"Exxxxcellent, Smithers. Release the hounds!

Mul, had this nation given Dubya a mandate, it would have been in 2000, not 2002. And "winning" the presidency without even carrying the popular vote is not exactly a "mandate." Dubya was a less popular candidate than Gore. Among American voters, that is. Mandate schmandate.

Guys, I am getting concerned about the way the republican party is becoming. How about starting a laissez-faire capitalist party. That's it. It's beliefs would be: no foreign entaglements, full neutrality, full and strict separation of church and state, no government dictated moral code, freedom to marry whoever you want so long as they are human, full banking privacy, no more graduated income taxes, full repeal of any wealth taxes since that isn't a crime, full repeal of estate taxes since dying isn't a crime, direct voting, ability for any individual to repeal any unfair laws by means of a prescribed percentage of petitions based on the population without resorting to a congressman (direct democracy), equal rights for any race, creed, color, religion, group or sexual preference, no preferential treatment for any race, creed, color, group or sexual preference, freedom of a woman to choose, keeping the military for national defense on our shores only, and last but not least, no preferential treatment of foreign nations or expensive nation building. We are due for a capitalist party that does not get muddled with religious and moral bs. Who wants to join?

Can you please explain to me how being a "reactionary" is so frightening to the left? I can explain why I dislike the liberal/progressive/left, can you explain why you consider "reactionary" an insult?

Speaking as a proud reactionary of course. (my lack of grammar is in no way related to my political theories....I hope)

Pete

Ed, I understand and respect your views. Seriously. I appreciate your descriptions and positions. they are thoughty and nicely researched. You may get plenty of takers. I especially appreciate your suggestion that personal freedoms and liberty be restored and protected. But I am not yet prepared to buy into your suggestion that "progressive" tax schedules be abandoned so as to protect large flows of income from taxes. It is not my agenda to make rich people poor, but I think those large income flows (corporate or personal) can be taxed without dooming their owners to downtown soup kitchens. And I also believe that a wholesale abandoning of business regulations is an obvious mistake. It seems fairly obvious that in the absence of product liability, false advertising and anti-trust laws (for example), a meaningful portion of the business community would act very irresponsibly. And public support would be far different from what it is right now. Your post did not suggest reducing business regulation, so forgive me if I assumed incorrectly.

Like I say, I respect your theories, but probably do not support what I see as perhaps your main agenda: The reduction of taxes on large cash and asset flows.

Pete Pranger: "I checked your source for the indian count. I don't know if I'd call that one "reliable". They had no idea how many indians there were, so they picked a nice round number and took 98% of that. I'm not buying that one my friend. BTW your claim was that the 9 million was "sanctioned" by the US government, but your source used a time frame of over 400 years that the "genocide" (? your word, not mine) occured. Here we go with that math again (and I thought I was bad with numbers........).Why don't you give this one another shot.

As far as your claim of "cornered conservatives", easy there with your analogy. McCarthy was right. I don't recall ever calling you or anyone else here a "commie" or "un-american" although just for the record I have been called several ugly names on this very board by a liberal *gasp*.................

The essay you posted was heartwarming. Inaccurate, but heartwarming. He did have one or two very valid points unfortunately (for me anyway) it was overshadowed by the rest."

Well, first, the link about the number of American Indians killed lists several numbers, and nobody knows how many millions of Indians were killes, because nobody had any way to count them. So these are all calculations. But nobody *doesn't* think it was millions, whether two, nine or 12.

It appears you are trying to say that killing millions of indigenous people as a matter of government policy is not genocide. I disagree. That is the very definition of genocide.

Read about the government bounty on Indian scalps. Colonists were paid so much money per scalp that it was a full-time profession for some.

As for your not wanting to accept the 'cornered conservative' comment, perhaps you didn't notice, but this was your first post in this discussion, so how could I be responding to you? If you're not calling your opponents communists, then it doesn't apply to you.

And do share with us what the 'inaccuracies' were in the essay.

As a newcomer to the thread, you probably missed the point, which was to counter the accusation by your fellow conservative that American Indians were 'savages' and, by implication, deserving to be killed.

Superman, you either reduce taxes or expect even further capital flight. Think about this, the top 1% of the population pays about 34% of the taxes in America. But they earn only 18% of the income. Now, while that might seem fair to you, it does not to them. And since we are still not a police state, to the chagrin of both parties, we cannot keep them from leaving here. Now, it does not take a huge ammount of the top 1% to leave the country to leave a serious hole in the revenue. Guess who pays for that. You do. Do you think it is a mistery why most countries in Europe have close to 50% in income tax rates? The answer is because most of those countries are a short drive away to a tax haven. While we don't have that luxury here, if pressed hard enough Americans hop on a plane. More punishment WILL lead to even more capital flight. After all, the Caribbean isn't doing well just from tourism. While these idiotic conservatives have to wake up, so do you liberals. Both sides should remove their blinders and take some trips abroad. Don't be surprised when you see Americans there. And don't think for a minute that they are poor. Let the rich leave you say. Just wait and see the result. Love it or hate it, the majority of Amricans work for some rich guy. If he isn't there, there is no work. But don't listen to me.
Go here Super. Read it and be warned. I know plenty who are doing it to the benefit of the economies of tax havens everywhere and affecting us in immeasurable ways. Punishment isn't the solution. Punishment is half of the problem. And if anyone is in doubt about these facts, just go ahead and try to denounce your citizenship and see what happens.
www.actionamerica.org/taxecon/tickfast.html
As to how where the money would come from without all the tax revenue, you must first remember the a-reduction in nation building (think of how much is going to iraq), b-much smaller military without foreign bases, and c-less need for defense in light of avoiding foreing entaglements. This has worked for a lot of countries. Some which have much more capital investments within their shores than we have. Read, read, read, and learn, learn, learn. But, above all, have an open mind. Envy does not work for policy making.

