[Talon Karride]The unflappable delusions of many Republicans

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-10-26 01:44pm

Darth Wong wrote:BTW, this thread was started over Republicans and Republican-apologists who doggedly cling to a dogma even after it has been disproven, such as the claim that the Bush Administration's invasion of Iraq was justified by its WMD arsenal. I'm still waiting to see one of you provide evidence that any of the prominent posters on this board are half that nuts.

Kast has been reduced to saying that my statements employ "bias" and are not "balanced", and Talon Karrde actually found himself denying that normal people want to become rich before pulling back from the brink.

I found myself making the wrong point. I shouldn't have asked you to prove that particular statement, because YES, it is considered an axium. The point remains however, all rules of deabating fly out the window when you try to make a point, but when someone else has a disagreement with you, you throw all the bullshit technicalities you can possibly think of at him.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-10-26 01:48pm

DPDarkPrimus wrote: You know, if the tax burden on the wealthy was increased, the problems with the deficency could just about be dealt with... assuming spending wasn't increased without thought about current deficit. You see, once you're making $64,000 a year, you don't get any more income take taken away from you. Imagine if the cap were removed. Can you concieve of the amount of revenue that could be collected, were income tax applied to the whole of, say, Oprah Winfrey's yearly income? That's just one of thousands of millionaires... not to mention all those folks making six-figures.

No one seemed to have a beef with this statement I made two pages ago. Can I assume that it is agreed elminating the income tax cap is a good thing?

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-10-26 01:50pm

DPDarkPrimus wrote:
DPDarkPrimus wrote: You know, if the tax burden on the wealthy was increased, the problems with the deficency could just about be dealt with... assuming spending wasn't increased without thought about current deficit. You see, once you're making $64,000 a year, you don't get any more income take taken away from you. Imagine if the cap were removed. Can you concieve of the amount of revenue that could be collected, were income tax applied to the whole of, say, Oprah Winfrey's yearly income? That's just one of thousands of millionaires... not to mention all those folks making six-figures.
No one seemed to have a beef with this statement I made two pages ago. Can I assume that it is agreed elminating the income tax cap is a good thing?

Hmmm... trying to incite an entirely different argument are you?

No, I don't think it should be removed. After all, I am either already rich, think I'm going to be rich, or have rich parents, thus I am a un-compassionate bastard with a "fuck 'em'" attitutde conservative so you should expect this. Happy?

theski · Post by **theski** » 2004-10-26 01:50pm

For Mike... Here is the "Global Cooling" he was talking about

FROM
Newsweek
April 28, 1975 Studies
Facts & Figures
Selected Links
Weather
Health

The Cooling World
There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production– with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972

http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-10-26 01:55pm

Talon Karrde wrote: No, I don't think it should be removed. After all, I am either already rich, think I'm going to be rich, or have rich parents, thus I am a un-compassionate bastard with a "fuck 'em'" attitutde conservative so you should expect this. Happy?

So you wish to let the country flounder for personal gain. Indeed.

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-10-26 01:58pm

DPDarkPrimus wrote:
Talon Karrde wrote: No, I don't think it should be removed. After all, I am either already rich, think I'm going to be rich, or have rich parents, thus I am a un-compassionate bastard with a "fuck 'em'" attitutde conservative so you should expect this. Happy?
So you wish to let the country flounder for personal gain. Indeed.

The income tax cap makes our country flounder, how? Secondly, this country is based on capitalism, in other words, you earn as much money as possible. Thirdly, I can speak personally, because I'm fucking poor.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-26 01:59pm

Axis Kast wrote:It’s a point of macroeconomic fact, you fool: with more money on hand, and guarantees that there will be less impediments to spending this money, firms and individuals are more likely to invest. Hence, allowing the wealthy – those with the most money – to invest it as readily as possible is a boon to all Americans. John F. Kennedy put it best: a rising tide lifts all boats.

Obviously, you do not understand the difference between fact and theory.

