RSS
Lefty Dreams of Show Trials
The always reasonable Stuart Taylor explains why the left's demands that war crimes charges be brought against Bush Administration officials are woefully unreasonable.
What they are, though Taylor is too polite to say, is hysterical.
Taylor was and is against the use of waterboarding...
"But," he writes, "the critics are deeply misguided to call for criminal investigations of people who did their best to protect the country in dire times. The process would ruin lives and tear the country apart. And there is no evidence that any high-level official or lawyer acted with criminal intent."
Ruin lives? Tear apart the country? Woo HOO! As far as some on the left are concerned, America is so corrupt and hateful it is hardly worth saving. Let the show trials begin.
What they are, though Taylor is too polite to say, is hysterical.
Taylor was and is against the use of waterboarding...
"But," he writes, "the critics are deeply misguided to call for criminal investigations of people who did their best to protect the country in dire times. The process would ruin lives and tear the country apart. And there is no evidence that any high-level official or lawyer acted with criminal intent."
Ruin lives? Tear apart the country? Woo HOO! As far as some on the left are concerned, America is so corrupt and hateful it is hardly worth saving. Let the show trials begin.
posted by Spencerblog at
10:57 AM
33 Comments:
This post has been removed by the author.
Just as some of us have been saying all along: It’s the Libs’ overly emotional petty hurt feelings and vicious partisanship and want for "paybacks" which drives their anger and their political games rather than any real injustice.
(All one need do is read Dishonest Dave Diano's shrill angry and childish posts to see this on display.)
Bumper sticker: “LibDems see the President of the United States as more of an enemy that terrorists.”
So true.
I can't imagine ever putting a President on trial, it would tear the country apart and bring about an instability to the office of the President of the United States. For this reason, I salute Ford for what he did in '74 with Nixon. Some may think it was a buddy-buddy agreement, but we'll leave that for those conspiracy theorists who think everything's done for devious reasons. Ford saved the presidency and us from ourselves.
This post has been removed by the author.
Don’t try to sound all reasonable now, Dishonest Dave. Questioning isn’t what you do. You have indicted and convicted our President –during wartime, no less- and aided our enemies all for your petty personal dislike and partisan hurt feelings. Libs always push too far and get caught up in their childish emotions and misplaced loyalties.
This post has been removed by the author.
diano, there's a high probability that each administration has skeletons in their closets that could be construed as prosecution-worthy by one side or the other. Prosecuting a President will open Pandora's box on this country, I'm not interested in the utter chaos that would naturally follow, are you?
Following the election, it's time to move-on (dot org)
Oh, stop with the hurt feelings grasping, Dishonest Dave. You'll pull something with all the stretching.
Clearly anti-Bush/America Libs such as yourself have harmed our country and directly given aid to our enemies more than anyone else ...all for your hurt feelings and misplaced loyalties.
This post has been removed by the author.
And we won’t hear a weeping peep from Lying LibDems about “checks and balances”.
diano, I don't blame them, I'm terrified of an Obama adminstration, this despite the fact that we presently have a faulty Bush administration!
All these feel good measures (Tax raises for the rich, windfall profits) are more hype than true solutions, almost as if this guy only wants to appeal to us through impulse measurements only. (I'll save impulse decisions on Slurpees and pretzels, thank you.) Real "CHANGE" isn't what Barry has in mind, IMHO.
This post has been removed by the author.
Dave,
How dumb are you? The "rich" paid more with Bush's tax cuts than they would have with the taxes in place during the Clinton administration. You can look that up, it's documented pretty well. It's true even on a % basis also.
And the rich don't pay their fair share? Who pays close to 90% of the taxes in this country again? The top 25% of earners. So what's a fair share for them? 99.99999%?
Wasn't it the Bush tax cuts that caused 11 million "poor" to NOT have to pay taxes which they would have under the Clinton policies? Oh right, that's true too.
Of the 2/3rds of all households that pay anything (remember Bush saved 11 million from paying anything), about 75% of those people paid in the 15% tax bracket.
Where is this not "fair" again? The
bottom 50% of income earners pay less than 4% of the total taxes paid in this country.
Soon enough, the rich will be footing the poors social security, free healthcare, welfare for life, etc. I'm thinking of quitting my job. I'll sit at home, cash in my welfare check to pay for my $400k Section 8 house and food. Smoke lots of cigs and have tons of babies. I can then have an abortion for free or get more money from the welfare system. I can then retire and live off the same retirement as those who worked all their life. I'm sorry, but that may be the sweetest gig of all time right there. Maybe I can get Dave to fund a touring band so we don't have to pay for gas, hotels, booze, or instruments while on the road! I mean, my life is so tough as it is being poor and all.
Then again, Obama thinks you are rich if you're single and your income is above 60k. Shows his intelligence on the economy.
Good stuff, J.
This post has been removed by the author.
