Americans take back hijacked ship

[thegodfather]

Actually we were backing up a un resolution by invading Iraq..

Yes, the old liberal montra. We are the smart, educated ones and anyone that doesnt think like us must be a idiot. Anymore it cracks me up. Especially when you look at liberal policies that never work for the benefit of the US. Liberals base there success on intentions, not outcome.

Why should we let our foreign policy be dictated by a foreign organization? Adhering to UN mandates only serves to further erode the sovereignty of the United States, and quells the voice and desires of the American people to have a say in what their government does.

A "true" conservative like you are claiming to be, respects constitutional doctrines, and would only advocate going to war on a declaration by Congress, the representatives closest to the people, and most apt to know what they want or what is in their best interests. In this case, you seem to suggest that the UN knew what was best for us, or that one person(POTUS) knew what was best for us, and was allowed to make that decision. In either case I dont see how EITHER justification adheres to conservative ideology.

[SMCengineer]

lol, so a 25% accross the board tax cut doesnt earn him a reputation as a tax cutter hey?

He did cut taxes, drastically, but he also raised other taxes by about the same amount. He essentially achieved revenue neutrality.

[sloth9]

Utterly ridiculous statement!!! Conservatives always stoop to that bullshit rhetoric. Just because we can not only see America's greatness and also America's shortcomings, we are considered anti-american. I could guarantee that many that you call anti-american have deeper roots in this country than people like you. That statement was definately uncalled for!!

Get over it, that was not an uncalled for statement, your people are destroying our countries' morals, and basic values, I have no more respect for liberals and it obviously got your blood boiling because part of it is true. Huh? I must have struck a nerve. I have some pretty deep roots in America, Most of my family is from Germany, but the otherside is from the colonial days, I have record's of my family starting in the old west, I have records from family going as far back as the original colonies, you want to talk deep we can talk deep. See you are basically the same bs liberal spouting off the same crap the media preaches. You have the right to sit and bash conservatives, and Bush and any other republican, but when a conservative comes into play and starts calling you out, you get defensive and start crying "you mean conservatives are always picking on us". American Greatness you liberals want america to be a socialist nation and to bring america to its knees. Liberals are a joke and a disappointment to America, but you know what its you right and freedom to vocalize how you feel and what you believe, I agree we all deserve this and would die for that right for either side. Now you need to sit down and shut up with all your conservative bashing unless you can stop getting so defensive when we bash Anti-American liberals. Anyway if you come to this forum you need to leave your feelings at the door, because in a political environment you cant wear your feelings on your shoulder.

[RA]

I agree. I wouldnt give two squirts of piss for the un. Just responding the buff when he said we went in without un approval. IMO, we should kick them out of our country. Its just a huge anti-american organization.

Why should we let our foreign policy be dictated by a foreign organization? Adhering to UN mandates only serves to further erode the sovereignty of the United States, and quells the voice and desires of the American people to have a say in what their government does.

A "true" conservative like you are claiming to be, respects constitutional doctrines, and would only advocate going to war on a declaration by Congress, the representatives closest to the people, and most apt to know what they want or what is in their best interests. In this case, you seem to suggest that the UN knew what was best for us, or that one person(POTUS) knew what was best for us, and was allowed to make that decision. In either case I dont see how EITHER justification adheres to conservative ideology.

[RA]

Im going to call ..he didnt raise other taxes enough to make us revenue neutral.

He did cut taxes, drastically, but he also raised other taxes by about the same amount. He essentially achieved revenue neutrality.

[Kratos]

He did cut taxes, drastically, but he also raised other taxes by about the same amount. He essentially achieved revenue neutrality.

I'm not sure that's accurate blome. Taxes were less, some new taxes were imposed but not anywhere near as substantial as cuts...the economy grew to more than make up the difference for the cuts.

He did nearly 2x the deficit, but that was almost entirely spending on military build up. Increase in defense spending from 1981 to 1989 ($806 billion) was larger than the entire cumulative increase in the budget deficit ($779 billion) in those years. Weather it was worth the investment or not depends on if you feel the military build up contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union. If it did, it was worth the cost many times over.

Domestic spending did not increase really at all

He maintained a restrictive monetary policy designed to stabilize the value of the dollar and end runaway inflation. If the recovery had been driven by a hike in the demand for goods and services rather than by a supply-side effect of greater output, inflation would have risen rather than fallen.

