AnimationNation Forum

AnimationNation


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» AnimationNation   » SideTopics   » You'd think this would be a huge story on the news... (Page 2)

 
This topic is comprised of pages:  1  2  3 
 
Author Topic: You'd think this would be a huge story on the news...
SNAKEBITE
IE # 101
Member # 17

Icon 1 posted      Profile for SNAKEBITE   Author's Homepage           Edit/Delete Post 
yeah, thats where Im at. that percentage is pretty outrageous as well. but Im also including the everyday taxes you pay with every purchase..
heres a big one, property tax. what a scam. you should pay that once, when you purchase the house.
property tax can be like another rent.

so many things in line to nickel and dime your asss to death.

--------------------
contact@animationnation.com
www.artbysnakebite.com
www.myspace.com/mrbite
www.redskystudio.com
www.myspace.com/redskystudio

IP: Logged
Jasen
IE # 129
Member # 2721

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Jasen   Author's Homepage   Email Jasen         Edit/Delete Post 
When I heard the term Death Tax for the first time, I thought that we must be gettting close to a Breathing Air tax.

--------------------
http://jasenstrong.artstooge.com/
http://jasenstrong.blogspot.com/

IP: Logged
LeftyMcKay
IE # 168
Member # 2558

Icon 1 posted      Profile for LeftyMcKay   Author's Homepage   Email LeftyMcKay         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Lefty, I don't buy it. anything that says our government has our best interest in mind makes my head go numb. sorry bro. theres just not a whole lot of evidence for me to buy that. I know theres plenty of "official" documentation to "back" you up but papers don't prove squat. actions do.
Snakebite, I don't recall stating that our government has our best interests in mind. My discussion with you is simply regarding the legality of the IRS. Thomas and I have offered some data which argues for and in fact invalidates much of yours. If you have something more persuasive than a statement by an anonymous ex IRS agent I'd love to read it.
More taxes? I'm not against the concept of taxation, but I think our present rate is too high, which is one reason why I won't be voting for a Democrat in any coming election.

--------------------
 -

IP: Logged
SNAKEBITE
IE # 101
Member # 17

Icon 1 posted      Profile for SNAKEBITE   Author's Homepage           Edit/Delete Post 
well I did point out

"The 16th ammendment was never ratified. So I can't even debate that point.

The tax system is based on voluntary compliance. Federal Tax Regulations, Section 601.602."

lefty, theres alot of paper work that says alot of arbitrary laws. doesn't mean anything. whos got the money and the bigger guns? thats the real deal.

and the "anonymous ex IRS agent" was Former IRS commissioner Shirley Peterson. dude, it was right there.

whats legal to you does not make it legal to me. the united states law is not the universal. it is place to protect the people its meant to protect.

all that stuff you read is implied authority. stay off the grass.hey, we signed the paper that says its cool, where were you? I don;t buy it like I don't buy alot of what is in place by the government...and I don't believe in anarchy I just think we don't learn from the past and we certainly dont question the present and sure as hell dont even think of the future.

so send me anything you want that says the IRS is conducting legal acts and I'll feel alot better about the situation when I give almost half of my income to a machine that is run by politicians whom even thomas said are a bunch of people out for their own interests...yeah, good times. I'm cool. you cool?

hey, we're all free.

car insurance and taxes. they should really call them "bail".

--------------------
contact@animationnation.com
www.artbysnakebite.com
www.myspace.com/mrbite
www.redskystudio.com
www.myspace.com/redskystudio

IP: Logged
LeftyMcKay
IE # 168
Member # 2558

Icon 1 posted      Profile for LeftyMcKay   Author's Homepage   Email LeftyMcKay         Edit/Delete Post 
Actually, the 16th Amendment was ratified on February 3, 1913, and the PDF file I linked to explained why the tax system is not based on voluntary compliance, but it's clear you're more interested in believing what you want to believe rather than the facts.

Yup, you're free to do that too. [Smile]

--------------------
 -

IP: Logged
spacelobster
IE # 278
Member # 3391

Icon 1 posted      Profile for spacelobster   Email spacelobster         Edit/Delete Post 
Hey colorinable, don't count your response as so unpopular. Tax me more if it goes to roads and schools and health care, screw the military-industrial complex.

