Is Bush cutting his own throat?

[Joe Steel]

The Bush administration is telling American diplomats to defend the decision to seek death for six Guantanamo Bay detainees accused in the Sept. 11 terror attacks by recalling the executions of Nazi war criminals.

A State Department cable sent to U.S. embassies abroad and obtained by The Associated Press says that capital punishment is an internationally accepted sentence for those convicted of serious war crimes. As proof, the cable notes that some of Adolf Hitler's most senior aides were executed after being condemned to die at the Nuremberg trials in 1945 and 1946.

US compares 9/11 trials to Nuremberg (http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila/US_compares_9_11_trials_to_Nurember_02122008.html)

Is Bush going to be a death penalty supporter when he goes on trial?

[manu1959]

Is Bush going to be a death penalty supporter when he goes on trial?

which war crimes exactly?

who is going to try him?

[MtnBiker]

who is going to try him?


Code Pink

[manu1959]

Code Pink

i look forword to that trial.....you see what those marooons are doing in berzerkley......every 70 year old moon bat from the 60's has shown up.....

looks like a hippie AARP meeting....

[jimnyc]

Is Bush going to be a death penalty supporter when he goes on trial?

Where is this infamous trial taking place? You do realize that wishful whining by some left wing kooks won't make your dreams come true? Kind of hard for someone to be on trial and face the death penalty when not a single charge is even pending. Sad that someone must live their lives via rhetoric.

[MtnBiker]

looks like a hippie AARP meeting....

Now instead of droping acid they are taking arthritis meds

[manu1959]

Now instead of droping acid they are taking arthritis meds

the smell of ben gay must be overwhelming....

[Kathianne]

Now instead of droping acid they are taking arthritis meds

Hey! I was doing so at 31. Child. :laugh2:

[MtnBiker]

the smell of ben gay must be overwhelming....

that depends - doh!

[Mr. P]

HEY! Lay off the AARP you young PUNKS, if yer lucky you may get to join someday! :slap::laugh2:

[MtnBiker]

those are only directed to the Code Pink AARP members. :D

[Sir Evil]

Is Bush going to be a death penalty supporter when he goes on trial?

You should get a photo of Saddam being hung, past Bush's face on it, and then you will have something that you can :wank2: to daily.

[hjmick]

All I can say is... :lmao:

[nevadamedic]

which war crimes exactly?

who is going to try him?

Loney Cindy and her Camp Adam people.

[Joe Steel]

"President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales have committed violations and subversions of the Constitution of the United States of America in an attempt to carry out with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes and deprivations of the civil rights of the people of the United States and other nations, by assuming powers of an imperial executive unaccountable to law and usurping powers of the Congress, the Judiciary and those reserved to the people of the United States, by the following acts:

1) Seizing power to wage wars of aggression in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter and the rule of law; carrying out a massive assault on and occupation of Iraq, a country that was not threatening the United States, resulting in the death and maiming of over one hundred thousand Iraqis, and thousands of U.S. G.I.s.

2) Lying to the people of the U.S., to Congress, and to the U.N., providing false and deceptive rationales for war.

3) Authorizing, ordering and condoning direct attacks on civilians, civilian facilities and locations where civilian casualties were unavoidable.

...

Articles of Impeachment (http://www.impeachbush.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5054&news_iv_ctrl=1061)

[nevadamedic]

"President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales have committed violations and subversions of the Constitution of the United States of America in an attempt to carry out with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes and deprivations of the civil rights of the people of the United States and other nations, by assuming powers of an imperial executive unaccountable to law and usurping powers of the Congress, the Judiciary and those reserved to the people of the United States, by the following acts:

1) Seizing power to wage wars of aggression in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter and the rule of law; carrying out a massive assault on and occupation of Iraq, a country that was not threatening the United States, resulting in the death and maiming of over one hundred thousand Iraqis, and thousands of U.S. G.I.s.

2) Lying to the people of the U.S., to Congress, and to the U.N., providing false and deceptive rationales for war.

3) Authorizing, ordering and condoning direct attacks on civilians, civilian facilities and locations where civilian casualties were unavoidable.

...

Articles of Impeachment (http://www.impeachbush.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5054&news_iv_ctrl=1061)

Where have you been latley, in jail? I see they didn't put you on medication that you really need to be on.

[April15]

Is Bush going to be a death penalty supporter when he goes on trial?He will have that same monkey look when he swings!

[MtnBiker]

Articles of Impeachment (http://www.impeachbush.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5054&news_iv_ctrl=1061)


:laugh2:

Let's see that make it through congress.

[manu1959]

"President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales have committed violations and subversions of the Constitution of the United States of America in an attempt to carry out with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes and deprivations of the civil rights of the people of the United States and other nations, by assuming powers of an imperial executive unaccountable to law and usurping powers of the Congress, the Judiciary and those reserved to the people of the United States, by the following acts:

1) Seizing power to wage wars of aggression in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter and the rule of law; carrying out a massive assault on and occupation of Iraq, a country that was not threatening the United States, resulting in the death and maiming of over one hundred thousand Iraqis, and thousands of U.S. G.I.s.

2) Lying to the people of the U.S., to Congress, and to the U.N., providing false and deceptive rationales for war.

3) Authorizing, ordering and condoning direct attacks on civilians, civilian facilities and locations where civilian casualties were unavoidable.

...

Articles of Impeachment (http://www.impeachbush.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5054&news_iv_ctrl=1061)

sounds like clinton and bosnia or somalia.....guess he is going down as well....

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

My name is Bob Loblaw, and I authorize the following message!


"President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales have committed violations and subversions of the Constitution of the United States of America in an attempt to carry out with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes and deprivations of the civil rights of the people of the United States and other nations, by assuming powers of an imperial executive unaccountable to law and usurping powers of the Congress, the Judiciary and those reserved to the people of the United States, by the following acts:

1) Seizing power to wage wars of aggression in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter and the rule of law; carrying out a massive assault on and occupation of Iraq, a country that was not threatening the United States, resulting in the death and maiming of over one hundred thousand Iraqis, and thousands of U.S. G.I.s.

2) Lying to the people of the U.S., to Congress, and to the U.N., providing false and deceptive rationales for war.

3) Authorizing, ordering and condoning direct attacks on civilians, civilian facilities and locations where civilian casualties were unavoidable.

...

Articles of Impeachment (http://www.impeachbush.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5054&news_iv_ctrl=1061)

[bullypulpit]

Trials based on hearsay, evidence obtained through torture, secret evidence which neither the defendant nor his counsel have access to, no appeal process, and death penalty specifications...Yeah, a real model for international justice.

