NUKE_CLEVELAND

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 30, 2007 -> 02:56 PM) A little more on the Social Security impass that continues to crack me up... I love how Bush is the biggest obstacle, when he has said he would listen to tax hikes to pay for SSI, yet in the article Bloomberg quotes multiple other people who say what there "must" be in order to make things work. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=home http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg2001.cfm 10 things you need to know about the 2003 tax cuts: *Current tax revenues of 18.4% of GDP are now above the historical average; * The 2006 tax revenues of $2,407 billion were $47 billion above the level projected by CBO before the 2003 tax cuts, and just $58 billion below the level projected by CBO in 2000, before the 2001 tax cuts; * Capitals gains tax revenues have more than doubled to $103 billion since the 2003 capital gains tax cuts; * The child credit, 10% bracket, and marriage penalty reduced revenues much more than many of the “tax cuts for the rich;” * Even if the Bush tax cuts are made permanent, CBO projects revenues will still surge to a record 22.8% of GDP by 2050; * Letting the tax cuts expire would raise long-term revenues by less than 1% of GDP; * Historical tax revenues correlate almost perfectly with GDP, and not all with income tax rates; * Negative GDP, investment, and jobs trends immediately reversed after the 2003 tax cuts were enacted; and * The Bush tax cuts actually shifted the total tax burden even further towards the rich, according to CBO. B..B..B..B..B..BUT THE TAX CUTS ARE COSTING US BILLIONS IN LOST REVENUE AND EXPLODING THE DEFECIT AND SQUEEZING THE MIDDLE CLASS AND TAKING FOOD OUT OF THE MOUTHS OF THE POOR AND KILLING BABIES AND RESPONSIBLE FOR RACISM AND GENOCIDE AND ANYTHING ELSE EVIL THAT I CAN THINK OF!!!!1!!1!!1!!!! LIES!!! ITS ALL A BUNCH OF EVIL LIES!!!!!!!!!!!

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 30, 2007 -> 07:48 AM) Half the world — nearly three billion people — live on less than two dollars a day. The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of the poorest 48 nations (i.e. a quarter of the world’s countries) is less than the wealth of the world’s three richest people combined. Nearly a billion people entered the 21st century unable to read a book or sign their names. Less than one per cent of what the world spent every year on weapons was needed to put every child into school by the year 2000 and yet it didn’t happen. 1 billion children live in poverty (1 in 2 children in the world). 640 million live without adequate shelter, 400 million have no access to safe water, 270 million have no access to health services. 10.6 million died in 2003 before they reached the age of 5 (or roughly 29,000 children per day). That's why we have charitible organizations. Its comical to me how freekin stupid people in the 3d world are. They keep on popping out children with no way to feed, clothe or educate them and then the bleeding hearts here whine about how horrible it is that children are living in squalor. No sympathy here for the idiots of the world. If you want to assign blame for the plight of these people it isin't because we dont have a global welfare state funded by U.S. taxpayers, its because of stupid people breeding.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 29, 2007 -> 06:37 PM) Which fictional and comic book do you like the best? Links LOL! That's funny. Actually I dont have a membership there. My greatest interest is history, historical fiction but aside from that I just keep my eyes open and anything I see that catches my fancy gets added to the list and read when its turn comes.

This is a bad time to ask a question like this. I'll let you know in a week when the result of the Superbowl is in. Until then to compare a championship team to a team that hasn't played its championship game yet is premature.

QUOTE(Damen @ Jan 29, 2007 -> 04:37 PM) That was really my point is that using obnoxious sarcasm soooooo does not get whatever point you may think you have across. If you disagree with anything, you should be able to explain where you disagree and what the correct view. Granted, I haven't been on these boards as long as you all have, but when I see more than the necessary amount of "o's" in a word, it doesn't me think "hmm, he disagrees with my thoughts, I should understand what he has to say to see if it has merit." No, it makes me think I'm arguing with Blossom. And who wants to do that when Six is next door? Well, if you read all of my posts and not just the sarcastic ones you'll see that Im perfectly capable of engaging in a lucid discussion with the various posters here.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 29, 2007 -> 01:42 PM) I'm surprised no one has mentioned it. We're not all cyber dorks like you.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 29, 2007 -> 04:05 PM) Here is the Wikipedia entry: Where is that document sourced from? Because we HAD lifted some economic sanctions almost immediately after the treaty was signed. ( Same article ) Again. Im not seeing where we renigged on anything. If nothing else, we stopped lifting sanctions because they started gathering plutonium as we found out to our surprise in 1997.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 29, 2007 -> 03:53 PM) No, you read? I didn't know Rush had an Oprah like reading club. Believe it or not I do. Not as much as I'd like because college classes take up a good deal of my spare time but I still squeeze in 2-3 a month.