Not saying he's perfect of fits the model of true conserv, but I thought he did alright.

[SMCengineer]

Im going to call ..he didnt raise other taxes enough to make us revenue neutral.

I didn't really want to go this in depth into in this thread cause it's completely off topic, but tangents are kinda fun. You're both right, "revenue neutral" isn't the correct phraseology. I should have said tax burdens remained constant.

You have to look at his budget for the entire 8 years of his presidency. The first thing you have to look at was his overall taxes and outlays. When Jimmy Carter left office taxes were $517.2b and outlays were $591b for a deficit of $73.8b. After Reagans 8 years, taxes amounted to $909b and outlays were $1064t for a deficit of $155b (an increase of 110%). Right off the bat you have a huge tax increase which comes due either through direct taxation or through inflation. The insidiousness of inflation is that you'll be hit twice. Once through depreciation of the dollar and once through a higher tax bracket. Some defended the deficits as necessary for military spending, but whether or not they were is superfluous because spending is spending. And, yes, domestic spending dramatically increased as well. Now, even if you don't consider these tax raises and for the now I won't, Reagan still raised taxes several times throughout his presidency, which served to almost negate his original tax cuts.

Further, if you look at taxes as a percentage of GNP there's not much difference from Carters last day to Reagans last in office. When Carter left office taxes were 18.9% of GNP when Reagan left it was 18.3%. Not a huge difference especially when you consider future tax burdens.

When he first came into office he slashed the top marginal tax bracket from 70 to 28 percent. He introduced the Economic recovery act that was supposed to cut government revenues by about $750b. However, this was largely offset (the tax cut was still larger than the increase) in 1983 by a huge increase in Social Security taxes. Although, for some reason people don't consider this a tax, but an "insurance" and this was at a time Reagan could have ended social security altogether. In 1982 Reagan gave us the largest tax hike in history up to that point with the passing of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. Further, fees were placed on gas, cigarettes and truckers.

This was followed by the Deficit Reduction Act, which was meant to bring in about $50b. Of course, in 1986 the Tax Reform Act not only increased corporate taxes, but closed many loopholes on corporate taxes. The reduction of loopholes also affected about 40% of middle income earners.

In total the $1.48T tax cut that Reagan enacted was offset by the $1.5T in increased taxes, fees, loophole closing, and bracket creep.

[MuscleScience]

Utterly ridiculous statement!!! Conservatives always stoop to that bullshit rhetoric. Just because we can not only see America's greatness and also America's shortcomings, we are considered anti-american. I could guarantee that many that you call anti-american have deeper roots in this country than people like you. That statement was definately uncalled for!!

I think the most idiotic thing we as Americans do is label ourselves as polar opposites. Democrat or Republican, Liberal or Conservative, Right Wing or Left Wing. I mean seriously don't be a sheep to the two party system. Then we go on to blame the other side for the short comings of our inept political quagmire.

Not Picking on you specifically BgMC31, just this whole idiotic draw a line in the sand mentality we have in our political system. I can say with certainty that
the American people are more diverse than Blue state vs Red state.

[MuscleScience]

Oh and speaking of history lessons for all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7M-7LkvcVw

[xlxBigSexyxlx]

Oh and speaking of history lessons for all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7M-7LkvcVw

Well what are we suppose to do? To end this 2 party hissy fit?

[MuscleScience]

Well what are we suppose to do? To end this 2 party hissy fit?

Move back to the Republic to which we were founded. It would be very easy to do since we have a document that mandates how we can do it. (Constitution)

[xlxBigSexyxlx]

Move back to the Republic to which we were founded. It would be very easy to do since we have a document that mandates how we can do it. (Constitution)

Yeah I know. But realistically speaking. lol
It seems like we are so far into this 2 party system.
Seems like more than half the people I've talked to didn't even know you could vote for a 3rd person during election time.

What needs to be done? On your part, my part, the peoples part? I mean, is this gonna be a grab your guns, revolution time thing or what?


It really just aggravates me. And I guess what frustrates me more is Im such a political newb . But Im trying here. Thanks to some fellow friends around here

[MuscleScience]

Yeah I know. But realistically speaking. lol
It seems like we are so far into this 2 party system.
Seems like more than half the people I've talked to didn't even know you could vote for a 3rd person during election time.

