% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Synopsys Inc. Message Board

  • glennx glennx Oct 1, 2003 7:48 PM Flag

    How bout an atta boy!!

    U.S. intelligence sources stated that the newly released documents illustrate the extent to which the Clinton White House placed trade � and trade with China specifically � above national security.

    "In all likelihood we will be glowing in the dark before we discover the true extent of the Clinton decade of betrayal," stated Rick Fisher, Asian Security Fellow at the Center for Security Policy.

    "If it was indeed intended for a new PRC weather satellite, then it is possible that it was used for their new polar orbit weather satellites. This is significant because the Chinese themselves acknowledge that their polar orbit weather satellites directly contribute to their long-range missile targeting capability. This becomes even more important for their new smaller but more accurate warheads, used on their new DF-31, DF-31A, DF-5 Mod2 and JL-2 missiles. If they encounter significant weather, warhead accuracy degrades, reducing their utility," stated Fisher.

    "Inasmuch as similar U.S. military weather satellites perform the same missions, the Clinton Administration had to have known they were assisting a PLA strategic military capability," concluded Fisher.

    In addition, the Chinese military is clearly interested in acquiring advanced radiation hardened computer chips for its strategic nuclear arsenal.

    I just can't wait for Hillaroid, the real pants in the clinton whorehouse, to take the helm. Whadya say?

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • You are an outright liar. I like the liberatrian party very much, even the best.
      Your previous posts regarding taxes prove you are a liar as the Libertarian Party says:
      (from their website I've visited often)

      "The Libertarian Party: Working to slash your taxes!
      The Libertarian Party is working every day to cut your taxes. By contrast, professional politicians from the other parties just want more of your money, and are busy increasing the size of government.

      In the last few decades, the federal government has exploded in size. No area of your life or business is free from the meddling of politicians -- especially your wallet.

      It doesn't have to be that way. With less government and lower taxes, you could keep more of what you earn. It would be easier to start new businesses, build new homes, and fuel stronger economic growth."

      Everything I've been saying about taxation is mirrored by the libertarians.

      You are a caught liar. And guess what, I don't care that SNPS was down awhile, It'll come back. Belittling me for staying long is just plain ignorant. NOW you are on ignore as being the liar you are.

    • If you guys really think Clinton was better then God help you both.

      I am a social liberal and fiscal conservative. High taxes have always been our problem. Bush has not signed medicare yet, but did sign the child tax giveaway.

      The fact is neither of you are self employed or have a clue about economic realities.

      You'd have us be more like the EU?????

      They are floundering for the very reasons we are not doing as well as we could be as a nation.

      Punks with no brains or the least inclination to see beyond liberal spin.

    • New Zealand & South Korea, tax wise.

      You think I'm rich, but I am not, nor am I the least bit religous.

      The tax cuts didn't create the deficit. Recession reduced revenues, spending did the rest.

      You are worthless regarding a sensible debate and are now on ignore.

    • >>I agree with many conservative policies. I'm a Libertarian . . . a group that is socially liberal but economically conservative<<

      Socially liberal and economically conservative is exactly what Arnold espouses. Does that make you a supporter of someone who champions the same philosophy?

    • >I don't agree with many of your positions Spec

      I respect that.

      >but there is no sense arguing with glennx....he's a bit overboard

      Clearly he is a unwaivering zealot that can't change positions no matter how many facts are lined up against him. That would turn his world upside down and clearly his brain can't handle it. (Of course it shouldn't turn things upside down but he has shown that he has a binary mentality . . . all left or all right.)

      But my comments are not intended to change his mind since he is hopeless. My comments are intended to be read by others so that they can see that the extreme right-wing agenda is really bad news . . . it will turn America into Brazil or Mexico. A small number of very corrupt and very wealthy surrounded by millions living in poverty.

      I agree with many conservative policies. I'm a Libertarian . . . a group that is socially liberal but economically conservative. But Bush is the anti-libertarian. He is socially conservative and fiscally liberal. I find his policies to be a mockery of conservatism. Nation building, record deficits, government intrusion into personal lives, etc.

      >nearly fanatical attitude about what is right and wrong.

      "Nearly fanatical"? The guy has admitted to having flip-flopped from dope-smoking protestor to being a 'taxes are the root of all evil' right-wingnut.

      All things in moderation.

    • I don't agree with many of your positions Spec but there is no sense arguing with glennx....he's a bit overboard and is just looking to bait peope for an opportunity to air his unbending and nearly fanatical attitude about what is right and wrong.


      You have no idea what it means. Go read the cases before you spout out your ignorance.

      >2/3rds of the "so called rich" which are small business owners like myself,

      Waaaah, I have millions, waaaah help me! Waaaah!

      Key-rist you people are the biggest f@cking babies.

      You are also the biggest pu$$ies . . . scared of the two-bit neutered dictator on the other side of the planet . . . Waaah! Help me! Waaah!