Look up "suspicious" in the dictionary, moron. Believe it or not, it's not the same thing as "fact".
It’s not your suspicion that’s biased, Wong; it’s the source of that suspicion – a bunch of over-the-top publications with a left-wing bias so great, it’s impossible not to notice and cringe.

Actually, since I based my statement ON THE PICTURE rather than the stated claims themselves, your accusation is just another case of Tiger syndrome.

Yet again, you make the accusation, you prove it. So far you've done a piss-poor job of proving any of your statements.
Wong, anyone who reads this website is treated to your ridiculous harangues against the universal evil of FOX News and your constant arguments that the media is a conservative-dominated ring to reelect George W. Bush. That’s not a point in dispute by anybody with half a brain.

FOXNews is massively partisan; even most right-wingers recognize that. And at no time did I claim that all of the media is like FOXNews. Or do you not understand why I keep harping on FOXNews?

I’ve never accused John Kerry of being a piss-poor candidate because he “flip-flops”; I’ve accused him of being a piss-poor candidate because I don’t think the “nice guy” approach will encourage Europe to make a reevaluation of its strategic interests, nor do I think protectionism is a good idea.

And because you don't understand that global hatred of the US is made worse, not better, by assuming that it doesn't matter if we piss everyone off.

As for George Bush, Osama bin Laden would have attacked us regardless of one individual statement to the international community. Focusing on that statement as a realistic fulcrum for bin Laden’s anger is a weak – and pathetic – attempt to play word games over policies that you can’t actually assail in the first place. We needed a deterrent to Saddam, and aircraft carriers weren’t it.

What "one individual statement"? I'm talking about their entire pattern of interfering in the Middle East, and you're pretending that it's all about a single statement?

And how do you justify all of this interference: invasions, support of Israel, etc. based on "containing Saddam"?

It is how he recruits people; all of his speeches are filled with talk of Israel, although you appear too dense to admit that.
But Israel isn’t the source of his anger, nor will obtaining a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (which would be virtually impossible to do even if we cut off all aid to Israel, because that would just put reactionaries in power) end his brand of terrorism.

It is irrelevant whether Israel is his personal beef; it's his biggest recruiting tool (or it was, before Bush handed him an even bigger one). And it's also irrelevant whether the US can make the Israel/Palestine conflict end; what matters is that they do not have stick their necks out in support of one side.

No. The real source is the stagnant nature of the Middle Eastern nations – which only regime-change can address.

*wank wank wank*

Who needs "amicable, fruitful discussion", moron? All we want is arms-length dealings, in case you're too dense to read simple English.
And you won’t fucking get it. The problem in the Middle East is that the populations suffer greatly under their current leadership. And that leadership won’t provide improvement no matter how much money it recieves.

What part of "arms length dealings" do you not understand? You still honestly think you can just reform the entire Middle East by force? That is precisely the kind of delusional fantasy world that the original post was describing.

Look at Afghanistan, which is the model for what the US would like Iraq to become. Is it on the road to autonomous reform? Nope, it's sliding backwards already.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-26 02:01pm

Talon Karrde wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:BTW, this thread was started over Republicans and Republican-apologists who doggedly cling to a dogma even after it has been disproven, such as the claim that the Bush Administration's invasion of Iraq was justified by its WMD arsenal. I'm still waiting to see one of you provide evidence that any of the prominent posters on this board are half that nuts.

Kast has been reduced to saying that my statements employ "bias" and are not "balanced", and Talon Karrde actually found himself denying that normal people want to become rich before pulling back from the brink.
I found myself making the wrong point. I shouldn't have asked you to prove that particular statement, because YES, it is considered an axium. The point remains however, all rules of deabating fly out the window when you try to make a point, but when someone else has a disagreement with you, you throw all the bullshit technicalities you can possibly think of at him.

Yet again, you make personal accusations, obviously based on what you see as my behaviour in other threads, which you cannot even substantiate. If you have a vendetta against me, either shut the fuck up or prove your point right fucking now or I'm pulling the plug on your whiny ass.

