Kartoffel

Jaguar - There are people who aren't middle eastern, and who ARE terrorists. Take Timothy McVeigh. He sure isnt arab. And how about the KKK? Sure doesnt look arab to me. And how about abortion clinic bombers? Have some common sense, Jaguar. Arab does NOT equal terrorist, just as non-arab does not equal non-terrorist.

Just because one person can eat 20k Big Macs, does not mean everyone can. Some have faster metabolisms, and burn more calories, or whatever. This person is the exception to the rule, not the rule. And even if there are no immediate health problems, there's bound to be the foundations for a heart attack, or a stroke, something thereabouts.

Isnt this the wrong thread for a political slur?

Site's construction is lousy, or there's some whacko javascript on it (I really don't know, web design isnt my specialty). I sit there trying to watch it for 5 minutes, but it keeps refreshing every few seconds, never getting past the spinning logo. Irritating. And this is in the middle of the night, so it really doesnt seem likely that it's going to be that busy.

Site's construction is lousy, or there's some whacko javascript on it (I really don't know, web design isnt my specialty). I sit there trying to watch it for 5 minutes, but it keeps refreshing every few seconds, never getting past the spinning logo. Irritating. And this is in the middle of the night, so it really doesnt seem likely that it's going to be that busy.

Heh. One of my brother's friends actually conned around $40 from one of those Nigerian scammers.

What is usually the biggest open door to malware is Internet Explorer. That piece of garbage has more holes then swiss cheese. It automatically installs malware, without telling you. Also: Popups. 100% malware. Opera and Firefox are two alternatives to IE, both of which are more secure. I use Firefox, which by default, acts quite similarly to IE, except it's far more secure. Firefox also has some extensions that can rebrand it (Battlecruiser Online: Post A Reply - Mozilla Powersheep), block ads, and a bunch of other stuff. I don't use opera, so I can't really say much on it. Also, be wary of what you install. There are LOTS of programs out there that will install spyware on your system. Unsolicited download boxes in IE are a good example of these. Even with the above, spyware can sometimes overwhelm a system. Which is why I format C: and reinstall windows every few months. I keep windows on a seperate partition from everything else, so malware doesnt get on my other partitions*. If you do re-install windows, making a backup of the registry is a bad idea, because that basically leaves you where you started. *I have YET to see any malware indicator in Ad-aware, or Spybot on any drive but C:. Heh, it would be so nice if there were malware scanners for stuff you download, like there are virus scanners.

Kalshion : Street is right. You need to drop the predujuce and look at things with an open mind. Go read some centrist, or even some *gasp* progressive news. With an open mind of course, else you'll just be calling it propaganda, or whatever. Steve - There's been way more fearmongering now then there was then. If BushCo keeps on running those 'potential terrorist attacks in the next 100 years things', then the elections could very well be delayed just out of the public's fear. Your question is a whole nother ballgame. That would be crippling the US civilly. It would be like 9/11 on the order of the entire US, not just New York City. Assasination? Unlikely. IIRC, they have secret service bodyguards, and the secret service is going to be competent. Unless they're ordered not to be. On your conspiracy theory - of course you think it would be the Democrats wanting to postpone it, with your bias and such. Not from any real evidence. Going further, about the only thing that could propell Bush to victory honestly, is something big, like capturing bin Laden in October, or sometime around then. (There's some evidence to suggest this.) Remember al-Zarquaib (don't remember exactly how it was spelled, dont have the time to look up something so minor), the one deemed responsible for so much of the insurgent activity in Iraq? Bush had several opportunities to assasinate him in 2002, but did not, because it would weaken his rationale for his false war. Also, BushCo is laying pressure on Pakistan to find bin Laden before the elections. Reason why? His ratings have fairly steadily been slipping, and even though polls are not a paticularly accurate measurement, there's going to be some degree of accuracy in them.