Lets debunk this point in 2 ways, "The top 25% pay about 85% of the annual income tax, but they own more than 85% of the wealth/assets. They have more income, after taxes, to accumulate, invest and grow. Someone living from paycheck-to-paycheck can't easily increase his net worth or afford to take a risk in the stock market or buy up real-estate or artwork."
1. The top 25% includes people who make just over 62k as a single tax payer. When did you see a single person making 70k buying up real estate or artwork for investment purposes? You don't! Part of that top 25% lives paycheck to paycheck too.
2. Your asset distribution is wrong. Please show the source of those amounts.
We can go back to your favorite source (wikipedia) and note that the top 1% pay 36.9% with a wealth of 32.7%, top 5% pay 57.1% with a wealth of 57.2%, and the top 10% pay 68% with a wealth of 69.8%. Where are those numbers very distorted? They aren't AT ALL. They are right on line proving your argument wrong again.
Then again, does an asset really equate to current income? I can own 10 houses worth 300 million and have no taxable income with muni bonds and just SS income, yet I own a huge chunk of "assets." It's not even a fair comparison, it is completely apples and oranges at its best.
"Jonas, please cry/whine some more about how tough it is for you having an after tax income more than the pre-tax income of people living in poverty."
Where was I crying or whining? Did I say it was tough for me at all? I think that's your imagination running wild again Dave (or DD). I know a few shrinks that could help you possibly though, that's what friends are for! I don't really like pathological liars.
What do you want me to do Dave? Pay their 15% (or less) tax amounts for them? I save them around 4k a year. Is that now "fair"? Could you constitute the meaning of "fair" also Dave as it is a VERY general term?
Now, once we have national healthcare, can you explain how we don't have a communistic society? I'm paying their taxes, their healthcare costs, their retirement costs, their welfare costs. What exactly do they do other than have sex, eat, and smoke cigs?
What incentive is there for any person to work at that point? Hell, I'd LOVE to sit back, knock some hot chicks up (abortions are covered), have no kids, have a sweet section 8 house next to hard workers, and do NOTHING all day.
And before you start the whole "they had tough life" crap. I was an orphan who grew up in the projects and paid my own way through school (some scholarship/gov't help). Look where I am now, I'm not just going to give it away. Heck, I'd move to Monaco before doing that.
jonas, don't even get into the healthcare plan, that's a can of worms destined for disaster in this country.
Maybe we should go communist, split up everything evenly and let the democratic party run the show. Can't wait!
This post has been removed by the author.
Only Socialist Libs could see stealing half of someone's income to help the lazy sponges as being somehow "fair".
No Dave, my amount includes: income, real estate, cars, houses, "stocks", and the like.
And I'm using your trusty source, so you can't say it is wrong. Which means the numbers you pulled are off in some fashion.
Dave, didn't I say, "The top 25% includes people who make just over 62k as a single tax payer. When did you see a single person making 70k buying up real estate or artwork for investment purposes? You don't! Part of that top 25% lives paycheck to paycheck too."
Could you re-read the whole, "Part of that top 25% lives paycheck to paycheck too." Please put emphasis on the pronunciation and meaning of "part." I never said the top 25% doesn't invest in shore houses. But to say everyone in the top 25% does is a joke. No single person making 70k is paying 2 mortgages or wasting their money on paintings that appreciate (you don't find many at a decent price). That person is in the top 25%; so NO, not everyone in the top 25% is rich as you say.
If you'd say top 10% I'd still disagree because that group includes married filed jointly families with 4 or 5 kids to put through college. Can they buy decent cars, a decent home, go on a vacation a year; sure. But are they "investing" in stocks where they can lose money? Not really. Are they buying 400k vacation homes? Nope. College tuition is where their money is going.
You want to go to the top 1 or 5% which makes 200k +, then yes, I'll agree with you. That's a whole 20% points off of your original post. Otherwise known at 1/5th of the whole percentage. That's pretty wrong in my eyes (esp when you try to correct my 90 to 85 %s).
The rich have it too good? Which rich, the kid making 70k at 25 with a 1,300 a month mortgage? No, I don't think that kid has it too good. Me, sure I have it real good. I also know if I lived in London I'd pay less in taxes or if I lived in Monaco I'd pay nothing in earned income taxes. So what exactly is fair for me? What kind of credit are you going to give these people? Another 1k? What does that really do? It does nothing to solve the problem. It is a quick fix that makes people think the problem is solved. Sorry, I don't participate in those.
And also, how do you plan to give tax breaks/credits to the people who barely have any taxes paid already? I don't see how 40k a year filing single is "poor," yet 62k a year filing single is now "rich." What does that 22k a year do after tax? So under your argument 22k separates the rich from the poor. I'm not seeing much disparity there Dave.
