The most embarrasing moment in American history

[midnightpulp]

Doesn't matter your post clearly said country of Origin.

So is that your new shtick? Semantics? Congrats, you caught me misusing a word. If it makes you feel better:

"Does that mean we should invade their country of residence?"

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

And for that matter Kool is also right that Saddam and Osama were anything but friends. Osama was a Muslim extremist who used Islam to strengthen a terrorist organization. Saddam was a secular dictator who severely punished all acts of Islamic extremism in his country.

That's what makes the War in Iraq so stupid. Saddam was bad for Iraq but he was good for America. He wasn't any different than the Shah of Iran the US pulled strings to put into power in the 50s, a secular leader who was brutal to his citizens but suppressed Islam. Ghadaffi is another secular dictator who's removal is only gonna create another country in total disarray that becomes a haven for terrorists.

[Koolaid_Man]

I actually agree with Kool that Saudi Arabia contributes more to terrorism BY FAR than any other country in the world. It's the main fund behind Al Queda but since we depend on the Saudis for oil we don't punish them for how much they contributed to 9/11. It's the elephant in the room Americans want to ignore, the wikileaks reports made it obvious how much of a joke Bush was for his "War on Terror" involving every middle eastern country other than Saudi Arabia.

Listen I have a load of Middle Eastern friends...and truth be told I've learned quite a bit from them as well....most reside in London although some live in their countries of Origin...

I shouldn't be sharing my hang out spots but it....If you're ever in London this is the place to eat at..trust me...and if you smoke shissha they have a nice setup for that as well

http://www.momoresto.com/restaurant/london/momo/

[midnightpulp]

And for that matter Kool is also right that Saddam and Osama were anything but friends. Osama was a Muslim extremist who used Islam to strengthen a terrorist organization. Saddam was a secular dictator who severely punished all acts of Islamic extremism in his country.

That's what makes the War in Iraq so stupid. Saddam was bad for Iraq but he was good for America. He wasn't any different than the Shah of Iran the US pulled strings to put into power in the 50s, a secular leader who was brutal to his citizens but suppressed Islam. Ghadaffi is another secular dictator who's removal is only gonna create another country in total disarray that becomes a haven for terrorists.

Yeah, anyone who's the least bit informed knows that, but Kool thought he was dropping some kind of privileged geo-political knowledge on our uneducated minds when he stated that.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Oh yeah. As I stated earlier. But Koolaid's dumbass thinks invading Afghanistan will somehow weaken Al Qaeda, which makes no sense, considering they get the majority of their funding from the Saudi's.

And even if we get off middle east oil dependence, radical Islam won't go anywhere, because the Chinese are right behind us in the checkout line with billions in their pockets. Besides, the threat of radical Islam is WAY overblown.

It did weaken Al Queda only because Afghanistan had a government in place (that America put in power in the 1st place) that let Al Queda use Afghanistan as the base of its operations. The Saudis fund Al Queda but they're smart enough to only stay involved indirectly. I agree tho that Islamic Extremists will always have resources as long as the U.S. pretends Saudi Arabia isn't at the center of terrorism.

Al Queda is so weak anyway these days that as you said it's all overblown. An Air Marshall and a sealed pit are all that was needed to prevent 9/11.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Yeah, anyone who's the least bit informed knows that, but Kool thought he was dropping some kind of privileged geo-political knowledge on our uneducated minds when he stated that.

true. You're overall point that Islamic extremism isn't anywhere near the threat it's made out to be sums it up best. Terrorism's biggest role in this country now is nothing more than something Republicans like Rick Santorum use to fear monger.

[Koolaid_Man]

Oh yeah. As I stated earlier. But Koolaid's dumbass thinks invading Afghanistan will somehow weaken Al Qaeda, which makes no sense, considering they get the majority of their funding from the Saudis.

