I need the libs to explain to me......

[Recliner Pilot 61]

.......when the head of a country's Nuclear Program makes an official trade visit to a country whose only marketable commodity is Uranium, what might be the topic of discussion?

 

I mean, seriously what else would he be asking to purchase?

 

Loin cloths?

Spears?

Rice bowls?

Water jugs to carry on his head?

 

 

List just one other commodity Niger has to offer that would cause Iraq's Nuclear program director to make a visit.

[What is the deal? 1]

They most have a solid Coffee bean crop

[Snuff 10]

No answers.

[Rude Rick 0]

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 so stop playing these games.

[mighty_thor 115]

Are you trying to say nigers have nothing else to offer the world?

[D_House 0]

Loin cloths?

Spears?

Niger

RACIST!!!

[Cdub100 3,996]

Are you trying to say nigers have nothing else to offer the world?

 

:reported:

[Guest tiki_gods]

lots of free sex in the third world

[squidfinger 0]

Perhaps your argument would be a little stronger if there were, oh I don't know, any evidence of a functioning nuclear program. .

[Rude Rick 0]

Perhaps your argument would be a little stronger if there were, oh I don't know, any evidence of a functioning nuclear program. .

[D_House 0]

lots of free sex in the third world

you mean cheap sex. lots more free sex in the FREE world than the third world.

 

 

 

KEEP ON FOCKING IN THE FREE WORLD!!!

[Guest tiki_gods]

you mean cheap sex. lots more free sex in the FREE world than the third world.

KEEP ON FOCKING IN THE FREE WORLD!!!

 

Free sex in the third world. All the females over there want green cards.

[What is the deal? 1]

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 so stop playing these games.

They didn't have anything to do with the Cease Fire Agreement that they signed either. They just ignored it.

 

HTH

[Ravens 03 0]

lots of free sex in the third world

 

 

AIDS????

 

 

[Sho Nuff 720]

Perhaps your argument would be a little stronger if there were, oh I don't know, any evidence of a functioning nuclear program. .

 

Ummm...without even getting into what RP is saying or the whole thing....this is not true.

 

For one to be looking for uranium...they would not necessarily need a functioning "nuclear program". Even just something trying to get up and running would suffice. And not even so much as that really.

[Jeff Garcia 8]

Are you trying to say nigers have nothing else to offer the world?

Just really good athletic skills. Maybe Saddam was wanting his soccer team trained?

[squidfinger 0]

Ummm...without even getting into what RP is saying or the whole thing....this is not true.

 

For one to be looking for uranium...they would not necessarily need a functioning "nuclear program". Even just something trying to get up and running would suffice. And not even so much as that really.

 

True, they could very well have been looking for uranium. But uranium, in the absence of the technology to utilize it, is not very dangerous. At the very very worst, it could be used to make a dirty bomb, which is not a laughing matter...but not really that bad either, in the big scheme of things.

 

It takes lots of sophisticated technology to create a nuke. I am unaware of any evidence that Iraq possessed this technology...and you can be sure the Moron in Chief would have been talking about any shred of evidence ad nauseum, so I doubt the military uncovered any.

 

In other words, if you are willing to make the jump Iraq had someone in Niger to illegally purchase uranium, which is rank supposition (though somewhat believable), it's still not damning. The embargos were working

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Libs offering an alternative reason for the visit = ZERO

[SUXBNME 1,632]

Perhaps your argument would be a little stronger if there were, oh I don't know, any evidence of a functioning nuclear program. .

 

 

Yea, I'm sure you know ALL the evidence, right?

You know what the media tells you and thats it...Get over yourself

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Libs offering a plausible alternative = Zero

 

[George Carlin 1]

AIDS????

 

Like someone to help with the shopping?

[BuckeyeMiniMe 0]

What does being liberal have to do with a trade visit to Niger? Being Liberal, I would say, "you got us in this mess; now you get us out of it"!

[Recliner Pilot 61]

SheepleInSTL is nowhere to be found.

[hoytdwow 202]

Recliner Pilot's brain cell count = Zero

 

fixed

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

Why do the "libs" have to explain it to you? If you want the US to be the World Police, then I would suggest that you probably need to have our taxes go even higher than they already are. I believe that we need to be a positive influence in the World, but I can't see that we have to intervene in everything that goes on. There are plenty of bad people doing bad things in the World. It does not take a genius to figure that one out, but you can't go to war with every country that you think might be up to something.

 

That would lead us to be spread pretty thin, cause us to be ineffective in the areas we should step into, give impetus to people who resent/hate us, and would cost us tons of $$$. Wait, I believe that is exactly what you are advocating. Nevermind.

