sv3n

What's the point; what possible intelligence could be obtained from him? More than could be gained from you. I KNOW for a fact, his clearance is substantally higher than yours. You gotta read the stuff first.......remember that memo named "Bin Laden determined to attack within the United States" that he didn't read? ...and you're in violation of your face!

Incorrect - I'll look for myself first, then ask for a link if I can't find it. I tend to NOT consider opinion pieces as 'proof', however, which is probably where you're making your misconception. Here's a thought for ya, chief - why don't you try to rebut the information, rather than the site it came from? You'll get further that way. Did you offer a link to the source yet? ...and you're in violation of your face!

Ah, the "Clinton did it first" line again Actually, I'd be happy if you would go back and find the instances of them ripping us off again. And by "them" I don't mean just KBR/Halliburton. It happens again and again and again and we STILL KEEP HIRING THE SAME THIEVES! When someone tries to blame an ongoing issue (and contract fraud has ALWAYS been around) entirely on one political party - I will absolutely call bullshit on it. Things are both better and worse in that respect in the present day. We have more oversight through the process, but fewer contract managers on the ground that know what they're doing. It's a Catch-22. Oversight Yeah that's why billions go missing and kbr charges the army $100 to do one duffel bag of laundry and wont allow the soldiers to do it themselves...............that's what I call more oversight, but for which side? ...and you're in violation of your face!

Yes, by all means, dispute the source if you can't argue the data. In the fair? Any other stipulations you want to add to stack the deck in your favor? In that case, you may wish to remove your links in your previous post to the articles from the NYT, CNN and CBPP - all either liberal or advocating support for liberal pet issues. what you don't like your own arguments? I am simply stating that I don't want a source from "bob's rightwing rumproast blog"............I would like a valid source and preferably more than one, which isn't stacking the deck......it's simply asking for good information. The article that I got the information from regarding the tax rate reductions and subsequent increase in revenues was from the Heritage Foundation, which *does* espouse conservative views. I am uninterested in finding a secondary source to satisfy your restriction, and in fact, answered your links despite the source. If the source I used is not satisfactory, I'm sure you could Google the information yourself - assuming you can find it on one of your 'approved' sources. Conversely, you could find your own information to try and rebut the claim - especially as you have NO proof that the information is not "good" due to source, as you try to imply. It's the exact same thing you ask for all the time. Sad you can't even prove your own point with solid proof, yet you're one of the first to ask for it. ...and you're in violation of your face!

he hasn't vetoed any children's healthcare yet this week.........that always gets him kind of groggy. ...and you're in violation of your face!

Well? If you have some sort of notion that I'm superior to your intellect, maybe you should read more or pay more attention. Or maybe stop trying to harp on inane points. I for one, have not made any such claim..........that came straight from your keyboard. ...and you're in violation of your face!

Because everything EXCEPT the removal of restrictions on the personal exemption and itemized deductions are equally available to lower incomes, if they were investing at the same sort of level as the higher incomes - yet again I refer you to 'economy of scale'. The removal of those restrictions isn't any sort of "break" for the rich - it's giving them what the lower income levels ALREADY HAVE! The argument over investment tax is like arguing the case that Sam's Club prices hurt the person shopping at HEB. Why are you so DAMNED jealous of someone who's better off than you? Why should they have to pay more just because you THINK they should? You're still not answering that question - you've gone on and on about how UNFAIR it is that the millionaire gets, in effect, a volume discount on investment taxes, WITHOUT showing how the lower income family is being hurt in ANY DAMN WAY by it!!! Simple............taxes are being taken out of the pool that could be spent on better things. By giving tax breaks that only affect the wealthy you're not collecting the taxes you're supposed to............creating less income. Thereby you have less tax money to fund things. ...and you're in violation of your face!

Yes, by all means, dispute the source if you can't argue the data. In the fair? Any other stipulations you want to add to stack the deck in your favor? In that case, you may wish to remove your links in your previous post to the articles from the NYT, CNN and CBPP - all either liberal or advocating support for liberal pet issues. what you don't like your own arguments? I am simply stating that I don't want a source from "bob's rightwing rumproast blog"............I would like a valid source and preferably more than one, which isn't stacking the deck......it's simply asking for good information. ...and you're in violation of your face!

"some people" = "the only one"..........I don't think that computes. reply] Proving that "some people" and "the only one" are not the same isn't evading the point, it's proving your argument to be bs. I am shocked to see you evade the point again which is? ...and you're in violation of your face!

You're kidding, right? propaganda (noun): information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some CAUSE I think he's saying that the CAUSE is "send money to iraq now". ...and you're in violation of your face!

I'm surpised you would forget something like that. Guess what, they gave money to Democrats, too. You're right........even though Haliburton has a history of contributing to mostly republicans, some employees did contribute money to the democrats. Less than 10%, but some did. Company Name: Halliburton Company Stock Symbol: HAL Sector: Energy Industry: Oil Well Services & Equipment Total Contribution Dollar Amount: $406,972 (1999 - Present) Average Contribution Dollar Amount: $1,614 Total Contribution Dollar Amount to Republicans: $284,485 (70% of total) Average Contribution Dollar Amount to Republicans: $1,823 Total Contribution Dollar Amount to Democrats: $19,967 (5% of total) Average Contribution Dollar Amount to Democrats: $499 Link: http://www.campaignmoney.com/halliburton.asp Then, I also found this......... ...and you're in violation of your face!

I think he's saying that the cause is "send money to iraq now". ...and you're in violation of your face!

About time! Sorry, but you've still not proven your point - none of these do harm to lower income families, so we're right back around to where we started - you feel that the rich should be covering the taxes / expenses of the lower income rates. You still haven't proven WHY they should. could you explain..............."(net result: no harm to low income, some benefit to high income)"? So it's not harming the low income people, but it's a benefit to the high income people? So it's only a benefit to the high income group? ...and you're in violation of your face!

"some people" = "the only one"..........I don't think that computes. I am shocked to see you evade the point Proving that "some people" and "the only one" are not the same isn't evading the point, it's proving your argument to be bs. ...and you're in violation of your face!

Here is the latest. More theiving by DICK and Co.'s buddies. Your tax dollars at work folks. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/01/national/main3440529.shtml Oh yeah... I guess that's Cheney's fault, too. I suppose I should go back and look up contract problems that happened in Bosnia and Kosovo and Somalia and try to blame them on Clinton/Gore, just for fairness? Just out of curiosity...........who's in charge of oversight? And on a different subject, who worked for KBR prior to being in office? I know the answer. (holds up hand) I've also worked for them. Never made into office tho. I can't remember, did Bush/Cheney get money for their campaign from KBR? ...and you're in violation of your face!