mr mahs

Ouch....

:laugh: No responses....

It's amazing when these socialist goverments complain that we don't provide free "health care". The only reason why they can is because we protect them and they don't have to spend billions on arming themselves. I swear to god we should just build a fawking wall along the borders and tell Mexico and Canada to go fawk themselves the fawking mooches ...

Bump!

DID YOUR GIRL HAND YOUR NUTS BACK YET, FOR DISAGREEING WITH HER ON POLITICAL ISSUES? "Don't mind my BF's rants, he's a liberal"

For the people who claim we went for WMD alone please read.... For the people who believe Bush said imminent threat instead of gathering threat please read..... If you disagree with the war, highlight a portion of this speech you disagree with... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Secretary-General, Mr. President, distinguished ladies and gentlemen: We meet one year and one day after a terrorist attack brought grief to my country, and to the citizens of many countries. Yesterday, we remembered the innocent lives taken that terrible morning. Today, we turn to the urgent duty of protecting other lives, without illusion and without fear. We have accomplished much in the last year -- in Afghanistan and beyond. We have much yet to do -- in Afghanistan and beyond. Many nations represent here have joined in the fight against global terror -- and the people of the United States are grateful. The United Nations was born in the hope that survived a world war -- the hope of a world moving toward justice, escaping old patterns of conflict and fear. The founding members resolved that the peace of the world must never again be destroyed by the will and wickedness of any man. We created a United Nations Security Council, so that -- unlike the League of Nations -- our deliberations would be more than talk, and our resolutions would be more than wishes. After generations of deceitful dictators, broken treaties and squandered lives, we dedicate ourselves to standards of human dignity shared by all, and to a system of security defended by all. Today, these standards, and this security, are challenged. Our commitment to human dignity is challenged by persistent poverty and raging disease. The suffering is great, and our responsibilities are clear. The United States is joining with the world to supply aid where it reaches people and lift up lives ... to extend trade and the prosperity it brings ... and to bring medical care where it is desperately needed. As a symbol of our commitment to human dignity, the United State will return to UNESCO. This organization has been reformed and America will participate fully in its mission to advance human rights, tolerance, and learning. Our common security is challenged by regional conflicts -- ethnic and religious strife that is ancient but not inevitable. In the Middle East, there can be no peace for either side without freedom for both sides. America stands committed to an independent and democratic Palestine, living beside Israel in peace and security. Like all other people, Palestinians deserve a government that serves their interests and listens to their voices. My nation will continue to encourage all parties to step up to their responsibilities as we seek a just and comprehensive settlement to the conflict. Above all, our principles and our security are challenged today by outlaw groups and regimes that accept no law of morality and have no limit to their violent ambitions. In the attacks on America a year ago, we saw the destructive intentions of our enemies. This threat hides within many nations, including my own. In cells and camps, terrorists are plotting further destruction and building new bases for their war against civilization. And our greatest fear is that terrorists will find a shortcut to their mad ambitions when an outlaw regime supplies them with the technologies to kill on a massive scale. In one place -- in one regime -- we find all these dangers, in their most lethal and aggressive forms ... exactly the kind of aggressive threat the United Nations was born to confront. Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. And the regime's forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and their resources. Had Saddam Hussein been appeased instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability of the world. Yet this aggression was stopped -- by the might of coalition forces, and the will of the United Nations. To suspend hostilities and to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear: to him, and to all. And he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations. He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge -- be his deceptions, and by his cruelties -- Saddam Hussein has made the case again himself. In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities -- which, the Council said, "threaten(ed) international peace and security in the region." This demand goes ignored. Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human rights found that Iraq continues to commit "extremely grave violations" of human rights and that the regime's repression is "all pervasive." Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating, burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands; children in the presence of their parents -- all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state. In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary-General's high-level coordinator of this issue reported that Kuwaiti, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for -- more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them. In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded the Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organization that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of September 11th. And al-Qaida terrorists escaped from Afghanistan are known to be in Iraq. In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge. From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. United Nations inspections also reveal that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard, and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons. And in 1995 -- after four years of deception -- Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War. We know now, were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993. Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its unclear program -- weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials, and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons. Iraq also possesses a force of Scud-type missiles with ranges beyond the 150 kilometers permitted by the U.N. Work at testing and production facilities shows that Iraq is building more long-range missiles that could inflict mass death throughout the region. In 1990, after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the world imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. Those sanctions were maintained after the war to compel the regime's compliance with Security Council resolutions. In time, Iraq was allowed to use oil revenues to buy food. Saddam Hussein has subverted this program, working around the sanctions to buy missile technology and military materials. He blames the suffering of Iraq's people on the United Nations, even as he uses his oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself, and arms his country. By refusing to comply with his own agreements, he bears full guilt for the hunger and misery of innocent Iraqi citizens. In 1991, Iraq promised U.N. inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to verify Iraq's commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq broke this promise, spending seven years deceiving, evading and harassing U.N. inspectors before ceasing cooperation entirely. Just months after the 1991 cease-fire, the Security Council twice renewed its demand that the Iraqi regime cooperate fully with inspectors, "condemning" Iraq's "serious violations" of its obligations. The Security Council again renewed that demand in 1994 and twice more in 1996, "deploring" Iraq's "clear violations" of its obligations. The Security Council renewed its demand three more times in 1997, citing "flagrant violations" and three more times in 1998, calling Iraq's behavior "totally unacceptable." And in 1999, the demand was renewed yet again. As we meet today, it has been almost four years since the last U.N. inspectors set foot in Iraq -- four years for the Iraqi regime to plan and build and test behind a cloak of secrecy. We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in the country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic and the facts lead to one conclusion. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take. Delegates to the General Assembly: We have been more than patient. We have tried sanctions. We have tried the carrot of "oil for food" and the stick of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. The first time we may be completely certain he has nuclear weapons is when, God forbid, he uses one. We owe it to all our citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming. The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding or will it be irrelevant? The United States helped found the United Nations. We want the U.N. to be effective and respected and successful. We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced. Right now these resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime. Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us, by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime. If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles and all related material. If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions. If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans and others -- again as required by Security Council resolutions. If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues -- as required by the Security Council resolutions. If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people. If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis -- a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty and internationally supervised elections. The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people, who have suffered for too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it and the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq. We can harbor no illusions. Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980, and Kuwait in 1990. He has fired ballistic missiles at Iran, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Israel. His regime once ordered the killing of every person between the ages of 15 and 70 in certain Kurdish villages in Northern Iraq. He has gassed many Iranians and 40 Iraqi villages. My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council on a new resolution to meet our common challenge. If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately and decisively to hold Iraq to account. The purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced -- the just demands of peace and security will be met -- or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power. Events can turn in one of two ways. If we fail to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission. The regime will have new power to bully, dominate and conquer its neighbors, condemning the Middle East to more years of bloodshed and fear. The region will remain unstable, with little hope of freedom and isolated from the progress of our times. With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors. If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond. And we will show that the promise of the United Nations can be fulfilled in our time. Neither of these outcomes is certain. Both have been set before us. We must choose between a world of fear and a world of progress. We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather. We must stand up for our security, and for the permanent rights and hopes of mankind. By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand. Delegates to the United Nations, you have the power to make that stand as well. Thank you. 10.27.03 10:12 AM

