Derby Trail Forums

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."

Rupert Pupkin 12-20-2006 10:28 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

Yes, I have worked for politcal campaigns as a volunteer and several of my friends work in politics.

As I have said before, for the most part politics is a big game. There is not that big a difference between the two parties. Most of the people in the Senate are multi-millionaires that have much more in common with each other than they have with you or me. Their votes are pretty much for sale to the highest bidder.

The truth of the matter is that many of these senators in both parties are total hypocrites. Let's take Nancy Peolsi for example. She claims to be a real liberal that supports unions. But in real life, she owns a $25 million vineyard that is a non-union shop. She also owns a large stake in a ritzy hotel that has 250 employees, but once again it is strictly a non-union shop. This type of thing is typical with politicians in both parties.

dalakhani 12-20-2006 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin
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?

You hardly backed it up. Saying that it was one of the best in history is quite a statement. Its not even close and nothing you have said has backed that up.

None of them had much experience in dealing POLITICALLY with the rest of the world. Thats the point.

Look at Reagans cabinet. Baker, Weinberger and schultz. This one isnt even close.

dalakhani 12-20-2006 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalakhani
But what would a flat tax do to the housing market?


And still no answer. Surely you can find some blog on this cant you?

Rupert Pupkin 12-20-2006 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalakhani
And still no answer. Surely you can find some blog on this cant you?

There could be a small effect but I don't think it would be that big of a deal. Here is one opinion:

http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdo...5b0b055c789422

Rupert Pupkin 12-20-2006 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalakhani
You hardly backed it up. Saying that it was one of the best in history is quite a statement. Its not even close and nothing you have said has backed that up.

None of them had much experience in dealing POLITICALLY with the rest of the world. Thats the point.

Look at Reagans cabinet. Baker, Weinberger and schultz. This one isnt even close.

I would say the same thing about Rober Gates as the other guys. I don't know if Gates will do a good job or not but he is widely respected and he is considered to be an excellent choice.

Honu 12-20-2006 11:42 PM

If the Holocost never happened I would like him ( David Duke) to explain who put those numbered tattoos with paper documentation on those survivors arms. There is more proof of mass killings and the attempt to wipe out a race of people than there is of it never happening. To be honest and this may sound absurd but Germany should give its statehood to the Jewish people , it is they who uprooted these people from their homes all over Europe and slaughtered them . Europe should be held culpable along with U.S. for allowing this to happen they knew all along what was going on and yet they turned a blind eye to help these people. Most Jews that were killed by the S.S. and Hitlers puppets were European Jews , people who were part of the economic , scientific and cultural world , people who contributed to their communities and country.

Rupert Pupkin 12-21-2006 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalakhani
You hardly backed it up. Saying that it was one of the best in history is quite a statement. Its not even close and nothing you have said has backed that up.

None of them had much experience in dealing POLITICALLY with the rest of the world. Thats the point.

Look at Reagans cabinet. Baker, Weinberger and schultz. This one isnt even close.

Here is the kind of stuff that the mainstrem media was saying about the Bush foreing policy team when they first came into office. This article is from 2001:

The Bush Team Shares a Vision But Not How To Reach It
The Washington Post
September 30, 2001
By James Mann

"Suddenly, the Bush administration’s foreign policy team occupies center stage in Washington. After eight months of focus on domestic issues such as the tax cut, the nation will now be watching anxiously to see if the administration can deal with the rest of the world in a way that will prevent further attacks on American soil. Luckily, Bush’s foreign policy advisers have a remarkable record of experience to draw upon. They’re going to need it."

This is the type of thing that everyone was saying when they first came into office. That was my point. Even all my democratic friends thought Bush had a great foreign policy team.

Rupert Pupkin 12-21-2006 12:48 AM

I was just doing a search on the internet and I was surprised when I clicked on a google link and it lead to an article on commondreams.com. This article is actually relevant to some of the stuff that we have been discussing in this thread. The article was written just before the 2004 election. I bet you guys never thought I would post a link to an article on commondreams.


http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0218-13.htm

dalakhani 12-21-2006 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin
Here is the kind of stuff that the mainstrem media was saying about the Bush foreing policy team when they first came into office. This article is from 2001:

The Bush Team Shares a Vision But Not How To Reach It
The Washington Post
September 30, 2001
By James Mann

"Suddenly, the Bush administration’s foreign policy team occupies center stage in Washington. After eight months of focus on domestic issues such as the tax cut, the nation will now be watching anxiously to see if the administration can deal with the rest of the world in a way that will prevent further attacks on American soil. Luckily, Bush’s foreign policy advisers have a remarkable record of experience to draw upon. They’re going to need it."

This is the type of thing that everyone was saying when they first came into office. That was my point. Even all my democratic friends thought Bush had a great foreign policy team.

I know that this is going to sound like redboarding, but i had my doubts from the start.

The experience they had was in war and not in diplomacy and never did any of them have anything to do with a rebuilding situation (although its been a long time since we have had to rebuild). How was Colin Powell qualified? He wasnt and it showed.

The foreign policy team was heavy in an agenda toward war and that is what we got.

Rupert Pupkin 12-21-2006 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalakhani
I know that this is going to sound like redboarding, but i had my doubts from the start.