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-10-26 02:03pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Talon Karrde wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:BTW, this thread was started over Republicans and Republican-apologists who doggedly cling to a dogma even after it has been disproven, such as the claim that the Bush Administration's invasion of Iraq was justified by its WMD arsenal. I'm still waiting to see one of you provide evidence that any of the prominent posters on this board are half that nuts.

Kast has been reduced to saying that my statements employ "bias" and are not "balanced", and Talon Karrde actually found himself denying that normal people want to become rich before pulling back from the brink.
I found myself making the wrong point. I shouldn't have asked you to prove that particular statement, because YES, it is considered an axium. The point remains however, all rules of deabating fly out the window when you try to make a point, but when someone else has a disagreement with you, you throw all the bullshit technicalities you can possibly think of at him.
Yet again, you make personal accusations, obviously based on what you see as my behaviour in other threads, which you cannot even substantiate. If you have a vendetta against me, either shut the fuck up or prove your point right fucking now or I'm pulling the plug on your whiny ass.

Which is one of the reasons you get air blown up your ass all day by your loyal following. "Don't piss of Mike, and maybe he won't get pissed at us."

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2004-10-26 02:09pm

Talon Karrde wrote:Which is one of the reasons you get air blown up your ass all day by your loyal following. "Don't piss of Mike, and maybe he won't get pissed at us."

Yet another trolling idiot who thinks he can flout our "no vendetta" policy by pre-emptively accusing me of abuse-of-power.

Well guess what, shithead: if you're breaking our "no vendetta" rule by spending all your time making generalized accusations about your opponent's behaviour in other threads and you're already accusing me of abuse of power even though I've allowed it to slide thus far, then I have nothing to lose by kicking your worthless ass out of here, and no reason whatsoever to keep you around. Goodbye, dumbshit.

One more reminder for those too stupid to get it: if you can't debate the subject matter and resort to accusations of administrative misconduct instead, your half-life on the board becomes very, very short.

Post by **Edi** » 2004-10-26 02:13pm

Talon Karrde wrote: The point remains however, all rules of deabating fly out the window when you try to make a point, but when someone else has a disagreement with you, you throw all the bullshit technicalities you can possibly think of at him.

Where's your evidence of this? I've yet to see Mike leave opposing points unaddressed, and I've been around since a week after the board was put up. True, he is not going line by line over everything you and Kast posted in this thread, but the reason for that is that the great majority of what you and Kast posted was at best tangential and more often completely irrelevant to the subject at hand, or outright distortion or lies. Why don't you take the time to actually look up a few threads where Mike argued with Durandal and/or RedImperator over issues, and you will see what a debate between people who generally know what they're talking about looks like.

Karrde, like it or not, you and Kast are the N&P forum chewtoys and are basically free game for mockery by anybody who bothers to make even half a point against your usual rantings, and you've only your own behavior to blame for that. You might even be salvageable, but Kast is completely beyond any hope of sanity.

This board might have a generally more liberal population, but the rules are still the same for them as they are for the conservatives. It's just that in general I've noticed that many more of the liberals here are able to make logically consistent arguments backed up with evidence than the conservatives, or are better at choosing their ground in a debate instead of championing hopeless causes. Try to see what is, instead of just what you want to see.

Edi

Post by **Edi** » 2004-10-26 02:14pm

Ah, I guess it's too late now...

Edi

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2004-10-26 02:20pm

This was long overdue... I mean, at least Kasty the Klown is like a little retard child who doesn't know any better but Karrde was just a troll.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2004-10-26 02:22pm

Talon Karrde wrote:Which is one of the reasons you get air blown up your ass all day by your loyal following. "Don't piss of Mike, and maybe he won't get pissed at us."

I don't see nor have I ever seen at any point in time whatsoever any evidence to support that assertion. In fact, I've never seen him disrespect or mistreat anyone out of line of how he was respected and treated in kind.

Hey Mike, can we try to have you installed as POTUS here? The current choices remind me of a trick question on a physics test...

