Cherokee pilot suicide note

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Not replying to anyone in particular.
There was a poll on CNN.com earlier today asking if you considered it to be an act of terrorism. 65% of people did not think this was terrorism! WTF?! It does not have to be committed by an Arab or a foreigner to be a terrorist act and 65% of the people out there are too bat shit stupid to realize that

Yep, a former conservative friend of mine was in that school, he thought it had to be done by a foreign faction to be terrorism. I asked if he thought the OK city bombing was terrorism, of course he said it wasn't.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism

ter·ror·ism   /ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ Show Spelled[ter-uh-riz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

2.the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

3.a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.



Yes, OK City was terrorism, this guy in Austin was a terrorist and Hiroshima / Nagisaki were acts of terrorism, as they were directed at civilian populations.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Not replying to anyone in particular.
There was a poll on CNN.com earlier today asking if you considered it to be an act of terrorism. 65% of people did not think this was terrorism! WTF?! It does not have to be committed by an Arab or a foreigner to be a terrorist act and 65% of the people out there are too bat shit stupid to realize that

Well, the bar is set higher for white Christian Americans. In Oklahoma City, a whole lot of people died, so that was terrorism. Only 2 innocents died this time, so it isn't.

hey where'd I put that damn race card...? crap, I can never find it when I need it...

Agree with your sarcasm, but disagree with the methodology. With WASP's, it has mor eto do with the perpitrator than the voctims. Therefore teh WASp definition renders this not to be terrorism.

[airdvr 210]

Quote

Yes, OK City was terrorism, Agreed this guy in Austin was a terrorist agreed and Hiroshima / Nagisaki were acts of terrorism, as they were directed at civilian populations.

Not so fast there skippy. The 'civilian' population in Japan was ready to do battle with anyone who invaded their country. Hardly makes those events terrorism.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Nope, I didn't post your exact words. I didn't even make any up. I just posted a link to the thread YOU started in which the TITLE that YOU WROTE claims the GDP was expressed as a percentage. You even expresssed GDP as a percentage several more times within the thread.
So, unless someone else has been hacking your computer and posting here for you, those are YOUR WORDS, not mine or anyone else's.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

A good example of this semantic protocol is when Mike pretended to think we were using a rarely referenced nominal GDP rather than real GDP, thne says, "I got the data from the same place you got the data."

Odd that you knew exactly where to find the numbers that I used to respond to them, though, given all your whining about where I said the data was from.

Way to cover yourself with glory, sport - use posts that you modified after the fact to put someone else's posts in the worst possible light to prove your point.

And you STILL don't have the integrity to state that you modified your posts to show real GDP.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Yes, OK City was terrorism, Agreed this guy in Austin was a terrorist agreed and Hiroshima / Nagisaki were acts of terrorism, as they were directed at civilian populations.

Not so fast there skippy. The 'civilian' population in Japan was ready to do battle with anyone who invaded their country. Hardly makes those events terrorism.

OK, the women and children, 300k worth were ready to battle US/allied GI's? Riiiight, I see teh nationalist sector justifying our act of terrorism all the time.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Nope, I didn't post your exact words. I didn't even make any up. I just posted a link to the thread YOU started in which the TITLE that YOU WROTE claims the GDP was expressed as a percentage. You even expresssed GDP as a percentage several more times within the thread.
So, unless someone else has been hacking your computer and posting here for you, those are YOUR WORDS, not mine or anyone else's.

Right, a percentage of change. Tell ya what, you want to make an argument, then post my words in context rather than being too afraid to. For once, trailer mechanic, make an argument.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Nope, I didn't post your exact words. I didn't even make any up. I just posted a link to the thread YOU started in which the TITLE that YOU WROTE claims the GDP was expressed as a percentage. You even expresssed GDP as a percentage several more times within the thread.
So, unless someone else has been hacking your computer and posting here for you, those are YOUR WORDS, not mine or anyone else's.

Right, a percentage of change. Tell ya what, you want to make an argument, then post my words in context rather than being too afraid to. For once, trailer mechanic, make an argument.

