's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

looks like syria's next(59 posts)

looks like syria's nextrufus
Apr 13, 2003 3:15 PM
rumsfeld, bush and the rest of the neo-cons already ramping up the public relations campaign for why syria is bad and we need to take them out.
I think you're confusedpurplepaul
Apr 13, 2003 3:20 PM
CNN, MSNBC and the rest of the media is showing why Syria is bad and we need to take them out.
Tax cuts needed before an attack on...cycleaddict
Apr 13, 2003 4:14 PM
Syria. Then another tax cut before the attack on Iran. See the trend? By Nov. '04 Rov...ooops, Bush will be so popular w/the American public that the Dems won't even field a candidate!!!
Sounds good to me :O) nmLive Steam
Apr 13, 2003 4:53 PM
And the media are getting the information WHERE....?cory
Apr 13, 2003 4:45 PM
Come on, man, pay attention: CNN and the rest aren't making this stuff up. It's coming straight from the administration--the media are parroting Bush and Rummie the way they've done for the last year. I figured Iran would be next, but Bush made it clear last year that he was going SOMEWHERE when he was done with Iraq, and Syria will be a lot easier than Iran or North Korea, plus we're already in the neighborhood. Everybody just turn left and keep marching.
And the media are getting the information WHERE....?Live Steam
Apr 13, 2003 4:57 PM
Gee you have very little faith in your Leftist reporters from Commy News Network and NBC if you think they need to get their info from the admin.
Do you really see no difference between Baghdad Bob and CNN?purplepaul
Apr 13, 2003 6:59 PM
Our news outlets may get their initial reports from the government but, surprise, they ultimately do tend to be pretty accurate, don't they? When the government lies or makes a mistake, that tends to come out too. In spades.

There are also these things called, "Investigative Reporters" whose job is to independently verify from as many differenct sources as possible any story deemed worth the trouble.

C'mon man, do you really believe there's a worldwide conspiracy involving millions of people on every continent?
it's like a 2-fer.DougSloan
Apr 13, 2003 8:09 PM
More like a 3-fer.mohair_chair
Apr 14, 2003 6:51 AM
Take out Syria and you get Lebanon for free.
now that's value! nmDougSloan
Apr 14, 2003 6:54 AM
Every rational bone in my body saysOldEdScott
Apr 14, 2003 7:29 AM
'That's nuts.' We can't just wheel left and 'liberate' another poor suffering population. Or eliminate their vast stores of weapons of mass destruction. Or force them to comply with UN resolutions. Or force them to 'disarm.' Or effect 'regime change.' Or whatever our reason for invading Iraq was. It changed so often I got confused. If this is Monday, it must have been to liberate folks. I think that's been the aftermarket spin that stuck.

But then again, we have a pretty nutty cabal who apparently have poor GWB in their thrall. And you better believe Syria is next on their multi-nation hit list.
but we are already thereDougSloan
Apr 14, 2003 7:54 AM
We are already there, and I'd bet we have plenty of leftover bombs we didn't need in Iraq. It might be cheaper to use them than haul all of that stuff back to the US.

I got a really bad feeling in the pit of my stomach when I heard someone on television suggest that Syria might be next. I'd bet it was nothing but idle speculation (plenty of that going around), but I couldn't help but think "Oh, my, this isn't good."

Yeah. It's pretty obvious they'reOldEdScott
Apr 14, 2003 8:09 AM
laying the groundwork. 'Syria' has started to work its way into more and more official comments, especially from Rumsfeld. Heard Wolfowitz (predictably) rattling his sabre on Syria the other day too. There was a report last week (an APPROVING report, on Fox, so it must be true) that when a White House aide mentioned to the Prez that Rumsfeld was threatening Syria at his briefing, Bush smiled and said "Good."

What they're doing, in politics-speak, is 'setting a predicate' for attacking Syria.

I can only hope the public picks up on this, and opposes it enough that some of the President's political people (think Rove) veto the war fever of the hawks.

Not optimistic though.
Or is it "good cop, bad cop"...TJeanloz
Apr 14, 2003 8:28 AM
It seems like the routine with Syria is to have the Hawks aggressivly rattle their sabers, while the Doves work the political side -- and have the credible threat of the Hawks if they fail politically. I'd like to think that it's a calculated effort to coerce Syria with the threat of force, without resorting to force.