It's called a kangaroo court or drumhead trial. Due process is irrelevant. Rules of evidence are irrelevant. Only the conviction is of concern, and it is decided in advance...Guilty on all counts. Such trials are not the product of a free and democratic society. They are the tools of despots and tyrants the world over.

It's no wonder the Bush administration has lost all credibility in combating terrorism. The Bush administration has sacrificed the good name of America...The principles and ideals it was founded upon...All in the name of national security. But that security is built on quicksand, for as this administration abandons the fundamental principles of jurisprudence it simply provides more fuel to the fire of hatred for America burning in the hearts of fanatics around the world.

Thank you, President Bush.

[red states rule]

"President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales have committed violations and subversions of the Constitution of the United States of America in an attempt to carry out with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes and deprivations of the civil rights of the people of the United States and other nations, by assuming powers of an imperial executive unaccountable to law and usurping powers of the Congress, the Judiciary and those reserved to the people of the United States, by the following acts:

1) Seizing power to wage wars of aggression in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter and the rule of law; carrying out a massive assault on and occupation of Iraq, a country that was not threatening the United States, resulting in the death and maiming of over one hundred thousand Iraqis, and thousands of U.S. G.I.s.

2) Lying to the people of the U.S., to Congress, and to the U.N., providing false and deceptive rationales for war.

3) Authorizing, ordering and condoning direct attacks on civilians, civilian facilities and locations where civilian casualties were unavoidable.

...

Articles of Impeachment (http://www.impeachbush.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5054&news_iv_ctrl=1061)

It is amazing to see the kook left attack their own government and show pity to terrorists that would kill them without a moments hesitation

[Joe Steel]

:laugh2:

Let's see that make it through congress.

You're probably right in your implication; this Congress probably will not impeach.

About the best the People can hope for the future is an election campaign which makes Bush conduct in office an issue. I think most Americans are dissatisfied with Congress because they're allowing Bush to get-away with too much. They'd be willing to vote for a Congress which will vow to punish him. Of course, the Congress would take office after he leaves and couldn't impeach but they might support prosecution.

[red states rule]

You're probably right in your implication; this Congress probably will not impeach.

About the best the People can hope for the future is an election campaign which makes Bush conduct in office an issue. I think most Americans are dissatisfied with Congress because they're allowing Bush to get-away with too much. They'd be willing to vote for a Congress which will vow to punish him. Of course, the Congress would take office after he leaves and couldn't impeach but they might support prosecution.

Yes, the terrorists wil be very happy with the party of surrender and appeasement takes over

Then the terrosrists can move arounbd freely and plan their attacks without fear of wiretaps. They can transfer money from overseas banks without worrying about the government tracking the trasnactions. If caught, they wil have access to our Federal courts, and spend years on a single trial

Yes, Dems are the best friends the terrorists have in the US

[Joe Steel]

It is amazing to see the kook left attack their own government and show pity to terrorists that would kill them without a moments hesitation

It's amazing to see the kook right support a Regime which is destroying American democracy.

[bullypulpit]

You're probably right in your implication; this Congress probably will not impeach.

About the best the People can hope for the future is an election campaign which makes Bush conduct in office an issue. I think most Americans are dissatisfied with Congress because they're allowing Bush to get-away with too much. They'd be willing to vote for a Congress which will vow to punish him. Of course, the Congress would take office after he leaves and couldn't impeach but they might support prosecution.

I seriously doubt that Bush, or most other members, current and former, of his cabinet will be doing much in the way of foreign travel. The irony of becoming a victim of his own policy of rendition would simply be too rich.

[red states rule]

It's amazing to see the kook right support a Regime which is destroying American democracy.

Funny, I saw the democracy work fine last night in 3 states

and it has been working fine for the last couple of months

I doubt Hillary likes it very much - but it is working fine

[Joe Steel]

Yes, the terrorists wil be very happy with the party of surrender and appeasement takes over

Then the terrosrists can move arounbd freely and plan their attacks without fear of wiretaps. They can transfer money from overseas banks without worrying about the government tracking the trasnactions. If caught, they wil have access to our Federal courts, and spend years on a single trial

Yes, Dems are the best friends the terrorists have in the US

Americans expect their government to reflect American values. When those values have been abandoned, we might as well let the terrorists have what's left. That's why prosecuting Bush is so important. In eight years, he's destroyed the government Americans built in the 200+ years since the Founding.

[bullypulpit]

It is amazing to see the kook left attack their own government and show pity to terrorists that would kill them without a moments hesitation

Not the government you water-head...Just the current administration. And who said anything about pity?

Have open and fair trials. If the evidence leads to guilty verdicts...Fine, strap the fuckers down and tie a cage of starving rats to their bellies for all I care. But don't hold these drumhead trials and call them justice, because its not. It is, however an insult to all the men and women who have fought and died to preserve the values this nation was founded upon.

[red states rule]

Americans expect their government to reflect American values. When those values have been abandoned, we might as well let the terrorists have what's left. That's why prosecuting Bush is so important. In eight years, he's destroyed the government Americans built in the 200+ years since the Founding.

Thoses values are defending the nation and taking out our enemies. To kook libs like you, the only enemy is Pres Bush

Appeasement of terrorists did not work under Clinton, and it will not work under Hillary or Obama

[red states rule]

Not the government you water-head...Just the current administration. And who said anything about pity?

Have open and fair trials. If the evidence leads to guilty verdicts...Fine, strap the fuckers down and tie a cage of starving rats to their bellies for all I care. But don't hold these drumhead trials and call them justice, because its not. It is, however an insult to all the men and women who have fought and died to preserve the values this nation was founded upon.

The terrorists will have a fair trial - in a military court

I understand the kook left hates Pres Bush more then the terrorists that will kill you - why I will never uinderstand

[Joe Steel]

I seriously doubt that Bush, or most other members, current and former, of his cabinet will be doing much in the way of foreign travel. The irony of becoming a victim of his own policy of rendition would simply be too rich.

Exactly.

One interesting thing which may be coming is the pardon problem.

Suppose Bush pardons Cheney and then resigns. Cheney becomes president and pardons Bush. I think that could happen but if it does it might make both Bush and Cheney subject to the International Criminal Court.

As I understand the Rome Statute, the ICC has no jurisdiction if the perpetrator's own country has laws which could support prosecution. If both Bush and Cheney have been pardoned for the violations of American laws, then maybe the ICC could prosecute. If Bush and Cheney left the country, they could be arrested.