What needs to be done? On your part, my part, the peoples part? I mean, is this gonna be a grab your guns, revolution time thing or what?


It really just aggravates me. And I guess what frustrates me more is Im such a political newb . But Im trying here. Thanks to some fellow friends around here

The only way a people can truly be free is to be educated about the happenings of the government that governs over them. I dont mean to be educated by the government itself, because obviously you can see how dangerous that is.

[SMCengineer]

Oh and speaking of history lessons for all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7M-7LkvcVw

Good video. I particullary dislike when people use the word "democracy" to describe our government and it's so pervasive most think it's what we actually have.

[MuscleScience]

Good video. I particullary dislike when people use the word "democracy" to describe our government and it's so pervasive most think it's what we actually have.

And really its more correct to say that the US Government is really a Federation as appose to a pure republic. Under the US constitution all member States of the union had to have a republic style government. Where as the states early on were most responsible for the running the day to day lives of its citizens far more so than that of the Federal Government. Of course we know over time, against the Founding Fathers intents the Federal government took much more control of these duties than was originally intended.

[RA]

Your looking at the numbers wrong. Why do you think more money came into the treasury even though he cut taxes?

I didn't really want to go this in depth into in this thread cause it's completely off topic, but tangents are kinda fun. You're both right, "revenue neutral" isn't the correct phraseology. I should have said tax burdens remained constant.

You have to look at his budget for the entire 8 years of his presidency. The first thing you have to look at was his overall taxes and outlays. When Jimmy Carter left office taxes were $517.2b and outlays were $591b for a deficit of $73.8b. After Reagans 8 years, taxes amounted to $909b and outlays were $1064t for a deficit of $155b (an increase of 110%). Right off the bat you have a huge tax increase which comes due either through direct taxation or through inflation. The insidiousness of inflation is that you'll be hit twice. Once through depreciation of the dollar and once through a higher tax bracket. Some defended the deficits as necessary for military spending, but whether or not they were is superfluous because spending is spending. And, yes, domestic spending dramatically increased as well. Now, even if you don't consider these tax raises and for the now I won't, Reagan still raised taxes several times throughout his presidency, which served to almost negate his original tax cuts.

Further, if you look at taxes as a percentage of GNP there's not much difference from Carters last day to Reagans last in office. When Carter left office taxes were 18.9% of GNP when Reagan left it was 18.3%. Not a huge difference especially when you consider future tax burdens.

When he first came into office he slashed the top marginal tax bracket from 70 to 28 percent. He introduced the Economic recovery act that was supposed to cut government revenues by about $750b. However, this was largely offset (the tax cut was still larger than the increase) in 1983 by a huge increase in Social Security taxes. Although, for some reason people don't consider this a tax, but an "insurance" and this was at a time Reagan could have ended social security altogether. In 1982 Reagan gave us the largest tax hike in history up to that point with the passing of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. Further, fees were placed on gas, cigarettes and truckers.

This was followed by the Deficit Reduction Act, which was meant to bring in about $50b. Of course, in 1986 the Tax Reform Act not only increased corporate taxes, but closed many loopholes on corporate taxes. The reduction of loopholes also affected about 40% of middle income earners.

In total the $1.48T tax cut that Reagan enacted was offset by the $1.5T in increased taxes, fees, loophole closing, and bracket creep.

[SMCengineer]

Your looking at the numbers wrong. Why do you think more money came into the treasury even though he cut taxes?

I'm not sure what you mean, are you talking about total government revenues or are you referring to the Laffer curve?

[RA]

I didn't really want to go this in depth into in this thread cause it's completely off topic, but tangents are kinda fun. You're both right, "revenue neutral" isn't the correct phraseology. I should have said tax burdens remained constant.

You have to look at his budget for the entire 8 years of his presidency. The first thing you have to look at was his overall taxes and outlays. When Jimmy Carter left office taxes were $517.2b and outlays were $591b for a deficit of $73.8b. After Reagans 8 years, taxes amounted to $909b and outlays were $1064t for a deficit of $155b (an increase of 110%). Right off the bat you have a huge tax increase which comes due either through direct taxation or through inflation. The insidiousness of inflation is that you'll be hit twice. Once through depreciation of the dollar and once through a higher tax bracket. Some defended the deficits as necessary for military spending, but whether or not they were is superfluous because spending is spending. And, yes, domestic spending dramatically increased as well. Now, even if you don't consider these tax raises and for the now I won't, Reagan still raised taxes several times throughout his presidency, which served to almost negate his original tax cuts.