Where were you when he was killing innocent Iraqi's?? And before you spill your bile read the speech in Sept 12th 2002 which highlights the humanitarian reason as well as the WMD for pulling the U.N's card to act... http://www.bushcountry.org/bush_speeches/president-bush-speech-091302.htm

Wrong! They stood to lose BILLIONS in oil contracts.. See how hypocritical you are? you say we are in Iraq for oil when common sense shows the 200 billion in costs vs the 22 billion in anual revenue that Iraq would produce proofs your common anti-war accusation wrong. You sit there and deny that the blocking of the resolutions by France and co was a moral stand not for monetary benefit... It mazes me you would discredit your own govt, you're a disgrace!

Dude you are clueless.. THE WHOLE WORLD BELIEVED HE HAD WEAPONS!!!!!! How did Bush lie to us?

Can you blame Isreal now for setting curfews and targetting terrorist leaders? How can anyone try to restrain Isreal when some nutjob just blew up a CIVILIAN bus in broad daylight.... My blood was boiling this morning when I saw the news.. How fawking dumb can they be? These peole are fawking backwards they will never achieve there goals and rattling the lions cage will only bring suffereing to their own people... It makes no sense....

Fresh off the heels of an agreemnet mediated by the Germans to exchange 400 prisoners with Isreal, the Satanic leadership of the Palestinians send another one of their own off to die in a horrific act that will onlt delay peace.. People wonder why there will never be peace in the West bank and this is why!!! http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109794,00.html At Least 10 Killed in Jerusalem Bus Bombing Thursday, January 29, 2004 JERUSALEM, Israel — A homicide bomber blew up a bus in Jerusalem Thursday morning, killing 10 people and wounding at least 50 about a block away from Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's (search) official residence. Aides said Sharon was at his farm in southern Israel at the time. The militant Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades (search), a group linked to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement (search), claimed responsibility for the attack. The homicide bomber was Aali Jarrah, a 25-year-old Palestinian man. He came from the Aida refugee camp in the West Bank town of Bethlehem and was a member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. Fox News obtained a letter written by Jarrah, saying the bombing was an "act of revenge." Palestinian terror groups have recently begun to favor the use of women bombers because of they tend to be less suspicious to Israeli soldiers and police. The blast, which occurred at about 8:51 a.m. local time on bus No. 19, peeled the roof back like a tin can and catapulted passengers through the windows and down the street. Body parts could be found strewn along the rooftops of buildings. The explosion coincided with a German-brokered prisoner swap between Israel and the Lebanese guerrilla group Hezbollah (search), although it was not clear if the two were connected. Israel still went ahead and released 400 Palestinian prisoners as planned Thursday as part of a swap with Lebanese guerrilla group Hezbollah. Hezbollah reportedly praised the bombing on the group's website. Two weeks ago, a Palestinian homicide bomber and mother of two killed four people and injured seven at the main crossing between Israel and the Gaza Strip. Authorities believe Reem Al-Reyashi, 22, a Hamas (search) member who left behind a 3-year-old boy and 1-year-old girl, was the first mother to act as a homicide or suicide bomber. Thursday morning's attack occurred as schools were opening. Police told Fox News children were likely among the casualties. Sharon's spokesman, Raanan Gissin, said the bombing illustrated why Israel is building a contentious separation barrier in the West Bank. Israel says the structure is needed to keep bombers out of Israel. "The rest of the world should sit back and let us do what we need to do to defend ourselves," Gissin said. The bomber was in the back of the bus when the explosives detonated, Jerusalem Police Chief Mickey Levy said. "It was a very serious attack on a bus packed with passengers," Levy said at the scene. "According to what we know at the moment ... we're talking about a suicide bomber." The green Egged bus was charred, with wires dangling everywhere. One side of the bus had been blown out and the back half of the roof was blown off. Police investigators