Forum Replies Created
@laptops Daddy wrote:
i don’t think there was a response as such. we all seem to agree that iraq had nothing to do with 9/11?
Of course not. Anyone paying attention knows that.
I don’t know what Afghanistan had to do with the attack or the aftermath.
i don’t know either. nothing at all perhaps?
The official line handed down was that Afghanistan harbored those responsible and “may” have had a role in its planning.
After an attack like that the last thing any President was going to do is find and put a man on trial. Every politician in the USA would have lost his job.
after the attacks on iraq and afghanistan do you mean?
i know you meant 9/11.
maybe. i guess they couldn’t risk giving bin laden or any of the perpetrators a fair trial – the events had already been linked in the media to iraq, afghanistan and so on. real legal scrutiny might have brought the whole system into question, especially if there were documented conclusions that the wars were unrelated.
there seems to be a growing consensus that neither war had anything to do with 9/11 either way. both wars, i guess any war is more complicated than a trial of individuals.
I can tell you right now the American people wanted blood after 9/11. A trial was never an option. You saw the way Bin Laden was dealt with? We never had any intention of putting him on trial. Afghanistan was the obvious target. They supposedly harbored him and trained others that were like minded. I think the idea was to answer the attack with an overwhelming response so as to deter future incidents. Something a trial sorely lacks.
As far as Iraq goes, the official line (or one of them at least) was that he had WMD and could pass them off creating more 9/11s. Talk of ridding Iraq of chem. weapons goes back to 1998 when Clinton was President. That gave us the excuse to resume hostilities. That and resolutions passed after the gulf war. Keep in mind we reserved the right to resume hostilities if Saddam did not abide by them. He did not. But still, that doesn’t mean we should have gone into Iraq.
Let me say one more thing even though I have said too much already. I feel like Rommel.
I did notice the subtle shift in the reasons for going to war with Iraq. I am not an idiot, it wasn’t lost on me. First it was all about WMD. From there it went to freeing the people to stopping the rape rooms to a better life for women to spreading democracy to we didn’t want Saddam there anyway. All over a period of time so as to not take the blame for something that they may or may not have known existed in the first place. It was quite clever.
There is no reason a hot topic cannot be discussed.
i agree. very sensitive topics though. we mustn’t let it turn into a fight.[/quote]
It won’t turn into a fight with me. It only turns into a fight with people that think they know everything. Some things become more clear after time.
…I’ve had enough of this forum, too many ignorant f**k americans who believe the bullshit they see on T.V……
I’m gone enjoy your f**k ignorance!
Wow…Just wow… #-o ..why the hate man? I did nothing to you.
This is why threads get locked. There are ways to communicate displeasure in a civilized manner, and the alternative. I think me and Rommel showed you can deliver a few jabs and still show respect. There is no reason a hot topic cannot be discussed. It is only when someone begins to fly off the handle that a thread can turn into a dog and pony show. You just can’t respond in kind.
@laptops Daddy wrote:
that’s an angry peanut. why all the swearing?
I am surprised he didn’t go straight to prison planet. Someone that subscribes to conspiracy theories calling someone else stupid. Imagine that.
it was the other way around, really, though, wasn’t it? quite clearly, i think. the state’s perceived threat or poor image was the reason for 9/11. call it the west, not just the states. i think the US just happened to be the unfortunate flag bearer for the injustice or contempt those people must have felt.
Even if you looked at it this way, what response did you expect?
the point is that 9/11 was no act of war by any country, was it? it was a small band of brainwashed disillusioned young men imagining that killing innocent people was a way to make a statement.
it made a statement. more of a statement because it was an atrocity involving innocent people and gave the US the excuse it’d been waiting for.