I would prefer to return to what was originally intended by our founding fathers. I like what you have as far as foreign policy (although I would protect our borders as well as our shores).

"Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies."

"The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without any thing more, from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of peace and amity towards other nations."

"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop."

"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements."

-Washingtons farewell address. This is where we agree.

This is where we part ways:

"Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports...The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

"It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric ?"

-Washingtons farewell Address.

Pete

Ed, I like your idea of reducing ‘fruitcake’ government spending (my term, not yours), although some of those foreign accounts are national ‘business investments’ if you will.

I am curious. How many people comprise the “top 1%”? Is that in terms of earned income, or does that include all sources of income including investment income. The 18% of the nation’s income that this group receives, how many dollars is that? And the 34% of taxes they pay, how many dollars is that? I’m not giving you an assignment, Ed, but my questions are not simply rhetorical. I am curious as to what the average income is, what the average tax burden is in dollars, and what income remains for those unfortunate souls that they might feed and shelter their families.

And finally, I am probably a bit unique in that I’m not terribly frightened by the danger that my nation might relax the foot that’s been on the economic gas pedal. Just like our Porsches have specifications, so do we humans. And just like Porsches, if we operate outside the specs then we’re asking for trouble. Today’s American family, the successful ones, endure time crunches that in many cases prevent them from taking the time to teach and raise their children. And we wonder why they’re learning values that resemble TV sitcoms and thrillers. Divorce, suicides, you name it. I have often been tempted, and am still tempted to “simplify.” Sell my toys, pay off the mortgage, get a bike, grow vegetables, trade services with friends and community. Oh, and basically not work. Raise my family. Have a life. The people I know who have done this are the happiest, most peaceful people I know. Their faces positively GLOW. So take your capital to the Carribean.

Ed's model is CONSIDERABLY more well thought out and cohesive than the Libertarian platform. Most all the Libertarians I have known have been fairly proud of their level of intelligence. Which is extremely interesting to me since the Libertarian platform, taken to its logical conclusions, is asinine. Ed's model is far more complete and rational.

"trade services with friends and community" Hey Superman, don't forget to report the value of goods and services you receive as income on your tax return and you'll need cash to pay your property tax each year or risk losing it. Ah, the "simple life" . . .

Indeed. Are you guys aware of the relationship between wealth and happiness? They are negatively correlated. The relationship is fairly weak, but statistically significant. The less money you have, the happier you are. Life's full of counter-intuitive wisdoms, wouldn't you say?

If you truely believe this, why are you constantly trying to make the happiest less so:)

You poor guy, Lynn, your party's credibility has been reduced to cartoon level.:D

I have noticed a correlation between one of us making a point and Lynn following up with one of his second rate cartoons. Interesting:)

Wrong Supe, again...If the people did not agree with the election of 2000, they would have echoed their disapproval in 2002. In fact 2002 was a banner year for the Republian party.

You and I both know Clinton got less votes than Bush...If it wasn't for Perot, Slick Willy never would have seen the WhiteHouse (at least not until sometime later).

Less popular candidate than Gore?...Bush?...Gore couldn't even carry his own state...Even Bill Bradley said of Al Gore, "If the people can't trust you to tell the truth as a candidate, how could they expect you to tell the truth as the President?".

Bush was way more popular than Gore...Gore couldn't even make up his mind as to who he was in 2000...Gore tried almost every personality style he could, and all I saw was a closeted homosexual in an overgrown rich kids body.

Hey, Pete:

1. My point is that millions of American Indians were killed. Nobody knows the final number. if you read my original post, I said 'up to 9 million.'

We apparently agree than *any* million is unacceptable,

2. The site I linked to for the numbers said other things I do not agree with. And apparently, you don't, either. The entire topic came up because of a random comment that suggested measuring governments by the numbers of people they killed --a silly exercise, IMHO -- but as an educational exercise, I wanted to hear what Mul had to say about it. Nothing, apparently.

3. Measuring from 1776 is fine with me. That's about 100 years of killing Indians. As government policy.

I will grant you that some tribes were recruited against us br the British, and some fought along with us and with the French. Of all of the tribes in North America, those brought into the war were small in numbers. Those killed on the frontier were large in numbers.

4. If you are not 'cornered' then you won't make preposterous allegations like your buddy Mul. The shoe doesn't fit -- don't wear it. I'll deal with the McCarthy revisionism elsewhere.

5. The words I posted were chosen by a council of multiple tribes in 1927. I didn't write it. To repeat: my point was to show some evidence that Mul's dismissal of American Indians as 'lesser humans' was just stupid.

6. You say in several places in your post that 'nobody is without blame.' Well, we certainly agree on that. It's the point of my post. The notion that the US always owns the moral high ground is ludicrous. We have to have high moral standards. The notion that Democracy = virtue is not 100% correct.

http://www.kerrycore.com/kerry_photos/325_house.jpg
Just remember Lynn...You vote for J Fing Kerry, you vote for the guy who encouraged people to spit on Vietnam vets when they returned...You vote for a scumbag who scurried through a loop-hole after 4 months...You vote for a gold-digging opportunist who held you in such contempt he lied about you in front of the Senate. You vote for a guy who held his ill-gotten gain (medals) in such contempt he threw them over a fence. You vote for a guy who has those medals in his office, despite his contempt, to fool suckers like you.

landslide 04...For the love of country, vote Bush.

Mul, if you repeat it enough, it still won't stick. This is a thread about the supposed link between Saddam and al Quaeda.

Why don't you start your own 'trash Kerry' thread, and maybe use a fact or two, instead of just repeating stuff you've read off bumper stickers.