Funnee For The Day
 

I know this is a hard thing to explain to a Republican, but I'm going to try anyway. There is a distinction between our country and our elected officials, and you can support the first without supporting the second. For example, you can call our leaders "warmongers" -- as German union kingpin Frank Bsirske evidently did, per your blog, in disagreement with our Iraq policy -- while still supporting our troops, or wanting to have them around.

You can divorce your wife because she refuses to obey your every command, but you can't pretend that she walked out on you -- not unless you have a reactionary view of marriage, anyway.

Funnee For The Day
 

Interesting but I suspect that the job loss will only be short term problem. I wish it would be a long term problem, but that is very petty of me.

Funnee For The Day
 

That's because the explanation was . . . weird. They wants our troops to go home, to stop interfering with the world. They are. Oops.

Slate fisks the Swift Vets.
 

I have no trouble whatsoever with the people who make more than 95% of the country bearing half the tax burden. We clearly have the most to lose.

And it correct that everybody's tax burden went down. I didn't deny that. What I'm emphasizing is that while my rate went down less than 1%, People who make over $300K/year saw their effective rate go down 5%. I wouldn't call that compassionate conservatism, unless the compassion is for the people who need it least.

Funnee For The Day
 

I'm sorry. The correct answer is "moops."

Funnee For The Day
 

No. They didn't want us to invade Iraq. Bsirske said,

• "On Day X as many people as possible should take to the streets and show that they are against the war in Iraq. We call upon all members to take part in the actions.”
  
  “Let us set our protest against the warmongers, the protest of millions of people in the entire world, our dedication and our strength, the strength of the international peace movement!”

Nothing in there about wanting our troops to go home. I would wager a lot of Germans -- even Germans who opposed the war in Iraq -- are grateful that we defended their country for so many years and would like us to stay for reasons to go beyond the local economy. They can feel that way and still oppose the war in Iraq, hard as that may be for you to comprehend.

Perhaps you know something more about Mr. Bsirske, etc. -- I'm only reading the blog you linked to.

eta: No doubt, around the world there are misguided leftists attack our policies and our military because they cannot or do not distinguish between the two. It's sad when conservatives are blind in the same way.

Slate fisks the Swift Vets.
 

This year, perhaps, but someone is going to pay for this. It's a tax shift, not a tax cut.

Slate fisks the Swift Vets.
 

True. Those Lawrence Welk Interpretive Centers aren't gonna build themselves.

Slate fisks the Swift Vets.
 

Now that it's been more than 10 years, you're going to have to let it go and find something else to look forward to.

Funnee For The Day
 

Sure they are grateful. However, there's no need for us to maintain such a sizeable force there now. Who are we protecting them from, France?

The local economy is a big factor, as is their historical post-WWII reluctance to over-militarize (which frankly they use as a crutch sometimes to have us do their defense for them). Sure we need to maintain a presence there as the German bases make for a good jumpoff/refueling point to project power quickly overseas in that part of the world. There's no reason to keep so many troops and their families there when there's no reason to protect Germany proper anymore, however.

I should know, I have firsthand experience being in one of those families over there.

Funnee For The Day
 

As I posted last night, I don't disagree with the idea that we should be redeploying troops. That said, we need to consider how they help our standing politically, and not just militarily.

My only truck was with bilmore's cartoon, about which enough said.

Funnee For The Day
 

An argument could be made that, given the country's military history, we are protecting France, and the rest of Europe, from them.

Slate fisks the Swift Vets.
 

It wouldn't, but that question is irrevelevant if viewed apart from total tax burden. I'm assuming this was handled in later posts.

Slate fisks the Swift Vets.
 

As I think about all of this, it strikes me that this debate, from my side anyway, is driven, not so much by the current absolute numbers of taxation, but by the knowledge that, no matter how high taxes would ever grow, the tone and direction of the other side would never really change.

In short, even if we were back to a 95% tax rate for everyone above middle class, with full funding for every program ever discussed presently, the "needs" would simply expand to make the revenue insufficient.

I can hear it now. "95% is simply not enough. There are still people in Skokie who haven't received their free opera tickets in weeks! WEEKS! The human toll of this neglect is incalculable, and it occurs simply because those with the most refuse to pay their fair share! Those bloodsucking rich don't care if we starve deserving people - and children! - of cultural experience - this regressive system has to go. Those of us who fought in Viet Nam understand human suffering, and we won't rest until we reverse the cruel and regressive tax policies that allow the most well-off to continue unjustly robbing the rest of us, and our children, of the basic entitlement to opera that our forefathers promised to us."

Olympics Roundup
 

The Iraqi soccer team says to Bush, "Thanks for replacing our coach, but please don't use us in your campaign ad."

In other news, the UAE has won a gold medal, in http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/olympics/2004/medaltracker/243CountryByTotal.html] shooting.[/url] Wonder what the targets were?