Uh, no....that's not what you wrote. Try again.
And yes, I was a trailer mechanic and am proud of that. I gained much valuable experience that made me a better engineer when i got my degree. I still do some design and cosulting work on specialty trailers from time to time. I enjoy the challenge.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Rstanley0312 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

***
Nonviolence: The Only Road to Freedom

If that was the case the U.S. would never exsist. I'm pretty sure there was a little bit of violence to gain our freedom as a nation... just a little.... I mean I could be wrong. Should I give you a quote or provide a link so you have evidence that is true?

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

Not replying to anyone in particular.
There was a poll on CNN.com earlier today asking if you considered it to be an act of terrorism. 65% of people did not think this was terrorism! WTF?! It does not have to be committed by an Arab or a foreigner to be a terrorist act and 65% of the people out there are too bat shit stupid to realize that

Yep, a former conservative friend of mine was in that school, he thought it had to be done by a foreign faction to be terrorism. I asked if he thought the OK city bombing was terrorism, of course he said it wasn't.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism

ter·ror·ism   /ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ Show Spelled[ter-uh-riz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

2.the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

3.a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.



Yes, OK City was terrorism, this guy in Austin was a terrorist and Hiroshima / Nagisaki were acts of terrorism, as they were directed at civilian populations.

when I think of "what is terrorism" I lean towards 'an act creating terror'. Clearly the book definition includes that, but also extends it.

My first thought was that neither OKC or the Cherokee into the IRS building here, were terrorism. However the "for political purposes" in the first definition and the third definition clearly would include those two acts.

If I were to have answered that poll, I would have been with those 65%. I can only assume that some (not all, and not even a large portion) of them were using an incomplete definition as I was.

--
Rob

[champu 1]

Quote

And you're still unable to tell me 1 major federal tax cut that has ended up well.

Are you familiar with what a controlled experiment is?

[billvon 3,063]

>It does not have to be committed by an Arab or a foreigner to be
>a terrorist act . . .

There's been a lot of brainwashing going on to try to prove the opposite of that. Fear of foreigners is useful to the government and some political parties; fear of white americans is not.

[airdvr 210]

Quote

OK, the women and children, 300k worth were ready to battle US/allied GI's? Riiiight, I see teh nationalist sector justifying our act of terrorism all the time.

Actually they were. You try and revise history with what you know today. You forget Tarawa, where hundreds of Japanese, many women and children, jumped to their deaths rather than be captured. You try to place current thinking on a race of people who were more fanatical than even today's radical muslim. It's difficult to find any information on the bombings that isn't contaminated with slant but I have just one observation:

How much advance notice did we get in Oklahoma?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

>It does not have to be committed by an Arab or a foreigner to be
>a terrorist act . . .

There's been a lot of brainwashing going on to try to prove the opposite of that. Fear of foreigners is useful to the government and the Republicans; fear of white americans is not.

Fixed it

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Actually they were. You try and revise history with what you know today.

Then why not search The Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute or some other nationalist rag and show me their skewed version. You can't/won't even show me a bunch of lies, let alone truths.

Quote

You forget Tarawa, where hundreds of Japanese, many women and children, jumped to their deaths rather than be captured.

So jumping to their deaths = fighting US servicemen? Furthermore, that was a small Japanese-occupied island, that doesn't reference that the women and children of Hiroshima/Nagasaki would have killed US/allied servicemen. I didn't see reference to Japanese women and children on occupied Tarawa, and even if there were, I saw nothing to illustrate that they would have killed US/allied servicemen. Again and on top of that, you have yet to honestly label the women and children of the 5 cities the US targeted with the Manhattan Project as military combatants. Do that and then you have started to make a point.

Quote

You try to place current thinking on a race of people who were more fanatical than even today's radical muslim.

No I'm not, I'm just reading history in its context for what it was then. Show where the women and children of the 5 cities were military members, enemy combatants, etc.

Quote

It's difficult to find any information on the bombings that isn't contaminated with slant but I have just one observation:

How much advance notice did we get in Oklahoma?

WHat slant about the 5 cities? It's your conspiracy to prove to show how the women and children were part of teh active military.