And even if we get off middle east oil dependence, radical Islam won't go anywhere, because the Chinese are right behind us in the checkout line with billions in their pockets. Besides, the threat of radical Islam is WAY overblown.

Hey midget man..if we kill enough of them it will

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Yeah, anyone who's the least bit informed knows that, but Kool thought he was dropping some kind of privileged geo-political knowledge on our uneducated minds when he stated that.

And unfortunately all 3 of us (You, me and Kool) are exceptions when it comes to knowing the truth about Saddam. The average American doesn't have the faintest idea that he was a secular dictator who quashed anything Al Queda stood for.

[midnightpulp]

Listen I have a load of Middle Eastern friends...and truth be told I've learned quite a bit from them as well....most reside in London although some live in their countries of Origin...

I shouldn't be sharing my hang out spots but it....If you're ever in London this is the place to eat at..trust me...and if you smoke shissha they have a nice setup for that as well

http://www.momoresto.com/restaurant/london/momo/

Quit trying to front like your welfare collecting ass is some worldly jet setter.

And you still haven't come up with a legitimate reason why the United States should've invaded Afghanistan, other than "that where Osama and Al Qaeda be at. It was act of war even though no country declared it."

Tell me, why did a bunch of ragheads using boxcutters and getting lucky that there was a breakdown in intelligence necessitate a full scale invasion that has cost this country billions and has resulted in thousands of deaths on both sides?

[Koolaid_Man]

true. You're overall point that Islamic extremism isn't anywhere near the threat it's made out to be sums it up best. Terrorism's biggest role in this country now is nothing more than something Republicans like Rick Santorum use to fear monger.

and why is that? Because we're keeping it at bay...The Saudi's at this point have lost control of the feelings of their populace...the local Saudi's are radicalized beyond recognition and there isn't a dam thing the Saudi Princes can do to stop it...Remember 15 of the 19 hi-jackers on 911 were from the Kingdom including Osama himself.

[midnightpulp]

Hey midget man..if we kill enough of them it will

So when are we invading Saudi Arabia?

That's the ant queen, and the only way to kill off a colony of ants is to kill the queen. And no way in do we step foot in that region as long as China is around. Simply put, they need oil, we need their cheap labor and the cheap goods they make.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

and why is that? Because we're keeping it at bay...The Saudi's at this point have lost control of the feelings of their populace...the local Saudi's are radicalized beyond recognition and there isn't a dam thing the Saudi Princes can do to stop it...Remember 15 of the 19 hi-jackers on 911 were from the Kingdom including Osama himself.

I think you're overcomplicating it. IMO it's simply neoconservatives praying on how stupid and misinformed most Americans are, and taking advantage of it to make them think terrorism is a real threat when it isn't.

[Koolaid_Man]

Quit trying to front like your welfare collecting ass is some worldly jet setter.

And you still haven't come up with a legitimate reason why the United States should've invaded Afghanistan, other than "that where Osama and Al Qaeda be at. It was act of war even though no country declared it."

Tell me, why did a bunch of ragheads using boxcutters and getting lucky that there was a breakdown in intelligence necessitate a full scale invasion that has cost this country billions and has resulted in thousands of deaths on both sides?

Me and you were done with this conversation...have a nice day...

[Koolaid_Man]

I think you're overcomplicating it. IMO it's simply neoconservatives praying on how stupid and misinformed most Americans are, and taking advantage of it to make them think terrorism is a real threat when it isn't.

Listen there's no clear way of verifying that...so in the meantime I'm going with the assumption it's alive and well...you have to understand something here Dok...Americans think short term. Muslims at war with us think long term... One thing I've learned from my Arab friends is that Muslims have a history and tradition of exacting revenge for that took place decades ago...It's ingrained in their way of life and culture. They bomb in retaliation of killings that may have taken place in their village or cities in 1960 or so. Their whole way of life and their thoughts are quite antique if you will. So I personally beleive the feelings of revenge are alive and well...it's just a matter of opportunity...Some a breeding kids for this very purpose as I type

[midnightpulp]

Me and you were done with this conversation...have a nice day...

