39% !!!!!!!????????? classic...ya'll texans should be proud!!! NOT!!!hahaha

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
I'm not sure why, but you have incredible difficulty understanding the situation in Iraq RIGHT NOW is the product of Bush's decisions.

Um, no, I understand that Bush's decisions have played a big role in the situation in Iraq right now. I also understand that, despite your vitriolic assertions to the contrary and despite the mistakes that Bush has made, the situation in Iraq ISN'T a complete failure. In fact, in many ways it is a rousing success. If we stay the course, history will look back on it quite favorably.

As far as what I believe should be done differently today, there really are few choices. The US cannot just leave

Bingo. We can't just leave, and you can't identify anything you would have Bush do differently at this point.

You're old enough, Mavdog, that I think you would have a bit more historical perspective than you do. In spite of all the whining about mistakes Bush has made in Iraq (and I readily admit, mistakes have been made), the campaign has, overall, been a rousing success. The "quagmire" is only in the minds of those who oppose the war.

oh, is this a thread about other Presidents?
Clinton proposed a energy consumption tax to reduce demand, as well as support for ethanol (both tax credits for production and at POS).
What has Bush done? anything? well... he has given us higher prices for the energy, but guess who is getting the added dollars? the producers.

What a pathetic duck and weave. The subject was petroleum, and you're talking about ethanol.

Based upon your inability to respond, I take it you agree with me that the same generic criticism about reducing reliance on petroleum could be lodged against any President in the past 30 years.

gee, quoting the trade org that virtually wrote the bill? that's comparable to asking the fox if the henhouse was safe.
The assertions are not facts, the power plants do not need to switch they would need to install "scrubbers" to stop the emissions.

You're wrong. The Department of Energy has said as recently as March 2005 that there currently is no technology in existence to do what you're talking about. As such, the power plants WOULD have to switch. That gets us back to whether it's smart to jack the cost of energy up even further than it has gone.

Ironic that you would use the trade orgs assertions about "an increase in electricity prices for home heating" when that is exactly what is happening TODAY!

How is it ironic? I only used one quote from the EPRI, but the fact that energy prices are increasing doesn't mean they wouldn't increase even that much FURTHER if you instituted the environmental regulations you're talking about.

Mother nature strongly disagrees with you and remember, Mother Nature doesn't like to get messed with. It always comes back to hurt us humans in the end.

I'll just agree to disagree with you on that one.

no, that is incorrect and ALWAYS not the case if the tax is not levied on all producers, the market will not allow for only some of the producers to raise their prices when other producers don't have the same tax. In this case, the polluters themselves would pay the tax. Those who don't pollute don't pay.

The one who's not polluting is going to inevitably have a product that costs more, so if you design the tax so that it basically mimics the cost of complying with environmental regulations, then perhaps you have a point here.

It IS in the best interests of our country to help the poor, large unintended families are a burden. We clearly disagree about how the state can aid society, you wish that it not work to help the poor and I do.

Wrong. I have no problem with the government helping the poor, but there's a big difference between that and practicing population control. This isn't friggin' China.

The upper incomes were given more tax reductions than the other economic classes, they also were given relief on capital gains in addition to the tax cuts. They recieved more when they need it less. The higher income houdeholds now have a greater share of the nation's wealth than they did before the tax cut. That increase in wealth is pushing the US into a starker divide in classes, a trend that is not healthy for our society. The tax policies have NOT made the "poor richer" and HAVE made the rich richer. The tax code should NOT be used to accomplish the rich getting richer. period.

You and I just have a philosophical difference here. You view it as the government's money. I view it as the individual's money.

I repeat: The real problem is that the tax cuts weren't coupled with spending cuts.

look around the world. In Asia, American styles dominate. In Europe, American styles dominate. The world loves Americana, they just don't like our current leadership. No, we don't need their consent, but as we live on the same planet, have economic and cultural integrations, we should work with other countries to acheive common goals. Today, we aren't. that is a bad situation, period.

Says you, not reality. We work with other countries to achieve common goals all the time. They may not be the goals you want the U.S. to pursue, but I don't really view that as a bad thing.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
First, there was a lack of a mandate to invade Iraq, and that mandate needs to exist before we were to take action in Sudan.

I see. So you're a fan of John Kerry's "global test." The last time we talked about it, you sure acted like you were against it.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
Um, no, I understand that Bush's decisions have played a big role in the situation in Iraq right now. I also understand that, despite your vitriolic assertions to the contrary and despite the mistakes that Bush has made, the situation in Iraq ISN'T a complete failure. In fact, in many ways it is a rousing success. If we stay the course, history will look back on it quite favorably.

wow, I just had to laugh out loud on that one. "a big role"??? He's THE decsion maker.

It is uncertain if Iraq is to be a "complete failure" or not. It is NOT a "rousing success" by any means. The elections have produced a democratic face to a potential undemocratic constitution. The country is unstable, the insurgency continues, and there is truly no end in sight. The costs of this invasion will continue for years.

As far as what I believe should be done differently today, there really are few choices. The US cannot just leave

Bingo. We can't just leave, and you can't identify anything you would have Bush do differently at this point.[/quote]

so that absolves Bush of the responsibility? absolutely NOT.