with sniffer dogs searched the bus. Paramedics were taking away the wounded on stretchers. Others were treated at the scene. People, dazed and crying, wandered around the area. One crying woman said she had been walking down the street when she heard a loud explosion. Stephane Ben Shushan, who owns a chocolate store in the upscale neighborhood, was walking to work when the explosion went off. "It's indescribable," he said. "It's a real nightmare, you can smell the blood." He said traffic was heavy and the bus was driving slow at the time. The explosion came just two days after senior Egyptian officials made another attempt to win a pledge from Palestinian militants to halt attacks on Israelis. The attack was a further setback to international efforts to cause a resumption of peace talks. The U.S.-led "road map" peace plan has been stalled almost since its inception in June. Palestinian Authority officials condemned the bombing. "This vicious cycle can only be broken by renewal of a meaningful peace process," said Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat. "Otherwise, violence will breed violence, bullets will breed bullets." The last attack in Israel was a homicide bombing at a bus stop outside of Tel Aviv on Dec. 25 that killed four people. On Wednesday, Israeli troops clashed with Palestinian militants in fierce, prolonged street battles across Gaza City, killing eight Palestinians. The flare-up of violence complicated a new U.S. effort to restart peace talks. The deaths — and subsequent demands for reprisals at angry funeral processions — jeopardized modest moves toward reviving the U.S.-backed "road map" peace plan and threatened yet another escalation in more than three years of Palestinian-Israeli violence. Palestinian leaders complained the fighting frustrated the first high-level U.S. diplomatic mission in a month, by envoys John Wolf and David Satterfield. They met with Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia in the West Bank city of Ramallah in a bid to revive long-stalled peace efforts. The fighting on a chilly, cloudy day began near the isolated Jewish settlement of Netzarim in the heart of the crowded, poverty-stricken Gaza Strip. The army said militants fired anti-tank missiles and set off a bomb, prompting the troops to fire back. Two Palestinians were killed in that first skirmish, said Dr. Moawia Hassanein, a Palestinian hospital official. The army then entered a Gaza City neighborhood near Netzarim, and a fierce battle began. Six other Palestinians were killed and several were wounded, Hassanein said. A rocket-propelled grenade whizzed just a few yards in front of two Israeli tanks, leaving a streak of white smoke. The tanks swiveled their barrels and fired machine guns. During the long battle with an unusually large force of as many as 200 Palestinian gunmen, an armored Israeli bulldozer uprooted a small patch of olive and orange trees, and tanks crushed some parked cars. At least five of the dead were armed men, including four from the Islamic Jihad group and one from Hamas, and three were believed to be bystanders, hospital officials said. Israel's military said no soldiers were hurt and claimed all the Palestinian dead were armed. Also Wednesday, thousands of Palestinians jammed the streets of Gaza to mourn the dead. Some fired weapons in the air, and women watched from balconies as the bodies, wrapped tightly in flags of Islamic groups, were hoisted above the crowd on stretchers. Islamic Jihad vowed to avenge the killing of its gunmen. Hamas said the "barbaric Zionist aggression is a greeting and a reception for the American delegation." Wolf and Satterfield urged Qureia to meet soon with Sharon. Qureia has balked at a summit until he gets assurances it will produce results. Also, he was hoping to present Sharon with a Palestinian agreement for a truce, but he has been unable to secure a deal. The United States has promoted the road map, which envisions the formation of a Palestinian state in 2005, but neither side has carried out its initial requirements. Instead, Israel continued planning unilateral measures if peace talks remain stalled. Sharon has pledged to impose a new boundary on the Palestinians if peace efforts don't bear fruit in coming months. He has not yet released details of the plan, but said it would include moving Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. The United States and the Palestinians have rejected Sharon's idea of unilateral steps, insisting moves must occur through negotiations

