In the future, sir, I implore you, stick to pitching and leave the politicking to those of us who were born with brains.

Oh, that Barry. He and the Dems will fix everything. Ya they’ll fix it good alright. This guy is the biggest charlatan alive with the possible exception of Mahmoud Ahmanutjob, and millions of people are buying what he’s selling. Iran supports him. The Saudis support him. Good thing they don’t have a vote. Hollywood loonies support him. Do you really need to know anything else?

Have you heard him say that 95% of Americans would pay less tax under his plan? I was thinking. This is impossible.

First, consider this. If you or your family earn more than $92,000 per year, (and many do, but would scoff at being called affluent especially in the Northeast), then congratulations. You belong to a select group of taxpayers in the top 20% of all wage earners. You also have the blessed distinction of paying 80% of all taxes collected. The top 20% pay 80% of all the tax. Nice, huh? The top 50% wage earners pay a staggering 97% of all taxes. Sounds like a deal to me. This means that the bottom 50% of all tax filers pay only 3% of all taxes collected. Put another way, 5 of every 10 people pay only $3 out of every $100 in tax collected. To make matters worse, the Tax foundation verified that 32 percent of all tax returns filed were from people who paid no federal income tax at all. This is possible because of tax exemptions and earned income tax credits which reduce some filer’s tax liability to zero. 32 % pay nothing. The fact is, Barry with his plan would have no choice but to target the top 20% of individual wage earners to raise money to grow government because this is where the bulk of tax revenue comes from. This would likely be used to do some fist pumping and REDUCE taxes on those who already pay a disproportionately miniscule amount (or to provide more handouts to those who already pay nothing or next to nothing and build support, eh .. dependency in the voting base), many of whom could very well be here illegally.

Then you have his “pay or play” strategy for businesses. This is one of the main points in his plan. Basically, the idea is you give corporations a choice. The company either pays the lion’s share of medical insurance premiums for its employees, or faces an additional tax. Most companies, when faced with this dilemma will opt for the latter, since taxes are income-based and are increasing at a lower rate than health insurance premiums year over year. The nice windfall could help fund Barry’s socialized medicine initiatives. One of the problems with this which he and the Dems seem to conveniently ignore is that in response to this added load, businesses will A) increase prices, and B) layoff employees to compensate for the additional expense. You don’t have to be a Harvard Law grad like Barry to know that neither of these will have a positive affect on the economy. He’s like a modern-day Robin Hood with terrorist and racist friends, tens of millions of dollars, a nice suit, and a bitchy wife.

He and the Dems also slam Bush saying that his tax cuts were only for the corporations and the wealthy. This is not true. While top 10% earners got a tax break to foster trickle-down, they actually paid more tax. In 2000 before the Bush tax cuts, top 10% wage earners paid 67% of all tax. Last year this number was close to 71%. This is according to IRS income statistics. During a period of time when Bush was supposedly taking care of his buddies in big oil, the highest earners actually paid more tax than before. I never saw this announced on PMSNBC, Press the Meat, or Deface the Nation. How could this be possible if the tax cuts were for the privileged few? What BarryWanKanobe and company seem to miss is that when you lower taxes, people tend to put more effort into earning income since less of it is taxable, and less effort into finding ways to avoid paying tax. Try explaining that to a liberal.

Barry and the Democrats. Sounds like a defunct 60’s band that smoked too much weed and sang about hope and change.

Much of what you’ve spewed here (Come to 38pitches and Spew along with Curt!), shows I’m right about how you come to your conclusions. No sense wasting time on you–though what a lovely idea you had about using a baseball bat to make others agree with one’s ideas.

My god where do you people come from? Are you some of the clowns writing the revisionist histories that are flooding the market?

Yeah right, Thespo, I’m living in the past. that’s because there are so many reflections of the past still in my face today. Maybe it was mostly in the northeast or places like San Francisco, but it was by no means a “small percentage” who condemned the drafted troops who served in Vietnam. It was a huge majority of over privileged holier than thou students and coeds who had to face no risks what so ever that were the most vocal. And they, like you, are still shooting their mouths off.