Further, if you look at taxes as a percentage of GNP there's not much difference from Carters last day to Reagans last in office. When Carter left office taxes were 18.9% of GNP when Reagan left it was 18.3%. Not a huge difference especially when you consider future tax burdens.

When he first came into office he slashed the top marginal tax bracket from 70 to 28 percent. He introduced the Economic recovery act that was supposed to cut government revenues by about $750b. However, this was largely offset (the tax cut was still larger than the increase) in 1983 by a huge increase in Social Security taxes. Although, for some reason people don't consider this a tax, but an "insurance" and this was at a time Reagan could have ended social security altogether. In 1982 Reagan gave us the largest tax hike in history up to that point with the passing of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. Further, fees were placed on gas, cigarettes and truckers.

This was followed by the Deficit Reduction Act, which was meant to bring in about $50b. Of course, in 1986 the Tax Reform Act not only increased corporate taxes, but closed many loopholes on corporate taxes. The reduction of loopholes also affected about 40% of middle income earners.

In total the $1.48T tax cut that Reagan enacted was offset by the $1.5T in increased taxes, fees, loophole closing, and bracket creep.

Thats what Im talking about. When you cut taxes that sparks an economic boom your going to have more money come into the treasury..not less.

[SMCengineer]

Thats what Im talking about. When you cut taxes that sparks an economic boom your going to have more money come into the treasury..not less.

That wasn't meant to emphasize total government revenues that was meant to emphasize deficit financed spending which is nothing more than a fututre tax. What you're talking about is the laffer curve. That means, as taxes decrease total government revenue increases in a bell curve which is absolutely true, but I never refuted that.

[RA]

Not much you can do when the lib congress is spending to beat hell.

That wasn't meant to emphasize total government revenues that was meant to emphasize deficit financed spending which is nothing more than a fututre tax. What you're talking about is the laffer curve. That means, as taxes decrease total government revenue increases in a bell curve which is absolutely true, but I never refuted that.

[xlxBigSexyxlx]

Now the pirates are after us... Americans

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090415/ap_on_re_af/piracy


Here is part of the article

"A pirate whose gang attacked the aid ship admitted Wednesday that his group was targeting American ships and sailors.
"We will seek out the Americans and if we capture them we will slaughter them," said a 25-year-old pirate based in the Somali port of Harardhere who gave only his first name, Ismail.
"We will target their ships because we know their flags. Last night, an American-flagged ship escaped us by a whisker. We have showered them with rocket-propelled grenades," boasted Ismail, who did not take part in the attack on the Liberty Sun."

[RA]

Arrogant f**kng pricks. Park an aircraft carrier off the coast and any call comes in send a fighter screaming after the pirates ship. See how long they mouth off.

Now the pirates are after us... Americans

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090415/ap_on_re_af/piracy


Here is part of the article

"A pirate whose gang attacked the aid ship admitted Wednesday that his group was targeting American ships and sailors.
"We will seek out the Americans and if we capture them we will slaughter them," said a 25-year-old pirate based in the Somali port of Harardhere who gave only his first name, Ismail.
"We will target their ships because we know their flags. Last night, an American-flagged ship escaped us by a whisker. We have showered them with rocket-propelled grenades," boasted Ismail, who did not take part in the attack on the Liberty Sun."

[SMCengineer]

Time to issue letters of marque and reprisal.

[j4ever41]

Arrogant f**kng pricks. Park an aircraft carrier off the coast and any call comes in send a fighter screaming after the pirates ship. See how long they mouth off.

x2 on that,

why dont these companies hire small security teams to work detail on these ships? Be alot cheaper than paying out multi millions. So start killing these assholes, stop paying ransom and this shit will go away.

[sloth9]

Oh and speaking of history lessons for all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7M-7LkvcVw

Man did you watch any of the others, its scary. How can we change America back without wars, and brutal force and keep from having riots and violence. I am very oppinionated but the last thing I want is violence to change our country. This was a great video props to you!

[Kratos]

Time to issue letters of marque and reprisal.

Like hire private pirate bounty hunters?
Damn blome, nobody can say you aren't consistant.

