Reagan on Mt. Rushmore?

[Hauldren Collider]

What do you mean by "minimize taxes"? I'm guessing you meant to say that people's decisions are influenced by tax policies and you think that at the current tax rates the marginal impact of a tax increase on output is negative?

I mean that people change their behavior to reduce the amount of money they are forced to pay in taxes. And I have never claimed that current tax revenues would be increased by lowering taxes. And lower taxes are always preferable to higher taxes, although of course they have to be high enough to fund the government.

[giblets]

I mean that people change their behavior to reduce the amount of money they are forced to pay in taxes. And I have never claimed that current tax revenues would be increased by lowering taxes. And lower taxes are always preferable to higher taxes, although of course they have to be high enough to fund the government.

Okay, you don't know what 'minimize' means. Got it.

[giblets]

When it spends its time mandating absurdly low pollution concentrations ("No measurable quantity" and then no definition of measurable) and forces companies to close to protect some random inconsequential species of fish or weasel or what have you that no one gives a crap about then yeah, it's a bad thing. I'm not saying that I think dumping ****loads of mercury into rivers is okay.

Why would you need a definition of measurable provided? Measurable only has one definition. Capable of being measured.

[Hauldren Collider]

Why would you need a definition of measurable provided? Measurable only has one definition. Capable of being measured.

That doesn't strike you as a bit of a moving target? Note that measuring equipment has gotten much more accurate, sophisticated and also expensive (for state-of-the-art).

[Hauldren Collider]

Okay, you don't know what 'minimize' means. Got it.

Okay, you're an idiot.

change their spending and saving habits to minimize their taxes

==

people change their behavior to reduce the amount of money they are forced to pay in taxes

Technically, you might argue better word would have been optimize, but only if you're more interested in grammatical minutia than actually discussing the topic at hand.

[Ben Kenobi]

You may want to notice the link to the video in this thread were real historians ranked even the half term Obama above Reagan in accomplishments. Lonestar posted it, I commented on it, and, as usual, you got everything mixed up. Good job, Ben.

Well I don't watch videos. Poor content delivery for me. As for them ranking Obama over Reagan, there are plenty of real historians who disagree. Not all historians are neo-hegelian marxists anyways.

[Dinner]

When it spends its time mandating absurdly low pollution concentrations ("No measurable quantity" and then no definition of measurable) and forces companies to close to protect some random inconsequential species of fish or weasel or what have you that no one gives a crap about then yeah, it's a bad thing. I'm not saying that I think dumping ****loads of mercury into rivers is okay.

I do this for a living, I get paid a lot of money to know wtf I'm talking about on this issue, I write very long documents/reports (after doing most of the field work myself or with assistants) which get grilled by regulators & challenged by community organizations, so please believe me when I tell you that you don't have a clue on this subject. EVERYTHING is defined and lawyers routinely litigate the smallest details (ever work on the clean up plan for a super fund site? I have and I've been called into court to testify about data I collected and how the scientific analysis was done). I assure you there is a rule for just about everything and it is all defined. BTW we routinely use part per billion for "No quantity measured") but I have successfully argued that higher readings did in fact constitute no measurable difference based upon local area background levels of certain compounds (such as VOCs and PAHs).

[Dinner]

He also repeated his BS conspiracy theories about US Afghanistan policy in the 80s having something to do with AQ.. That's why you shouldn't take him seriously.

It's not a conspiracy theory you numb nut. Yes, Reagan's decisions to give money, training, and weapons to mushahadeen as well as to funnel that aid through the Pakistani ISI (which even then was a known terrorist sponsor) was materially hugely helpful in forming armed islamic groups like Al Qaeda. Equally important was Reagan's decision to ask Gulf countries, such as Saudi Arabia, not to crack down on money flows to mushahadeen organizations such as OBL's. Saudi Arabia's initial reaction was to cut off charitable donations and money flows to mushahadeen organizations for fear those organizations might some day take aim at the Saudi monarchy itself but Reagan wanted them to help fight the Soviets in Afghanistan so the Saudi's backed down. It turns out the Saudis were exactly right.

Patty, you're still as clueless and dishonest as you ever were. I was hoping you'd grown up during your exile to CFC but it seems that is not be the case.

[Dinner]

I have been gone for a year and not only are you equally as predictable as you always were, I can still defeat you by just letting you rant stupidity as you did above..

What you should have done was admit your link between Reagan's policies in Afghanistan having anything at all to do with AQ, politically or militarily, is BS in part because:

1.) your insinuation that the arms used in the Afghan Civil War in the early 90s, let alone the Taliban and then AQ a decade later is patently ridiculous. All sides were armed with Soviet weapons. This was the case in the 80s too, during the height of US material support.

2.) The factions we supported in Afghanistan in the 80s were on the LOSING side of the Afghan Civil War.

In the future, why not just refrain from commenting on things you know nothing about. I know you think your "a butterfly flaps its wings" thing looks smart and all, but those of us who bothered to learn about this know you are just connecting random dots.

Patty, you really have no clue as normal.

1) The US funneled weapons, money, and training mostly to Pashtun and foreign Arab volunteer groups because it had to funnel everything via Pakistan. Not surprisingly the Pakistani ISI demanded a controlling role for all operations in Pakistan so they had veto power over who got weapons, money, and training and who did not. Also not surprising is that Pakistan made sure Pashtuns and foreign Arab groups who were allied with Pakistan got most of the assistance. These are, by and large, many of the same people who later went on to found Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

2) Wrong as usual. The US would give aid to anyone who would agree to fight the Soviets but the ISI made sure most of it went to Pashtun and Arab groups not to Tajiks and Uzbeks in the north (Tajiks and Uzbeks formed the core of the northern Alliance who lost the civil war to the Taliban). You're claim that the US backed the northern alliance and not Pashtuns/Arabs who would later become the Taliban and Al Qaeda is a complete revisionist joke. Dear god, man! How on Earth can you be so completely wrong given all the post 9/11 investigative reports in the news and documentaries? The only explination I can come up with is you are deliberately being willfully ignorant which has been your MO for the last decade so I really shouldn't be surprised you're still doing the same old song and dance.

[Docfeelgood]

concure

[Wezil]

I'm still trying to figure out what HC has against weasels.

[Docfeelgood]

I'm still trying to figure out what HC has against weasels.

that's Poly

[Dinner]

Hell, the CIA even paid for chartered planes to fly Arab mushahadeen volunteers to the Pakistani side of the Afghan-Pakistan border where they got weapons training and weapons, again paid for by the CIA but funneled through the ISI, before getting sent to Afghanistan. No, there wasn't large numbers or amounts of stuff going to ethnic groups in the north. It was mostly to Pashtun and Arab organizations and the whole thing was organized as a Jihad which Reagan fully encouraged (even telling countries like Saudi Arabia to be more supportive of these groups and to stop repressing them/discouraging them at home) and those are EXACTLY the same groups which went on to cause 9/11 and the repressive Taliban regime we're still fighting. Trying to claim those decisions weren't massive **** ups in the long run is completely unbelievable but classic Patty.

[giblets]

Well I don't watch videos. Poor content delivery for me. As for them ranking Obama over Reagan, there are plenty of real historians who disagree. Not all historians are neo-hegelian marxists anyways.

I don't think Marxists would like either of those people.

[giblets]

Okay, you're an idiot.

change their spending and saving habits to minimize their taxes

==

people change their behavior to reduce the amount of money they are forced to pay in taxes

Technically, you might argue better word would have been optimize, but only if you're more interested in grammatical minutia than actually discussing the topic at hand.

No, I just understand what 'minimize' means. I'm sorry if you're unable to communicate clearly.