The typical populist tax-protesting arguments always seem to me to have a hidden agenda of pure selfishness. It gets masked in rhetoric about the evils of socialist beaurocracy and freedom for the individual, and well-meaning people get suckered into it. I can sense this tiny club of good old boys writing the script, wanting the good old days when there were no corporate regulations and robber barons ruled everything with monopolies. Adam Smith's ideals are good- in a small community- but that's the natural evolution of big business in an unregulated free market, it's just a plain fact. The people who take that for granted and clearly admit their selfish agenda (Rand followers) don't bug me as much as the ones who disguise it or just don't look very deeply into it.

--------------------
 -

IP: Logged
Fooksie
IE # 239
Member # 331

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Fooksie   Author's Homepage   Email Fooksie         Edit/Delete Post 
FAIR TAX . 'nuff said.

--------------------
" Every move a picture! "
Buddy Love

IP: Logged
Jasen
IE # 129
Member # 2721

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Jasen   Author's Homepage   Email Jasen         Edit/Delete Post 
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=dbb_1183723746

--------------------
http://jasenstrong.artstooge.com/
http://jasenstrong.blogspot.com/

IP: Logged
SNAKEBITE
IE # 101
Member # 17

Icon 1 posted      Profile for SNAKEBITE   Author's Homepage           Edit/Delete Post 
hey lefty, I tried to read your document but my computer didn't let it download...it must of felt is was full of crap too.

ya know, paper work does not prove squat. sorry bro.
but you're free to think that...or actually, a slave to that thinking.

check this out. someone just sent this link to me today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPypDaXfIV8

--------------------
contact@animationnation.com
www.artbysnakebite.com
www.myspace.com/mrbite
www.redskystudio.com
www.myspace.com/redskystudio

IP: Logged
SNAKEBITE
IE # 101
Member # 17

Icon 1 posted      Profile for SNAKEBITE   Author's Homepage           Edit/Delete Post 
and Im with Fooksie. fair please.
I understand state tax. hey I live here so I should pay for state services. federal tax is a crime.
its bully tactics to keep people broke and in line.

I can do many things and do many things without the help of the government. but the idea that I am criminal if I don't give them half my ass sounds like and feels like a shake down.

its the razors edge. even thomas said politicians are out for themselves, so why would thomas buy any piece of paper that comes out of these guys heads?
its beyond me.

So lefty, are you cool with how the tax system is?

--------------------
contact@animationnation.com
www.artbysnakebite.com
www.myspace.com/mrbite
www.redskystudio.com
www.myspace.com/redskystudio

IP: Logged
SNAKEBITE
IE # 101
Member # 17

Icon 1 posted      Profile for SNAKEBITE   Author's Homepage           Edit/Delete Post 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZl6202HJGQ&mode=related&search=

--------------------
contact@animationnation.com
www.artbysnakebite.com
www.myspace.com/mrbite
www.redskystudio.com
www.myspace.com/redskystudio

IP: Logged
SNAKEBITE
IE # 101
Member # 17

Icon 1 posted      Profile for SNAKEBITE   Author's Homepage           Edit/Delete Post 
"The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was never ratified by a majority of the sovereign States.

This is the Amendment that allegedly entitled the Federal Agent (government) in the federal territory of Washington, D.C. and their private collection company, the IRS, to collect "income tax" was falsely declared to be ratified in February 1913 by Secretary of State Philander Knox.

After an exhaustive year long search of legislative records in 48 sovereign states (Alaska & Hawaii were not admitted into the Union until after 1913), Bill Benson wrote his fact findings in The Law That Never Was, Vols. 1 & 2. He was able to unequivocally prove that the 16th Amendment was never Constitutionally, properly, or legally ratified. The only record of the 16th Amendment having been confirmed was a proclamation made by the Secretary of State Philander Knox on February 25, 1913, wherein he simply declared it to be "in effect", but never stating it was lawfully ratified."

--------------------
contact@animationnation.com
www.artbysnakebite.com
www.myspace.com/mrbite
www.redskystudio.com
www.myspace.com/redskystudio

IP: Logged
SNAKEBITE
IE # 101
Member # 17

Icon 1 posted      Profile for SNAKEBITE   Author's Homepage           Edit/Delete Post 
http://www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/notratified.htm

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Embassy/1154/16thamendment.html

--------------------
contact@animationnation.com
www.artbysnakebite.com
www.myspace.com/mrbite
www.redskystudio.com
www.myspace.com/redskystudio

IP: Logged
Jennifer Hachigian Jerrard
IE # 8
Member # 2280

Icon 3 posted      Profile for Jennifer Hachigian Jerrard   Author's Homepage   Email Jennifer Hachigian Jerrard         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Fooksie wrote:
FAIR TAX . 'nuff said.

