It's always Florida...
- Thread starter Silver
- Start date
SECOND hell...we are in our THIRD your forgetting Libya.
I see you have a hard on for Bush and I’m not going to bring up the dead horse about WMD’s and the such EVERYONE suspected that Saddam had them along with how many UN resolutions had he violated since gulf war #1.
The issue is we are a buffer being in Iraq from Iran invading the whole Middle East and Israel that’s pretty simple the question is why in the hell are we in Afghanistan?
I never said Saddam was a threat, nor did I fall for the hype of him having some super secret plot, either. So NOT everyone thought that, but thanks for lumping me in with the rest. And for use "being a buffer" they wouldn't need a buffer had we not gone into Iraq to begin with.
We went in the ANA because that is where the issue originated from, or so was thought. We went into Iraq because someone needed to secure some oil interests and hide it as a humanitarian effort to free some people and spread some freedom.
It must be refreshing to be clueless and naive all the time.
I sure do wish the War was about Oil as you believe then perhaps it would not be costing me $140 to fill up my diesel truck.
I sure do wish the War was about Oil as you believe then perhaps it would not be costing me $140 to fill up my diesel truck.
You seem to be handling it pretty well.
I choose to see things for the way they are not as I wish them to be.
sweet! a new troll!
My money is on ohio, he hasn't been around lately.
WTF have you been? He's been at it since late yesterday.
Hmmmmmm..... Interesting theory. Ohio is now a CEO or something isn't he?
trying to find a new car. right now i'm exploring having one built by illegal immigrants.WTF have you been? He's been at it since late yesterday.
it's that white sticky stuff b/t major/minor curtains?
Epic troll. Check his join date.
your thinking of duck butter
Realistic.
+Rep
..
Zing!
Leftist see things in shades of gray rather than simple-mindedly black and white.
Things are either right or wrong period.
This concept is so difficult for leftists because they have no core beliefs, values or common sense.
I KNEW you were a racist.
My perspective changes with new information while you just drink up whatever Fox is serving.
I heard they forgot to post this interview. Why didn't HK post this in the other thread, I thought he was following the issue?I KNEW you were a racist.
My perspective changes with new information while you just drink up whatever Fox is serving.
New York Observer: Exclusive "Occupy Wall Street" Unaired Fox Footage - YouTube
What we are looking at
is good and evil, right and wrong
a new world order
is good and evil, right and wrong
a new world order
holy sh*t talk about unhinged and uninformed
Dude,
Are you so rich that your posts are written by content mills in India?
If you're interested I can get you a hookup with $.07 per word.
These are guys are really top notch too.
They even have the ability to elaborate ideas past reflexive platitudes without any excess fees.
Are you so rich that your posts are written by content mills in India?
If you're interested I can get you a hookup with $.07 per word.
These are guys are really top notch too.
They even have the ability to elaborate ideas past reflexive platitudes without any excess fees.
capitalism & conservatism are absolutely evil, according to the left
another slight correction
back to the OP, i believe Hamze has been co-opted, either willingly or not. you cannot be both for religious freedom and its imposition by fiat/compulsion (ref: CAIR). but in fairness, he is a cultural muslim, so therefore not very discerning.
good thing we don't have a religious litmus test for public office, eh?
I was looking for a place to post this and the "it's always Florida" thread seemed like a good spot.
http://www.theagitator.com/2011/12/23/the-new-professionalism-17/
http://www.theagitator.com/2011/12/23/the-new-professionalism-17/
Moar Florida:
As per usual, gold in the comments.
Last edited:
Sorry my bad 
Last edited:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Calm done son. HK hasn't logged in since late 2011, and IIRC is banned from PaWN.
Your enthusiasm is certainly appreciated.Sorry my bad
Sweet, a chance to spread some -rep around to someone who only has one red square (and hasn't logged on in months)...
I must admit I took the opportunity when I saw his avatar again.Sweet, a chance to spread some -rep around to someone who only has one red square (and hasn't logged on in months)...
Last edited:
This both made my evening and ruined my next 90 minutes.
Dad!!
I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry. So the NEW reason we invaded Iraq is to be a "buffer" against Iran? Is that the latest Fox News analysis 12 years later? Is that how you rationalize it? The same way you rationalize Iraq, other people rationalize Afghanistan. Heck, in another post you said:
Seems you were riding along that Bush parade and all for invadin them mooslim countries. Only after we get OBL you question why we are there? That means you were ok with and rationalized it prior, which doesn't agree with your above quote.
Last edited:
We do have a revenue problem. We have a regressive tax system. It might be progressive on paper, but due to shifting money, tax sheltering, write-offs, capital gains, offshore accounts, and a myriad of other techniques, those with the most money are allowed to pay a smaller percentage of their income as taxes. Warren Buffet proved it. Mitt Romney proved it. It's only progressive on paper. In reality, it's regressive. Oh how I'd like to not have to pay the % that I am supposed to pay, but I can't because I'm poor compared to them. Allowing the rich to do this is one thing that keeps the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. And before you go saying that having people making more than $250K wouldn't actually make a dent in the pot, it's the same with savings via spending cuts. It's the big picture and we have to really want to solve it. Cutting defense, cutting other spending, a fair tax system that can't be as easily manipulated, etc, it all adds up.
The rich absolutely need to pay more in taxes...because they don't pay very much in taxes. If I pay 30% in taxes, they need to at least pay that much, but as you know, they exploit all the loopholes. At least taxing their income at a higher rate serves the same purpose as eliminating some of those loopholes. Hopefully we can get a handle on that as well, but the higher income tax is a start...
And if we are going to name government organizations that need 100% of their funding...hmm, maybe the CIA? Maybe with 99% of their funding they'd miss out on an important intelligence lead once every 20 years or so. They could probably do most everything and catch everything with 99% of their funding, but maybe something would slip through because they weren't able to exploit all their leads, have more contacts, get more information, and something horrific would happen to US citizens, either abroad or in our own country. So is that a chance we should take? The same logic can probably be used for nearly any government agency. It's those overly simplistic ideas that are going through your head that are causing you so much trouble. I'm not against cutting government spending, but these are the kind of issues that have to be well thought out. Just because you cut them, they fire a bunch of people that need jobs, and they operate successfully the next year does NOT mean there isn't a problem that was created by cutting them. It may lay dormant for years, such as issues with aviation or industrial safety. It's not about the government entity "collapsing", it's about them doing their job for the citizens of the US. Can they do it with 99% funding? Maybe, but it's not so cut and dry as you would like to believe.
Last edited:
fantastic read gentlemen. bravo. Im going to give to give you guys alot of rep.
brothers?
and you know you are due for a haircut when the hair on the back of your neck is visible in a portrait shot....
I would just like to thank Jm for the reminder to -rep HelloKitty again.