On the other hand, the Syrian guy on "Meet the Press" (I don't remember his actual position- Asst. Ambassador or something) did a great job of casting Israel as the aggressor and threat in the region, without ever actually mentioning Israel. He asserted, many times, that he hoped the US would rid the entire region of weapons of mass destruction, and that Syria would happily comply if everybody else did.
It would be a good strategy butOldEdScott
Apr 14, 2003 9:16 AM
these people (the hawks, I mean) aren't that subtle.

Yeah, I thought the Syrian position was interesting too. That WAS subtle.
Or is it "good cop, bad cop"...Jon Billheimer
Apr 14, 2003 9:19 AM
I agree. Whether by "good cop" or "bad cop" Bush and Co. are committed to their self-assigned role of middleastern cop. Scott makes a good point that the military needs to be restocked, etc. before embarking on further wars. At the same time the civilian neo-con "brain trust" is undoubtedly feeling quite drunk with power. However, saner heads within the military I would think will reign in their delusions of omnipotence, at least for now.

Politically, I think there's going to be a lot of good cop/bad cop stuff going on with both Syria and Israel. A substantial part of the rationale for the Iraq war is the protection of Israel from further attacks. In return for the favour Israel is going to have to make some concessions to get the peace process going. I think Bush made a deal with Sharon prior to invading Iraq.

BTW, simultaneously get rid of Arafat and Sharon and you're probably halfway to a political solution to the Palestinian problem.
Credible threat.Sintesi
Apr 14, 2003 5:22 PM
Now that the US has got everyone's attention by taking down Iraq so easily I think they want to put every two-bit dictator on notice that the US ain't playin' around any more. That kid running Syria (al Assad?) has to wonder if he really wants to tangle with a pissed off super power that happens to be his new neighbor. It looks like S.K. is backing off their threats and might end up talking to China and Russia after all. Wonder why?

US credibility has just shot through the roof and they don't seem like a paper tiger anymore. That's good diplomatic leverage. Make hay while the sun shines.
Love it or hate it...Jon Billheimer
Apr 15, 2003 11:15 AM
...that's the whole point of the Wolfowitz doctrine. Long term, however, every action tends to provoke an equal and opposite reaction. Consider possible block power realignments in the years ahead and what countervailing power might emerge to oppose the U.S. That is, unless the U.S. tempers its behaviour and tries to repair damaged alliances such as NATO.
but we are already theresn69
Apr 14, 2003 8:11 AM
Actually, we're critically short of air munitions. Likewise, carrier battle groups and amphibious ready groups are starting to head home. The occupation/rebuilding phase alone will engulf countless assets, and those that were just used need time to recapitalize. From a money-standpoint alone we need a break. Oh, and lest we forget, Afghanistan is still going on....
How many cruise missles do we have left?OldEdScott
Apr 14, 2003 9:14 AM
Can't be many.
Good time to be in da bidniz, methinks.sn69
Apr 14, 2003 9:33 AM
ALL air munitions are in short supply, including dumb bombs, precision bombs, TLAM, SLAM, etc.... What a lot of folks forget is that we've been lobbing the really expensive ones (that also take longer to manufacture) for the better part of 12 years. Desert Fox, Yugoslavia, Sudan, Chad, Afghanistan (then and now) and the continued Northern/Southern Watch committments have taken their toll on our stores. At the same time, we always have to maintain a certain strategic reserve.

AND, the nature of increased operational tempo takes a drastic toll on equipment. An aircraft carrier returning from a standard 6 month deployment usually takes roughly 180 days to refit, rebuild and repair. Can you imagine what a 10 month float does? I can only imagine that the strain on ground equipment like tanks, LAVs, and AAVs is similar. Aircraft return from deployment beat to hell...and that's not even counting battle damage. ...Thus the very real concept of recapitalization and reconstistution.

It's going to take a while to do this while also mainting op-tempo in Iraq, Aghanistan, the Phillipines, South Korea and other places while also providing our standard surge capability.

And I didn't even touch on the most vital piece of the puzzle--the impact to the people in uniform.
You guys need to get over it.OldEdScott
Apr 14, 2003 9:53 AM
A New Era is dawning -- the Era of Perpetual Warfare. Listen to Rummy and the boys. It's a radical new concept.