IRA caused deaths in England = roughly 3000.

Did they invade Northern Ireland? No.

Al Qaeda caused deaths on 9/11 = roughly 3000.

Cost of the war in Afghanistan. Over 451 billion dollars and 2,600 Coalition casualties.

Koolaid_Man: "The moral thing to do was invade Afghanistan!"

No, what happened is the American people were so full of blood lust following 9-11 they would've given Bush permission to send US forces into their backyard if it meant there was a chance at bringing Bin Laden to justice.

Tell me, Kool. Why was it the moral thing to do?

[midnightpulp]

You've yet to earn decent money, or start a company. In fact, I'd go for not taxes the rich at all and be more for ending welfare and all of these social programs claiming to train people for work. I have no problem seeing someone work their ass off and become greedy once they reach the top. I have a huge problem with people who refuse education, then expect the gov't to waste my tax dollars training those lazy s for a job.

Obama's proposal to tax the rich was nothing but a proposal to tax the middle class. The idea of raising taxes on those who make more than $250,000 lands directly on the professional middle class, not the rich. Rich people incorporate, invest, and ultimately never pay taxes. Obama knew damn well who his scheme would affect most. Then he takes office, and follows Jr's blueprint to the letter, then has the nerves to come off as bi-partisan, all while knowing that the line has been pushed so far to the right that anything he agrees to fits right in with the republicans agenda. This, and this alone is why he will be re-elected, not because he's done a good job for his party. ing worthless ass KKK.

I have to agree with this. Think DoK might agree with you as well. I believe he meant the ultra multimillionaire/billionaire rich should be the ones shouldering most of the burden.

Excessively taxing the professional middle class all but ensures that small businesses won't be able to compete with their big budget compe ion.

[ALVAREZ6]

Listen there's no clear way of verifying that...so in the meantime I'm going with the assumption it's alive and well...you have to understand something here Dok...Americans think short term. Muslims at war with us think long term... One thing I've learned from my Arab friends is that Muslims have a history and tradition of exacting revenge for that took place decades ago...It's ingrained in their way of life and culture. They bomb in retaliation of killings that may have taken place in their village or cities in 1960 or so. Their whole way of life and their thoughts are quite antique if you will. So I personally beleive the feelings of revenge are alive and well...it's just a matter of opportunity...Some a breeding kids for this very purpose as I type

Not a bad take overall but these types of extreme freak cases like breeding kids for terrorist purposes can always be a threat regardless of how involved we are in the ME and other terrorist zones. The best and most efficient defense mechanism against is to secure our geographical zone, and the US is partially unique/lucky to have such a strong military with such an advantageous location. The US is a massive country with large coast lines on both oceans with relatively small threat from our neighbors. No country would openly go to war against the US because doing so is essentially suicide, and no terrorist organization is remotely close to being realistically capable of doing significant damage to the US. Americans ought to feel pretty damn safe from terrorist threat. Freak like creating children for terrorist purposes and other extreme cases don't really add much of a threat, as long as you live in the US you are pretty damn safe.

Terrorists have wanted to blow American up for much longer than right before 9/11, it's not like they would ever not take an opportunity available to them to kill or cause destruction...yet we were pretty damn safe from terrorism before 9/11. Besides, Muslin extremists and other foreigners aren't the only potential terrorists. We've had American terrorists, and that threat will always be present and there's a limit to how much we can do to prevent that.

[Koolaid_Man]

You've yet to earn decent money, or start a company. In fact, I'd go for not taxes the rich at all and be more for ending welfare and all of these social programs claiming to train people for work. I have no problem seeing someone work their ass off and become greedy once they reach the top. I have a huge problem with people who refuse education, then expect the gov't to waste my tax dollars training those lazy s for a job.

