effective than raising the minimum wage, because most minimum wage workers are teenagers.

The main reform that urgently needs fixing is the alternative minimum tax. Raise the threshold, already! (not that I'm anywhere near the threshold. Sigh...)
I don't think the super-wealthy would be the ones to benefit from a flat-tax. In fact, I think they are totally against it. I think they would actually have to pay much more in taxes if all the current loopholes were closed.

If there was a flat tax, I would be in favor of stock dividends being treated as regular income.

GenuineRisk 12-20-2006 01:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin
I don't think the super-wealthy would be the ones to benefit from a flat-tax. In fact, I think they are totally against it. I think they would actually have to pay much more in taxes if all the current loopholes were closed.

If there was a flat tax, I would be in favor of stock dividends being treated as regular income.
Rupert, take a look at the link I posted earlier in the thread about the flat tax. Not as dry reading as it could be, really. And interesting. There's another one I remember from a few years back-- lemme see if I can find it again. In the meantime, the other link isn't bad. And it's not long.

Rupert Pupkin 12-20-2006 01:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GenuineRisk
Rupert, take a look at the link I posted earlier in the thread about the flat tax. Not as dry reading as it could be, really. And interesting. There's another one I remember from a few years back-- lemme see if I can find it again. In the meantime, the other link isn't bad. And it's not long.
My idea is not for an absolute flat-tax. As I said earlier, the people in the highest tax bracket would pay 20% in income taxes or something like that, but there would be no write-offs. People in lower brackets would pay less.

dalakhani 12-20-2006 06:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin
My idea is not for an absolute flat-tax. As I said earlier, the people in the highest tax bracket would pay 20% in income taxes or something like that, but there would be no write-offs. People in lower brackets would pay less.
But what would a flat tax do to the housing market?

Rupert Pupkin 12-20-2006 08:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by merasmag
i have a bs in poli sci from a school that shall remain nameless...along with a few other degrees...bfd...if u really have a bachelors of arts in poli sci from ucla it should be revoked and they should put u on a wall of shame...please tell me u had a double-major and the one u got most of the credits in was journalism or husbandry or something...i think dalikhali and others have said all i care to say (and if they haven't, it would be deleted anyways) besides... NUTRASWEET KILLS
If you have anything to say about politics then say it. It's easy to come on here and criticize other posters but that's pretty pointless if you don't have anything to add to the conversation. I disagree with people on this board all the time. But when I disagree with someone, I tell them that I disagree with them and then I explain why I disagree. I don't just say, "You're stupid or you are wrong" or whatever. What's the point of that?

By the way, it was obvious that you knew nothing about Rumsfeld. You came on here and inferred that he made his money in some type of sinister manner, when in fact he made practically all of his money at General Instuments and Gilead Sciences. Maybe you or Dalakhani can tell me what is wrong with being the CEO at General Instruments or Gilead Sciences.

Rupert Pupkin 12-20-2006 08:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by merasmag
what u don't seem to grasp is a 90 something to 0 something vote doesn't mean support...it usually means compromise and leave the battle til another day
A vote of 95-2 obviously means that they don't have a problem with the person and it may very well mean that they like the person. There are plenty of times that the vote is very close and the person barely wins confirmation. Sometimes the person does not win confirmation. There have been plenty of people nominated over the years who did not end up being confirmed.

Rupert Pupkin 12-20-2006 08:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by merasmag
why don't u ask all the dead people? how old are you, 12?
I'm listening. What did Rumsfeld do wrong at General Instruments or Gilead Sciences? Maybe you know something that I don't. I'm all ears.

Rupert Pupkin 12-20-2006 08:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by merasmag
why don't u ask all the dead people? how old are you, 12?
You're saying that the vote doesn't tell us anything. So then how can you tell whether or not a nominee had bi-partisan support? Are you denying that there are nominess that have bi-partisan support?

dalakhani 12-20-2006 08:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin
If you have anything to say about politics then say it. It's easy to come on here and criticize other posters but that's pretty pointless if you don't have anything to add to the conversation. I disagree with people on this board all the time. But when I disagree with someone, I tell them that I disagree with them and then I explain why I disagree. I don't just say, "You're stupid or you are wrong" or whatever. What's the point of that?

By the way, it was obvious that you knew nothing about Rumsfeld. You came on here and inferred that he made his money in some type of sinister manner, when in fact he made practically all of his money at General Instuments and Gilead Sciences. Maybe you or Dalakhani can tell me what is wrong with being the CEO at General Instruments or Gilead Sciences.
****, Im still waiting for you to back up your original claim that Bush's foreign policy team was one of the best ever assembled.

Rupert Pupkin 12-20-2006 08:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalakhani
****, Im still waiting for you to back up your original claim that Bush's foreign policy team was one of the best ever assembled.
I already backed it up. Look at the resumes of Cheney(former Defense Sec.), Rumsfeld(former Def. Sec., Former US Ambassador to NATO), Powell(former chairman Joint Chiefs), etc.

Even the liberal mainstream media touted them as one of the best foreign policy teams ever assembled. What more could you look for in people's resumes? If these people didn't have strong resumes, then I'd like to know who does.

We're not debating ideology. We're talking about people's qualifications. How could someone have been more qualified than Rumsfeld? The guy's resume is incredible. And Cheney was a huge success as Sec Defense in the first Gulf War. Powell was a huge success as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in the first Gulf War.

Who would have been more qualified for the jobs than these people?

Rupert Pupkin 12-20-2006 09:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by merasmag
what u don't seem to grasp is a 90 something to 0 something vote doesn't mean support...it usually means compromise and leave the battle til another day
Gates won confirmation by a vote of 95-2. Are you saying that Gates does not have bi-partisan support? If Democrats don't like him, then why did Jimmy Carter hire him and have so much trust in him.

Here is a website that is very crtitical of Gates and even they say that the vote was very meaningful. Here is their quote:

"Not since 2003 when Secretary of State Colin Powell wowed Official Washington with his United Nations speech on Iraq’s WMD has there been such an awed consensus about any public figure as there has been for former CIA Director Gates, who is almost universally praised for his intelligence, experience and down-to-earth style."

The rest of the article is not so glowing, but they admit that the praise for Gates was bi-partisan. Here is the entire article:

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/113006.html

Rupert Pupkin 12-20-2006 10:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by merasmag
i don't think so...at least not the vote-stealing chicago kind...come back to me when you know something about it...i don't denigrate your horse-sense...do not bother to talk about politics with me, or, if u want to, do it on pm like kasept says
Mera, you are totally wrong about Gates. Look what a liberal website said about him:

"Not since 2003 when Secretary of State Colin Powell wowed Official Washington with his United Nations speech on Iraq’s WMD has there been such an awed consensus about any public figure as there has been for former CIA Director Gates, who is almost universally praised for his intelligence, experience and down-to-earth style."


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:16 PM.
Page 5 of 7 « First < 34 5 67 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.