The experience they had was in war and not in diplomacy and never did any of them have anything to do with a rebuilding situation (although its been a long time since we have had to rebuild). How was Colin Powell qualified? He wasnt and it showed.

The foreign policy team was heavy in an agenda toward war and that is what we got.

You may have been right. I'm not saying that they were a great team. I'm saying that they looked like a great team to most people(myself included).

It's kind of similar to Robert Gates. Everyone is saying what a great choice he is and how qualified he is. For the most part, everyone is raving about him. He may or may not do a good job, but he certainly is not a controversial choice.

dalakhani 12-21-2006 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin
There could be a small effect but I don't think it would be that big of a deal. Here is one opinion:

http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdo...5b0b055c789422

Rup-

Did you read the article???????

Great link by the way. Thanks.

29% hike in user costs and the study is being conservative (no pun intended)

Flat tax would have a much more dramatic effect in the short run than is being represented in this study especially considering the current climate of the housing market.

dalakhani 12-21-2006 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin
You may have been right. I'm not saying that they were a great team. I'm saying that they looked like a great team to most people(myself included).

It's kind of similar to Robert Gates. Everyone is saying what a great choice he is and how qualified he is. For the most part, everyone is raving about him. He may or may not do a good job, but he certainly is not a controversial choice.

I really dont have an issue with Gates. He is doing mop up duty right now anyway and he cant really do anything "wrong". If he screws up, he can blame it on the mess he inherited. If he does anything marginally good, he is a hero.

The most qualified member of the original team was Richard Clarke and he was ignored and then demoted.

repent 12-21-2006 01:08 AM

lot of talk on this thread.

much easier to just remember that President Bush and the ppl he appoints are always right.
hes the most powerful man in the history of time.
get on board or shut the hell up.



Repent

Rupert Pupkin 12-21-2006 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalakhani
Rup-

Did you read the article???????

Great link by the way. Thanks.

29% hike in user costs and the study is being conservative (no pun intended)

Flat tax would have a much more dramatic effect in the short run than is being represented in this study especially considering the current climate of the housing market.

That article is about a specific flat-tax that was proposed. I don't know the specific details of that proposal. Even if I did, I'm not an economist. That specific proposal may have had specific new rules for real estate investments.

All I'm saying is that I'd like to see some type of combination of a national sales tax and something close to a flat-tax. I don't know what any of the serious details would be. I just think that the current system is terrible and some type of flat-tax and national sales tax would probably make more sense than the current system.

Rupert Pupkin 12-21-2006 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalakhani
I really dont have an issue with Gates. He is doing mop up duty right now anyway and he cant really do anything "wrong". If he screws up, he can blame it on the mess he inherited. If he does anything marginally good, he is a hero.

The most qualified member of the original team was Richard Clarke and he was ignored and then demoted.

We must not be talking about the same Richard Clarke.

http://www.brookesnews.com/042903ecclewilkinson.html

dalakhani 12-21-2006 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin
We must not be talking about the same Richard Clarke.

http://www.brookesnews.com/042903ecclewilkinson.html

Again, Rup, how is that link any more viable than commondreams?

Rupert Pupkin 12-21-2006 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalakhani
Again, Rup, how is that link any more viable than commondreams?

It's not all that much different than commondreams but I think that many of their criticisms of Clarke are legitimate. They guy did lie. He totally changed his story. He totally changed his story and he was trying to sell a book. That certainly hurts his credibility.

By the way, with commondreams.com I've never said that everything they say is a flat out lie. Sure there are some lies but most of the things they say are half-truths and one-sided arguments. When you only hear half-truths and one-sided arguments, you are only getting half the story.

So with Richard Clarke, I'm not saying that the story I linked is the only truth or the whole story, but it is a point of view that some people have of Clarke. My point was that you may think Clarke is great but there are plenty of other people that think Clarke is a liar who has no credibilty at all. There are two sides to most things.

pgardn 12-21-2006 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skippy3481

I am going back to the original topic.
I think the debate on Iran and what do with the man in charge is... let him hang himself. Now can we somehow accelerate the process without getting involved directly...?
This Middle East thing has taken a very interesting turn. Iraq, Sunni v. Shiite, has changed the dynamics. We now have a number of Arab nations scared to death that the Persian Shiites will gain too much of a foothold. And the split is even showing up in Gaza... foreign affairs is a very complex business. We may have inadvertantly started bringing the Islamic house down on itself. The rifts are growing in other countries. Arab countries taking sides... very interesting.

dalakhani 12-21-2006 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin
It's not all that much different than commondreams but I think that many of their criticisms of Clarke are legitimate. They guy did lie. He totally changed his story. He totally changed his story and he was trying to sell a book. That certainly hurts his credibility.

By the way, with commondreams.com I've never said that everything they say is a flat out lie. Sure there are some lies but most of the things they say are half-truths and one-sided arguments. When you only hear half-truths and one-sided arguments, you are only getting half the story.

So with Richard Clarke, I'm not saying that the story I linked is the only truth or the whole story, but it is a point of view that some people have of Clarke. My point was that you may think Clarke is great but there are plenty of other people that think Clarke is a liar who has no credibilty at all. There are two sides to most things.

The credibility of clarke comes from having served under Reagan, HW Bush and Clinton. Those guys seemed to think he had credibility. For some reason, it didnt pan out with this guy when it worked with those guys. I wonder why.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:24 AM.

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