Obama's proposal to tax the rich was nothing but a proposal to tax the middle class. The idea of raising taxes on those who make more than $250,000 lands directly on the professional middle class, not the rich. Rich people incorporate, invest, and ultimately never pay taxes. Obama knew damn well who his scheme would affect most. Then he takes office, and follows Jr's blueprint to the letter, then has the nerves to come off as bi-partisan, all while knowing that the line has been pushed so far to the right that anything he agrees to fits right in with the republicans agenda. This, and this alone is why he will be re-elected, not because he's done a good job for his party. ing worthless ass KKK.

The truly rich never pay equal taxes because they're adept at sheltering their wealth through deferred-compensation schemes or other loopholes. It's something that needs to be worked... I guess his model of taxing the upper middle class along with the rich works because only 5% of U.S. households have annual incomes over $200,000. Sure it seems unfair given the distributions of wealth but considering the overall % ( my forest and trees example) it's a good first step / approach. Fact is he hasn't had a chance to come off as Bi-Partisan... given all the Repub push back...

But tell me what would you consider a good plan that would actually work for the economy?

[ElNono]

Leave the ultra rich alone. They are the ones that will create the jobs if you give them incentive's to do so.

They'll create jobs in pakistan... that explains your viewpoint, tbh.

[Koolaid_Man]

That's exactly who I thought he was talking about. Leave the ultra rich alone. They are the ones that will create the jobs if you give them incentive's to do so. Patriotism has Americans ed in the head. Corporations are designed to do one thing... make profits. Not redistribute the wealth that it gains. Unfair taxes against the rich have forced them to run offshore. In return, the middle class is shouldering the burden, and all the poor do is beg and complain, when in reality they should be starved off.

Inaccurate statements...they didn't do it during Bush's time in office when all was just swell...In fact they outsourced more jobs during Bush's era...and Bush gave them their tax breaks

Fact Check

http://www.aflcio.org/issues/jobseco...bsoverseas.pdf

[Koolaid_Man]

technically consumers create jobs

[midnightpulp]

Inaccurate statements...they didn't do it during Bush's time in office when all was just swell...In fact they outsourced more jobs during Bush's era...and Bush gave them their tax breaks

Fact Check

http://www.aflcio.org/issues/jobseco...bsoverseas.pdf

Because the Bush tax cuts weren't the taxation garden of eden they were believed to be.

"Washington is teeing up "the rich" for a big tax hike next year, as a way to make them "pay their fair share." Well, the latest IRS data have arrived on who paid what share of income taxes in 2006, and it's going to be hard for the rich to pay any more than they already do. The data show that the 2003 Bush tax cuts caused what may be the biggest increase in tax payments by the rich in American history.

The nearby chart shows that the top 1% of taxpayers, those who earn above $388,806, paid 40% of ..."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121659695380368965.html

[ALVAREZ6]

technically consumers create jobs

marijuana could create many jobs

[ALVAREZ6]

[Koolaid_Man]

Because the Bush tax cuts weren't the taxation garden of eden they were believed to be.

"Washington is teeing up "the rich" for a big tax hike next year, as a way to make them "pay their fair share." Well, the latest IRS data have arrived on who paid what share of income taxes in 2006, and it's going to be hard for the rich to pay any more than they already do. The data show that the 2003 Bush tax cuts caused what may be the biggest increase in tax payments by the rich in American history.

The nearby chart shows that the top 1% of taxpayers, those who earn above $388,806, paid 40% of ..."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121659695380368965.html

So the point is they don't need a tax break because no matter what they pay it's too much... Listen you're well meaning but you don't understand how it works...I can't read the full article because it's truncated due to sign up features but I imagine it is / was referring to the overall % for a specific year. They may have paid 40% of the taxes but they didn't pay their fair share commensurate with their pay scale...thus you have Warren Buffets admin paying more in taxes than he did...listen don't be fooled by the fact that I collect food stamps... and then you can try your little games on the uneducated....