Balta, your assertion that we nixed the funding in 1995 is not correct. What actually held up the production of the light water reactors then was a rejection of the reactor design by the North Koreans themselves. This article is a great primer on the history of the DPRK nuclear weapons saga. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke/index.html Reading further in the article, there wasn't even an agreement on the design until December of that year. So, construction of the reactors actually did begin in spite of haggling over how much the token U.S. share was to be ( The South Koreans were to provide the bulk of the monies to pay for this ). However, in light of the 2002 admission by the north that they were producing nuclear weapons the work was halted and never continued. Bottom line: We held up our end of the bargain and the North Koreans renigged. They didn't hold up their end then just as they acceeded to and renigged on no less than 4 other agreements in the preceeding years since 1985.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Jan 29, 2007 -> 02:47 PM) I knew you'd be number 1, but I also figured Kap would be in the top 5. Kap just likes to stick his big snout where it doesn't belong.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 29, 2007 -> 03:38 PM) Has anyone read The Tipping Point? I'm interested in reading it after this article. He has a couple more articles on his website that I haven't read yet. Probably will start though. So many books to read..........so little time. Even though I have 2 more on the way Id like to take a look at this one too.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Jan 29, 2007 -> 10:14 AM) Actually we didn't negotiate. We shut them out. Then they made nukes. Now we'll talk again. Notice a pattern here? We didn't negotiate with them?! I seem to remember us signing a treaty with them in 1994 saying they wouldn't produce nukes in exchange for various concessions. Thats a treaty that they broke just as soon as it suited them. QUOTE(Damen @ Jan 29, 2007 -> 10:11 AM) Can you be in the military and still use sarcasm like a 13 year old girl? LOL! Im not really concerned about what it sounds like as long as it drives the point home.

QUOTE(zimne piwo @ Jan 29, 2007 -> 03:58 AM) And how on earth could they have overlooked Sylvester and RuPaul??? Other surprise omissions: Diana Ross, Moby, Depeche Mode HAHA!!! I love that name!!!!!! You have no idea how many of those signs I saw in my old neighborhood when I was growing up........when it was still Polish anyway.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Jan 29, 2007 -> 12:31 AM) Iran wants nuclear weapons because it wants to be a regional power. Important to a country with limited resources - because regional influence can get you a lot of economic benefits down the road. It also wants to be able to pursue its own agenda without other states' influence and pressure. Nuclear weapons do, to a large degree, ensure that this can happen. It also most likely views nuclear weapons as a tool to get to the table. The US refused to negotiate with North Korea since 2001. Not even talk to them. That would be "nuclear blackmail." Might have been but our option was to let them go nuclear. And now our position in the region is compromised. We're now forced to deal with the North Korean state in terms more favorable to North Korea than we would like. Iran sees this and is acting upon it. Iran's President may be a hot head, but the folks that actually run the country are not. You don't stay in power with an incredibly oppressive regime for nearly 30 years by doing stupid things like invite nuclear oblivion on your state - no matter what you say you believe. Yeah, like negotiating with the North Koreans worked SOOOOOOOO well huh? /rolly

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16839573/ That's a defenite confidence builder going into my upcomming deployment. GET EM!!!!!!!!!

QUOTE(Damen @ Jan 28, 2007 -> 10:41 PM) I'm not writing it off, I'm just noting the irony in how we'll approach his statements to prepare ourselves to invade another country. And it starts by convincing ourselves that there's no other motive for attempting to gain nuclear weapons other than to destroy their country by using them against Israel. First of all I dont believe an invasion of Iran is in the offing, a massive bombing raid to destroy their nuclear capability perhaps but not a ground invasion. What other use would a country like Iran have for nukes? It has no neighbors which are now capable of striking it, it has no major enemies at all except for the United States and the only reason we're their enemies is because of their own activities ( these include decades of sponsoring and providing direct aid and support for terrorism and the aforementioned nuclear weapons program ). The blind obsession with destroying Isreal is all that matters to the Islamofascist movement. They will stop at nothing to destroy it and they could care less if they are also destroyed in the bargain. To them its the fullfillment of the apocalypse. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5121501428.html http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/060523a.aspx Hell, even average IRANIANS are terrified of what this man is capable of. http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006030123,00.html This is what we will be faced with if no concrete action is taken. We will be faced with a madman, who is all about creating the apocalypse, with his itchy trigger finger poised on a nuclear button. I also find it highly ironic that while leftists and appeasers the world over commonly refer to Bush as a fascist or a Hitler type character, it's this loony tune Amenenawhosits who has taken a far more hitleresque track to power. He rides into office in an impoverished nation promising to make life better for everyone, then promptly ratchets up the repression, eliminates remaining voices of dissent through terror and puts the world on a path toward a truly catastrophic war.