I was wondering who'd vote for Mike Gravel...

[Wink] [Wink] [Wink]

--------------------
 -

IP: Logged
LeftyMcKay
IE # 168
Member # 2558

Icon 1 posted      Profile for LeftyMcKay   Author's Homepage   Email LeftyMcKay         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
whats legal to you does not make it legal to me.
Good luck convincing a court of that! Are you somehow outside or above the legal system?

quote:
the united states law is not the universal.
Ummm...good point. [Roll Eyes] Ya think that's why it's called United States law and not Universal Law?

Snakebite, just because I'm not happy with the current tax system doesn't mean it isn't real and that I can simply ignore it without consequences. All of the links you posted are simply opinions of people with axes to grind against the current tax system. They may be opinions you share or wish were true, but that alone doesn't make them so. And for someone who feels that "paper work does not prove squat" you certainly have no shortage of links to unreliable sites. Honestly, I don't understand why this concept is so difficult for you to grasp. This isn't about the way we'd like things to be. We can have that discussion as well, but for the moment it's about the way things are, and the way things are is that the 16th Amendment was ratified and is recognized as such by the US Government. Taxation is legal. I understand that doesn't make your world all sunshine and rainbows.
It doesn't make my day either.

Mike Huckabee's Fair Tax plan sounds pretty good to me.
Sorry Jennifer [Wink]

But Snakebite, if you truly have the courage of your convictions I urge you to stop paying federal taxes. Don't worry, should the government come after you I'm sure any lawyer worth his salt would be happy to represent your case for the prestige it would bestow and the precedence it would set. Go for it!

From the U.S. Government Printing Office:
quote:
The Sixteenth Amendment was proposed by Congress on July 12, 1909, when it passed the House, 44 Cong. Rec. (61st Cong., 1st Sess.) 4390, 4440, 4441, having previously passed the Senate on July 5. Id., 4121. It appears officially in 36 Stat. 184. Ratification was completed on February 3, 1913, when the legislature of the thirty-sixth State (Delaware, Wyoming, or New Mexico) approved the amendment, there being then 48 States in the Union. On February 25, 1913, Secretary of State Knox certified that this amendment had become a part of the Constitution.


--------------------
 -

IP: Logged
SNAKEBITE
IE # 101
Member # 17

Icon 1 posted      Profile for SNAKEBITE   Author's Homepage           Edit/Delete Post 
well, first I like to say Im glad you're not here to argue.

cool?
right on.

second,
I'm not coming from a place of happy bird songs and rainbows. but again, I'm glad you're not here to argue.

third, we are all outside the legal system. even the legal system. I'm believe in natures law, not mans. natures law makes sense, mans law hides sense.

I know the current tax system is real, I participate. hence my discontent. I wouldn't have complaints if I wasn't participating. ofcourse its "real" cuz its happening. but it doesn't make it legal. but again, glad you're not here to argue.

Lefty, bro, you're the one that has evidence in front of him that is being ignored. you say these people are anonymous or people with opinions and personal beefs when in fact alot of these people have professional association and experience as well as worked for the agency and have professional and executive evidence that supports my argument.

What makes information reliable? the source? your source? the same people who are pulling the wool over our eyes? you really think the government would have official sites or paper work out their that reveals their crookedness? I'm glad you weigh things carefully.

and as far as this one guy who has no political affiliation or executive power challenging the gun using government..forget it. I have plenty of fights on my plate.I'm not suicidal. I have no power or inclination to take on the mafia..I mean government...but that doesn't mean I can't have my views. are you saying
I either fight the government or shut up, lefty? cuz thats what it sounds like. kinda like that "if you're against the war you're not a patriot" bullsht thats tired and reminds me of bullies on the play ground mentality.

and again, thanks for not wanting to start an argument.