[paulinstl 296]

SheepleInSTL is nowhere to be found.

 

 

Let's try to wade through your moronesque right wing talk show host mentality and provide real facts here:

 

1. George Bush was told several times before his SOTU address to not use the Niger story because the intelligence community couldn't vouch for it's truth.

 

2. He decided to use it anyway as part of his case for justifying an Iraq invasion.

 

3. The documents cited have since been proven to be forgeries.

 

4. There are no other documents in the public domain that show Iraq tried to buy uranium.

 

5. George Bush and members of his administration have since admitted they should never had used the Niger story and that it was bogus.

 

6. Why does anyone have to explain why the Iraqi Minister was in Niger? It has yet to be proven that he was there to purchase uranium. I don't care if he was there buying 1000 truckloads full of that stuff. Without proof, and despite his own intelligence service telling him the report was not verifiable, the President told the American people that he had proof of Iraq's attempt to purchase uranium. That's either a misguided attempt to sway popular opinion or an outright lie depending on your stance. Either way, it is unacceptable to offer unconfirmed and possibly inaccurate intel to justify war. To go to war, you need proof, not forged documents.

 

You aren't worth my time anymore. You are so far up the GOP ass that you can't even think for yourself. Every single discussion we have ever engaged in, you bring the same weak stuff, I hammer you with facts, you ask "link". I provide factual links from unbiased sources, and you respond along the lines "I know you are , but what am I?". You have been schooled every single time, but from now on, you'll need to get your lessons from someone else.

 

Just keep this thought in mind when you come here daily looking for your education, your President is responsible for almost 3000 dead American troops. He went to war on innuendo and bogus intel. Maybe if you send him a check out of your allowance, he can save a seat in Hell for you.

 

 

[D_House 0]

Let's try to wade through your moronesque right wing talk show host mentality and provide real facts here:

 

1. George Bush was told several times before his SOTU address to not use the Niger story because the intelligence community couldn't vouch for it's truth.

 

2. He decided to use it anyway as part of his case for justifying an Iraq invasion.

 

3. The documents cited have since been proven to be forgeries.

 

4. There are no other documents in the public domain that show Iraq tried to buy uranium.

 

5. George Bush and members of his administration have since admitted they should never had used the Niger story and that it was bogus.

 

6. Why does anyone have to explain why the Iraqi Minister was in Niger? It has yet to be proven that he was there to purchase uranium. I don't care if he was there buying 1000 truckloads full of that stuff. Without proof, and despite his own intelligence service telling him the report was not verifiable, the President told the American people that he had proof of Iraq's attempt to purchase uranium. That's either a misguided attempt to sway popular opinion or an outright lie depending on your stance. Either way, it is unacceptable to offer unconfirmed and possibly inaccurate intel to justify war. To go to war, you need proof, not forged documents.

 

You aren't worth my time anymore. You are so far up the GOP ass that you can't even think for yourself. Every single discussion we have ever engaged in, you bring the same weak stuff, I hammer you with facts, you ask "link". I provide factual links from unbiased sources, and you respond along the lines "I know you are , but what am I?". You have been schooled every single time, but from now on, you'll need to get your lessons from someone else.

 

Just keep this thought in mind when you come here daily looking for your education, your President is responsible for almost 3000 dead American troops. He went to war on innuendo and bogus intel. Maybe if you send him a check out of your allowance, he can save a seat in Hell for you.

game, set. match.

[footballpowers 0]

Let's try to wade through your moronesque right wing talk show host mentality and provide real facts here:

 

1. George Bush was told several times before his SOTU address to not use the Niger story because the intelligence community couldn't vouch for it's truth.

 

2. He decided to use it anyway as part of his case for justifying an Iraq invasion.

 

3. The documents cited have since been proven to be forgeries.

 

4. There are no other documents in the public domain that show Iraq tried to buy uranium.

 

5. George Bush and members of his administration have since admitted they should never had used the Niger story and that it was bogus.

 

6. Why does anyone have to explain why the Iraqi Minister was in Niger? It has yet to be proven that he was there to purchase uranium. I don't care if he was there buying 1000 truckloads full of that stuff. Without proof, and despite his own intelligence service telling him the report was not verifiable, the President told the American people that he had proof of Iraq's attempt to purchase uranium. That's either a misguided attempt to sway popular opinion or an outright lie depending on your stance. Either way, it is unacceptable to offer unconfirmed and possibly inaccurate intel to justify war. To go to war, you need proof, not forged documents.