[red states rule]

Exactly.

One interesting thing which may be coming is the pardon problem.

Suppose Bush pardons Cheney and then resigns. Cheney becomes president and pardons Bush. I think that could happen but if it does it might make both Bush and Cheney subject to the International Criminal Court.

As I understand the Rome Statute, the ICC has no jurisdiction if the perpetrator's own country has laws which could support prosecution. If both Bush and Cheney have been pardoned for the violations of American laws, then maybe the ICC could prosecute. If Bush and Cheney left the country, they could be arrested.

Suppose you go and get the treatmenst you so desperatly need?

Under Hillary/Obama someone else will even pay for it

[Joe Steel]

Thoses values are defending the nation and taking out our enemies. To kook libs like you, the only enemy is Pres Bush

Appeasement of terrorists did not work under Clinton, and it will not work under Hillary or Obama

Militarism and imperialism are not American values. Fair elections and freedom from unreasonable searches are, but they're just about gone.

[red states rule]

Militarism and imperialism are not American values. Fair elections and freedom from unreasonable searches are, but they're just about gone.

Can you name any US citizens who the governemnt has targeted? Or are you worried about the "rights" of terrorists?

[Joe Steel]

Can you name any US citizens who the governemnt has targeted? Or are you worried about the "rights" of terrorists?

I can't name any of the victims in the World Trade Center. Nevertheless, I know it happened. That's pretty much the same as Bush's domestic spying. I haven't got any names but I know he's spied on Americans.

[red states rule]

I can't name any of the victims in the World Trade Center. Nevertheless, I know it happened. That's pretty much the same as Bush's domestic spying. I haven't got any names but I know he's spied on Americans.

So you are one of the kooks who thinks 9-11 was an inside job?

[Joe Steel]

So you are one of the kooks who thinks 9-11 was an inside job?

What?

How did you get that out of what I posted?

I merely said I don't know the names of any of the victims.

[manu1959]

I can't name any of the victims in the World Trade Center. Nevertheless, I know it happened. That's pretty much the same as Bush's domestic spying. I haven't got any names but I know he's spied on Americans.

the demo controled senate just voted to continue the program

[Classact]

the demo controled senate just voted to continue the programJoe Steel aka Harry Reid is debating waterboarding right now. Guess there will be a vote today to state if it is legal or not.

[bullypulpit]

The terrorists will have a fair trial - in a military court

I understand the kook left hates Pres Bush more then the terrorists that will kill you - why I will never uinderstand

Under the Military Commissions Act of 2006, due process is eliminated as <i>habeas corpus</i> is eliminated for ANYONE the Bush administration declares to be an 'unlawful' enemy combatant. It permits coerced evidence, as in evidence secured through torture. Denies the defendant and their counsel evidence deemed 'secret'. There is no appeal. In no sense of the word can these 'trials' be considered fair. In no way do these tribunals comport with military courts as established under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Bush is worthy of no more emotional energy than one would devote to scraping something off your shoe that you'd stepped in. Bring terrorists to trial in an open court, and I won't have any trouble with the outcome. Secret trials are, and always have been, the tools of despots and dictators.

[red states rule]

Under the Military Commissions Act of 2006, due process is eliminated as <i>habeas corpus</i> is eliminated for ANYONE the Bush administration declares to be an 'unlawful' enemy combatant. It permits coerced evidence, as in evidence secured through torture. Denies the defendant and their counsel evidence deemed 'secret'. There is no appeal. In no sense of the word can these 'trials' be considered fair. In no way do these tribunals comport with military courts as established under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Bush is worthy of no more emotional energy than one would devote to scraping something off your shoe that you'd stepped in. Bring terrorists to trial in an open court, and I won't have any trouble with the outcome. Secret trials are, and always have been, the tools of despots and dictators.

Oh, but when FDR did it to the Nazi's libs had no problem

Oh, FDR had a (D) at the end of his name

That is the reason for the double standard

[Joe Steel]

the demo controled senate just voted to continue the program

I know. My Senator voted with the Republicans to continue the spying. I probably won't vote for her again.

[red states rule]

I know. My Senator voted with the Republicans to continue the spying. I probably won't vote for her again.

Yea, it is nice to see Dems surrendeing to Pres Bush, and chalking up defeat after defeat

[manu1959]

Oh, but when FDR did it to the Nazi's libs had no problem

Oh, FDR had a (D) at the end of his name

That is the reason for the double standard

he did it to the germans, japanese and italians.....

[manu1959]

I know. My Senator voted with the Republicans to continue the spying. I probably won't vote for her again.

careful they are probably reading this right now.......

[red states rule]

he did it to the germans, japanese and italians.....

Would these same libs be upset with FDR during WWII?

Somehow I think they would singing his praises

[hjmick]

careful they are probably reading this right now.......

No, we're not...

[red states rule]

No, we're not...

Well, Joe might be banned from the Daily Kos, and the Dem Underground

Other then that, he is safe

It is not like he said something bad about Hillary or Bill

[gabosaurus]

Bush has been cutting his throat since Sept. 11, 2001. It hardly deserves mention anymore.

[red states rule]

Bush has been cutting his throat since Sept. 11, 2001. It hardly deserves mention anymore.

Then how is Pres bush defeating them on so many issues, and why are Dems caving to him on so many bills?

[retiredman]

Then how is Pres bush defeating them on so many issues, and why are Dems caving to him on so many bills?

because we don't have 60 votes in the Senate.

but we will pretty soon! :lol:

[red states rule]

because we don't have 60 votes in the Senate.

but we will pretty soon! :lol:

So that is why they are passing bills with what Pres Bush wants?

So much for standing firm on principals - oh we are talking about Dems - they do not have any

[bullypulpit]

Oh, but when FDR did it to the Nazi's libs had no problem

Oh, FDR had a (D) at the end of his name

That is the reason for the double standard

And thanks for playing "Really Bad Analogies"! (game show music swells in background) These WWII analogies to the 'war on terruh' always fall flat on their face, just as yours does. The global effort to fight terrorism is not, and never has been analogous to the fight against fascism in WWII. No matter how you try to slice it...dice it...parse it...phrase it...twist it...it just ain't so, and no amount of saying it is on the part of you and your fellow travelers will ever make it so.

As for double standards...It was perfectly fine for Japanese officers to be tried for war crimes when they water-boarded Allied troops during WWII, and they were executed BTW. But, and let me get this straight, its perfectly alright if Bush and his flunkies have it done to people in US custody? Do I have it right?