You pansies in uniform better get past the idea of three-month deployments and three-week wars. You call that 'impact to the people in uniform??' What kind of sissy soldiers are you, anyway? The Roman Centurion fought CONSTANTLY, for years on end, and you never heard him complain. If we're gonna have this New American Empire, we're gonna need us some soldiers of their ilk.
Of course, Centurions wore dresses and wras'led nekkidt.sn69
Apr 14, 2003 10:04 AM
For the record, I think I'd look lousey in a dress, and my wife usually laughs herself silly whenever I propose a nude wraslin' romp.

That notwithstanding, it IS worth noting that OpTempo (deployments) during the post Cold War years, NOT including Desert Shield/Storm, increased by more than 60% (61-69% depending on the source you reference).

Now, I'm not a smart man, but I'm fairly certain that a different mindset/thinktank/power base was large and in-charge throughout most of that period. Are our hegemonic aims that different with this administration, or simply more loudly advertised?

Finally, I ain't no sissy soldier. I'm a sissy squid, dammit, and isn't it "ilk" huntin' season yet?!
I think our hegemonic aims are substantively different.OldEdScott
Apr 14, 2003 11:31 AM
The new Bush doctine of pre-emption is a rather stunning break from the past. The evolving doctrine of perpetual war is also unprecedented.

Make no mistake: These people represent a serious separation from American history. And the military will carry their imperial ambitions on its back, even you lazy squids! (said the ex-grunt).
Go wear your dress, grunt-boy...which will no doubtsn69
Apr 14, 2003 11:46 AM
score huge points with your Hillbilly Redneck anscestory (uh-oh, Der Fuhrer Doug is gonna wack my ding-ding now). Hell, maybe you can even go "ilk" huntin' in that Centrurion dress.

Mid-afternoon low glycogen goofiness aside, I actually AGREE wholeheartedly that what we have is a remarkable departure from past foriegn policy strategies. I suppose the point that is more apropos to my suggestion, however, is the fact that foriegn policy blunders seem to transcend all of our leaders, regardless of party affiliations. It's almost as if they pay their dues to get into the Whitehouse and then they dutifully put on the Presidential PoopooDoodooBrainStupidHelmet with regards to sensible foreign policy, or lack thereof.

In the current context, some allowance has to be given to a radically different world. I tend to favor philospophy that the preceding 13 years were an unsteady transitory period marking the end of the relative stability of the Cold War with the beginning of the next epoch in global dynamics. What that epoch will be is anybody's guess, although I tend to believe that it will be a violent period regardless of our administrative leanings and activities. I tend to look sourly towards the next couple decades as a period of the have-nots versus the haves, and I foresee vehicles such as Fundamentalist Islam, unchecked multi-national corporate greed and terrotirial re-definition (the Balkans, the "Stans," etc) as being the catalysts for the larger conflict. Dunno. It doesn't look that promising to me.

That said, I think this administration will find it's check. Syria? Not hardly--practical military limitations aside, the public won't stand for it (and Jon and the rest of the 51st state will hold their breath in opposition until they get their way...except for Celine; she'll sing).

In the very near term, the military will make its carrying capacity known. A quiet peice of news that has gone largely unnoticed is that the Army's Vice Chief of Staff just turned down a nomination to be the Chief of Staff--the general in charge. Hmmm...that's a not-so-subtle sign.
Doug! DOUG! Scott here just used a racial slurOldEdScott
Apr 15, 2003 5:44 AM
against me ('Hillbilly Redneck,' for Christ's sake) and I INSIST you delete this Squid Jewboy's offending post!

Before you do though, I'll add that he's right on a couple of things. We're in a period of fundamental historic transformation. It is no exaggeration to say that the have-nots are past fed up, and the Visigoths are, if not at the gate, at least just over the hill. We're going to need some real wisdom to figure out how to deal with this angry new world. I'm not seeing much wisdom or vision in the Cheney Administration's bluderbuss approach -- eventually we'll be at war with or occupying half the globe if they have their way.

Good to know that some in the military see the danger here.
but, you resemble that remark, don't you?DougSloan
Apr 15, 2003 6:46 AM
Here's the irony. True Rednecks actually like being called Rednecks. If you are not a Redneck, then it shouldn't bother you, as the term doesn't fit.

Hillbilly? I don't recall if you were from hills or not. I thought you were from Alabama, and I don't recall much in the way of hills there. So, again, off the mark.

Any suggestions about where we go from here? Someone mentioned that we don't have the "stability" that the US vs. USSR provided (sort of "all or nothing" stability at that point), but instead we almost have chaos. It might be much easier to fight one known enemy than a hundred or more, particularly 100 who hate us with religious fervor dating back a 1000 years.