So what is your point with the rhetorical question of OK city?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

And you're still unable to tell me 1 major federal tax cut that has ended up well.

Are you familiar with what a controlled experiment is?

Gee, no; Indep variable, dep variable, standard.....not at all. Make a point.

[airdvr 210]

I know you don't get it...don't feel bad. It's OK.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Not replying to anyone in particular.
There was a poll on CNN.com earlier today asking if you considered it to be an act of terrorism. 65% of people did not think this was terrorism! WTF?! It does not have to be committed by an Arab or a foreigner to be a terrorist act and 65% of the people out there are too bat shit stupid to realize that

Yep, a former conservative friend of mine was in that school, he thought it had to be done by a foreign faction to be terrorism. I asked if he thought the OK city bombing was terrorism, of course he said it wasn't.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism

ter·ror·ism   /ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ Show Spelled[ter-uh-riz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

2.the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

3.a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.



Yes, OK City was terrorism, this guy in Austin was a terrorist and Hiroshima / Nagisaki were acts of terrorism, as they were directed at civilian populations.

when I think of "what is terrorism" I lean towards 'an act creating terror'. Clearly the book definition includes that, but also extends it.

My first thought was that neither OKC or the Cherokee into the IRS building here, were terrorism. However the "for political purposes" in the first definition and the third definition clearly would include those two acts.

If I were to have answered that poll, I would have been with those 65%. I can only assume that some (not all, and not even a large portion) of them were using an incomplete definition as I was.

Yep, when I first learned that terrorism must have a political component it was a little awakening too. But it makes sense, the terror is to achieve a goal, if it's sporadic violence, there is no fear left afterward or during.

It's kind of meaningless to define the different types of nuts who perpetuate these atrocities, but it's also important so we can understand and prevent. Most peopel call all mass murderers, spree killers as serial killers, whne they are all 3 different and none are generally terorrists even tho they create terror.

Take Son of Sam, I think he was after brunettes, so women died their blond or red if memory serves. But hair color is not political, so he wasn't a terrorist. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were political targets in that we wanted to coerce the men of Japan to succumb to a full surrender rather than a conditional one, which they had agreed. The dropping of the bombs wasn't terrorism until we did so against non-military targets to intentionally kill civilians. There can be a fine line between military ops and terrorism, but planning mo9nths in advance to kill women and children to persuade the men to no longer fight and surrender surely meets that standard, regardless of teh rationalization of need.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I know you don't get it...don't feel bad. It's OK.

If you can't make a point, I feel bad for you. I make my points in a comprehensive manner, you....well; not so much.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

***
Nonviolence: The Only Road to Freedom

If that was the case the U.S. would never exsist. I'm pretty sure there was a little bit of violence to gain our freedom as a nation... just a little.... I mean I could be wrong. Should I give you a quote or provide a link so you have evidence that is true?

In his context, in his time, the 1940's-60's, that was the way to achieve his goal. If you want to take out of context anything, you can a point out of everything.

Look at his political partner, if you will: Malcom X. His agenda was violence-based and he was unsuccessful until he adopted MLK's after MLK's assassination. Then his won killed him, but the ideal of nonviolence lived on and he was celebrated for it. In this context, intra-country strife in the 1950's, violence just emboldens the enemy. What would happen if there were no MLK? Everytime a balck activist did something radical, killed someone, etc, the enemy would say: "See, we need more police and less rights to the blacks; they're tyrants."

Please, if you can, keep things in context. Unless you have no argument, then feel free to convolute everything.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Odd that you knew exactly where to find the numbers that I used to respond to them, though, given all your whining about where I said the data was from.

Actually, as I recall the thread flowed, I posted how great the GDP was improving, you said it wasn't or referenced GWB's failure as not as bad, so I continually asked for your source for which you wouldn't give me one. I eventually figured out that you were using nominal data since you never posted any source; paramount to dishonesty.

Quote

Way to cover yourself with glory, sport - use posts that you modified after the fact to put someone else's posts in the worst possible light to prove your point.

On the rare occassion you post data you almost never post a source but an attachment, when asked for the source you say, "I got the data from the same place you got the data." That's not true?