--------------------
contact@animationnation.com
www.artbysnakebite.com
www.myspace.com/mrbite
www.redskystudio.com
www.myspace.com/redskystudio

IP: Logged
SNAKEBITE
IE # 101
Member # 17

Icon 1 posted      Profile for SNAKEBITE   Author's Homepage           Edit/Delete Post 
also, a fair tax would be a legal one.
fair=legal
unfair=illegal

but maybe Im over simplifying again. [abducted]

--------------------
contact@animationnation.com
www.artbysnakebite.com
www.myspace.com/mrbite
www.redskystudio.com
www.myspace.com/redskystudio

IP: Logged
SNAKEBITE
IE # 101
Member # 17

Icon 1 posted      Profile for SNAKEBITE   Author's Homepage           Edit/Delete Post 
AND

who said anything about ignoring taxes? if anything Im sayin keep a close eye on it.

--------------------
contact@animationnation.com
www.artbysnakebite.com
www.myspace.com/mrbite
www.redskystudio.com
www.myspace.com/redskystudio

IP: Logged
SNAKEBITE
IE # 101
Member # 17

Icon 1 posted      Profile for SNAKEBITE   Author's Homepage           Edit/Delete Post 
Jesus had a personal beef.
the original 13 states had a personal beef.
Lincoln had a personal beef.
Martin Luther King had apersonal beef.
Bush senior and junior have personal beefs.

right now, lefty has a personal beef with Bite.

what does that mean? does having beef mean you don't have the right to be heard? does having beef mean your beef has no meat?

Wars are started by personal beefs.
Revolutions are started with personal beefs.

I wish more people had beef so we wouldn't be chewin on bones all the time.

--------------------
contact@animationnation.com
www.artbysnakebite.com
www.myspace.com/mrbite
www.redskystudio.com
www.myspace.com/redskystudio

IP: Logged
SNAKEBITE
IE # 101
Member # 17

Icon 1 posted      Profile for SNAKEBITE   Author's Homepage           Edit/Delete Post 
I reread your last post Lefty. I'm so sorry. I didn't see that you put a couple of the words in bold...now Im convinced, cuz putting words in bold means its true. thanks.

--------------------
contact@animationnation.com
www.artbysnakebite.com
www.myspace.com/mrbite
www.redskystudio.com
www.myspace.com/redskystudio

IP: Logged
SNAKEBITE
IE # 101
Member # 17

Icon 1 posted      Profile for SNAKEBITE   Author's Homepage           Edit/Delete Post 
Opinions and beefs. sounds like a well balanced diet to me.With a side of action and you're good to go...oh and some water.

--------------------
contact@animationnation.com
www.artbysnakebite.com
www.myspace.com/mrbite
www.redskystudio.com
www.myspace.com/redskystudio

IP: Logged
Caracal
IE # 161
Member # 3024

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Caracal   Author's Homepage   Email Caracal         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Caracal, your reasons for why we went to war aren't entirely truthful either, and I challenge you to provide a link to a legitimate source which states when President George W. Bush "claimed there was immediate threat to the United States from WMD's".
Is that the extent of your ctriticism? That I used the word immediate in stead of imminent? That surely discredits my entire argument since I obviously only trying to deceive and distort the facts.

Before you attack the truthfulness of my post read it again. First show where I claimed to be directly quoting the president. Secondly you imply that my using the word immediate is an deliberate attempt to distort the intent of Bush's message.

That's a lie. I'm more than happy to have you substitute the word "immediate with imminent". Imminent means ready to take place, hanging threateningly over one's head as in an "imminent danger of being run over".

If this is substantially different in meaning than the word immediate it's a distinction too fine for me to recognize. If I were trying to deliberately distort a message I would have to find a much better word.

But of course I wasn't looking for some clever way to distort the message. That's the way you think.

In fact I'm perfectly happy to ammend my "non quote" by saying the reason Bush gave to congress and the American people for invading Iraq was the "imminent" danger of WMD's and not because of UN sanctions as Thomas implied.

Speaking from my own personal experience of events what Thomas was implying for the reasons we went to war in Iraq misrepresents the sequence of events I have witnessed. His implications is false and I have given my evidence why.

Thomas did not refute my argument. You did not refute my argument. You haven't done squat to further the debate about our reasons to enter the war.

Immediate or Immenint. I'm laughing. Put up or shut up.