No, no, no, Kentucky. Lots of hills. 8 percent gradeOldEdScott
Apr 15, 2003 6:55 AM
everywhere, which I obviously climb at an average speed of 18-21 mph. HOME of hillbillies. Plus you're stereotyping when you say crazy stuff like 'True Rednecks actually like being called Rednecks.' Good Lord. Where'd you get that notion? And blacks are lazy and shif'less. Lawyers are crooks. I'm OFFENDED. My FEELINGS ARE HURT. First Scott, now you. I think I'm the victim of a HATE CRIME here.

You're right about the stability of the Cold War. I was going to go into that, but it was too early in the morning and I was still reeling from the bigotry I'd experienced FIRST HAND.
back to Jeff FoxworthyDougSloan
Apr 15, 2003 7:05 AM
Didn't Foxworthy make it desireable to be called a Redneck?

Ok, Kentucky qualifies. BTW, I lived across the river from Paducah, you know, and my mother is from western Tennessee. So, I probably qualify, too. I suppose that makes me less sensitive to the epithet, particularly when my neck is usually red (but from riding one of them "eeni" bikes.

Foxworthy = the Step'n Fetchit of our race.OldEdScott
Apr 15, 2003 7:17 AM
And PLEASE don't call us 'rednecks.' Call us 'persons of neck redness.'

or "persons of neck color" and "hill dwelling Americans" nmDougSloan
Apr 15, 2003 7:22 AM
Roy Blount Jr., in his book "Crackers"OldEdScott
Apr 15, 2003 7:49 AM
prefers the term 'Crackro-Americans.'
Massive server issues on this end this morning havesn69
Apr 15, 2003 8:06 AM
precluded my immediate response, Jimmy Joe Billy OldEd Bob Boo.

Hey, I thought we paid Orkin to spray for Visigoths last month!

Incidentally, true, I'm a squid yid, but I was raised mostly in the south, and on a daily basis I grapple with my racial SoCal inclinations to surf and eat carne asada burritos juxtaposed against my environmentally-bred hankerin' for Moon Pies and fried catfish. I love Marshall Tucker and The Outlaws, but I think Skynard sucks. Pick up trucks are cool, but big belt buckles are retarded. The Urban Cowboy isn't. And there isn't a damn thing wrong with wearing a cowboy hat and a Hawaiian shirt. I've never thrown a cow patty in a competition, but I have tossed a mullet.

Still, in spite of it all, at least I'm not a laywer in Fresno for heaven's sake!!!!!!!
Skynard story (which both proves and disprovesOldEdScott
Apr 15, 2003 8:18 AM
that I'm a person of solar-related neck pigmentation).

I live WAY in the country. No neighbors. Quiet and I like it that way. I want to be able to hear my bloodhounds baying in the distance, at night.

Bunch of goddamn rednecks move into the shack on the next ridge. Set up HUGE OUTDOOR PA SPEAKERS, and crank music all day and all night. Not music, really. SKYNARD. And not even a varied selection of Skynard, ALL FREEBIRD ALL THE TIME.

Obviously, rednecks love Freebird. I despise Freebird. After 36 consecutive hours of Freebird, sometime past midnight, I went mad. I got my .410 shotgun, crept through the woods and the brush and forded two creeks, climbed a ridge, got in range from the treeline, and while the rednecks slept, passed out on the ground from cheap beer and local pot, with Freebird still in continuous loop, I shot them fruking PA speakers out. Went home and slept like a baby.

So: Does that violent solution to the problem make me a redneck? Or does shutting down perpetual Freebird make me an anti-redneck? You be the judge.
That's an awefully neo-con-esque reaction.sn69
Apr 15, 2003 8:35 AM
Now...had they been blaring the "Theme from Shaft," I'm sure you and your puppies would have grooved along to the soulful wail of "That Shaft is one baaad muther f..." "Shut your mouth!" "Just talkin' 'bout Shaft." Sing with me Ed; after all, superheros need a theme song.

While your behavior would no-doubt titilate one of Hollywood's greater humanitarian minds, namely Sean Penn, the inherent violence and willfull display of firearms and rash actions on your part fly in the face of tolerance and diversity. I quote the great Devlin McManus: "What's so funny about peace, love and understanding?"