It was not overtly state sponsored for obvious reasons. But that doesn’t mean it didn’t have some state aid. Whether it was Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia, there is no way for me personally to know. As far as the excuse you are referring to, that has more to do with Iraq. In hindsight, it does appear to be the truth. We were beating the drums of war against Iraq going back to the Clinton Admin.
it was an excuse. iraq had nothing to do with it, did it? and neither did afghanistan so far as i know.
ok, some religious guy in a part of the world that already had a lot of hatred for the US might have put his hands up to it. the sensible response to that would be to either assume it was nonsense, or if they were naive enough to believe it, capture him and put him on trial.
Clearly Iraq had nothing to do with it. Which is why I called it a spin off. I don’t know what Afghanistan had to do with the attack or the aftermath. But it was a hotbed for terrorists and the most obvious place to strike. After an attack like that the last thing any President was going to do is find and put a man on trial. Every politician in the USA would have lost his job. Iraq was the foolish endeavor. But hey, it’s a good thing we didn’t listen to the people that said Germany had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor, right?
Yeah, we are naïve thinking that a bunch of sand dwellers want something better for themselves. We should just leave them alone…bUT, as Peanut knows, they’re not staying in their sand and rocks.
This is the one thing people keep forgetting. If there was no 9/11 there would not have been an Afghanistan or the Iraq spin off. But yes, we have made some bad mistakes in our response. That said, if we’re attacked again we’ll respond again. Maybe some countries are happy with crying, holding vigils, and lighting some candles, but that’s not us. We will respond with force. Hopefully we can keep it localized to those responsible.
As far as using force for humanitarian aid, I am against it. If the rest of the world is ok with generation after generation of North Korean’s rotting away, who are we to step in?
BTW, how is that European military? What if Russia decided to push a little further west? I do not believe they will, but what if?
He doesn’t have these moves!
Dude, here in the US reruns of Sanford and Son, Chess matches, and rock paper scissor championships would get more viewers than Rugby. I am not saying rugby is a bad sport, just like I don’t think kick the can is a bad sport. Just that people here in the US would rather watch midget tossing contests over that boring event.
Because it’s a boring ass stupid game. Takes like 5 hours for 30 minutes of action.
It is about 15 minutes of actual play, 2 hours of commercials, and 45 minutes of watching players stand around. Ok, I think I get the point. 😀
Anyway, it was a bigger beating than I thought. But a beating none the less. Everybody was picking Denver. Denver Denver Denver. Yet another over rated offense goes down to an elite defense. When will people learn?
I realize the US. is lacking big time in the soccer department. The worlds has beens are the stars of MLS. As much as that bothers me, at least we give it a try. Why is American football not played anywhere else? You see baseball in various countries. Basketball and hockey are played in many countries, and played well. But when it comes to American football, it’s a no go. Can someone explain this to me? Is it too rough? 😆
@laptops Daddy wrote:
hi. i was brought here from the quote thread.
it’s nice to see that vote in protest of war option.
this is probably noted somewhere already, but maybe it should be emphasised a little bit more. that option was added following a few votes on the other options. *also im sure the thread was started as satire and intended in itself as a protest.
i don’t know if we have any mods around who can change it? maybe it wouldnt hurt to remove the poll now.
i don’t think my thoughts have changed much in 4 or 5 years. i don’t think there will be a war.
i think we should push more for renewable energy. use some of that technology to lead the way a bit. give it away for free, share it with the world.
if iran need nuclear power plants, any country with the technology should just help them build them. do a deal, share a few tricks.
sort the worlds economy out with innovations in entertainment and domestic appliances, things that make people’s lives better and easier. industry, construction, jobs in management, maintenance, education.
But was it necessary? The question was When will the war begin, not when should the war begin. So based on the question the options were enough.
Well, now war seems to be bit distant possibility. Don’t do or support something like operation Ajax again.
Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time. And it was working well.
Hi Deathbal :
Rush Limbaugh – $ 250.00 per plate dinner and speech. No thanks.
Vomiting up a $ 250.00 dinner might be normal for models, not me.
$250 bucks for dinner and listen to Rush? Where do I sign? Or did you mean 25k?