Cheers

IP: Logged
LeftyMcKay
IE # 168
Member # 2558

Icon 1 posted      Profile for LeftyMcKay   Author's Homepage   Email LeftyMcKay         Edit/Delete Post 
Caracal, if it's more criticism you want, then here it is.
Immediate or imminent, President Bush said neither regarding a threat from Iraq prior to going to war. A threat, yes (which it was), but your insertion of either adjective (with Caps Lock on, no less) unnecessarily exaggerates the phrase.

quote:
Congress didn't authorize the invasion of Iraq because of broken UN resolutions.

Congress did not authorize the the president to invade Iraq because Saddam was a brutal dictator.

Congress did not authorize the war because they wanted to spread democracy in the region.

Congress did not even authorize invading Iraq to fight terrorism.

I guess you never read the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq which was passed in the House on October 10, 2002 by a vote of 296-133, and in the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23.
Your claims are erroneous and the following are some relevant quotes from the Iraq War Resolution to counter them:

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.


For what it's worth, Thomas never stated or even implied that broken UN sanctions were the only reason we went to war, but they were certainly a significant reason.

Hope you enjoyed your laugh [Smile]

--------------------
 -

IP: Logged
Thomas
IE # 19
Member # 101

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Thomas   Email Thomas         Edit/Delete Post 
Thank you for posting these, Lefty. Good information to have.

--------------------
-Tom

IP: Logged
OFFBEAT
IE # 39
Member # 873

Icon 1 posted      Profile for OFFBEAT   Author's Homepage   Email OFFBEAT         Edit/Delete Post 
Lefty, and Thomas.. why do YOU think we went to war with Iraq?

--------------------
"Get Rich, or Die Drawing!"

IP: Logged
Caracal
IE # 161
Member # 3024

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Caracal   Author's Homepage   Email Caracal         Edit/Delete Post 
Yeah Lefty

I'm still laughing at how you try to attack my character over an irrelevant word to win an argument. That speaks loads for you .

Personally I make the distinction that saying someones statement is false is not saying the person making it is a liar. Maybe they believe it's true for all I know. Not my call. I'm speaking about Thomas comment which I said was false. All I can be sure of is the statement. Is that true or false. Anything beyond that is sheer speculation.

It's simple logic but still worth mentioning.

First last,

Thomas stated reasons why we went to Iraq. In the context of the previous post that led to his comments how else would I have interpreted his comment I don't know. I'm happy to hear Thomas explain his comment at any time. He did not qualify his statement as you have pointed out. So again how would I have interpreted his comments other than I did?. Finally had he qualified his comment it would have made no difference to me because the premise we went into Iraq based on anything other “imminent” threat from Saddam is false.

I copied my quotes from you copy. Read them again. I didn't say congress never granted Bush these authorities. I said Congress didn't authorize Bush to go to war “because” of them. As to the last item since Iraq under Saddam was not a terrorist threat congress cannot authorize an action on a threat which does not exist.(unless they are lied to that is)

Congress didn't authorize the invasion of Iraq because of broken UN resolutions.

Congress did not authorize the the president to invade Iraq because Saddam was a brutal dictator.

Congress did not authorize the war because they wanted to spread democracy in the region.

Congress did not even authorize invading Iraq to fight terrorism.

No matter what powers congress granted to Bush doesn't change the political reality. The mere violation of UN resolutions was not sufficient reason for the invasion of Iraq. The threat from Saddam as expressed by Bush to the congress and the American people was necessary to make the case for going to war in Iraq.

That is a self evident truth as to the political reality under what conditions we would or would not invade Iraq.. Irregardless of of any war powers assigned to the president Bush could not support any argument he made to go to war merely on broken UN resolutions or any of the others in the list above. There had to be a sufficient level of threat to justify the invasion. Had Bush not pressed that Saddam had WMDs that could be delivered at any time to justify his pre- emptive strike, the council would have voted to allow the inspectors to finish their work . A diplomatic solution would have been possible.

It's inconceivable to me Congress would support a war if they knew Saddams teeth had been pulled.

Further it is obvious The US can act unilaterally and without the consensus of the United Nations any time it chooses. Who is going to stops us? That doesn't change the fact that we acted in opposition to the UN and it is illegitimate to claim that we had right to invade Iraq based on UN resolutions because there was no UN council vote for a resolution to authorize force. And this is irrelevant because we did not go to war over broken UN resolutions.