Now, if they had been playing Brittney Aguilera, In Backstreet Synch or the Chicken Dance, you'd have enjoyed full UN approval and immunity to slay the goons in their sleep.

Frankly, I think you're a confused Redneck from that wacky-a@@ region known as PensylTucky. (FWIW, I was recently at the Kentucky Logistics and Supply facility outside of Lexington and the scenery was breathtaking. Nice area to be certain.)

Nonetheless, I'll reserve judgement based upon a different criteria, you have any good road-kill 'possum recipes?!
Yep. When it doubt, attack and shoot. Neo-con as all get out.OldEdScott
Apr 15, 2003 9:09 AM
I DID think to wear my Good Conduct Medal, so if I got arrested I could rave about 'gooks in the treeline' and other nonsense -- 'Pop smoke! Pop smoke!' -- thereby appearing to be in a Post Traumatic Stress blackout/rage, which we all know every Vietnam veteran suffers from.

Kentucky Logistics and Supply -- back in the mid-70s, when I was a reporter, some nasty stuff crept out of there and made a few people sick on I-75. Mysterious cloud. The Depot denied all responsibility, of course, until I called the CO VERY late one night. I knew he was a drinker, and I got him to slur out something along the lines of "Hell, of COURSE it came from us, where the hell else would it come from, but you think I'm gonna admit that to the Press?" It was comical. I won an award and the Colonel got, uh, redeployed.

Road kill possum goes to my bloodthirsty Hounds.
Today the KYLOC is a uniform facility that started as an adjunct Army project but currently supports Navy and Marine Corps Reserve uniform requirements. Their turn-around time and product are fantastic. It's an impressive facility. Dunno 'bout any gas, though. Back in the mid-70's I was a little guy and I used to make gas, but usually after cookies and nappy-nap time. I eminated many a mysterious cloud, and in fact I sometimes still do (but usually only after Thai or Greek food). If I can ever get to a better server or perhaps from home, I'd love to tell you a great "pop smoke" story that involved the involuntary burning of a sizeable percentage of North Central Nevada, a solo flight in an HH-60H and a whole lot of dead cattle.....sn69
Apr 15, 2003 10:02 AM
LOL! Sounds like they popped hell out of smoke, sir! nmOldEdScott
Apr 15, 2003 10:20 AM
Was that my server or RBR's?!?!?! nmsn69
Apr 15, 2003 11:07 AM
Yes and no.purplepaul
Apr 14, 2003 1:57 PM
Clinton went into Europe without there being any chance that it would ever be a threat to the US. I'd say that was a substantial, but not incorrect, departure.

When we invade England, I'll start to worry.
I know you are half-sarcastic, butDougSloan
Apr 14, 2003 10:09 AM
No need to worry. Won't be too long and the Liberals will take the White House or Congress again, then all warfare except nominal "feel good" or distraction measures will get backburnered until the Conservatives take over again and will then be forced to clean up after years of head-in-the-sand (Clinton/Carter-esque) tolerance.

The Liberals these days are fond of arguing how today's budget will be paid for by our children; well, today "our children" are paying for Clinton's 8 years of looking-the-other-way tolerance of Saddam's evil regime (except to distract once in a while). Same thing in reverse.

Before that happens, I sure hopeOldEdScott
Apr 14, 2003 10:26 AM
Conservatives finish ridding the world of these massive stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction I keep hearing about. I'll sleep a lot better during our Liberal 'feel good' wars (like Bosnia, I'm guessing) as long as I know we've mopped up all those tons of bio-chem weapons, like the ones we've uncovered in Iraq.
Why not?No_sprint
Apr 14, 2003 7:58 AM
Nothing's changed. Clinton did similar things. Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, Afganistan, etc.
What happened to the argument that.......cycleaddict
Apr 14, 2003 8:11 AM
Clinton had destroyed the military's ability to function? Even though I've been against this administration's bullying foreign policy, I think the military has performed well in this latest "war".
well, bush was able to re-build them in only two years.(nm)rufus
Apr 14, 2003 9:03 AM
Oh God. Sound familiar?OldEdScott
Apr 14, 2003 9:34 AM
From today's press briefing (CNN quoting):

Calling Syria a "terrorist state," White House press secretary Ari Fleischer quoted from a 2002 CIA report that Syria "already held nerve gas ... but is trying develop more toxic and persistent nerve agents."

