Discussion in 'Chit Chat' started by Kalgareth, Dec 14, 2003.
and he'll still get re-elected with that.
In Texas like 30% in a pass.
I'm happy with the current administration. Money is up, Spending is up, only one big'un still loose out there... And he isn't trying to undermine everyone by giving all of everyones money to welfare cheats and lazy bums... Good lord, look at Dean. That guy is a freak and a half.
Wow, money is up. That is your opinion, mine is there are two big ones still out there. Osama and Bush.
yea...we deffinitly have made some really horrible weapons
This article came out in the London Based Telegraph news service. You to register so I copied and pasted the column here. They have a longer article on it if you want more info.
Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam
By Con Coughlin
Iraq's coalition government claims that it has uncovered documentary proof that Mohammed Atta, the al-Qaeda mastermind of the September 11 attacks against the US, was trained in Baghdad by Abu Nidal, the notorious Palestinian terrorist.
Details of Atta's visit to the Iraqi capital in the summer of 2001, just weeks before he launched the most devastating terrorist attack in US history, are contained in a top secret memo written to Saddam Hussein, the then Iraqi president, by Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, the former head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service.
The handwritten memo, a copy of which has been obtained exclusively by the Telegraph, is dated July 1, 2001 and provides a short resume of a three-day "work programme" Atta had undertaken at Abu Nidal's base in Baghdad.
In the memo, Habbush reports that Atta "displayed extraordinary effort" and demonstrated his ability to lead the team that would be "responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy".
The second part of the memo, which is headed "Niger Shipment", contains a report about an unspecified shipment - believed to be uranium - that it says has been transported to Iraq via Libya and Syria.
Although Iraqi officials refused to disclose how and where they had obtained the document, Dr Ayad Allawi, a member of Iraq's ruling seven-man Presidential Committee, said the document was genuine.
"We are uncovering evidence all the time of Saddam's involvement with al-Qaeda," he said. "But this is the most compelling piece of evidence that we have found so far. It shows that not only did Saddam have contacts with al-Qaeda, he had contact with those responsible for the September 11 attacks."
Although Atta is believed to have been resident in Florida in the summer of 2001, he is known to have used more than a dozen aliases, and intelligence experts believe he could easily have slipped out of the US to visit Iraq.
Abu Nidal, who was responsible for the failed assassination of the Israeli ambassador to London in 1982, was based in Baghdad for more than two decades.
OH NO, YOU MEAN BOMBS KILL PEOPLE!?!??!
Remember this from earlier this year. I used to work on the C-130s (thats a military cargo plane) that drops these. One of these blows up about a 1 mile wide whole in a forested area. Think what it would do in the desert.
Sometimes things get out of hand and confusing. But this article states the Bush administration never tried to link Iraq to al-qaeda. Strange.
That article you posted is completely unsubstantiated Jesse. A "Telegraph" exclusive eh? When you read some of the other articles written by Mr. Con Coughlin you can easily see that he has a completely tilted stance on the war. He is one of the worst examples of a unbiased reporter ever. I am continually surprised by some of the articles you and Jedsia post. They are total right wing bs and you know it. There is not truth in 95% of what seems to be being reported and if there is a shred of factual data it is twisted into an attempt at legitimizing the current administrations policies no matter how inaccurate or unapplicable such policies are.
No... Instead he passes one of the biggest tax cuts in the history of the US of which only the top 10% economically can fully benefit from. Who cares if money and spending are up. Jobs are WAY down. I am glad that so many people that are already rich and have jobs are making more money. That really helps the ~3 MILLION people that have lost their job since Bush Junior came to office. Yeah, Dean is a "freak and a half". He actually WANTS to give the people that make up the majority of this country a fair shake rather than throwing them to the wolves as it were of big corporations that leech the life away from this great contry. Universal Welfare, Jobs, Medicare... but those are all bad things right? Why don't we just give another 6 billion dollar contract to the Vice Presidents former company. Oh wait. WE ALREADY DID!!!
Oh yeah and he doesn't think that we should be fighting a war unilaterally without the backing of the United Nations. A war and occupation that will take many years to resolve and end up not only costing the American tax payer BILLIONS but also the lives of the men and women of our military. Lets not even get into the "colateral" damage of the Iraqi people and the further terror attacks that this occupation will cause. Bush lied about why we went to war. He lied about the WMDs and he lied about the link with Al Queda. Sure getting Saddam was a good thing. I don't think anyone disagrees with that, but the United States went about it in such a WRONG way.
I haven't taken part in this discussion so far. I'd like to point out, however, that due to the fact that taxes increase on an exponential curve, the wealthy 10% will always be the most-benefitting of a tax cut, regardless of who passes the bill...
That isn't true at all. This wasn't a FLAT tax cut. Tax cuts don't work like that. There can be exceptions for different tax brackets and the wealthier groups wouldn't necessarily get the same tax breaks. Bush's tax cut was substantially weighted towards this wealthier 10%.
you guys are on a tangent line way the **** out there. the original function is back that-a-away.
The tax system isn't flat to begin with. In 2002, the 6th bracket was 38.6% and the 3rd bracket was 27%. Now, if we apply a flat 10% tax cut to these rates, then
38.6 / 1.1 = 35.0909
round to 35%
27 / 1.1 = 24.5454
round to 25%
Now we take a look at the actual tax code changes. The 6th bracket will be 35% effective from 2003 to 2010. The 3rd bracket will be 25% from 2003 to 2010.
All tax brackets are experiencing the same percentage of change. Some brackets are larger to begin with, but the rate of change for all brackets is identical. If all brackets were cut by a flat amount, say 2%, then this produces a higher percentage of change for the lower tax brackets than the higher ones.
20% of 20 is 4, but 20% of 40 is 8. If we cut these rates by 4 each (to 16 and 36), then the first experiences an actual change of 20% and the second experiences an actual change of 10%.
38.6 / 1.1 = 35.0909
round to 35%
27 / 1.1 = 24.5454
round to 25%
The rich are the ones who pay all the tax. The lower class (like 50% of the population) only pay like 10% of the total tax. Or some other obscenely small number. The only people who have a right to complain about taxes are the rich because they're the ones paying it, not the poor.
Like myself, I have a low income, and since I make below 20k per year or whatever the limit is I don't pay any tax. Now how can I complain about taxes being so much when I don't pay any?
Now my step dad is a retired physician, when he was working a lot at one point he was paying more than 50% of his salary in tax. Which means he paid more tax than like five middle class people combined.
I'm sorry but, picking up unidentified pieces of obviously machined metal after you were just bombed does not exactly show a huge amount of intelligence.
and where exactly did you present a viable solution for dealing with Iraq?
JESUS ****ING CHRIST! Unless someone proves to me that those statements are false I now agree with you 100% on the cluster bomb issue. I guess I was missinformed about the reliability of modern weapons.
There are people commonly refered to as children, I`m sure you have them in the US as well.
I don´t agree.
Like Cow said, you don't see people on welfare forced to give up huge chunks of their money for taxes. What the democrats want to do is take all the money from the people who worked their lives for it, inherited it from their parent, whatever... My point is that the people with money shouldn't be forced to support those who either don't bother to work for a living (and yes I know they exist, this stupidly liberal college I go to forces their fresmen to help move out welfare bums that are running out of their landlords. They even encuraged us to destroy the interior of the building... Sick sick sick) You can see why I'm not exactly jumping on the Democrat wagon... And as for my comment on Dean, that was directed to his foriegn policy, oh sorry, I meant lack there of.
Separate names with a comma.