Form 180?
 

But don't you think Pataki will still run. I am pretty sure he wants it badly. But I agree he does not have a chance. I hope you are wrong about Giuliani but there is strong evidence to support your position.

Form 180?
 

What do you think was the underlying reason for the war, then, if WMDs were a pretext?

Form 180?
 

How about Saddam's utter disregard of over 17 UN Security Council Resolutions over a 12 year period?

Form 180?
 

I didn't ask you, dear. I asked Spanky. You may recall that you have expressed your opinion on this many, many times, at length.

Form 180?
 

that was polite- good show!

Form 180?
 

Briticisms don't become you, really. Note that this is constructive criticism, not meanness.

Form 180?
 

you can be thick as a brick- no offense

Form 180?
 

now that "thick as a brick" line from whatever song is running through my head. Again, constructive.

Form 180?
 

I think that after Guld war I, the conventional wisdowm was that Saddam would fall to the Shiites and the Kurds. HW Bush has said many times that that was what he assumed. Saddam lasted longer than anyone imagined. The no flight zones were gettting harder to enforce and it was just a matter of time before one of our pilots got shot down and was captured by Saddam. He had completely disregarded the treaty that ended Gulf War I and the sanctions were only hurting the natives. The status quo couldn't last. The US had the choice of giving up on forcing him to comply with the treaty and cooperating wiht the inspectors or invade. After 9-11, I think the administration decided that this what not a time to act weak by giving up on enforcing the treaty and giving up on the Weapons Inspections. In addition, they probably thought that considering there were terrorists out there it was just a matter of time before they hooked up with the Iraqi regime. So the choice was 1) leave a hostile regime, that might hook up with other terrorrists (maybe giving them a WMD) that is constantly thumbing its nose at us by shooting at our planes and stopping the inspectors, and since we had fought him before, new we could take him out pretty easily, 2) or invade, solve all those problems and show the terrorists and the rest of the world that rules had completely changed after 9-11.

Number 2 was the only choice. They just tried to package it the best they could.

Form 180?
 

If you're going to start in on one of those Halliburton rants, I'm telling BRC.

Form 180?
 

Bush was just that offended about the violations of international law.

Form 180?
 

No but you lose credibility if you are part of these resolutions and nothing is done. The US sits on the security council and was part of the proceedings that issued these resolutions. There is nothing worse to ones crediblity than empty threats. And in the international community, if a country's resolve is in question then other countries will be more inclined to disregard your national interest. The UN kept issuing these resolutions, letting their inspectors be pushed around, and continue to let Saddam flout the resolutions. Every time one of these resolutions was issued and not backed, was another day that the UN's credibilty and the US's credibilty diminshed. From my point of view we had two choices. Enforce the UN resolutions or leave the UN. Personally I think the CinC made the right call.

An honest, though partisan, question
 

Oh, I agree that it's a bad idea, one that should go down in flames. It's just that, to me, "Folly" implies something so bad and haunting that it drags down lots of other stuff, as well as the effectiveness and standing of the proponent.

I don't see that happening here. If it does die, (and there's no guarantee it will), I think it just sails away into the sunset, and we all move on.

Arnold Quiz
 

I guess I don't get this. The evidence seems to at least strongly suggest that Davis was taking money in exchange for doing specific things that he would probably not have done. I've seen no such evidence concerning Arnold.

Besides, if this were my ideology speaking, wouldn't I be supporting someone who was a Republican?

An honest, though partisan, question
 

I don't think so. Here's a usage example: "Despite the follies of Bilmore's youth, he has matured into a fine, upstanding, Republican with a good stiff stick firmly entrenched up his ass."

dtb, ruling please?

An honest, though partisan, question
 

I don't think you do nuance well. Note that "Folly" is capitalized. "George's Folly" has a completely different implication than the simple use of the word "follies" in a sentence.

dtb would likely tell you to work on your use of commas.

I would simply add that, looking to the election results, it's a wonder the stick ended up in my ass when it's you who spent all that time bent over.

An honest, though partisan, question
 

The administration is too preoccupied reaming the elderly to worry about me -- they just keep working on giving me more tax breaks. Funny that.

An honest, though partisan, question
 

Given that that's the richest subset of our population, can I take this as your call to Bush to not back down on tax cuts?

Remember Voodoo Economics?
 

My father living on a military pension is truly pleased to be part of the richest subset of the population. I'm sure he'd love to know that cuts in benefits for retired military are going to fund tax cuts for the wealthy elderly.

Remember Voodoo Economics?
 

If you guys are right about the "endless war" he'll probably be called back to active duty soon- and i believe the entails a pay raise.