Be they musicians, politicians, stock advisors, etc., the audience
freely decides, based on the price of admission and the expected
quality of the performer(s), that they think the cost is justifiable.
This is not the case with what we consider to be the necessities of
life … water, food, shelter, clothing, electricity, transportation, etc..
Yes I agree. But someone has to pay for it. It is always difficult to get someone to shell out more than they think something is worth. You know, like that 250 bucks for a dinner and speech. What is easy is to expect someone else to do what you won’t.
The bit about the models reminded me of a poem I wrote
in 1976 in a toilet stall on a job … I’ve cleaned it up some :
Here you sit and poop away,
Food that cost you half your pay,
If these words should cause you sorrow,
Eat some poop for lunch tomorrow.
Funny stuff … the things we remember …[/color][/list]
It is an excellent poem. I will “pass it on” to my fellows at work tomorrow.
Not wanting to restrict anyone’s pay unfairly, I’m not sure that the
type of salary caps being discussed recently are a good idea. I could
care less if the CEO of a company makes $ 50 Thousand a year or
$ 50 Billion as long as the pay is fair in relation to the profits of the
company and the pay of the lowest level workers. A better solution
seems to be tying the wages of managment to those of the workers.
If the company is doing well and the CEO is deemed worthy of a raise,
the raise would be applied to all in the company, such that the status
quo is maintained. This is the way capitalism is supposed to work.
Those that are productive are rewarded, FAIRLY.
How do you propose doing this? Through legislation? You want to tell a business owner how he pays his employees? You call that capitalism? It’s an “ism” alright, but I think it starts with the “Other C”. Capitalism is about capitalizing on opportunity for gain. It is an individualist ideology that rewards a person for directly inserting himself into the money stream and compensated accordingly. It is not about rewarding the common grunt worker that can be replaced by a monkey. Or (pigeon).
Under our current system of puesdo-capitalism, rewards seem to be
doled out to those that have the best connections with little or no
regard for their productivity or ability. If the company falters, the
first ones to feel the pain are the workers. The unfairness is
compounded by the fact that the problems may not be related to a
decrease in the productivity of the workers and quite often, it is
quite the opposite. Productivity increases, management pay
increases, but the workers don’t reap the benefits.
This is why we have unions. Of which I am 100% in favor.
Under my proposal, the CEO’s would be paid a resonable percentage
above the lowest paid person in the company. Not millions of times
the lowest wage, but a reasonable amount that is sufficient to
encourage those with ability to take on increased responsibility for an
increase in pay.
I hope you don’t take offense to what I am about to say because I assure you I do not mean to offend. I also think your heart is in the right place.
To me this sounds like a statement born of envy than anything else. Besides, how would you accomplish this? Besides that, what impact would this proposal have on a big company? You are only affecting the CEO’s pay. It is not going to have any affect on the common workers pay.
When times are hard and costs must be cut to keep a company
solvent, each reduction in pay to the workers would be preceeded
by an even larger reduction of pay to management. The idea being
to keep managment honest and not unfairly penilize the workers for
the faults of management.
I can’t argue with you here. But you saw the list I put up regarding McDonald’s and other companies, right? Cutting the employees pay will always reap more money than management. Primarily because there are so many more of them. But again, this is only a measure to spite management, not help the average employee.
Most likely, a radical restructuring of this type will only be possible
after the collapse of the world ecomomy and the loss of millions of
lives. Hopefully I am wrong but fairness in life is much like fairness in
sports. It generally isn’t something that those with an unfair
advantage find paletable. This being the case, I see much pain in
Let me guess, you are for salary caps in sports?
Hi Deathbal :
What I find interesting is that I have to rewrite this to get you to
see the intended message. Sarah Palin was supposed to be a clue
that kept me from having to state my message like this :
Thank you my friend. That was an excellent observation my friend.
I will have my staff look into those policy statements my friend and
get back to you. Thanks again my friend. All right my friends, next
His concern for the working man is heart warming. 🙄
A politician, and most anyone with any sense, is going to make
their proposal as appealing as they can to as many as they can.