Post by **fgalkin** » 2004-10-26 02:23pm

BANNED?! But I was having so much fun! Now its up to Comical Axi to provide us with entertainment. But I fear he will buckle under the pressure.

Btw, can banned users see your ban post (in other words, do they know why they have been banned?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-26 02:25pm

fgalkin wrote:Btw, can banned users see your ban post (in other words, do they know why they have been banned?

He can see this one, since it's in a public forum. No doubt he will still fail to understand that he only got away with violating the "no vendetta" rule at my personal forbearance, which has its limits.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-26 02:37pm

Actually, now that I look at his posts, he was probably trying to get banned. He kept getting more and more personal, with more generalized accusations in lieu of point-by-point rebuttals (which he wasn't even really bothering to make any more), and he reacted to a warning by immediately going to the "abuse of power" accusation.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-10-26 03:20pm

Talon Karrde wrote:
DPDarkPrimus wrote:
Talon Karrde wrote: No, I don't think it should be removed. After all, I am either already rich, think I'm going to be rich, or have rich parents, thus I am a un-compassionate bastard with a "fuck 'em'" attitutde conservative so you should expect this. Happy?
So you wish to let the country flounder for personal gain. Indeed.
The income tax cap makes our country flounder, how? Secondly, this country is based on capitalism, in other words, you earn as much money as possible. Thirdly, I can speak personally, because I'm fucking poor.

I know he's banned, I'm just defending my statement.

Firstly, I'll admit it was worded rather inflammatory. No apoligies there, I recognize it was structured as such.

Karrde doesn't seem to take into account the whole picture. I'm talking about the tax breaks he wants for the rich, and not just eliminating the income tax cap... he does want the government to get less money. Which, combined with the increased spending he wants...

His other "points" are inconsequencial.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-10-26 03:38pm

Obviously, you do not understand the difference between fact and theory.

Economists wouldn’t champion lowering taxes and providing income tax credits if they couldn’t point to examples that support their conclusions, dimwit.

There’s clearly a need to balance efficiency with a measure of equity in our society, but the most effective solution is clearly a temporary assignment of welfare on the condition that the unemployed seek or accept new work within a given time frame to prevent the perpetuation of a “welfare culture” here in the United States (worse than already exists, that is).

FOXNews is massively partisan; even most right-wingers recognize that. And at no time did I claim that all of the media is like FOXNews. Or do you not understand why I keep harping on FOXNews?

Red herring. We are not debating the bias of FOX News; we are debating the merits of your argument that the media is dominated by a conservative bias that is far more insidious than its liberal counterpart.

And because you don't understand that global hatred of the US is made worse, not better, by assuming that it doesn't matter if we piss everyone off.

Strawman. We are debating the power of a “new face” to change strategic determinations made long before George Bush adopted the abrasive stance he has come to exemplify today. The Europeans were refusing to provide troops and material for an invasion of Iraq even prior to the time that Bush made comments about “Old Europ.”

It is irrelevant whether Israel is his personal beef; it's his biggest recruiting tool (or it was, before Bush handed him an even bigger one). And it's also irrelevant whether the US can make the Israel/Palestine conflict end; what matters is that they do not have stick their necks out in support of one side.

Actually, bin Laden’s biggest recruiting tool was the presence of American troops and influence in the Middle East in general, not Israel.

You’re also ignoring the problem that without American assistance, Israel would have a difficult time avoiding the rise of a reactionary government that could severely destabilize the region.

*wank wank wank*

That’s not an argument; that’s masturbation. Concession accepted.

What part of "arms length dealings" do you not understand? You still honestly think you can just reform the entire Middle East by force? That is precisely the kind of delusional fantasy world that the original post was describing.

What the fuck is “arms length dealing”? What? We close our eyes as we hand them the money, and hope it is used for the right reasons? The United States will have vital national security interests in the Middle East regardless of whether we begin vigorously seeking alternate fuel and energy sources. There will always be a need to secure that region for our own interests, and for those of our allies.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-10-26 03:40pm

Oh, and, incidentally, I think it's rather indicative of the biased, irrational intollerance of differences of opinion on this board that people like Talon and myself are routinely referred to as "trolls," as if that must be the only possible cause for our decision to adopt viewpoints that defy the local norm.