Kalshion : Street is right. You need to drop the predujuce and look at things with an open mind. Go read some centrist, or even some *gasp* progressive news. With an open mind of course, else you'll just be calling it propaganda, or whatever. Steve - There's been way more fearmongering now then there was then. If BushCo keeps on running those 'potential terrorist attacks in the next 100 years things', then the elections could very well be delayed just out of the public's fear. Your question is a whole nother ballgame. That would be crippling the US civilly. It would be like 9/11 on the order of the entire US, not just New York City. Assasination? Unlikely. IIRC, they have secret service bodyguards, and the secret service is going to be competent. Unless they're ordered not to be. On your conspiracy theory - of course you think it would be the Democrats wanting to postpone it, with your bias and such. Not from any real evidence. Going further, about the only thing that could propell Bush to victory honestly, is something big, like capturing bin Laden in October, or sometime around then. (There's some evidence to suggest this.) Remember al-Zarquaib (don't remember exactly how it was spelled, dont have the time to look up something so minor), the one deemed responsible for so much of the insurgent activity in Iraq? Bush had several opportunities to assasinate him in 2002, but did not, because it would weaken his rationale for his false war. Also, BushCo is laying pressure on Pakistan to find bin Laden before the elections. Reason why? His ratings have fairly steadily been slipping, and even though polls are not a paticularly accurate measurement, there's going to be some degree of accuracy in them.

Okay, who didn't see this coming? And be honest now. It's just what we need, a Baptist minister with emergency authority over the elections. Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-religious, it's just that religion belongs in the churches and NOT in the government. Given this administration's record on elections, cronyism, and the separation of Church and State, a Baptist minister hand-picked by George W. Bush is the last person we need in that position.

Okay, who didn't see this coming? And be honest now. It's just what we need, a Baptist minister with emergency authority over the elections. Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-religious, it's just that religion belongs in the churches and NOT in the government. Given this administration's record on elections, cronyism, and the separation of Church and State, a Baptist minister hand-picked by George W. Bush is the last person we need in that position.

Link.

How unfortunate. It's going to be harder for Bush to prove that he was there, now.

How unfortunate. It's going to be harder for Bush to prove that he was there, now.

Here.

Jaguar, you are not even worth responding to anymore.

Jaguar, you are not even worth responding to anymore.

Jaguar, how many times must I tear your arguments and rantings to shreds before you will realize that you are just plain wrong? Bush's tax cuts make the rich richer, while the middle and lower classes get poorer. I can't make it any simpler then this. Bush's anti-envoirnmental policies will give our next generations respitory diseases like asthma, and will ruin wilderness areas. His enourmous deficit could very likely cause something near-cataclysmic when intrest rates rise significantly, unless progressive measures are taken to reduce the defecit. (Trickle down has been proven to NOT work - it had 12 years of Reagan and Bush Sr, where it only made the defecit bigger, until Clinton reversed it, and things turned right around.) Bush's policies in Iraq is even getting Hindus AND Muslims to criticize it together. Imagine, something that brings together two factions, who are really not on very good terms together. His heavy-handed approach to combatting Al-Qaeda hasnt worked so far (analogy: If I beat you up, would you drop your neo-con beliefs? Of course not, it would just make you resentful and angry.) The biggest factor in Rome's decline, was their reliance on mercenaries, NOT their economic policies. What it looks like you are advocating is the rich being completely tax-free, while the working class struggles to keep the country running, while the rich just get richer. You are just refusing to listen to my point on the original topic (Maybe the last dozen or so posts should be split off into a new thread) I would NOT be criticizing them for not warning, I would criticize for their lack of real evidence. You've caught yourself in a nice little catch-22 here. The working class does indeed pay income tax - this at whitehouse.gov proves it. How you can continue to spout this drivel about not paying taxes, is beyond me. Nader is not about to win the election, and I'm not going to waste my vote on him, especially because I'm in a swing state. Makes it all the more important to vote for the right person. Kerry isnt perfect - heck, nobody is, least of all Bush. Bush IS an idiot, cant you see him stumbling along and looking at his papers during his speeches? And Kerry is one of the most hawkish Democrats in this day & age - if you would bother to look at his voting record, you might notice it. He just doesnt want to throw money on something that isnt going to give real results - like the Reagan-era plans for a space-based missile system. Also, if you do look at his voting record, keep in mind how Senate voting works - it's yea or nay to the ENTIRE bill, so just because he voted yea, does not mean he supports one clause in it. And vice versa. When will you accept the truth, Jaguar? [ 06-28-2004, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: Kartoffel ]