Cheers

IP: Logged
Caracal
IE # 161
Member # 3024

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Caracal   Author's Homepage   Email Caracal         Edit/Delete Post 
Yeah still waiting to hear that myself.
IP: Logged
LeftyMcKay
IE # 168
Member # 2558

Icon 1 posted      Profile for LeftyMcKay   Author's Homepage   Email LeftyMcKay         Edit/Delete Post 
Caracal, I'm laughing at the level of hypocrisy in which you can tell Thomas in one post that "What you are implying is not the truth" and then tell me in an unrestrained rant of hypersensitivity that I'm attacking your character by saying "your reasons for why we went to war aren't entirely truthful either". Talk about speaking loads for one's character. Amazing, but hardly worth pursuing any further.

You said that Congress didn't authorize Bush to go to war “because” of the reasons you stated.
Let's look at the timeline.
The Iraq War began on March 20, 2003.
The Iraq War Resolution was passed in Congress by October 11, 2002
That's over 5 months before the war began.
Each clause of The Iraq War Resolution begins with "whereas".
According to Websters, "whereas" is defined as "in view of the fact that"
According to Websters, "because" is defined as "for the reason that" or "the fact that".
I submit that in this case, "whereas" and "because" are virtually synonymous.
Therefore the statements you made were not true.
To be clear, I am not calling you a liar.
Obviously you believe what you posted but it's equally obvious that you were ignorant of the facts. For you to be a liar would require the knowledge that what you had posted was indeed false.
Again, at this point I don't consider you to be a liar.

Broken UN resolutions are clearly a component of the reason Congress authorized President Bush to go to war. The perceived threat of WMD's were also a reason as you can see if you read the entire Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. Nobody is denying that.

You also stated that "Iraq under Saddam was not a terrorist threat".
Wrong again. Saddam was a known harborer of terrorists.

Here's a little quiz to test your knowledge:
To which country did Abu Musab al-Zarqawi flee after the U.S. invaded Afghanistan?
Under what country's passport did 1999 World Trade Center bombing architect Ramzi Yousef arrive in the U.S.?
After helping make the bombs which were used in the 1993 World Trade Center attack, to which country did Abdul Rahman Yasin flee?
Against which country in 1993 did President Clinton order the U.S. Navy to launch Tomahawk missiles in response to that country's plan to assassinate former president George Bush?
In which country was terrorist leader Abu Nidal found murdered in 2002?
In which country was Khala Khadr al-Salahat, the ANO member who made the bomb that brought down Pan Am Flight 103, apprehended?
In which country was Abu Abbas, mastermind behind the Achille Lauro hijacking, captured in 2003?
Which country's leader was offering up to $25,000.00 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers?
In which country was the terrorist training facility Salman Pak discovered and shut down (hint: it was located 15 miles southeast of Baghdad)?

If you guessed any country other than Iraq, you lose.

Finally, it takes a unique brand of naiveté to think that Saddam Hussein, a dictator who had broken so many U.N. resolutions, murdered so many people and been so involved in terrorism, would be amenable to an honest diplomatic solution.
Welcome to the Left!


( fixed Spelling in last paragraph )

[ August 19, 2007, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: The Mod ]

--------------------
 -

IP: Logged
Jasen
IE # 129
Member # 2721

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Jasen   Author's Homepage   Email Jasen         Edit/Delete Post 
Shawn Wasson talks to Ed and Elaine Brown. Convicted of tax evasion, the Brown's are currently holed up in their fortified home. Communicating with the outside world via disposable cell phones. Interview here...
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=217_1187535583

--------------------
http://jasenstrong.artstooge.com/
http://jasenstrong.blogspot.com/

IP: Logged
SNAKEBITE
IE # 101
Member # 17

Icon 1 posted      Profile for SNAKEBITE   Author's Homepage           Edit/Delete Post 
I'm just gald he's not here to argue.

--------------------
contact@animationnation.com
www.artbysnakebite.com
www.myspace.com/mrbite
www.redskystudio.com
www.myspace.com/redskystudio

IP: Logged
LeftyMcKay
IE # 168
Member # 2558

Icon 1 posted      Profile for LeftyMcKay   Author's Homepage   Email LeftyMcKay         Edit/Delete Post 
Snakebite, I'm just glad you're here. [Smile]
Not only do I find you to be an amazing artistic talent, but you bring a point of view to this forum that I can only call unique. Before you go all Caracal on me, let me explain that I mean that as neither insult or compliment, simply an observation. It's not a perspective I agree with or even find comprehensible at times, but it's pure Snakebite and may God bless you for that. Being more of a white meat and fish kind of guy, I don't have a beef with you. Not even a Slim Jim.