[red states rule]

And thanks for playing "Really Bad Analogies"! (game show music swells in background) These WWII analogies to the 'war on terruh' always fall flat on their face, just as yours does. The global effort to fight terrorism is not, and never has been analogous to the fight against fascism in WWII. No matter how you try to slice it...dice it...parse it...phrase it...twist it...it just ain't so, and no amount of saying it is on the part of you and your fellow travelers will ever make it so.

As for double standards...It was perfectly fine for Japanese officers to be tried for war crimes when they water-boarded Allied troops during WWII, and they were executed BTW. But, and let me get this straight, its perfectly alright if Bush and his flunkies have it done to people in US custody? Do I have it right?

Us troops are covered under the GC

Terrorists are not

I know BP you and your ilk are more worried about the comfort of terrorists, and being liked by others - but you are losing badly on this issue

You ran like hell when I proved waterboarding was used only 3 times and lives were saved each time

[retiredman]

So that is why they are passing bills with what Pres Bush wants?


exactly...because if they try to pass something that Bush DOESN'T want, the republicans in the senate filibuster it. YOu certainly don't see them passing anything that is profoundly onerous to democratic party principles.

(Oh...have you figured out yet that filibusters are not just for judicial nominees? I figured maybe you were asleep or stoned during civics class when they taught that)

[retiredman]

Us troops are covered under the GC

Terrorists are not

I know BP you and your ilk are more worried about the comfort of terrorists, and being liked by others - but you are losing badly on this issue

You ran like hell when I proved waterboarding was used only 3 times and lives were saved each time


who cares how many times it was used? If Jeffrey Dahmer had only eaten three of his victims, would he not have been a cannibal?:laugh2:

everybody is covered by the UN Convention on torture, by the way....you know...the law of the land.

[red states rule]

exactly...because if they try to pass something that Bush DOESN'T want, the republicans in the senate filibuster it. YOu certainly don't see them passing anything that is profoundly onerous to democratic party principles.

(Oh...have you figured out yet that filibusters are not just for judicial nominees? I figured maybe you were asleep or stoned during civics class when they taught that)

They have lied to you libs many times and passed what they said they were opposed to

Yet you fools keep voting for them over and over again

[red states rule]

who cares how many times it was used? If Jeffrey Dahmer had only eaten three of his victims, would he not have been a cannibal?:laugh2:

everybody is covered by the UN Convention on torture, by the way....you know...the law of the land.

I know it means nothing to you lives were saved. You are more interested in the "rights" of terrorists - saving lives in not your major concern

[retiredman]

I know it means nothing to you lives were saved. You are more interested in the "rights" of terrorists - saving lives in not your major concern


of course I want to save lives. Do you not care about the law of the land? Is our constitution not worth defending?

[retiredman]

They have lied to you libs many times and passed what they said they were opposed to

Yet you fools keep voting for them over and over again

voting for democrats who at least try to pass the legislation that I feel is important makes a lot more sense than voting for a republican who I KNOW wants to pass something completely opposed to my way of thinking.

didn't it snow in hell when we agreed what fools the republicans were for nominating McCain?

remember the adage about glass houses. :laugh2:

[bullypulpit]

Us troops are covered under the GC

Terrorists are not

I know BP you and your ilk are more worried about the comfort of terrorists, and being liked by others - but you are losing badly on this issue

You ran like hell when I proved waterboarding was used only 3 times and lives were saved each time

Guess what, numbnuts...The SCOTUS in the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld ruled that Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions DOES apply to the detainees at GITMO, and elsewhere in US custody.

The only thing I lose is the time it takes me to knock your silly, half-assed, lame-brained, piss-poor excuses for arguments flat on their ass, and not much at that.

You've never proven anything, beyond your own willful ignorance. With regards to the water-boarding argument all you did, as you ever do, was parrot the press releases from the Bush administration. If I ever see an original thought in one of your posts, the shock might well kill me.

[MtnBiker]

because we don't have 60 votes in the Senate.

but we will pretty soon! :lol:

60 votes, you will need alot more than that, the vote was 68 to 29.

Here are the democratics that voted yea

Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Conrad (D-ND)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00020

[red states rule]

Guess what, numbnuts...The SCOTUS in the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld ruled that Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions DOES apply to the detainees at GITMO, and elsewhere in US custody.

The only thing I lose is the time it takes me to knock your silly, half-assed, lame-brained, piss-poor excuses for arguments flat on their ass, and not much at that.

You've never proven anything, beyond your own willful ignorance. With regards to the water-boarding argument all you did, as you ever do, was parrot the press releases from the Bush administration. If I ever see an original thought in one of your posts, the shock might well kill me.

Well, once again BP is either lying or suffering from selective memory loss

ABC is now a press release from the WH? After I posted this you tucked your tail between your legs and crawled away


Exclusive: Only Three Have Been Waterboarded by CIA

Share November 02, 2007 1:25 PM


For all the debate over waterboarding, it has been used on only three al Qaeda figures, according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials.

As ABC News first reported in September, waterboarding has not been used since 2003 and has been specifically prohibited since Gen. Michael Hayden took over as CIA director.

Officials told ABC News on Sept. 14 that the controversial interrogation technique, in which a suspect has water poured over his mouth and nose to stimulate a drowning reflex as shown in the above demonstration, had been banned by the CIA director at the recommendation of his deputy, Steve Kappes.

Hayden sought and received approval from the White House to remove waterboarding from the list of approved interrogation techniques first authorized by a presidential finding in 2002.

The officials say the decision was made sometime last year but has never been publicly disclosed by the CIA.

One U.S. intelligence official said, "It would be wrong to assume that the program of the past moved into the future unchanged."

A CIA spokesman said, as a matter of policy, he would decline to comment on interrogation techniques, "which have been and continue to be lawful," he said.

The practice of waterboarding has been branded as "torture" by human rights groups and a number of leading U.S. officials, including Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., because it amounted to a "mock execution."

It has been at the center of the debate that threatens to derail the confirmation of President George Bush's attorney general nominee, Michael Mukasey.

for the complete article

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/11/exclusive-only-.html

[avatar4321]

You're probably right in your implication; this Congress probably will not impeach.

About the best the People can hope for the future is an election campaign which makes Bush conduct in office an issue. I think most Americans are dissatisfied with Congress because they're allowing Bush to get-away with too much. They'd be willing to vote for a Congress which will vow to punish him. Of course, the Congress would take office after he leaves and couldn't impeach but they might support prosecution.

i hate to point out the obvious to you, but since you seem completely unaware: President Bush isnt on the ballot this year.