Steve,
You are exactly right. That's the direction this country is going though. We'll have people like Dave waiting 3 years to get his herpes fixed and pro athletes flying to Jamaica to have their torn ACLs repaired.
My whole argument to Dave though is, what exactly are the rich supposed to front for everyone else? Remember, in Dave's "rich" category are single filers who make 62k a year. Should they really be footing the bill for someone who makes 40k a year's healthcare costs? Is that really "fair?" Absolutely not.
What you are seeing here from Dave, J, is fullblown Lib Socialism in its raw unpolished form. See, lowly Lib dopes like Dave aren’t smart enough to conceal it the way professional Lying Lib Socialists do. He just wants more of the “richs” money for his lazy “victim groups” as if he were somehow entitled to spread their wealth. And he’s not shy about laying claim to it as if they were entitled. The Daves consider themselves unbound by Capitalism for the mere fact that they don’t like it and it doesn’t serve their agenda.
This post has been removed by the author.
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_States
Please refer to 1.3 towards the end of the paragraph. There's no misrepresentation on my part. You take your wikipedia articles and accept the argument that goes towards your thought process then say the argument that goes towards mine is false and show no proof of the falsehood of the argument. It is so judgmental and incorrect on thousands of factual bases it is ridiculous you question me misrepresenting the facts.
Could you now show your link for your stated facts? I send mine after 1 request, this is at least my second. Please hurry up to find the support.
Dave, I brought up the 25%, but YOU said they were the rich with this statement, "The top 25% pay about 85% of the annual income tax, but they own more than 85% of the wealth/assets. They have more income, after taxes, to accumulate, invest and grow. Someone living from paycheck-to-paycheck can't easily increase his net worth or afford to take a risk in the stock market or buy up real-estate or artwork." I Never said they were rich, just said they paid most of the taxes.
Please apologize for lying. Thanks!
Also, "AS for the poor, the "tax" break they get is investment in their communities for schools, job training, counseling, etc."
How is that a "tax break"? You aren't decreasing their taxes at all with that policy! All you are doing is taxing others more to give them benefits you "hope" will turn them into successful people. There's no saved money under that policy for them; how's it a tax break!?!?!?!?
"A kid age 25 with 70K and $1,300 mortgage is doing F***ING GREAT." That kid has that mortgage because houses cost so much. That kid has no money to save for his future or go out to a bar/club with friends. How's that F'ing great? The kid is house poor!
I'll be waiting for your link and apology in your next post.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_
States#Tax_distribution
Or just wiki "taxation in the united states"
This post has been removed by the author.
You see nothing wrong with just handing welfare sponges money, Dave?
This post has been removed by the author.
without just handing them money (like the welfare opponents complain about).
Umm, your attatched qualifier made it appear like you would indeed be for just handing out money if not for them pesky welfare opponents. And given your known Socialist and apologist attitudes, my assumption about your charity with others’ tax dollars was by no means out of line, DD.
And, btw, you of all people have NO room to talk about anyone else grasping in desperation for a win here. Lol…
This post has been removed by the author.
Yes Dave exactly like your cop-out answer of "tax the rich more!" That way you don't have to participate in any activities nor give anymore money to helping the poor. Yet you stand on the side looking like a cheerleader.
It's pretty easy to put the pressure on others to pick up all the work.
Glenn Beck actually had an amazing insight into the US tonight. He said that the best ideas for helping our country don't come from Washington, they come from the individuals of our country. Now I fully agree with that.
And no, that's not a cop-out. Just like you previously stated that people who don't believe in the war shouldn't have to pay taxes that go to the war. Maybe people who don't feel that welfare checks do anything should be able to stop paying into that. We could add social security to the list. That does nothing for me and is a pretty big tax. I might as well invest the money myself. At least I'm guaranteed to have it when I retire as I won't lose it in the market.
But you seem to miss the point here: there are 2 viewpoints. You can have the viewpoint of throwing money at the government to fix problems or actually using the money to fix the problems in your own way. Apparently only your point of view is correct (we've all seen how successful it has been. What long term benefits did welfare do for the poor again?).
The biggest problem you have Dave is you feel your viewpoint is the only correct answer all the time and if someone disagrees they are falsifying data or lying or just inferior to yourself. That my friend, is a dictator type mentality. It's been proven pretty consistently here that you don't even know half the facts you quote (you just wiki them, then copy/paste) so it's not like you have in depth knowledge on the topic. You just "know" that hydrogen cars are coming tomorrow and that drilling won't produce any crude for the next 20 years.
Then again you thought we went into Iraq for oil. Guess you never knew that Iraqi oil is sour and the majority of US refineries can't handle that type of crude. So why would "King George," the oil profiteer, invade a country to use the crude here to make companies rich, when we can't use the crude here? Don't you think an "oil profiteer" would know their industry? Especially if they are a profiteer, that means they are good at it because they make money!
This post has been removed by the author.
Post a Comment
<< Home