Jaguar, how many times must I tear your arguments and rantings to shreds before you will realize that you are just plain wrong? Bush's tax cuts make the rich richer, while the middle and lower classes get poorer. I can't make it any simpler then this. Bush's anti-envoirnmental policies will give our next generations respitory diseases like asthma, and will ruin wilderness areas. His enourmous deficit could very likely cause something near-cataclysmic when intrest rates rise significantly, unless progressive measures are taken to reduce the defecit. (Trickle down has been proven to NOT work - it had 12 years of Reagan and Bush Sr, where it only made the defecit bigger, until Clinton reversed it, and things turned right around.) Bush's policies in Iraq is even getting Hindus AND Muslims to criticize it together. Imagine, something that brings together two factions, who are really not on very good terms together. His heavy-handed approach to combatting Al-Qaeda hasnt worked so far (analogy: If I beat you up, would you drop your neo-con beliefs? Of course not, it would just make you resentful and angry.) The biggest factor in Rome's decline, was their reliance on mercenaries, NOT their economic policies. What it looks like you are advocating is the rich being completely tax-free, while the working class struggles to keep the country running, while the rich just get richer. You are just refusing to listen to my point on the original topic (Maybe the last dozen or so posts should be split off into a new thread) I would NOT be criticizing them for not warning, I would criticize for their lack of real evidence. You've caught yourself in a nice little catch-22 here. The working class does indeed pay income tax - this at whitehouse.gov proves it. How you can continue to spout this drivel about not paying taxes, is beyond me. Nader is not about to win the election, and I'm not going to waste my vote on him, especially because I'm in a swing state. Makes it all the more important to vote for the right person. Kerry isnt perfect - heck, nobody is, least of all Bush. Bush IS an idiot, cant you see him stumbling along and looking at his papers during his speeches? And Kerry is one of the most hawkish Democrats in this day & age - if you would bother to look at his voting record, you might notice it. He just doesnt want to throw money on something that isnt going to give real results - like the Reagan-era plans for a space-based missile system. Also, if you do look at his voting record, keep in mind how Senate voting works - it's yea or nay to the ENTIRE bill, so just because he voted yea, does not mean he supports one clause in it. And vice versa. When will you accept the truth, Jaguar? [ 06-28-2004, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: Kartoffel ]

Jaguar, once again, you are wrong. It's the neo-cons who try to censor what they don't like - as Disney tried to kill Fahrenheit 9/11, as CBS refused to air MoveOn's "Child's Pay" ad at the Super Bowl... And LIS: Truly sad when you try to justify theft on political belief.

Jaguar, once again, you are wrong. It's the neo-cons who try to censor what they don't like - as Disney tried to kill Fahrenheit 9/11, as CBS refused to air MoveOn's "Child's Pay" ad at the Super Bowl... And LIS: Truly sad when you try to justify theft on political belief.

Jaguar: I an NOT an emotional person. And please stop labeling me as such and such, when you can hardly draw firm conclusions from something as unspecific as an online message board. (tidbit: I am an INTP on the Myers-Briggs type indicator) Steve: Did they examine the sensor? see what it was transmitting to? LIS: Panic may not be the best term to describe it, but where I am, people were very worried. (and I hadnt been following news then as closely as I am now)

Jaguar: I an NOT an emotional person. And please stop labeling me as such and such, when you can hardly draw firm conclusions from something as unspecific as an online message board. (tidbit: I am an INTP on the Myers-Briggs type indicator) Steve: Did they examine the sensor? see what it was transmitting to? LIS: Panic may not be the best term to describe it, but where I am, people were very worried. (and I hadnt been following news then as closely as I am now)