I like the aircraft carrier idea, there could be an f-16 up there ass within 15 min and filling their little pirate ship with 20mm cannon rounds, if pirates should give chase. Only I think Egypt should have to foot some of the bill. They make 4.2 billion on the Suez and they could help protect it by tossing in a few hundred mil.

[Kratos]

Oh and speaking of history lessons for all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7M-7LkvcVw

Great video, I'm gonna send to my little brother. He's a blome Jr. as far as politics.

[SMCengineer]

Like hire private pirate bounty hunters?
Damn blome, nobody can say you aren't consistant.

I like the aircraft carrier idea, there could be an f-16 up there ass within 15 min and filling their little pirate ship with 20mm cannon rounds, if pirates should give chase. Only I think Egypt should have to foot some of the bill. They make 4.2 billion on the Suez and they could help protect it by tossing in a few hundred mil.

Well, not so much private bounty hunters, but authorizing the shipowners themselves to act on behalf of the US to and protect their own ships by arming themselves.

[SMCengineer]

Great video, I'm gonna send to my little brother. He's a blome Jr. as far as politics.

Haha, that's awesome!

[Kratos]

Haha, that's awesome!

He got in an argument with one of his college profs who called America a democracy. There is hope yet for your revoloution. Ron Paul does make me a little nervous because I think he would just end up at odds with the house, creating a stale mate where nothing gets done if he were pres. But this country needs to find a way to balance itself soon.

[Kratos]

Well, not so much private bounty hunters, but authorizing the shipowners themselves to act on behalf of the US to and protect their own ships by arming themselves.

The International Maritime Organization FORBIDS arming the crews of civilian vessels. They are only allowed to use fire hoses to ward off unwanted boarders. Not much good if the lead ship of the pirates has an RPG pointed at them. Anyway the crews are small and they aren't trained for it. I don't think giving a bunch of inexperienced sailors automatic weapon with hundreds of rounds of ammo would be a very good idea, and they'd never be allowd in any international ports.

[SMCengineer]

The International Maritime Organization FORBIDS arming the crews of civilian vessels. They are only allowed to use fire hoses to ward off unwanted boarders. Not much good if the lead ship of the pirates has an RPG pointed at them. Anyway the crews are small and they aren't trained for it. I don't think giving a bunch of inexperienced sailors automatic weapon with hundreds of rounds of ammo would be a very good idea, and they'd never be allowd in any international ports.

I'm sure fighting off armed pirates with a fire hose will do the trick, haha. I see it as no surprise that pirates don't follow the International Maritime Organiization, but than again I guess criminals don't abide by the law.

He got in an argument with one of his college profs who called America a democracy. There is hope yet for your revoloution. Ron Paul does make me a little nervous because I think he would just end up at odds with the house, creating a stale mate where nothing gets done if he were pres. But this country needs to find a way to balance itself soon.

Nothing wrong with stalemates. The less legislation the better.

[BuffedGuy]

Seems like I missed out on all the fun. Sorry guys, I was traveling (and now in my surgery rotation). Interestingly enough, the entire flight was full of American soldiers. Gotta admit: those guys are huge. But anyways, I will try to respond to some of the posts as time allows, God-Willing.

[BuffedGuy]

Peace be unto you, PT.

you do realize you are american right? sometimes it seems like you have forgotten that. my advice to you is to move to the middle east or better yet somalia since you seem to be so anti-american and see how those animals treat you

I am very much American. I am simply strongly opposed to the war-mongering foreign policy, which I believe is 100% un-American. Our Founding Fathers (including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, etc.) founded this country on the principle of non-interventionism. As Thomas Jefferson said in his inaugural address: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling al.liance's with none." So what I call for is a return to what America was founded upon.

So who then is being anti-American? The one who upholds the beliefs that this country was founded upon, or the one who goes 100% against them?

Lastly, I think you really should reflect on the underlined part above. Are you implying that Middle Easterners and/or Somalians are "animals"? Do you realize how racist and bigoted that is? This is very much like how the whites used to tell blacks in the 1950s: "Stop complaining about America, and go back to Africa and see how those animals treat you."

Seriously bro, think on it. I am not trying to bash you here, but actually trying to get you to think, God-Willing.

With regards to this particular issue of Somalia, I do agree that America had the absolute right to strike back and recover its citizen. No doubt about that.

More to come, God-Willing.