Good point.

Wher did you get this bro?

huh?

Were you dropped on your head as a kid? We already went over this. The govt has contingency plans inplace for everything and the "regime change" policy was inacted in 98 under Clinton...

I got it off of NCC.. and I agree with what the author is saying...

JESUS CHRIST!!!! How many times does it have to be written in front of you to stop believing that fallacy???? The poor don't pay income taxes, please educate yourself.... http://www.smartmoney.com/taxmatters/index.cfm?story=20030527 http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/top_50__of_wage_earners_pay_96_09__of_income_taxes.guest.html

This letter was written by Yashiko Sagamori on Nov 6, 2002 in a Japanese newspaper. : If you are so sure that Palestine, the country, goes back through most of recorded history I expect you to be able to answer a few basic questions about that country: When was it founded and by whom? What were its borders? What was its capital? What were its major cities? What constituted the basis of its economy? What was its form of government? Can you name at least one Palestinian leader before Arafat? Was Palestine ever recognized by a country whose existence, at that time or now, leaves no room for interpretation? What was the language of the country of Palestine? What was the prevalent religion of the country of Palestine? What was the name of its currency? Choose any date in history and tell what was the approximate exchange rate of the Palestinian monetary unit against the US dollar, German mark, GB pound, Japanese yen, or Chinese Yuan on that date. ?· And, finally, since there is no such country today, what caused its demise and when did it occur? If you are lamenting the low sinking of a once proud nation. Please tell me, when exactly was that nation proud and what was it so proud of? And here is the least sarcastic question of all: If the people you mistakenly call Palestinians are anything but generic Arabs collected from all over -- or thrown out of -- the Arab world, if they really have a genuine ethnic identity that gives them right for self-determination, why did they never try to become independent until Arabs suffered their devastating defeat in the Six Day War? I hope you avoid the temptation to trace the modern day Palestinians to the Biblical Philistines: substituting etymology for history won't work here. The truth should be obvious to everyone who wants to know it. Arab countries have never abandoned the dream of destroying Israel; they still cherish it today. Having time and again failed to achieve their evil goal with military means, they decided to fight Israel by proxy. For that purpose, they created a terrorist organization, cynically called it the Palestinian people and installed it in Gaza, Judea, and Samaria. How else can you explain the refusal by Jordan and Egypt to unconditionally accept back the West Bank and Gaza, respectively? The fact is, Arabs populating Gaza, Judea, and Samaria have much less claim to nationhood than that Indian tribe that successfully emerged in Connecticut and California with the purpose of starting a tax-exempt casino: at least that tribe had a constructive goal that motivated them. The so-called Palestinians have only one motivation: the destruction of Israel, and in my book that is not sufficient to consider them a nation -- or anything else except what they really are: a terrorist organization that will one day be dismantled. In fact, there is only one way to achieve peace in the Middle East. Arab countries must acknowledge and accept their defeat in their war against Israel and, as the losing side, should pay Israel reparations for the more than 50 years of devastation they have visited on it The most appropriate form of such reparations would be the removal of their terrorist organization from the land of Israel and accepting Israel's ancient sovereignty over Gaza, Judea, and Samaria. That will mark the end of the Palestinian people. What, are you saying again, was its beginning? You are absolutely correct in your understanding of the Palestinians murderous motives. I am afraid however that you, along with 99% of the population of this planet, have missed the beginning of WW III (they call it Jihad) quite a few years ago. The siege of the US embassy in Tehran in 1979, an event to which the latest Nobel Peace Prize winner had so miserably failed to respond, can be very well used as the day WW III stepped out of the pages of the Koran and into the current events. I pray the United States and Israel lead the world to victory in this war. Come to think of it, there is no choice, be you a Christian, a Jew, or even, believe it or not, a Muslim.

It's funny how you are against the Patriot act for it being a "Violation of our Civil Liberties" but would like to impose a higher tax on a wealthy individual because they're successful? Isn't that discrimination?

You do realise that the awarding of multimillion dollar settlements for punitive damages drive up health care right? Your girl is smart listen to her...