--------------------
 -

IP: Logged
Caracal
IE # 161
Member # 3024

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Caracal   Author's Homepage   Email Caracal         Edit/Delete Post 
Lefty your absolutely right. I really messed up. I re read you comment and I saw my mistake and you have my apology. I'm absolutely being hypocritical. Ill do everthing I can not to repeat the same mistake again.

But congress still would have pulled the plug on any attempt to invade Iraq if there was no imminent threat, such as the threat of WMDS.

Bush did make the case for imminent threat from WMDS. It may not be his characterization but it is true to my experience watching the president and his administration selling the story. The continuing message from the administration was that Saddams WMDS were a growing threat. And then then we had a really big push around Colin Poweel's presentation at the UN showing his evidence to support the claims that WMDS were being secretly manufactured. And the news conference where we were led to believe that now Saddam had access to nuclear materials.Or was it a bomb?

Yup. I think to characterize the presentation by Bush and his administration of ever mounting threats to America by Saddams WMDS is quite accurately described by the words imminent threat.

If Bush had not made the case for the threat of WMDs the UN inspections would have confirmed there was no WMD threat and the result would have been no invasion. Not only would Bush have been discredited on the WMD threat but the UN council would have voted on a new resoulution to determine whether further military intervention was warranted or not. Anyone following the news knows how that would have gone.

If bush had tried to make a case for invasion on any of the other points I mentioned congress would have pulled the plug. He would not have authorization to invade because of broken UN resolutions ,for example, without a threat like WMDs.

IP: Logged
SNAKEBITE
IE # 101
Member # 17

Icon 1 posted      Profile for SNAKEBITE   Author's Homepage           Edit/Delete Post 
aaaahhh, you sure do know how to sweet talk the lavender scented panties off a brutha,Lefty.

--------------------
contact@animationnation.com
www.artbysnakebite.com
www.myspace.com/mrbite
www.redskystudio.com
www.myspace.com/redskystudio

IP: Logged
LeftyMcKay
IE # 168
Member # 2558

Icon 1 posted      Profile for LeftyMcKay   Author's Homepage   Email LeftyMcKay         Edit/Delete Post 
Apology appreciated and accepted, Caracal. I'm sure it's not an easy thing to grant someone you consider "morally and ethically corrupt" as well as a "traitor".

If the case for war was all about WMDs, why did Congress pass a resolution in which 7 clauses mentioned WMDs, but another 8 concerned broken U.N. sanctions? If the broken sanctions were irrelevant, why didn't Congress refuse to pass the resolution until those clauses were removed? Obviously there was a concern regarding WMDs, but a primary point of the Bush Doctrine was that the U.S. "be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends." (italics mine)

Imagining for a moment that the U.S. had never invaded Iraq, what was it about the nature of Saddam Hussein that made you feel he was a murderous and deceptive dictator worth trusting U.N. inspectors with? What sort of reliable diplomatic resolution do you think could have been reached with him? Was the U.N.'s Oil-for-Palaces scam not a reasonable gauge of not only their ineffectiveness, but Hussein's deceitfulness?

Snakebite, as fond as I am of lavender, better to just keep those panties on. This is a family place [Wink]

--------------------
 -

IP: Logged
Greg B
IE # 118
Member # 886

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Greg B   Author's Homepage   Email Greg B         Edit/Delete Post 
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56855

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KjBy_qp4Zc

Well I guess this news article and video series answers the big question.

--------------------
http://www.boonestoons.com
http://www.spacefool.com

IP: Logged
Charles
Administrator
Member # 7

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Charles           Edit/Delete Post 
You guys are doing great with this thread. I learn by reading through the exchanges. I'm sure a lot of other people do as well. Don't know if any minds are changed but personally speaking I appreciate the presentation of the viewpoints and the feelings behind them.

What makes it better is you're not hiding. It takes guts to come to the Web under your own identity and speak about what you believe. You guys are a model for the rest of the Internet. No snide behavior, you keep your clothes on and keep your cool. Thanks.

--------------------
 -

IP: Logged
Jasen
IE # 129
Member # 2721

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Jasen   Author's Homepage   Email Jasen         Edit/Delete Post 
What about Wesley Snipes. He has some serious IRS charges against him. Does any one know his status regarding the IRS? The news seems to be playing games with this story too.

and that reminds me... I found this to be interesting. (not sure if it's true...but it was pointed out on my last post's comments section)


Selected businesses in Rupert Murdoch's News
Corporation Media Empire include..