This election will be about the future.

[avatar4321]

It's amazing to see the kook right support a Regime which is destroying American democracy.

Pray tell, how exactly has President Bush destroyed American Democracy?

In fact, since when has America ever had a Democracy?

[avatar4321]

Americans expect their government to reflect American values. When those values have been abandoned, we might as well let the terrorists have what's left. That's why prosecuting Bush is so important. In eight years, he's destroyed the government Americans built in the 200+ years since the Founding.

NEWSFLASH: Amercans aren't communists. We will never be communists. we will never want politicians who reflect those values no matter how badly you might. We believe in freedom. That's why we are on the right.

[avatar4321]

Exactly.

One interesting thing which may be coming is the pardon problem.

Suppose Bush pardons Cheney and then resigns. Cheney becomes president and pardons Bush. I think that could happen but if it does it might make both Bush and Cheney subject to the International Criminal Court.

As I understand the Rome Statute, the ICC has no jurisdiction if the perpetrator's own country has laws which could support prosecution. If both Bush and Cheney have been pardoned for the violations of American laws, then maybe the ICC could prosecute. If Bush and Cheney left the country, they could be arrested.

I know this is difficult for you to understand. But in order to pardon someone, you have to commit a crime. No one has done has. There will be no pardons because there has been no crime committed.

[avatar4321]

Militarism and imperialism are not American values. Fair elections and freedom from unreasonable searches are, but they're just about gone.

Exactly what is unreasonable about searching a supsected terrorist or listening on a suspected terrorist's phone conversation?

[red states rule]

voting for democrats who at least try to pass the legislation that I feel is important makes a lot more sense than voting for a republican who I KNOW wants to pass something completely opposed to my way of thinking.

didn't it snow in hell when we agreed what fools the republicans were for nominating McCain?

remember the adage about glass houses. :laugh2:

So it makes sense to jack taxes up over $2 trillion; new spending over $800 billion; amnesty for ilegals; and attacking US corporations?

Maybe that would make Marx happy - but not most Americans

[retiredman]

So it makes sense to jack taxes up over $2 trillion; new spending over $800 billion; amnesty for ilegals; and attacking US corporations?

Maybe that would make Marx happy - but not most Americans

is that why the numbers of registered democrats is at a four year high and republican enrollment has fallen?

[red states rule]

is that why the numbers of registered democrats is at a four year high and republican enrollment has fallen?

As I said, Marx would be happy - but once Obaba wrecks the economy with his tax and spend policies, and those libs are talking to each other on the unemployment line - they will become Reagan Dems once again

[retiredman]

As I said, Marx would be happy - but once Obaba wrecks the economy with his tax and spend policies, and those libs are talking to each other on the unemployment line - they will become Reagan Dems once again
time will tell. your political predictions have not been all that great. It was not too long ago that you were touting your pro-choice, pro-gay rights new york moderate as the odds-on favorite to win the presidency.:laugh2:

[red states rule]

time will tell. your political predictions have not been all that great. It was not too long ago that you were touting your pro-choice, pro-gay rights new york moderate as the odds-on favorite to win the presidency.:laugh2:

It is not a prediction - it is basci economics

With $2 trillion in tax increases, and $800 billion in new spending it will cripple the economy and put many people out of work

[retiredman]

It is not a prediction - it is basci economics

With $2 trillion in tax increases, and $800 billion in new spending it will cripple the economy and put many people out of work

I wonder why more Americans are flocking to the democratic party and why they are abandoning the republican party?:laugh2:

[red states rule]

I wonder why more Americans are flocking to the democratic party and why they are abandoning the republican party?:laugh2:

Because the liberal media is not reporting on what Obama wants to do; and libs are taken in by emotion

You can watch any speech Obama makes and he never tells you anything specific

All his wacko ideas are on the internet and reported on politcial sites, Again if he gets his tax increases and increased spending it will crash the economy

I notice you are ducking those piints as well

[retiredman]

Because the liberal media is not reporting on what Obama wants to do; and libs are taken in by emotion

You can watch any speech Obama makes and he never tells you anything specific

All his wacko ideas are on the internet and reported on politcial sites, Again if he gets his tax increases and increased spending it will crash the economy

I notice you are ducking those piints as well

your opinions as to the economic impact of the democratic agenda are not really all that valuable to me. I am sorry.

and why are the numbers of registered republicans going DOWN?

[red states rule]

your opinions as to the economic impact of the democratic agenda are not really all that valuable to me. I am sorry.

and why are the numbers of registered republicans going DOWN?

Facts never do mean much to you anyway

For example, Dems want to raise the capital gains tax to 35%. If they do it MM what do think will happen to the Dow and those corporations, when incestors and fund managers dump their stocks to avoid the higher taxes?

Or if the cap on SS taxes is lifted, what will companies do to their payrolls? Hint - they will not add to them

[retiredman]

Facts never do mean much to you anyway

For example, Dems want to raise the capital gains tax to 35%. If they do it MM what do think will happen to the Dow and those corporations, when incestors and fund managers dump their stocks to avoid the higher taxes?

Or if the cap on SS taxes is lifted, what will companies do to their payrolls? Hint - they will not add to them


hint: what you think will happen is not a fact.:laugh2:

[red states rule]

hint: what you think will happen is not a fact.:laugh2:

Sure MM, people are always looking to pay the highest possible amount in taxes

[glockmail]

.....

and why are the numbers of registered republicans going DOWN? More Moveondotorg polling?

[red states rule]

More Moveondotorg polling?

Wait until they get thier tax bill if Obaba wins - then they will become tax cutting Republicans

[retiredman]

Sure MM, people are always looking to pay the highest possible amount in taxes

I am merely stating that your THINKING something does not make it a FACT.

But then, you have always had a problem confusing the meaning of "opinion" with "fact".:laugh2:

[glockmail]

Wait until they get thier tax bill if Obaba wins - then they will become tax cutting Republicans Nah! Soros will just move some shit around and avoid the taxes. I doubt he pays much anyhow.

[red states rule]

Nah! Soros will just move some shit around and avoid the taxes. I doubt he pays much anyhow.

Soros can, but not the ones you see at Obama rallies. They have no idea how badly the Dems plan to screw them

Our economy could be as bad as it was under Peanut Carter

[red states rule]

I am merely stating that your THINKING something does not make it a FACT.