QUOTE(Damen @ Jan 28, 2007 -> 10:07 PM) No, it's not. It's far more likely that its political posturing. I find it interesting when Ahminajad writes a letter to Bush, everyone assumes its pointless to take him serious, becuase its just posturing. But when he makes that statement, then there's no possible explanation for it other than he's willing to risk his power and his country to destroy Israel. Its funny how it works. If its a statement that can justify another preventive invasion, we must take it at face value, and nothing else. If its anything else, we can laugh it off, because he's so cwazy. How can you write off his aggressive statements about Isreal so easily when he is developing nuclear weapons? That is just incredibly naive. It fits together nicely, his MO does. You have a disingenuous attempt at diplomacy to give ammunition to appeasers and leftists who argue against stern action. Meanwhile he is charging ahead with his crash nuclear weapons program and nothing is being done to stop it. In a few years, barring anything being done about it, these guys will have atomic weapons and when that happens things will be an order of magnitude more ugly in the Middle East.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 28, 2007 -> 09:46 PM) Can you point to me some evidence of the Iranian state actually acting as a rogue, non-rational nation willing to give up its own power and wealth to move against Israel? Is it not enough for Ameninawhosits to call for Isreal to be wiped out? Is it not enough for them to back up such threats by developing nuclear weapons? The only reason it hasn't moved on Isreal yet is because they dont have the nukes to do it with. If and when they are allowed to get this capability you can bet your ass they will attack. Meanwhile they are busying themselves by arming, equiping and advising Iraqi insurgents.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 28, 2007 -> 09:39 PM) It was called economics where I went for high school. One of the most pointless classes I ever had to take. I made like $60,000 in a mock stock-market investing exercise, then got lazy, dumped everything into AOL, and spent the rest of the class reading. I ate that stuff up, it was one of the few classes I took in HS that I actually felt was worth my time in my last year there. That class was a major contributor to my knowledge of money and investing and for giving me the motivation to take saving money seriously.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Jan 28, 2007 -> 05:00 PM) I think (at least in IL) there is that type of a class that is required for graduation. At my school it was consumer education, and went through the different types of savings accounts, retirement plans, types of property, how to fill out taxes/W2. It was helpful, but I think if people aren't taught how to handle money from the time they are very young it's kind of hard to learn those skills later in life. In that regard I was very fortunate. My dad is an accountant and my grandparents chipped in with a great deal of money know-how also. QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 28, 2007 -> 04:35 PM) Pet peeve here.... Its not applied economics, its applied finance. Well where I went to school it was Applied ECONOMICS........ DEAL WITH IT!!!!!!!

QUOTE(Damen @ Jan 28, 2007 -> 08:53 PM) But even if that were the case, then they would face destruction from the rest of the world. This is where the problem lies. The current islamofascist regime in Iran doesn't care a whit if they are destroyed after the fact. Their single overriding priority in life is the destruction of Isreal. This is not a rational enemy like the Soviets were.

It would also be a big help if high schools taught such a class. The basis for my considerable knowledge of money matters comes from the "Applied Economics" class I took when I went to high school. It covered a wide range of topics from investments to loans to debt management and a few other things. This was at Bogan High in the Chicago Public Schools system too.

If they make people aware of it it would be a good thing. Trouble is there's that whole thing about leading the horse to water though.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 27, 2007 -> 02:01 PM) It will NEVER happen. And to me, that's the biggest problem with our government today. Nuke found it, not sure where he heard about it......... Im an avid reader of Fark.com, which for those who are unfamiliar with it, is a site where people post news and offbeat news stories and comment on them.

http://metroactive.com/feinstein/index.html Seems Diane Fienstien has been using her position to steer Iraq construction contracts to her own husband's firms. HYPOCRASY LEVEL READING ***TILT*** And she's the chairman of the Senate Ethics Committee. LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I dont expect the left to foam at the mouth and scream bloody murder as they do with Cheney & Halliburton but at least a small measure of outrage would be appropriate.