Remember Voodoo Economics?
 

Only when compared to a military pension, perhaps.

• Percentage of American troops in Iraq who are National Guard or Reserve forces: 40%
• Percentage of National Guard members and reservists who are married, as of May 2004: 56%
• Percentage of married Guard members and reservists who report a loss of income over civilian jobs, as of May 2004: 55%
  Percentage of married Guard members and reservists who report a decrease in pay of $1,000 a month or more, as of May 2004: 49%
• Percentage of married Guard members and reservists who report a decrease in pay of $30,000 a year or more, as of May 2004: 15%

link

Remember Voodoo Economics?
 

Are you implying that GiGi's father double-dips?

Remember Voodoo Economics?
 

what's the percentage of people who were paid in addition to their civilian jobs to be in the Guard for years prior to being called up?

Form 180?
 

I didn't need wmd

Remember Voodoo Economics?
 

Hank,

I know you value your tax cuts, but complaining about paying people who are risking their life for our country is going overboard. These people are and have been sacrificing for all of us, and if they actually enjoyed and got paid for a few weekends of military exercises (and beers) on guard duty, that expense is well deserved for their commitment.

We joke about just about everything here, but let's not belittle the soldiers.

G^3

Form 180?
 

He'll probably form an exploratory and bow out about as early as Pete Wilson did.

An honest, though partisan, question
 

Why, do you guys think its dead? Personal accounts probably are, but I'm not sure about reform in general.

Remember Voodoo Economics?
 

Should the salaries know no limits? This is as unmoored as the Bush argument that the military should get higher pay raises than civilian gov't employees because we're in wartime. Conveniently ignoring that all soldiers in combat get combat pay (and that the military has a large number of civilian non-combat, desk positions), and curiously ignoring the numerous civilian employees (e.g. DHS, FBI) who are engaged in the "war on terror", despite being considered civilians.

Are you saying military pay or pensions are insufficiently generous currently? if so, what is the basis for that statement, other than "whatever they're paying, it should be more" and "my dad deserves to have his standard of living increased by the government, because i'm so greedy (3x, indeed) that I won't increase it for him"?

Remember Voodoo Economics?
 

I'll agree to that, as long as you don't counter discussion of the elderly by making it about soldiers. I'm not overly fond of the VA cuts myself.

Form 180?
 

How do you feel about Israel?

An honest, though partisan, question
 

It's the personal accounts of which I'm speaking. Reform certainly has to happen.

Form 180?
 

The admin decided to go to war to benefit the UN? Got it.

An honest, though partisan, question
 

Go do your fucking Roth IRA within your qualified plan, which you can do starting next year, despite the fact you are over the income limit for the original Roths, and shut it.

Add-on personal accounts, or diversion personal accounts?

Form 180?
 

The credibility of the UN is based on the credibility of the supporting members. So, Saddam flaunting the resolutions was Saddam flaunting the proponents of the resolutions - us. Which is why Panda's point is inapposite. When someone fails to support "Israel is the source of all that is bad in the world", they're hardly dissing us.

An honest, though partisan, question
 

So now I'm confused. I just said that the personal accounts idea is bad, and should go away, while basic reform of the funding/outlay scheme of SS should happen. Did you switch sides?

An honest, though partisan, question
 

what's this now? 401(k)'s can be done Roth-style--i.e., pay tax now, and nevermore?

An honest, though partisan, question
 

So how is this a catastrophe for Bush. Rarely in DC does a politician get everything em wants. If he gets SS reform, even without personal accounts, it is a win for him no matter how the DEMs will spin it.

Form 180?
 

Not all UN resolutions are equal, then, and we're free to ignore those that we don't agree with. Got it. My mistake. Carry on.

Remember Voodoo Economics?
 

I didn't think I was - you made the point that the elderly were the wealthiest group, I made the point that this really thrilled one elderly person I know on a limited income. The limited income measure I happened to use was a military pension.

Others turned it into being about the soldiers.

If we want to talk military wages, I'd tell you none of the folks I know in the military have done it for the money, though I do think there are many, especially at the enlisted level, who do.

The military never will (and probably never should) challenge civilian salaries for professionals, though the tax-free side of it is an advantage. I have one family member who went through Med School ROTC and then served in Iraq; his salary jumped 10 fold when he left the military, but of course the military also paid for Med School.

What the military should offer is a solid living wage and some damn good benefits, especially medical and retirement. If someone gives their whole life to the military, they ought to have a comfortable retirement and they ought to know they will be cared for.

An honest, though partisan, question
 

I thought you were saying that the personal account idea may not be dead.