But then, you have always had a problem confusing the meaning of "opinion" with "fact".:laugh2:

So corporations, investors, and fund managers will do nothing to avoid the hier taxes?

Do you?

[glockmail]

Soros can, but not the ones you see at Obama rallies. They have no idea how badly the Dems plan to screw them

Our economy could be as bad as it was under Peanut Carter

The Democrat plan is to have more than 1/2 of the public not paying any taxes or employed in government jobs, or under the thumb of unions. Then they can continue to vote themselves entitlements and make the minority pay for it. Last count they were at 47% or so. If the next Prez is a Dem they can pick up the remaining 4% easily. At that point the only way to save this country is through financial bankruptcy or a revolution.

[red states rule]

The Democrat plan is to have more than 1/2 of the public not paying any taxes or employed in government jobs, or under the thumb of unions. Then they can continue to vote themselves entitlements and make the minority pay for it. Last count they were at 47% or so. If the next Prez is a Dem they can pick up the remaining 4% easily. At that point the only way to save this country is through financial bankruptcy or a revolution.

As of today, the bottom 50% of wage earners currently pay less then 4% of Federal income taxes, and Dems want to give them more tax cuts

While the top 25% of eage earners are paying 85% of Federal income taxes

But to libs like MM that is not enough and they have be screwed over even more

[glockmail]

As of today, the bottom 50% of wage earners currently pay less then 4% of Federal income taxes, and Dems want to give them more tax cuts

While the top 25% of eage earners are paying 85% of Federal income taxes

But to libs like MM that is not enough and they have be screwed over even more


That's why the Fair Tax is so crucial.

[retiredman]

So corporations, investors, and fund managers will do nothing to avoid the hier taxes?

Do you?

Of course I do...I don't gut my stock portfolio, however.

Where do you put YOUR money when you take it out of the stock market and does it earn any interest in that alternate location?

and just accept the FACT that your opinions as to the impact of anyone's economic plans are just opinions. Your opinions are not facts.

[red states rule]

Of course I do...I don't gut my stock portfolio, however.

Where do you put YOUR money when you take it out of the stock market and does it earn any interest in that alternate location?

and just accept the FACT that your opinions as to the impact of anyone's economic plans are just opinions. Your opinions are not facts.

Like Dems economic policies, your post tosses out all basic economic principals, and ones self interest to kep more of the money they earn

[retiredman]

Like Dems economic policies, your post tosses out all basic economic principals, and ones self interest to kep more of the money they earn

you are certainly welcome to your opinions.... just don't pawn them off as facts!:laugh2:

[red states rule]

you are certainly welcome to your opinions.... just don't pawn them off as facts!:laugh2:

Opinions based on Economics 101 - something libs will never understand

To libs like you, governemnt is the answer to all issues, and all money is the governments money

[retiredman]

Opinions based on Economics 101 - something libs will never understand

To libs like you, governemnt is the answer to all issues, and all money is the governments money

government is certainly not the answer to all issues... and please just realize that your opinions are not facts.

[red states rule]

government is certainly not the answer to all issues... and please just realize that your opinions are not facts.

Not opinions, economic facts

So how are $2 trillion in new taxes, and $800 billion in new spending will benefit the economy?

[retiredman]

Not opinions, economic facts

So how are $2 trillion in new taxes, and $800 billion in new spending will benefit the economy?


by creating economic activity. You never answered my question the other day.... if you take your money out of stocks, where do you put it? Does it earn any interest in the new location?

[red states rule]

by creating economic activity. You never answered my question the other day.... if you take your money out of stocks, where do you put it? Does it earn any interest in the new location?

When you increase taxes you REDUCE economic activity. You remove incentive to invest, take risk, and expand businesses. The government will take in less revenue with higher taxes

Given how much Dems want to jack up taxes, one would invest overseas, or find tax shelters to avoid the insanity of tax and spend liberalism

[retiredman]

When you increase taxes you REDUCE economic activity. You remove incentive to invest, take risk, and expand businesses. The government will take in less revenue with higher taxes

Given how much Dems want to jack up taxes, one would invest overseas, or find tax shelters to avoid the insanity of tax and spend liberalism

when you increase government spending, you increase economic activity.

and I wonder how business ever even got created in the 50's and 60's when tax rates were WAY higher, if, as you say, all incentive to invest, take risk and expand was eliminated?

do you think that foreign investments are exempt from capital gains?

[red states rule]

when you increase government spending, you increase economic activity.

and I wonder how business ever even got created in the 50's and 60's when tax rates were WAY higher, if, as you say, all incentive to invest, take risk and expand was eliminated?

do you think that foreign investments are exempt from capital gains?

In the 60's JFK cut taxes and the economy grew - then libs started their social handouts and government grew

Government spending is not good for economic activity. The private sector creates wealth - not the government

and we all know hoe efficently government spend our tax money

snip

Costs vs. Benefits. Economists will generally agree that government spending becomes a bur*den at some point, either because government becomes too large or because outlays are misallo*cated. In such cases, the cost of government exceeds the benefit. The downward sloping por*tion of the curve in Figure 1 can exist for a number of reasons, including:

The extraction cost. Government spending requires costly financing choices. The federal government cannot spend money without first taking that money from someone. All of the options used to finance government spending have adverse consequences. Taxes discourage productive behavior, particularly in the current U.S. tax system, which imposes high tax rates on work, saving, investment, and other forms of productive behavior. Borrowing consumes capital that otherwise would be available for private investment and, in extreme cases, may lead to higher interest rates. Inflation debases a nation’s currency, causing widespread eco*nomic distortion.

The displacement cost. Government spend*ing displaces private-sector activity. Every dol*lar that the government spends necessarily means one less dollar in the productive sector of the economy. This dampens growth since economic forces guide the allocation of resources in the private sector, whereas politi*cal forces dominate when politicians and bureaucrats decide how money is spent. Some government spending, such as maintaining a well-functioning legal system, can have a high “rate-of-return.” In general, however, govern*ments do not use resources efficiently, resulting in less economic output.

The negative multiplier cost. Government spending finances harmful intervention. Por*tions of the federal budget are used to finance activities that generate a distinctly negative effect on economic activity. For instance, many regulatory agencies have comparatively small budgets, but they impose large costs on the economy’s productive sector. Outlays for inter*national organizations are another good exam*ple. The direct expense to taxpayers of membership in organizations such as the Inter*national Monetary Fund (IMF) and Organisa*tion for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is often trivial com*pared to the economic damage resulting from the anti-growth policies advocated by these multinational bureaucracies.