Filmed Entertainment - News Corporation
20th Century Fox
20th Century Fox Espanol
20th Century Fox Home Entertainment
20th Century Fox International
20th Century Fox Television
Blue Sky Studios
Fox Searchlight Pictures
Fox Studios Australia
Fox Studios LA
Fox Studios Baja
Fox Television Studios

Television - News Corporation
Fox Broadcasting Company
Fox Sports Australia
Fox Television Stations
FOXTEL
STAR

Cable Television owned by News Corporation
Fox Movie Channel
Fox News Channel
Fox Sports Digital
Fox Sports Enterprises
Fox Sports Espanol
Fox Sports Net
Fox Sports World
FUEL
FX
National Geographic Channel
SPEED Channel
Stats, Inc

Direct Broadcast & Satellite Television - News
Corporation
BskyB
DIRECTV
FOXTEL
Sky Italia

Magazines - News Corporation
Inside Out
Donna Hay
News America Marketing
Smart Source
The Weekly Standard
Gemstar

Newspapers - News Corporation
Australasian region Newspapers:
Daily Telegraph
Fiji Times
Gold Coast Bulletin
Herald Sun
Newsphotos
Newspix
Newstext
NT News
Post Courier
Sunday Herald Sun
Sunday Mail
Sunday Tasmanian
Sunday Territorian
Sunday Times
The Advertiser
The Australian
The Courier Mail
The Mercury
The Sunday Mail
The Sunday Telegraph
Weekly Times
United Kingdom region Newspapers:
News International
News of the World
The Sun
The Sunday Times
The Times
Times Education Supplement
Times Higher Education Supplement
Times Literary Supplement
TSL Education
United States region Newspapers:
New York Post

Books - News Corporation
Harper Collins Publishers
- Australia
- Canada
- Childrens Books
- United States
- United Kingdom
Regan Books
Zondervan

Other Investments - News Corporation
MySpace.com Profile
Festival Records
Mushroom Records
National Rugby League - Australia
News Interactive
News Outdoor
Nursery World

http://www.newscorp.com/

--------------------
http://jasenstrong.artstooge.com/
http://jasenstrong.blogspot.com/

IP: Logged
Greg B
IE # 118
Member # 886

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Greg B   Author's Homepage   Email Greg B         Edit/Delete Post 
Jasen, see my post above. Both the news article and video explain fully the argument that caused the IRS to lose last June 2007 regarding these issues.

Next step is whether the Supreme Court will take up the issue.

Right now however the historic decision is the IRS lost.

--------------------
http://www.boonestoons.com
http://www.spacefool.com

IP: Logged
Jasen
IE # 129
Member # 2721

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Jasen   Author's Homepage   Email Jasen         Edit/Delete Post 
In the US Rupert Murdoch has been a long-time supporter of the Republican Party and was a friend of Ronald Reagan. Regarding Pat Robertson's 1988 presidential bid, he said, "He's right on all the issues." Many Christian conservatives were dismayed when Robertson sold his television network to Murdoch. Murdoch's papers strongly supported George W. Bush in both the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections.[citation needed]

Murdoch's publications worldwide tend to adopt conservative views. During the buildup to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, all 175 Murdoch-owned newspapers worldwide editorialized in favor of the war.[19] Murdoch also served on the board of directors of the libertarian Cato Institute. News Corp-owned Fox News is often criticized for a strong conservative and anti-liberal bias.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch

--------------------
http://jasenstrong.artstooge.com/
http://jasenstrong.blogspot.com/

IP: Logged
Tobias A. Wolf
IE # 250
Member # 383

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tobias A. Wolf   Email Tobias A. Wolf         Edit/Delete Post 
It's kind of an aside; but when Murdoch was a young man, he referred to Lenin as "The Great Teacher" and had a bust of the Communist leader in his dorm room at Oxford from what I understand.

It's probably not going to happen, but it would be hilarious if he decided one day to turn all the editorial aspects of his various media properties left-wing just to keep the world interesting. [funny]

IP: Logged



This topic is comprised of pages:  1  2  3 
 
Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | Animation Nation

Animation Nation © 1999-2012

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0