Quote

And you STILL don't have the integrity to state that you modified your posts to show real GDP.

What are you talking about? I've alwasy shown real GDP, where have I not and where have I "modified" any post to that effect?

[champu 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

And you're still unable to tell me 1 major federal tax cut that has ended up well.

Are you familiar with what a controlled experiment is?

Gee, no; Indep variable, dep variable, standard.....not at all. Make a point.

My point is that high or low taxes in and of themselves are neither good nor bad. Running large and extended deficits is what's bad. You keep pointing to situations and saying "see! taxes were low and that was the problem!" when in reality it was only part of the equation. Spending, whether on the military or social programs or whatever, can't just keep going up and up or the government will collapse under its own weight.

All else aside, Clinton was the only fiscally responsible president we've had in the last 30 years. It sucks that politicians these days seem to simply argue back and forth about what we are going to spend ourselves into the ground on.

I'm tired of you talking about the income tax structure like it's some sort of punitive damage system for people who make what you consider a lot of money. Balancing the corporate and personal income tax structure and the rates within those structures to produce good receipts and not adversely burden the economy is a dynamic process. I don't claim to be an expert on the methodology of assigning tax rates (and based on your posts about donation write-offs, I would recommend you not make that claim either.) All I ask is you admit that while in some situations high tax rates in the upper brackets is the right answer, you've gotten there for all the wrong reasons.

[Rstanley0312 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

***
Nonviolence: The Only Road to Freedom

If that was the case the U.S. would never exsist. I'm pretty sure there was a little bit of violence to gain our freedom as a nation... just a little.... I mean I could be wrong. Should I give you a quote or provide a link so you have evidence that is true?

In his context, in his time, the 1940's-60's, that was the way to achieve his goal. If you want to take out of context anything, you can a point out of everything.

Look at his political partner, if you will: Malcom X. His agenda was violence-based and he was unsuccessful until he adopted MLK's after MLK's assassination. Then his won killed him, but the ideal of nonviolence lived on and he was celebrated for it. In this context, intra-country strife in the 1950's, violence just emboldens the enemy. What would happen if there were no MLK? Everytime a balck activist did something radical, killed someone, etc, the enemy would say: "See, we need more police and less rights to the blacks; they're tyrants."

Please, if you can, keep things in context. Unless you have no argument, then feel free to convolute everything.

What? You made a statement to which I replied with fact on violence. It is obviously NOT the only road to freedom. please stay on point and stop your tap dancing. You could just say... "you are right" then go on talking in circles about all of the other stuff you do. Throw in a "rePUBlicans" etc....... you know.... the same crap you always say that has no point.

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

My point is that high or low taxes in and of themselves are neither good nor bad. Running large and extended deficits is what's bad.

Right and when your party spends thru its ass and cuts taxes, that's what leads to high deficits, hence debts. Why is it hard for you to understand.

Quote

You keep pointing to situations and saying "see! taxes were low and that was the problem!"

Considering the Republicans since Reagan, absent GHWB, have set records for spending that are insane and they received deficit/debt structures that were stable and left nightmares, IT IS THE LOW TAXES THAT ARE THE PROBLEM. GHWB cut spending and slightly increased taxes and thus was voted out. Clinton cut spending more and raised taxes more and thx to teh start GHWB gave him, fixed the mess; TAX INCREASES WERE A BIG PART OF THIS.

To further answer your inane point, whatever it was, we have experienced the better times in the US when taxes were high:

- 1940's
- 1950's
- 1960's

Worst times when taxes were low:

- 1980's
- 2000's

Altho taxes were high in the 1930's, well, mid-1932 to be exact, it took time to fix the low tax mess that the Coolidge/harding duo created with the cuts in 1925 that led to the GD. Thinks immediately improved as Hoover raised taxes and FDR followed with mor eraises and social programs.

Quote

when in reality it was only part of the equation. Spending, whether on the military or social programs or whatever, can't just keep going up and up or the government will collapse under its own weight.