You're old enough, Mavdog, that I think you would have a bit more historical perspective than you do. In spite of all the whining about mistakes Bush has made in Iraq (and I readily admit, mistakes have been made), the campaign has, overall, been a rousing success. The "quagmire" is only in the minds of those who oppose the war.

I didn't say "quagmire". Your proclivity to label this war a "rousing success" is not founded by the facts. although you must believe that if you say it enough someone (including yourself?) may actually believe it.

oh, is this a thread about other Presidents?
Clinton proposed a energy consumption tax to reduce demand, as well as support for ethanol (both tax credits for production and at POS).
What has Bush done? anything? well... he has given us higher prices for the energy, but guess who is getting the added dollars? the producers.

What a pathetic duck and weave. The subject was petroleum, and you're talking about ethanol.[/quote]

uh, ethanol is the alternative to gas.
repeat after me: the greater use of ethanol, the less gas that is consumed. the less gas that is consumed, the less petroleum that is imported. The less gas that is consumed, the less demand pressure on price.

Based upon your inability to respond, I take it you agree with me that the same generic criticism about reducing reliance on petroleum could be lodged against any President in the past 30 years.

what a pathetic ignoring of the Clinton initiatives mentioned above. Based on your inability to address those initiatives, I take it you agree that Bush has <u>failed</u> to do a single act to reduce this country's reliance on petroleum imports.

You're wrong. The Department of Energy has said as recently as March 2005 that there currently is no technology in existence to do what you're talking about. As such, the power plants WOULD have to switch. That gets us back to whether it's smart to jack the cost of energy up even further than it has gone.

you should google "clean coal technology" and "pollution control technology". Plants do not need to switch, they need to upgrade.

It IS in the best interests of our country to help the poor, large unintended families are a burden. We clearly disagree about how the state can aid society, you wish that it not work to help the poor and I do.

Wrong. I have no problem with the government helping the poor, but there's a big difference between that and practicing population control. This isn't friggin' China.[/quote]

we're not talking about a "one child policy", we're talking about BASIC information dissemination about preventing pregnancy.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran

I see. So you're a fan of John Kerry's "global test." The last time we talked about it, you sure acted like you were against it.

This has no relationship to the "global test" label.

Without a direct threat to our country, we should work in conjunction with the world community. Iraq was not a direct threat, and neither is Sudan.

[Five-ofan]

I want to continue to talk about the NCLB bill because as a 20 year old and recent high school graduate, it is closer to home than pretty much any other bill. BTW, Corsicana appealed and is now Academically Acceptable as of now. Im not one of the people that complains about the TAKS because it is too dificult or anything. I just dont think that learning testing strategies is a smart use of school time. There is a limited amount of time for students to learn. Home Schooling has almost nothing in common with public schooling. Its not a good comparison. I actually like home schooling as far as just learning but it doesnt provide for learning about social interactions like public school does. I know several home schooled kids who had trouble adapting to being around people other than their parents. Its not always a problem because their are many other ways to have a child interact with others.

You cant honestly think that we need to take money away from public schools. That is not a sound strategy. I saw that the best idea is to just give everyone vouchers and I assume they plan on everyone going to private schools correct? That is not a plausible idea because a) its not cost effective and more importantly b) that would cause public schools to close which would lead to overrun private schools and the need for more schools. The biggest reason private schools do well is because of student to teacher ratios being low. That will change with the voucher plan and we will have the same problems.

About military policy. I did not have a problem with going to Iraq though I do believe that some mistakes were made. Regardless of that, we are there and we cant just leave. That would be one of the worst military and social decisions in history. We also cant say well were gonna be done in 6 months and leave. The reasons for this are 1) its political suicide to ever make any absolute promises. (Bush should have learned this from his dad and the no new taxes idea.) 2.) Insurgents could just wait 6 months until we leave and then take attack again. About going to the Sudan, we do have to have our military in a shape where they are still able to defend this country if necesarry. We CANT engage all of our military globally.

Tax questions. The tax reduction was not inequitable. It was a flat percentage cut. Everyone got the exact same percentage of their taxes back. It just made for some weird numbers because rich people pay more taxes and thus the same percentage on their taxes produced more actual money. The top 1 percent of this country pays 40% of the taxes already so I think that they are taxed well enough. I am from a relatively poor family so this does not help me in anyway. I just dont think that people should be penalized for success. I dont mind taxes being a slightly higher percentage for the rich but it doesnt need to be as high as it is now much less higher. People complain about outsourcing of jobs and now you want us to tax businesses at a higher rate? Do you think maybe that has something to do with outsourcing? I do think that the environment is important and we need to take care of it but it has to be a balancing act.

[Drbio]

Originally posted by: Drbio
Mavdog- could you please denote which side of your mouth each of your statements are spoken from after each post? Perhaps a (L) or an (R) after each of your contradictory statements? I know oftentimes you will need an (A) for those out of the arse moments and we wouldn't even begrudge you a (L) for those times you come out of left field. It would help us all greatly if we could get some interpretive assistance.

I did say please.