He also has a point about other conservatives: the eight to ten I cited before seem to avoid arguments in which they clearly have a stake, if only to preserve their own popularity amongst people they'll never really know on an Internet message forum.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2004-10-26 03:50pm

Axis Kast wrote:Oh, and, incidentally, I think it's rather indicative of the biased, irrational intollerance of differences of opinion on this board that people like Talon and myself are routinely referred to as "trolls," as if that must be the only possible cause for our decision to adopt viewpoints that defy the local norm.

It's the only possible cause for your poor arguments and bad behavior, not your beliefs or viewpoints.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-26 03:50pm

Axis Kast wrote:Economists wouldn’t champion lowering taxes and providing income tax credits if they couldn’t point to examples that support their conclusions, dimwit.

Wow, an appeal to the authority of "economists". Such powerful evidence for trickle-down theory

Red herring. We are not debating the bias of FOX News; we are debating the merits of your argument that the media is dominated by a conservative bias that is far more insidious than its liberal counterpart.

Then perhaps you could find the liberal equivalent of FOXNews.

And because you don't understand that global hatred of the US is made worse, not better, by assuming that it doesn't matter if we piss everyone off.
Strawman. We are debating the power of a “new face” to change strategic determinations made long before George Bush adopted the abrasive stance he has come to exemplify today. The Europeans were refusing to provide troops and material for an invasion of Iraq even prior to the time that Bush made comments about “Old Europ.”

Notice how your argument is completely predicted on the assumption that the Iraq fiasco was necessary, hence other countries only matter insofar as they would help. And how does this address my point about inciting global hatred? Oh yeah, it doesn't. Not at all.

You’re also ignoring the problem that without American assistance, Israel would have a difficult time avoiding the rise of a reactionary government that could severely destabilize the region.

"Destabilize" as in "start wars"? Yes, the United States took care of that problem, by destabilizing the region itself.

*wank wank wank*

That’s not an argument; that’s masturbation. Concession accepted.[/quote]
That's a mockery of YOUR masturbation, you idiot. You presented no argument; merely a repetition of your tired mantra that "regime change was the only option".

What part of "arms length dealings" do you not understand? You still honestly think you can just reform the entire Middle East by force? That is precisely the kind of delusional fantasy world that the original post was describing.
What the fuck is “arms length dealing”? What?

A term used in business. It means you don't give a shit how the other party conducts his own affairs, as long as he supplies the merchandise for payment. It means you don't give yourself a stake in his personal affairs.

We close our eyes as we hand them the money, and hope it is used for the right reasons?

We don't give a shit what reasons they use it for, as long as they don't use it directly against us. And appealing to the fact that they have done so AFTER decades of interference in their internal affairs will hardly disprove the thesis that arms-length dealings would not have created this state of affairs.

The United States will have vital national security interests in the Middle East regardless of whether we begin vigorously seeking alternate fuel and energy sources. There will always be a need to secure that region for our own interests, and for those of our allies.

Then don't get upset at all the terrorism, since it's a natural reaction to what you're doing.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-26 03:53pm

Axis Kast wrote:Oh, and, incidentally, I think it's rather indicative of the biased, irrational intollerance of differences of opinion on this board that people like Talon and myself are routinely referred to as "trolls," as if that must be the only possible cause for our decision to adopt viewpoints that defy the local norm.

No, in your case I believe it's because you honestly believe your own bullshit. In Talon's case, he was an outright troll. Most of the time when he entered a thread he would post one-liners, refuse to back up anything he said, and then run away. Even in this thread, he took the tack that it was somehow unreasonable of me to ask him to back anything up, and (falsely) claiming that I always refuse to present any evidence for my own claims when challenged.

He also has a point about other conservatives: the eight to ten I cited before seem to avoid arguments in which they clearly have a stake, if only to preserve their own popularity amongst people they'll never really know on an Internet message forum.