The behavioral subsidy cost. Government spending encourages destructive choices. Many government programs subsidize economically undesirable decisions. Welfare programs encourage people to choose leisure over work. Unemployment insurance programs provide an incentive to remain unemployed. Flood insur*ance programs encourage construction in flood plains. These are all examples of government programs that reduce economic growth and diminish national output because they promote misallocation or underutilization of resources.

The behavioral penalty cost. Government spending discourages productive choices. Government programs often discourage eco*nomically desirable decisions. Saving is impor*tant to help provide capital for new investment, yet the incentive to save has been undermined by government programs that subsidize retirement, housing, and education. Why should a person set aside income if gov*ernment programs finance these big-ticket expenses? Other government spending pro*grams—Medicaid is a good example—gener*ate a negative economic impact because of eligibility rules that encourage individuals to depress their incomes artificially and misallo*cate their wealth.
The market distortion cost. Government spending distorts resource allocation. Buyers and sellers in competitive markets determine prices in a process that ensures the most effi*cient allocation of resources, but some govern*ment programs interfere with competitive markets. In both health care and education, government subsidies to reduce out-of-pocket expenses have created a “third-party payer” problem. When individuals use other people’s money, they become less concerned about price. This undermines the critical role of com*petitive markets, causing significant ineffi*ciency in sectors such as health care and education. Government programs also lead to resource misallocation because individuals, organizations, and companies spend time, energy, and money seeking either to obtain special government favors or to minimize their share of the cost of government.

The inefficiency cost. Government spending is a less effective way to deliver services. Gov*ernment directly provides many services and activities such as education, airports, and postal operations. However, there is evidence that the private sector could provide these important services at a higher quality and lower cost. In some cases, such as airports and postal services, the improvement would take place because of privatization. In other cases, such as education, the economic benefits would accrue by shifting to a model based on competition and choice.

The stagnation cost. Government spending inhibits innovation. Because of competition and the desire to increase income and wealth, individuals and entities in the private sector constantly search for new options and oppor*tunities. Economic growth is greatly enhanced by this discovery process of “creative destruc*tion.” Government programs, however, are inherently inflexible, both because of central*ization and because of bureaucracy. Reducing government—or devolving federal programs to the state and local levels—can eliminate or mitigate this effect.

Spending on a government program, depart*ment, or agency can impose more than one of these costs. For instance, all government spending imposes both extraction costs and displacement costs. This does not necessarily mean that out*lays—either in the aggregate or for a specific pro*gram—are counterproductive. That calculation requires a cost-benefit analysis.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg1831.cfm

[retiredman]

you ask me a question, and I answer it. Yet you never seem to answer mine. WHy is that?

Do you think that investments overseas are exempt from capital gains?

Do you think that tax sheltered investment instruments do NOT earn interest?

Where do you think the interest comes from?

[red states rule]

you ask me a question, and I answer it. Yet you never seem to answer mine. WHy is that?

Do you think that investments overseas are exempt from capital gains?

Do you think that tax sheltered investment instruments do NOT earn interest?

Where do you think the interest comes from?

Well, if you think higher taxes and increased governemnt spending is good - why stop at $2 trillion in new taxes, and $850 billion in new spending?

Lets go back to the days of Peanut Crater where the top rate was 70%

and lets really be compassonate and up new spending to $2 trillion

Then we will have a a great liberal economy

There are many ways people can avoid the taxes. If you want to tax an activity, you need to encourge the activity and make it easy for folks to engage in the activity

Higher taxes do the opposite

[retiredman]

Well, if you think higher taxes and increased governemnt spending is good - why stop at $2 trillion in new taxes, and $850 billion in new spending?

Lets go back to the days of Peanut Crater where the top rate was 70%

and lets really be compassonate and up new spending to $2 trillion

Then we will have a a great liberal economy

There are many ways people can avoid the taxes. If you want to tax an activity, you need to encourge the activity and make it easy for folks to engage in the activity

Higher taxes do the opposite


why can't you answer my questions?

[red states rule]

why can't you answer my questions?

I did

So why not go back to the tax and spend days of Peanut Carter?

We all know what a great economy he had when was President

[retiredman]

I did

So why not go back to the tax and spend days of Peanut Carter?

We all know what a great economy he had when was President

no...you didn't. Here they are again. please address them:

Do you think that investments overseas are exempt from capital gains?

Do you think that tax sheltered investment instruments do NOT earn interest?

Where do you think the interest comes from?

[red states rule]

no...you didn't. Here they are again. please address them:

Do you think that investments overseas are exempt from capital gains?

Do you think that tax sheltered investment instruments do NOT earn interest?

Where do you think the interest comes from?

I did. There are various tax shelters and many ways to avoid paying the tax

Libs cheered when Soros said he paid 17% of his income in taxes - and demanded taxes be increased. He will not them - others will

Which is how libs think - hugher taxes for others but not them

[retiredman]

I did. There are various tax shelters and many ways to avoid paying the tax

Libs cheered when Soros said he paid 17% of his income in taxes - and demanded taxes be increased. He will not them - others will

Which is how libs think - hugher taxes for others but not them

do you think that sheltered investments do NOT earn interest?

and where do you think that interest comes from?

[red states rule]

do you think that sheltered investments do NOT earn interest?

and where do you think that interest comes from?

Dems are foaming at the mouth to jack up taxes and spending - and when less revenue comes into DC, they wil tell us we need pay more in taxes to cover the shortfall

Look at the state of MI - a perfect example of what the entire country wil be like with tax and spend liberals running things

[retiredman]

Dems are foaming at the mouth to jack up taxes and spending - and when less revenue comes into DC, they wil tell us we need pay more in taxes to cover the shortfall

Look at the state of MI - a perfect example of what the entire country wil be like with tax and spend liberals running things


unbelievable. why can't you answer simple questions? You ask them of me and I try to respond. Why don't you show the common decency to do likewise?

I'll try again:

do you think that sheltered investments do NOT earn interest?

and where do you think that interest comes from?

[bullypulpit]

Well, once again BP is either lying or suffering from selective memory loss

ABC is now a press release from the WH? After I posted this you tucked your tail between your legs and crawled away


Exclusive: Only Three Have Been Waterboarded by CIA

Share November 02, 2007 1:25 PM


For all the debate over waterboarding, it has been used on only three al Qaeda figures, according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials.

As ABC News first reported in September, waterboarding has not been used since 2003 and has been specifically prohibited since Gen. Michael Hayden took over as CIA director.