      >It has been bastardized by the left

      Here is a challenge for you . . . can you name a single country that is to the right of the USA?

      The Taliban was one but they don't exist anymore.

      Somalia . . . that is another I can think of. Lots of guns and very small government. Is that shining example of what you want?

      Give me the example of the government that is to the right of the USA that we should be more like?

      >But tax & spend liberals

      Oh, well the 'borrow & spend' Bushies are the paragon of fiscal conservatism. Get a clue.

      You people are a bunch of big whining babies . . . you want the government to do all sorts of things for you (mostly kill brown skinned people that don't follow the same God as you), but you don't want to pay a dime. What a farce.

      No wonder Rush was taking all those drugs, that is the only way all that ignorant clap-trap makes any sense.

    • Just where is it, in a constitution that provides ALL people Regardless of race, age, gender, religion or anything else a person could be distinguished by, that discrimination according to ones' income is considered EQUAL protection under the LAW????

      EQUAL PROTECTION means just that. Period. No wiggle room for rationalizing any other meanings. The Constitution means what it says. Lower taxes help eveyone to accumulate wealth.

      This country WAS NOT founded under the ideology of Robin Hood. And no where in the constitution does it speak to the tax system we have. It has been bastardized by the left for no other purpose than to buy votes with.

      The people that create wealth are the ones that provide the jobs for those that just work.

      2/3rds of the "so called rich" which are small business owners like myself, creating 70% of the new jobs. If capital is treated unfairly, it will vote with it's feet to where it will be better treated.

      Redistribution (taxation) reduces the incentive to work, save and invest. Lower taxes grow the economy and increase Gov't revenues. It is immutable. But tax & spend liberals see power as more important than the constitution.

      Inheritors of wealth either steward the assests properly or they in many cases piss it away like most lottery winners do. So what, it's NOT the collectives money.

    • "Conservatives think it is good social policy to create wealthy dynastys of rich people THAT NEVER HAVE TO WORK A DAY IN THEIR LIFE. And since these are the progeny of people that made a lot of money, we will end up having our best and brightest NEVER EVER HAVE TO WORK."

      - are you referring to the Hilton sisters?:~)

    • >Wealth creation IS all about being able to pass on family assets.

      Estate taxes didn't kick in until you reach 2 million in assets. You can even avoid a lot of that with giving during your lieft time. Now it is true that inflation has caused the amount at which estate taxes kick in to start effecting too many people. All they had to do was up the exclusion amount. They proposed $8 million, $10 million. That is $10 million that could be inherited *COMPLETELY TAX FREE*. No . . . that wasn't enough for them. Apparently the Conservatives think it is good social policy to create wealthy dynastys of rich people THAT NEVER HAVE TO WORK A DAY IN THEIR LIFE. And since these are the progeny of people that made a lot of money, we will end up having our best and brightest NEVER EVER HAVE TO WORK.

      Is that smart? If you think so, please tell me why?

      Tell me why Warren Buffet & Bill Gates senior . . . two very wealthy people, oppose the idea of no estate tax. BTW, Bill Gates senior says that junior agrees.

      >That's socialist and unconstitutional.
      Yeah . . Bill Gates & Warren Buffet . . two famous commie pinko socialists. LOL

      >One works their whole life frugally to be able to have his offspring live a better life
      >than he, and you think it's OK for the Gov't to come in and take as much as half or more??

      Bwahahaha . . . 'frugal' . . . we are only talking about people with literally multiple-millions of dollars. Yeah . . . those poor multi-millionaires . . . my heart bleeds for them. LOL.

      This is like that old family farm bit . . . you know, the fact that they could not find a single family farm that was ever lost due to estate taxes. LOL

      >Your continued ignorance couldn't be more transparent.

      Why do you litter your messages with these petty insults that make you appear scared?

      >Taxes WILL be CONFISCATED as soon as those funds get withdrawn.

      Confiscated? Infusing the issue with ridiculous imagery?

      When you withdraw, you will pay taxes at you then rate tax rate . . . since you won't really be making money when you are retired, you will pay almost no taxes. In fact if you withdraw at a low enough rate, you will pay no tax!

      >I know you liberals

      You don't know my positions, so don't spout out a bunch of ignorant clap-trap. You people are all about intellectual dishonesty by taking some random liberal extremist's position, generalizing to all liberals and then bashing that straw man. Do I go around saying all Conservatives are KKK members? No. Because I don't argue with such lies. So spare me your BS mischaracterization of my positions.

      >Your intellectual immaturity is plainly seen.

      Seen? You just make up stuff.

      Seriously . . . death & taxes are two certainties. We need to be wise about both of them. But allowing the creation of never-ending dynasties of people that will never have to work a day in their lives is a bad idea.

    • View More Messages
59.29+0.15(+0.25%)Aug 29 4:00 PMEDT