Hey! We get to rid another country of massive stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction!
New American Century?Jon Billheimer
Apr 14, 2003 9:46 AM
For any of you flag-waving hawks out there you had really better reflect on the possibility/reality of the NewAmericanCentury as a centuryofendlesswar if the present White House thinking continues beyond this administration. It is in the nature of this kind of thinking and its behavioural consequences that one conflict simply generates another and another and another. That America's posture is defensive and peaceloving is one of the biggest propaganda crocks ever foisted on the public of a free society.
New American Century? Maybe......cycleaddict
Apr 14, 2003 10:49 AM
but only if the tax cuts keep coming. Every country we conquer should provide enough wealth so that the top one percent of us here in the Great USA don't pay a penny of tax. To all out there that have been under the illusion that we are a "peace loving" nation: we are a nation in search of an enemy!!!
Tax only the poor!!
I'm pretty sure the top 1% still pays the highest rate (nm)TJeanloz
Apr 14, 2003 11:19 AM
A fact which will give me heartburn tomorrow.
goofy ideasDougSloan
Apr 14, 2003 11:57 AM
The idea that the top whatever percent pays no taxes is just goofy. The top 1% pays more in taxes than the average American grosses. I just don't understand the source for the misinformation or anger when any tax cut is proposed. Well, I do, but it still doesn't make sense.

Right onNo_sprint
Apr 14, 2003 12:09 PM
and conversely the scariest thing going on in America is being perpetrated by liberals. The growing of the poverty class, the expanse of the non-taxed, the dependent. The likes of Gore are well aware that should they grow this class enough, and they vote, they'll be unbeatable. They'll be in office and we'll ALL be f$3#ed.

I believe 35%+ of the nation doesn't pay income tax. Could be off on the number.
didn't you mean to say "ditto" (nfm)ColnagoFE
Apr 14, 2003 12:38 PM
You better be careful or they are going to call you ...Live Steam
Apr 14, 2003 1:00 PM
Rush :O) I hear what you are saying and see it happening every day. I have tenants that spend the entire day working the phones looking for money from every entitlement program ever invented by the Liberators of the Oppressed. Instead of looking for a job, they think it is easier to get the handout from Uncle Sam. I actually think that what they are doing is far more work, and I have told them as much. They have to drag their asses down to all the agencies that control the funding of what ever, a few times a month. The benefits are no longer indefinite, so they need to keep showing cause. Jesse and the Rev. Al and the rest of the bunch keep this entitlement process perpetuated because they know if this econo-class ever rises to their capabilities, they will no longer be needed. Actually the same applies to the Middle East situation. I can here them now - the El Rushbo comments are a comin'!
some real data for doubtersDougSloan
Apr 14, 2003 1:08 PM

Scroll down to item 549, "Individual Income Tax Returns —Number,Income Tax,and Average Tax by Size of Adjusted Gross Income: 1995 and 1997" (the most recent info I could find quickly)

The top 87 people (taxpaxers) in the entire country paid about $122 billion in federal income taxes, total, or about the same total as the lower (in income) 89 million taxpayers.

they still are richer than the rest of usColnagoFE
Apr 14, 2003 1:27 PM
Sure the richest 87 pay more, but in the end they still have more money than most of us ever will have or need. I's their money and all so why shoul they pay more. Is it fair? Probably not but I don't think they are going to end up on the street because of their tax burdens and you won't find many people feeling sorry for them. After all...being so righ you have to pay more tax is a good problem to have in most people's book. I'm guessing those top 87 also have more total net worth than the rest of the group combined. Do you have access to those figures?
no doubt about itDougSloan
Apr 14, 2003 1:31 PM
I was simply refuting the "argument" that the rich pay no taxes and the poor pay more. Just not true.

Check the same site where the above document is. There are lots of publications and parts of publications, and it can take a long time to find what you want. I saw one that listed asset value, too, but that was as of 1997-2000, which is probably not accurate any more.

Take your neo-liberal propaganda elsewhere, Sloan. nmOldEdScott
Apr 15, 2003 5:52 AM
now, I'm offended nmDougSloan
Apr 15, 2003 7:08 AM
Yeah, I believe if you don't pay income taxes you shouldn'tOldEdScott
Apr 15, 2003 5:59 AM
be allowed to vote. Wait, maybe let's have a poll tax too! That's an even better idea! That would discourage those kinda poor-type people who maybe pay a piddly little bit of income tax from voting. That was pretty effective against the colored people down South a few years ago, I do believe.