Officials told ABC News on Sept. 14 that the controversial interrogation technique, in which a suspect has water poured over his mouth and nose to stimulate a drowning reflex as shown in the above demonstration, had been banned by the CIA director at the recommendation of his deputy, Steve Kappes.

Hayden sought and received approval from the White House to remove waterboarding from the list of approved interrogation techniques first authorized by a presidential finding in 2002.

The officials say the decision was made sometime last year but has never been publicly disclosed by the CIA.

One U.S. intelligence official said, "It would be wrong to assume that the program of the past moved into the future unchanged."

A CIA spokesman said, as a matter of policy, he would decline to comment on interrogation techniques, "which have been and continue to be lawful," he said.

The practice of waterboarding has been branded as "torture" by human rights groups and a number of leading U.S. officials, including Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., because it amounted to a "mock execution."

It has been at the center of the debate that threatens to derail the confirmation of President George Bush's attorney general nominee, Michael Mukasey.

for the complete article

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/11/exclusive-only-.html

And you believed it? Isn't the MSM a bastion of liberal hatred of the Bush administration? The article presents nothing beyond the uncorroborated say-so of "current and former U.S. intelligence officials". You have proven nothing.

[red states rule]

And you believed it? Isn't the MSM a bastion of liberal hatred of the Bush administration? The article presents nothing beyond the uncorroborated say-so of "current and former U.S. intelligence officials". You have proven nothing.

Tuck your tail between your legs and crawl off in defeat BP

[retiredman]

Tuck your tail between your legs and crawl off in defeat BP


can you address my questions listed in post #108 please?

[red states rule]

can you address my questions listed in post #108 please?

I did

Meanwhile Obama and the Dem Congress wants to expand MI's economy to all 50 states

[retiredman]

I did

Meanwhile Obama and the Dem Congress wants to expand MI's economy to all 50 states


which post # answered my questions? I disagree with your assertion that you answered them.

[bullypulpit]

Tuck your tail between your legs and crawl off in defeat BP

What defeat? All you did was, as is your wont, cut-and-paste a portion of a single article and proclaim victory. Sorry, but that doesn't cut it monkey-boy. Regardless of whether it was 1 or 3 or 300 detainees...In authorizing waterboarding ANYONE, the Bush administration violated US and international law as well as US treaty obligations.

[red states rule]

What defeat? All you did was, as is your wont, cut-and-paste a portion of a single article and proclaim victory. Sorry, but that doesn't cut it monkey-boy. Regardless of whether it was 1 or 3 or 300 detainees...In authorizing waterboarding ANYONE, the Bush administration violated US and international law as well as US treaty obligations.

You once said I could not prove waterboarding was used ONLY 3 times, each time the terrorist cracked in less then a minute, and gave up info that saved lives

I proved it - and from ABC news

I know you (like MM) are more interested in the comfort of terrorists rather then saving innocent lives. Tell me BP, would you waterboarded Atta on 9/10/2001?

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

do you think that sheltered investments do NOT earn interest?

and where do you think that interest comes from?

What, exactly is a sheltered investment? What does that mean? Can you give me a specific example of one, so that I can take advantage of one?

A sheltered investment is typically one that is imaginary and propogates class warfare from the socialist platform.

[retiredman]

What, exactly is a sheltered investment? What does that mean? Can you give me a specific example of one, so that I can take advantage of one?


I would think you probably already do. 401k plans are sheltered from income tax... most limited partnerships are as well.

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

Oh, so I pay taxes when the money is removed from the 401K, and it is considered a "sheltered investment?"

Or....like a Roth IRA, you pay taxes first, and then withdraw afterward tax free, it is still considered a sheltered investment?

Look, you gotta pay taxes no matter the case.....even in a limited partnership, if there is income generated, tax has to be paid....how is this any type of justification for condemnation of the rich?


I would think you probably already do. 401k plans are sheltered from income tax... most limited partnerships are as well.

[retiredman]

Oh, so I pay taxes when the money is removed from the 401K, and it is considered a "sheltered investment?"

Or....like a Roth IRA, you pay taxes first, and then withdraw afterward tax free, it is still considered a sheltered investment?

Look, you gotta pay taxes no matter the case.....even in a limited partnership, if there is income generated, tax has to be paid....how is this any type of justification for condemnation of the rich?


have you followed this conversation? I am not condemning the rich. RSR stated that, if democratic tax initiatives were enacted, the rich would pull their money out of the stock market and put them in "sheltered investments" which, according to HIM, would cause our economy to collapse. I begged to differ with him. The rich will put their money someplace where it can meet or exceed their required rate of return. And that rate of return - in terms of appreciation and/or interest - is generated by economic activity of some sort which is beneficial to our economy.

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

have you followed this conversation? I am not condemning the rich. RSR stated that, if democratic tax initiatives were enacted, the rich would pull their money out of the stock market and put them in "sheltered investments" which, according to HIM, would cause our economy to collapse. I begged to differ with him. The rich will put their money someplace where it can meet or exceed their required rate of return. And that rate of return - in terms of appreciation and/or interest - is generated by economic activity of some sort which is beneficial to our economy.

Are you related to Alan Greenspan......you just talked in circles for a couple hundred of the letters in the American alphabet, and didn't make much sense....

Sorry, but I gotta call it like I see it....

There is no such thing as a sheltered investment. There are different types of investments.

Pre-taxable or post taxable....that is really it.

You can invest in the stock market directly, and hope that stocks go up, or go down, and place your bets accordingly.....all the while, being reported to the IRS for taxable purposes.

[retiredman]

Are you related to Alan Greenspan......you just talked in circles for a couple hundred of the letters in the American alphabet, and didn't make much sense....

Sorry, but I gotta call it like I see it....

There is no such thing as a sheltered investment. There are different types of investments.

Pre-taxable or post taxable....that is really it.

You can invest in the stock market directly, and hope that stocks go up, or go down, and place your bets accordingly.....all the while, being reported to the IRS for taxable purposes.

Go read post #97 and take your argument about sheltered investments to the source of this issue in this thread.

Let me know how that goes.

[Immanuel]

HEY! Lay off the AARP you young PUNKS, if yer lucky you may get to join someday! :slap::laugh2:

That day is getting to damned close for me. :(

Immie

PS seeking reversed aging meds ASAP will pay well. :D

[red states rule]

That day is getting to damned close for me. :(

Immie

PS seeking reversed aging meds ASAP will pay well. :D

With the libs plans to tax the hell out of us, spending levels that would embarrass a drunken sailor, and the economic downturn it will create - you are in deep trouble no mater what age group you are in