Using the word fairness in a bill intended to promote fairness is
fine with me. Calling me your friend and doing it with the most
obvious insincerity is something that I find to be disgusting.
I disagree. In a bill that truly promotes fairness would have no need for the word. It’s only really needed when a bill truly isn’t fair.
You’re fixation on the tax brackets is fascinating but Semantically
Speaking (I’m not an anti-semantic by the way) the capitol gains
tax is still an income (profit) tax and to suggest otherwise is wrong.
Not at all ridiculous to me. We are talking about gains (profits) not
the selling price. What I find ridiculous is that working people have
been persuaded to believe that when we sell something priceless
at a loss ( our time ) for any sum, we have made a profit. Untrue.
I am fully aware of what a “gain” is. I buy my house for 100k and sell it for 300k I gain 200k. You want to now tax that as income? Or is this just limited to the rich? Oh wait, the top 20%?
Another interesting observation I have made during the “era of class warfare” for the past 5 years is that no one ever mentions or cares about how much in taxes the government takes. Ever wonder why so many companies go abroad? Sure cheap labor plays a role, but our wonderful 39% business tax has a lot do with it. But no one says a peep about that. It’s always the greedy company. It is always people not wanting to pay their fair share. Again the use of the word fair. I guess if you are going to ask some people to pay upwards of 40% in federal income taxes and others much less to none, the word fair makes an appearance.
Oh if I could, what wouldn’t I sell to have back my youth and
still know what I know today? All I would keep would be the
clothes required to stay out of jail. The things that were sold,
could all be recovered and much more, in rather short order.
But alas, once our time is sold, we can never buy it back. Not
at any price. The best we can do is to find someone that has a
lower value on their time than what we do on ours. Then we
can buy their time and use them to do the things we need done
while spending the “Free Time” they have allowed us, in the
manner we see fit. The wealthy have free time in abundance.
Well, now I hope you are not talking about the top 20%. People become wealthy for many reasons. But those that do not start off wealthy have to be either very innovative or work extremely hard to get to the point of being wealthy. Take a doctor/surgeon for example. Do you know what they have to go through and the time they have to put in before they start making real money?
For the most part we make our own beds. I’ll be honest, I never had the motivation to make it big or tons of money. All I ever wanted was a good job that paid decent money that I didn’t have to take home with me. Guess what? That is the best I ever got. But I went for union jobs because I knew they would be BETTER THAN fair to me. Some people don’t believe they can get a union job. I know, I have talked to them. They’d always say, how did you land that job? Guess what? That person will never get a union job. And the people that vote for politicians because they think by picking someone else’s pocket will make their life better, guess what? They will always be poor!
About the Pigeons : What I saw was a company exploiting
living creatures with no regard for the wellfare of workers.
I know what you saw though. My idea of irony would be if the
workers got a fungal bird disease and bankrupted the company.
Aah ok, I was using the word incorrectly. My entire point was, if it was ruled cruel to animals, why is it ok for people?
No, Please. Fair is a good word and although it has fallen into
misuse and disuse, it hasn’t gone down the rabbit hole yet. Let us
strive to make it once again, a word we can all be proud to use.
If you want everyone to pay their fair share, as do I, then first, we
have to give everyone a fair share. That’s a proposal I can support.
This is a very interesting comment. But in the end it’s just a platitude. How does everyone get a fair share? What determines that?
Hi All :
While waiting on Deathbal, I played with the calculators.
Keep in mind that these results are based on 2010 figures.
Pecentile Status Based on Annual Income :
If you earn more than $ 97,297 per year,
you are in the top 20 % of income earners.
Pecentile Status Based on Net Worth :
If your net worth is more than $ 391,500
You are in the top 20 % in net worth.
I am well above the first, and just recently went above the second due to an inheritance. Otherwise our net worth would have been considerably lower. But what is your point about the top 20%? Do you think they hoard money and have stacks of cash just sitting in a closet somewhere?