You whacked out liberal moonbats are still every where. In spike of the fact that your sit-ins, marches, protests and drop out philosophies, and drug use, produced absolutely nothing in the way of reform, you arrogantly try to make people think you ended the war and were the main reason for civil rights reforms. The fact is that you were more of a hindrance than anything else. Face the facts. Instead of occupying college administration buildings and chanting communist slogans, if you actually had done something constructive, maybe you could have had some real voice. But you didn’t. You have nothing to be proud about except drugged out Woodstock nostalgia. I’ll never make headway with you people because you are so arrogant that you select only the facts

that support you nonsense.

Now Karen. where are you getting your facts about the opinions of combat veterans? Certainly not from me. And certainly not from the veterans. I think you’re making this crap up.

Thespo 1062 thinks that I’m living in the past because of my recollections of service and combat experience. Plus the resulting treatment I got from US citizens back home. He minimizes it, and tells my to stop living in the past. I should just forget it, and let another slogan chanting anti war idiot simply drag the troops home. That will make everything just peachy. It’s sort of the typical, hear no evil philosophy. But you are even worse.

You are sick of hearing about McCain’s experiences? Wonderful. You also probably thinks it’s wrong to bring up Rev. Wright. Racist right?

Ah! Never mind. I couldn’t change your sick mind with a baseball bat.

What’s worse is there are so many idiots like you around here.

You need psychiatric help. Lots of it. In fact, you need a team of shrinks. You need to be sent somewhere that people teach actual reasoning, instead of just slogan chanting. I’ll bet you live in Cambridge.

Rod

People that have never served their country, or endured incredible hardship, or both, are the ones spouting “I’m tired of hearing about him being a POW..blah blah blah, yadda yaddda.

**************

Actually, Curt, both those who’ve served and those who haven’t have objected to the notion that having been a soldier, especially as prisoner of war, qualifies one person any more than any other person. You’d know this if you were paying attention to more than Papa Bear O’Reilly’s talking points and such other unfair and unbalanced ranting.

This is why they are sick of hearing about McCain’s prisoner of war

horror–it’s a plea for Americans to use their emotions rather than their good sense to decide who should be our President, just like they did the last two times to such an astoundingly destructive end.

As a matter of fact, perhaps, like McCain (proven by his utter disrespect of our fighting men in women–his voting record denying actual support–as opposed to car magnets and hating on people who disagree with the war–to our troops ), you also don’t acknowledge the hell soldiers go through and how it can affect their later lives in a negative way.

Those who have already served and who have come home with their minds failing to function normally–suffering the utter hell of mental illness–are being denied treatment by the US army and are even being sent back to fight again. (And it must be reiterated that if you and all your war-supporting Republicans had signed up, this wouldn’t need to be done.)

************Curt asked:

War monger? Please. Why is it that you have yet to hear someone that has served this great nation, offering up the ultimate sacrifice, say those things?

**************

Again, it’s because you aren’t listening. Plenty of military men and women have made this point. But, you don’t even pay them the honor of tuning in to news sources that bring you such opinions, or if you do you dismiss them out-of-hand. Apparently your demand that respect be paid to the troops doesn’t hold when that troop disagrees with your political party.

Karen you’re a dope. You spent your whole weekend with eyes glued here for what? To spew the same BS you’ve always done? So you are saying Senator McCain is for ‘denying treatment to returning troops showing mental issues”? Can you cite a legitimate source for his vote and comments on that exact topic?.

Oh and Curt… you are wrong about”people that have never served their country, or endured incredible hardship, or both, are the ones spouting “I’m tired of hearing about him being a POW”…..my brother was one of the babies that came from Vietnam to the US as an orphan from that God forsaken war and he is also a veteran of the US Army! So he HAS served his country and I think being orphaned qualifies as “ENDURING INCREDIBLE HARDSHIP” and he is infuriated by McCain!