 

You aren't worth my time anymore. You are so far up the GOP ass that you can't even think for yourself. Every single discussion we have ever engaged in, you bring the same weak stuff, I hammer you with facts, you ask "link". I provide factual links from unbiased sources, and you respond along the lines "I know you are , but what am I?". You have been schooled every single time, but from now on, you'll need to get your lessons from someone else.

 

Just keep this thought in mind when you come here daily looking for your education, your President is responsible for almost 3000 dead American troops. He went to war on innuendo and bogus intel. Maybe if you send him a check out of your allowance, he can save a seat in Hell for you.

 

 

POW

 

NOW will you STFU fartfish???

 

 

Let's not forget getting your A$$ handed to you yesterday and your weak I've already posted link comback.

 

 

linky (towards the bottom of 3rd page)

 

http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.p...ic=207390&st=80

 

Now crawl back to mommy's basement and leave us alone...

[ArnieBragg 2]

coal, iron ore, tin, phosphates, gold, molybdenum, gypsum, salt, petroleum

[What is the deal? 1]

I would suggest that you probably need to have our taxes go even higher than they already are.

you obviously are confuse on how to increase tax revenue. It is not by raising taxes.

 

If you have less taxes than people have more money to spend. The more money they spend, the more money other people make (taxed again), the more money other people make, the more money they spend , the more money that they spend the more money that other people make (taxed again), the more money those other people make, the more money they spend, the more money they spend, the more money other people make (taxed again), the more money those people make, the more money they spend. The cycle continues and can include investment which contributes to more jobs and thus more money people make make (income tax)

[footballpowers 0]

Where oh where has my fartfish gone, where oh where could she be...........OWNED

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

you obviously are confuse on how to increase tax revenue. It is not by raising taxes.

 

If you have less taxes than people have more money to spend. The more money they spend, the more money other people make (taxed again), the more money other people make, the more money they spend , the more money that they spend the more money that other people make (taxed again), the more money those other people make, the more money they spend, the more money they spend, the more money other people make (taxed again), the more money those people make, the more money they spend. The cycle continues and can include investment which contributes to more jobs and thus more money people make make (income tax)

I am aware of Trickle Down Economics. However, you fail to realize that it does not work that way. This Administration boasts that it has increased tax revenues. It has. Unfortunately, the increase is merely a function of inflation (i.e. not a large enough percentage) and, more importantly, spending has increased far more than increased revenues. It is called "defecit spending" and GWB has taken it to new levels.

 

The fact of the matter is that I believe that our taxes should be lower. I believe that we should have smaller government. Instead, we get a new department called Homeland Security who is thrown into the non-discretionary spending bucket (like Defense) and is conveniently left off of charts indicating Government spending. I agree that we need to get more money into the hands of our citizens, but I don't think that it will increase tax revenues as you suggest and certainly cannot address the costs of being a World Police as you suggest.

[What is the deal? 1]

I am aware of Trickle Down Economics. However, you fail to realize that it does not work that way. This Administration boasts that it has increased tax revenues. It has. Unfortunately, the increase is merely a function of inflation (i.e. not a large enough percentage) and, more importantly, spending has increased far more than increased revenues. It is called "defecit spending" and GWB has taken it to new levels.

 

The fact of the matter is that I believe that our taxes should be lower. I believe that we should have smaller government. Instead, we get a new department called Homeland Security who is thrown into the non-discretionary spending bucket (like Defense) and is conveniently left off of charts indicating Government spending. I agree that we need to get more money into the hands of our citizens, but I don't think that it will increase tax revenues as you suggest and certainly cannot address the costs of being a World Police as you suggest.

I never suggested being world police. I do however think we need to defend our interests. I was just picking a fight with you about the tax deal, but it seems like you agree w/ me that taxes do not need to be increased in order to increase tax revenue.

 

How much would tax revenue increase if we taxed the 11 million immigrant workers and ordered them to pay penalties for not paying taxes in the past? That would take care of a chunk of the deficit right there.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

I never suggested being world police. I do however think we need to defend our interests. I was just picking a fight with you about the tax deal, but it seems like you agree w/ me that taxes do not need to be increased in order to increase tax revenue.

 

How much would tax revenue increase if we taxed the 11 million immigrant workers and ordered them to pay penalties for not paying taxes in the past? That would take care of a chunk of the deficit right there.

 

I don't agree that reducing individual taxes will increase tax revenues. The fact of the matter is that if you need additional tax revenue, that money comes from somewhere. Whether that is from an individual or a corporation who passes those costs on to their consumers, does not really matter. I would rather see us shrink our tax burden rather than attempt to utilize short-term solutions for stimulating the economy which have more foundation in politics than economics.