http://www.nationalreview.com/kudlow/kudlow200401280834.asp Staying Loose The Fed should be in no rush to raise rates. By Larry Kudlow The Federal Reserve is all set to choose employment over the dollar in guiding their open-market decision today. That means no change in the fed funds interest rate. It may also mean little or no change in the Fed policy statement. The central bank is straddling their traditional Keynesian Phillips-curve tradeoff between unemployment and inflation, or growth and inflation. Since payroll jobs have registered a weak recovery so far, the low-interest-rate, easy-money scenario will continue. The softening dollar relative to gold, commodities, and foreign currencies may be signaling a higher future inflation rate, but this doesn't seem to trouble the Fed. Forward-looking indicators are being shunted aside. Frankly, with gold just over $400 and the 10-year Treasury just above 4 percent, it appears the Fed is doing the right thing. This is no Phillips-curve affirmation. It's just that price-rule indicators are not an urgent concern right now. Today's 1 percent fed funds rate is about 80 basis points below the natural rate (proxied by the Treasury's 1.83 percent 10-year inflation-adjusted security, or TIPS rate). Whenever the policy rate is below the natural rate, money is relatively easy. However, inside the money market, credit demands are soft. Highly profitable business has more than enough cash flow right now to deliver solid returns to investors and finance capital-equipment expansion without borrowing. Illustrating this, 3-month Treasury bills are yielding 0.91 percent with commercial paper around 1 percent. These borrowing rates would be much higher if upward interest-rate pressures were developing. At some point the Fed will move policy into a more neutral position, but there's no rush. There is a chance that Fed chairman Alan Greenspan is aware of all this. That he watches financial- and commodity-market indicators is well established. Whether he is using these indicators in formulating his policy view is more ambiguous. Perhaps the Greenspan Standard spans the price-rule and the Phillips curve. This would be a more benign explanation of the Fed's strategy. Meanwhile, Fed governor Ben Bernanke prefers a core PCE deflator price rule (the PCE deflator being a calculation of price changes in personal-consumption expenditures) rather than a straight, real-time, fast-forward, market-oriented rule. The consumer-spending deflator is backward looking, although in the new world of high-speed information processing, it may not be quite as backward-looking as in previous cycles. In any event, the Bernanke Rule suggests that a bit of excess money in the economy is okay, since inflation is virtually non-existent. The degree of excess money is hard to pinpoint exactly. But lower tax rates, higher productivity, and more-rapid economic growth will absorb excess liquidity and significantly diminish the inflationary potential of that liquidity. Easier tax rates and easier money remains the correct policy prescription to turn deflationary recession into reflationary growth. This is clearly the message of the roaring stock market, where even interest-rate-sensitive sectors are performing well. So stocks are not predicting a new wave of higher interest rates. That said, when should rates rise? On one side of the debate, hard-line price rulers want higher rates right away. On the other side, soft-line Phillips-curve tinkerers say no rate hike till 2005. Euro-dollar futures anticipate a 25 basis-point rate hike in August, followed by another 25 to 50 basis points in November and December. This middle-of-the-road scenario seems to be the most reasonable. The economy certainly agrees that interest rates, for the time being, are fine where they are. Real domestic private-sector GDP increased 3.4 percent in 2002 and 4.4 percent in 2003. But the true inflection point for economic recovery occurred last spring, following the Bush tax cut and the Fed's (last) rate reduction to accommodate it. So, in truth, this young recovery is even younger. It's too soon for the Fed to take action.

Are you for free health care?

How about the exageration of 35 million children go hungury every day? Do you believe in wealth redistribution? How about him being in the bag of trial lawyers that are the driving force behind sky high medical costs???? I agree he has a JFK electability about him but wrong for the country in todays world landscape...

Def a joke.

WOW this guy agrees with Tony:laugh: Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrorsit attacks? against who? It's amazing to see that you fail to mention Pearl Harbor, the Japanese empire and the planned innvasion of Japan that would have killed 3x more then the dropping of the bombs.... Why leave that out? I mean c'mon if you are to groan about our past then why not put all the events on the table? Now us being behind 911 to expand the money supply has to be joke... Expand the money supply? rack up deficits? what in Gods name are you talking about bud? do you even know how the fed operates to make such a claim? If they were worried about institutional liquidity, which they might have been, why start a war? stall an economy for 5days and worst of all evaporate the surplus? You've been listening to your hippie friends at the Lyndon Larouche rallies too much jack..... Pick up a finance book and read about Reserve Requirements before you make baseless accusations... Read about how the fed can cut rates and reduce the amount banks have to seperate to the fed when a deposit is made by you and I. This extra capital that isn't tucked away at the fed is lent out to buisnesses and increases the M3 money supply... Start a war? I just don't get what you're getting at....