True, unless taxes are high enough, then high spending can occur. This is why Reagan and GWB are/were such poison and GHWB and Clinton were such saints; the former 2 blew up spending and cut taxes, the latter 2 did the opposite. Most spending dpnw in the last year have been on teh war(s) and economic recovery since GWb ignored the mess as if low int rates are a good thing and house prices doubling are good as well.

Quote

All else aside, Clinton was the only fiscally responsible president we've had in the last 30 years. It sucks that politicians these days seem to simply argue back and forth about what we are going to spend ourselves into the ground on.

True, but let's not forget GHWB who inherited that fascist pig's mess and had to fall on the sword to save the country by raising taxes and cut the military. As well, he had the Gulf War to contend with. When I hear people think Reagan did a great job I know I am witnessing a treuly delluded person. And the congress from JAn 89 - Jan 95 was also very good too.

Quote

I'm tired of you talking about the income tax structure like it's some sort of punitive damage system for people who make what you consider a lot of money.

Deal with it. I don't think it's punitive, you do; you peceive it as ounishment, I perceive it as realignment. Just as some people are good at swimming in the olympics and earning several gold medals, others are good at compling a lot of money, most who have these skills are born with these skills. So if we don't level the playing field somewhat, there will be peopel drowing all over, so I'm sorry you look at it as punishment, I don't - that's like saying those who win silver are being punished for not being fast enough.

Quote

Balancing the corporate and personal income tax structure and the rates within those structures to produce good receipts and not adversely burden the economy is a dynamic process.

Yep and we've done best for sustained periods with the top brkt > 50%. Of course there are many other factors like war, economic, etc. We've had the top brkt in the 20's% twice: 1925 and 1986 and guess what happened? Even the 30's are dangerous.

Quote

I don't claim to be an expert on the methodology of assigning tax rates (and based on your posts about donation write-offs, I would recommend you not make that claim either.)

I've never passed myself as an expert on the subject and I don't see anyone here that I would consider an economic expert, but if you don't think tax write-offs motivate donations then I esp wouldn't consider you one. You know you have a novice when the other side shifts the issue from the economy to an ad hominem tho.

Quote

All I ask is you admit that while in some situations high tax rates in the upper brackets is the right answer, you've gotten there for all the wrong reasons.

A very vague assertion/question/???. WHat Hoover did, FDR did to eventually move to a 94% top brkt were all for the right reasons. The GD called for it, WWII needed it. Eisenhower left them high, but then we had to enter the Korean Conflict too. Unless we quit the warring, taxes must get and stay high, good reasons or bad. Now if you want to spell out the bad reasons for tax increases, then I will decide whether I agree or not. If you're saying taxes are a neccessary evil, ok I'll agree, but, "all the wrong reasons;" convince me.

[champu 1]

Quote

"all the wrong reasons;" convince me.

Quote

I don't think it's punitive, you do; you perceive it as punishment, I perceive it as realignment. Just as some people are good at swimming in the olympics and earning several gold medals, others are good at compiling a lot of money, most who have these skills are born with these skills. So if we don't level the playing field somewhat, there will be people drowning all over, so I'm sorry you look at it as punishment, I don't

First off... I live in a city with the word "Beach" in the name; if I thought taxes were a punishment that would make me a masochist. Truth is I don't see them as a punishment nor a realignment, I see them as a way to pay for shit.

Despite your assumptions regarding what "my party" is and further what that means about me, I'm not universally against social programs. I think there are basic things that should be provided as a safety net and I think we, as a country, should add/improve upon programs to help people get out of that safety net and back onto their feet. Once we figure out what an appropriate safety net/recovery program looks like, we should figure out how best to pay for it. Scope creep, if you're familiar with the concept, is something that I think is very dangerous to the long term workability of a social safety net.

So allow me to tweak my explanation of our disagreement just a tad. Taxes on the wealthy are not, and should not be considered, a social program in and of themselves. I'm under the impression you feel they should be regardless of what the needy actually need. That's what I meant by, "all the wrong reasons."

Quote

...that's like saying those who win silver are being punished for not being fast enough.

As an aside, I think I got what you're trying to say from the rest of the paragraph, but that analogy makes no sense to me.