 

I think that suggesting that we could tax illegal aliens along with penalties is ridiculous. We can't prevent them from coming over the border to work here and you think that you will be able to sit them down with their local IRS agent to collect penalties?

[Korben Dallas 0]

you obviously are confuse on how to increase tax revenue. It is not by raising taxes.

 

Well of course it is. The only way to increase tax revenue is to increase taxes. You'll be getting a very personal demonstration in about 5 years when the debt ceiling becomes unsustainable.

 

If you have less taxes than people have more money to spend. The more money they spend, the more money other people make (taxed again), the more money other people make, the more money they spend , the more money that they spend the more money that other people make (taxed again), the more money those other people make, the more money they spend, the more money they spend, the more money other people make (taxed again), the more money those people make, the more money they spend. The cycle continues and can include investment which contributes to more jobs and thus more money people make make (income tax)

 

Actually this is trickle down with a bit of the VooDoo part included. Except one small problem thus far, those that received the greatest amount of "less taxes" haven't really done much consuming, nor do they need the services required by taxation at nearly the same level. Consumption is the critical mass of giving to the rich and letting them pay the poor. If that doesn't happen, then what you've really done is create an elite class that doesn't have to pay taxes.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Let's try to wade through your moronesque right wing talk show host mentality and provide real facts here:

 

1. George Bush was told several times before his SOTU address to not use the Niger story because the intelligence community couldn't vouch for it's truth.

 

2. He decided to use it anyway as part of his case for justifying an Iraq invasion.

 

3. The documents cited have since been proven to be forgeries.

 

4. There are no other documents in the public domain that show Iraq tried to buy uranium.

 

5. George Bush and members of his administration have since admitted they should never had used the Niger story and that it was bogus.

 

6. Why does anyone have to explain why the Iraqi Minister was in Niger? It has yet to be proven that he was there to purchase uranium. I don't care if he was there buying 1000 truckloads full of that stuff. Without proof, and despite his own intelligence service telling him the report was not verifiable, the President told the American people that he had proof of Iraq's attempt to purchase uranium. That's either a misguided attempt to sway popular opinion or an outright lie depending on your stance. Either way, it is unacceptable to offer unconfirmed and possibly inaccurate intel to justify war. To go to war, you need proof, not forged documents.

 

 

1. The intel community was tallking about the one set of forged documents. France, Italy, & GB had many sources and stand by them today. Somehow you think you know more than they do about their own evidence.

 

2. Right, it was part of the justification for war..........a small part. The bulk of the justifications dealt with Iraq violating the Cease Fire Agreement and 17 U.N. Resolutions. I have already owned your ass on that one.

 

3. One set was, many others are valid.

 

4. As I said before, until the French, Italian, and GB intel agencies declassify the docs they won't be "in the public domain". However, what is contained in them has been confirmed by the same agencies.

 

5. I have yet to see where they said the story was bogus, just the one set of forged documents.

 

6. I'll take that to mean you have no logical explaination why the Head of the Iraqi Nuclear Program was in Niger to open trade talks.

 

The only way to increase tax revenue is to increase taxes.

 

100% incorrect, as usual.

 

Tax revenues rose sharply after the Kennedy tax cuts, the Reagan tax cuts, and now after the GWB tax cuts. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your liberal talking points.

[MDC 8,136]

What's the difference? The bottom line is that our own intelligence said the Niger/uranium claim was questionable, but the Bush administration went ahead and presented it as fact over and over again anyway. You should wonder about that one. And before you ask for a link, do a Google search. I'm not going to jump through flaming hoops because you're deliberately lazy and stupid.

 

HTH,

 

The Liberals

[gocolts 300]

The only way to increase tax revenue is to increase taxes.

 

This shows how much you know What a joke.

[hoytdwow 202]

The only way to increase tax revenue is to give wealthy people big tax cuts

fixed.

Haven't you been paying attention the last 6 years?

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

This shows how much you know What a joke.

 

Why don't you enlighten us on how the tax cuts spurred on increased tax revenues recently?

 

I certainly hope that your dissertation includes a mention of:

- investment gains due to stock market increases (not permanent)

- expiration of temporary tax breaks w/r/t new equipment

- long term impact of spending more than you take in (i.e. deficit spending)

- impact of additional tax cuts along with increased burdens

 

Economics is a science so the anecdotal evidence that people supply does not adequately reflect a causal relationship between the tax cuts and increased tax revenues. I think that there might actually be more to the story if you want to investigate a little.

 

However, I will wait for your expanded description of the causal relationship that you describe. TIA