You stated that people that have done what McCain has “are the only ones who can truly understand the horrors of war.”

I have to disagree with you wholeheartedly on this one because you left out all of the displaced innocents who more than understand what these horrors mean. A good example of this are the shrapnel scars on my brother’s body from childhood and many more children like him who are still out there today! And those are just the physical scars……

McCain’s Voting Record: He Does Not Support Our Troops and VeteransTuesday, February 26, 2008 -

Since everyone is at least a bit familiar with John McCain’s record when it comes to strolling through a market in Baghdad with hundreds of his closest guards, or how he wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years (except when he flip flops on that).

But not that many really, truly know just how horrific his voting record is when it comes to the troops. And it is pretty consistent – whether it is for armor and equipment, for veteran’s health care, for adequate troop rest or anything that actually, you know, supports our troops.

Still in his corner, Curt? Of course you are, because he still will do what’s good for the fat cats like you and not for the vast majority of Americans.

McCain’s Voting Record: He Does Not Support Our Troops and VeteransTuesday, February 26, 2008 -

Since everyone is at least a bit familiar with John McCain’s record when it comes to strolling through a market in Baghdad with hundreds of his closest guards, or how he wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years (except when he flip flops on that).

But not that many really, truly know just how horrific his voting record is when it comes to the troops. And it is pretty consistent – whether it is for armor and equipment, for veteran’s health care, for adequate troop rest or anything that actually, you know, supports our troops.

Go here for the details, if you care (if you dare):

Still in his corner, Curt? Of course you are, because he still will do what’s good for the fat cats like you and not for the vast majority of Americans.

Watching the Republican convention did nothing to make me think McCain will make a good president, and certainly not a better one than Obama, and certainly not as a change-agent.

What I learned was that Republicans are even more petty and out of touch with the so-called-Christian and patriotic values they so cynically used to get their guy into office the last two times than I even imagined. The speeches I saw were chock full of hateful, nasty, childish, unchristian attacks on their opponents. And boy did the crowd just love that @#$#@$!.

And Curt, like so many other Republicans, is so far from dealing with the world in a truly Christian and patriotic way. He votes for, and tries to convince his adoring fans to vote for, the party that gives tax breaks to him and the other multi-millionaires.

TRUE patriotism would have those to whom this country has given such success vote for a candidate who put the tax burden on them, not the less fortunate. They’d want to make millions, not of more dollars, but of fellow Americans more financially secure and able to provide for their families.

But Curt is not that generous, wise kind of Christian or patriot. He’s the kind who disowns and causes major rifts between members of his own family simply because they dare to disagree with his politics. Hmmm, so much for believing in reaching across party lines, he doesn’t even support peace in his own family.

And he foolishly believes that patriotism means that you stand by mutely while a moron like GW Bush runs our great country into the ground for the benefit of a minority of Americans-for instance those at Halliburton or the oil companies or baseball players.

So Curt is friends with McCain. What’s that got to do with it? Well, Curt is the type of guy who thinks that being friends with Curt makes McCain special.

Kind of along the same lines as how Curt thinks God gave him his arm because Curt was somehow superior to other men and deserved it more than others.

Plus, it’ll do Curt’s own political aspirations good to have his friends in power.

Also, as has been said here, if Curt truly thought military service was so important for a candidate, why support Bush and Cheney so vocally? Oh, well, when it’s the Democratic candidate who lacks a military record, it suddenly is not that important. How convenient.

Yeah, have your say now. With all this intelligent disagreement with Curt’s pontificating, he’ll soon be shutting down this blog, or at least requiring you to sign a loyalty oath before you’re allowed to post.

Maybe you should stop being so argumentative and actually research the topic as opposed to just restating your beliefs over and over again…

This is directly from the 9/11 report:

Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda—save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against “Crusaders” during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army. To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad’s control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin’s help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.

With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request. As described below, the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections. There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response. According to one report, Saddam Hussein’s efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin. In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December. Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.