The 2001 tax cut, and the math behind it. Here's the 2001 plan end result. The poorest ($6000 and under) get a 5% cut. The working poor ($6000 - ~$27,000) get NO cut. A $100,000 income gets a 6% cut - $6000, $300,000 and $1,000,000 both get a 6.6% cut - $20k and $66k cuts respectively. While a $45,000 income gets a 3% cut - $1350 back. While this is for single filers, the other filing plans (which are available in a link to whitehouse.gov in this link) are similar to this. Twice nothing remains nothing, half infinity remains infinity. This link shows the net effect of BushCo's tax cuts over a couple of different scenarios. Eliminiting the dividend tax - This only seriously benefitted Wall Street traders, & such, those who have large amounts invested. This hardly helps the average working-class American, who has relatively little invested. Eliminating the estate tax - BushCo's rationale for this was to stop farmers losing their farms from generation to generation, when it was handed down. What a load of rubbish. There were clauses in it to stop exactly that. All repealing it did was stop a source of federal income (~$1 trillion over the next 10 years), and a tax that only affected perhaps the top 2%. An article on how much it costs with BushCo's tax cuts to create a job. There's a graph in this article that compares the various incomes of the five 20% income brackets, and the top 1%, also shows how much more they get with Bush's tax cuts. This article shows how BushCo's tax cuts drove up gas prices - and brings up another good point - sooner or later, intrest rates will climb, and BushCo's gigantic defecit will hit the US hard. Bush let the polluters write the laws that govern them. This one speaks for itself. BushCo relaxes Clean Air rules So you think nobody in BushCo lied, huh? Here's a list of (at this writing) 237 lies or misleading statements of BushCo, about Iraq. Also, this is a compiliation of 62 (at this writing) campaign lies/distortions (and proof of their falsehood) the GOP has used against Kerry. You may call this class warfare, all you want, but that will not stop this from being very valid. quote: Bush and company HAVE to make these announcements, they HAVE TO!!!! If they get an INKLING of intelligence telling them about some form of possible terrorist attack, THEY HAVE TO MAKE A MEMO!!! Why? Because WE are their bosses, and if WE haven't been warned about a possible attack, NO MATTER HOW UNLIKELY, and it happens, then THEY will be blamed for NOT warning us. I repeat : They have given no evidence that they will be, they have not raised the threat level. If you can look past your bias, you may notice this. If they would give real evidence, I wouldent be calling this fearmongering quote: If Bush had ACTUALLY been in bed with the rich, we WOULDN'T have attacked Iraq and taken out Saddam, because OUR oil companies had a LOAD of contracts and loans out to him as well. You fail to notice that there are even more contracts now, such as the famed 'no-bid' Halliburton contract. [ 06-28-2004, 05:37 AM: Message edited by: Kartoffel ]

The 2001 tax cut, and the math behind it. Here's the 2001 plan end result. The poorest ($6000 and under) get a 5% cut. The working poor ($6000 - ~$27,000) get NO cut. A $100,000 income gets a 6% cut - $6000, $300,000 and $1,000,000 both get a 6.6% cut - $20k and $66k cuts respectively. While a $45,000 income gets a 3% cut - $1350 back. While this is for single filers, the other filing plans (which are available in a link to whitehouse.gov in this link) are similar to this. Twice nothing remains nothing, half infinity remains infinity. This link shows the net effect of BushCo's tax cuts over a couple of different scenarios. Eliminiting the dividend tax - This only seriously benefitted Wall Street traders, & such, those who have large amounts invested. This hardly helps the average working-class American, who has relatively little invested. Eliminating the estate tax - BushCo's rationale for this was to stop farmers losing their farms from generation to generation, when it was handed down. What a load of rubbish. There were clauses in it to stop exactly that. All repealing it did was stop a source of federal income (~$1 trillion over the next 10 years), and a tax that only affected perhaps the top 2%. An article on how much it costs with BushCo's tax cuts to create a job. There's a graph in this article that compares the various incomes of the five 20% income brackets, and the top 1%, also shows how much more they get with Bush's tax cuts. This article shows how BushCo's tax cuts drove up gas prices - and brings up another good point - sooner or later, intrest rates will climb, and BushCo's gigantic defecit will hit the US hard. Bush let the polluters write the laws that govern them. This one speaks for itself. BushCo relaxes Clean Air rules So you think nobody in BushCo lied, huh? Here's a list of (at this writing) 237 lies or misleading statements of BushCo, about Iraq. Also, this is a compiliation of 62 (at this writing) campaign lies/distortions (and proof of their falsehood) the GOP has used against Kerry. You may call this class warfare, all you want, but that will not stop this from being very valid. quote: Bush and company HAVE to make these announcements, they HAVE TO!!!! If they get an INKLING of intelligence telling them about some form of possible terrorist attack, THEY HAVE TO MAKE A MEMO!!! Why? Because WE are their bosses, and if WE haven't been warned about a possible attack, NO MATTER HOW UNLIKELY, and it happens, then THEY will be blamed for NOT warning us. I repeat : They have given no evidence that they will be, they have not raised the threat level. If you can look past your bias, you may notice this. If they would give real evidence, I wouldent be calling this fearmongering quote: If Bush had ACTUALLY been in bed with the rich, we WOULDN'T have attacked Iraq and taken out Saddam, because OUR oil companies had a LOAD of contracts and loans out to him as well. You fail to notice that there are even more contracts now, such as the famed 'no-bid' Halliburton contract. [ 06-28-2004, 05:37 AM: Message edited by: Kartoffel ]