Either that or they honestly disagree with you. This is the problem with extremists such as you; you honestly cannot fathom that a person can be conservative yet not as much of an extremist as you. Similarly, you seek to caricature your opponents so that they are just as extreme as you. Tell me, how do you fit the fact that I voted 3 times for the tax-cutting Ontario Conservatives into your little black and white worldview, Tiger-boy?

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-10-26 04:10pm

]Wow, an appeal to the authority of "economists". Such powerful evidence for trickle-down theory.[/quote]

During the 1960s, Kennedy followed economists’ advice: he lowered the tax rate to induce new investment and touch off higher levels of consumer spending. The result was a greater windfall in government revenue during the next tax period.

Then perhaps you could find the liberal equivalent of FOXNews.

Michael Moore. The New York Times. Even CBS has made digs at conservative presidents, as I pointed out earlier. When Walter Cronkite asks Dan Rather to “tell us the real story” after a presidential press conference or speech, he is not merely offering a different opinion, he is subtly suggesting to his viewers that the executive is a liar.

Notice how your argument is completely predicted on the assumption that the Iraq fiasco was necessary, hence other countries only matter insofar as they would help. And how does this address my point about inciting global hatred? Oh yeah, it doesn't. Not at all.

At the time of its proposal, most of Congress believed that a War in Iraq was necessary. Indeed, Bill Clinton went on national television to vindicate the President’s decision. Countries like France and Germany were agreeing that Saddam probably did have weapons of mass destruction.

Furthermore, global dislike for Bush hasn’t caused collective security to suffer; there is still strong cooperation ongoing between U.S. and European agencies.

"Destabilize" as in "start wars"? Yes, the United States took care of that problem, by destabilizing the region itself.

Red herring. We’re talking about a revocation of support for Israel. Try to stay on topic.

That's a mockery of YOUR masturbation, you idiot. You presented no argument; merely a repetition of your tired mantra that "regime change was the only option".

“Arms length dealing” is impossible; those regimes support terrorists that target the United States. They will continue to do so as long as we don’t force them to stop.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-26 05:11pm

Axis Kast wrote:
Wow, an appeal to the authority of "economists". Such powerful evidence for trickle-down theory.
During the 1960s, Kennedy followed economists’ advice: he lowered the tax rate to induce new investment and touch off higher levels of consumer spending. The result was a greater windfall in government revenue during the next tax period.

Since the marginal tax rate was a staggering 90% when he started, this is not surprising. What makes you think this is remotely analogous to the current situation? What makes you think that lower is always better?

Then perhaps you could find the liberal equivalent of FOXNews.
Michael Moore. The New York Times.

Michael Moore and the New York Times have 24-hour a day coverage now? That's news to me.

Even CBS has made digs at conservative presidents, as I pointed out earlier.

"Made digs", eh? I see that your threshold for a declaration of extreme liberalism is set deliberately low.

At the time of its proposal, most of Congress believed that a War in Iraq was necessary. Indeed, Bill Clinton went on national television to vindicate the President’s decision. Countries like France and Germany were agreeing that Saddam probably did have weapons of mass destruction.

Actually, they said that the case was not made yet, so we should keep sending the inspectors.

Furthermore, global dislike for Bush hasn’t caused collective security to suffer; there is still strong cooperation ongoing between U.S. and European agencies.

What does that have to do with Al-Quaeda recruiting?

"Destabilize" as in "start wars"? Yes, the United States took care of that problem, by destabilizing the region itself.
Red herring. We’re talking about a revocation of support for Israel. Try to stay on topic.

It is on topic; the topic is American interference in the Middle East, fuckwit. If you're going to justify involvement with Israel by saying that the goal is to avoid destabilizing the Middle East, and then ignore a point regarding the fact that you then turn around and advocate actions which cause that same problem, expect me to call you on it.

"Arms length dealing" is impossible; those regimes support terrorists that target the United States. They will continue to do so as long as we don’t force them to stop.

This whole "cause and effect" concept eludes you, doesn't it?