RSS Feeds
Contact Us |
|
|||||||||||||
Columnists » Clayson
Article rated a 1
by 2
users |
~ADVERTISING~
Government is only a small part of society
By DDENNIS CLAYSON
The idea that justifies the government bailing out Wall Street and the banks is exactly the same idea that allows candidates and liberals to state that the rich do not pay their "fair share."
Many on the left think that these two events are independent because they believe what they have been told. Some of the brighter people in the progressive movement know there is one unifying concept, but like to pretend otherwise.
You will notice that when the chips came down, those pushing for both "big business" bailouts and railing against the rich were the same folks.
Some, like Barack Obama and John Edwards, know that their talk of "two Americas" and class warfare are bogus, but they also know that such language will put them into position to ask the majority of Americans to elect them president.
The unifying, but false, idea is simply this: society equals government.
When the rich are asked to pay their "fair share," who are they required to pay this share to? Are they asked by progressives to hire more people? Are they asked to donate more to local charities and churches?
No. They are asked to pay more taxes to the federal government.
When the rich are asked to share with the society some of what they have gained by being a member of society, to whom do progressives want the shares to go? Again, the answer is the same, back to government, and hopefully the largest government that can be found with the force necessary to extract that "share."
But society is not government. Government is but a small part of society, and even then, local governments are much more likely to be part of our society than a far away, increasingly bureaucratic, inefficient, wasteful, and corrupt federal government, which tramples on its own founding document (the Constitution) like toilet paper dropped on the restroom floor.
To a conservative, society is (in declining order) the family, the church, the community, local organizations and local governments.
I have an old friend. We grew up in the same environment and went to the same schools. He spent 20 years struggling with his business interests, sometimes wondering whether he could keep his house.
He is now richer than a skunk.
According to much progressive rhetoric, he is now the enemy. According to Obama's tax plans, he should be forced to pay more to the federal government. If he resists being called "an enemy of the people" or if he does not want to be taxed more, he is labeled as ethically challenged (i.e., selfish and mean spirited).
His company hires over 500 people. Should he instead send that money to the Feds, who will use 40 percent of it on bureaucracy, 20 percent for graft and inefficiency and give back the remaining to 200 people paid to produce nothing?
He takes care of his own family and much of his extended family. Should he instead send that money to the government so that his extended family can go down to the welfare office and beg for handouts from federal workers sick of dealing with people they really don't like much?
He gives a large percent of his income to his church, which efficiently feeds hungry people and sends relief to victims of natural disasters all over the planet. Is he selfish because he doesn't want to send that money to a government that is, at times, hostile to his own religious beliefs and which will inefficiently attempt to use a small portion of that money for the same purposes?
He participates in his local community affairs. Does it make him selfish because he doesn't want to send those resources to a far away government which doesn't understand the issues of his local area as well as he does, and which will use much of his donation to buy votes for local politicians and pay off political supporters rather than address real problems?
No. I'll argue just the opposite. If my rich friend is a moral and ethical person, he will send the least amount possible to the federal government. Further, an ethical politician will tell Americans that class warfare is divisive and destructive and will remind us that society is not equal to government and ask that our contribution to that government be as small as possible.
Many on the left think that these two events are independent because they believe what they have been told. Some of the brighter people in the progressive movement know there is one unifying concept, but like to pretend otherwise.
You will notice that when the chips came down, those pushing for both "big business" bailouts and railing against the rich were the same folks.
Some, like Barack Obama and John Edwards, know that their talk of "two Americas" and class warfare are bogus, but they also know that such language will put them into position to ask the majority of Americans to elect them president.
The unifying, but false, idea is simply this: society equals government.
When the rich are asked to pay their "fair share," who are they required to pay this share to? Are they asked by progressives to hire more people? Are they asked to donate more to local charities and churches?
No. They are asked to pay more taxes to the federal government.
When the rich are asked to share with the society some of what they have gained by being a member of society, to whom do progressives want the shares to go? Again, the answer is the same, back to government, and hopefully the largest government that can be found with the force necessary to extract that "share."
But society is not government. Government is but a small part of society, and even then, local governments are much more likely to be part of our society than a far away, increasingly bureaucratic, inefficient, wasteful, and corrupt federal government, which tramples on its own founding document (the Constitution) like toilet paper dropped on the restroom floor.
To a conservative, society is (in declining order) the family, the church, the community, local organizations and local governments.
I have an old friend. We grew up in the same environment and went to the same schools. He spent 20 years struggling with his business interests, sometimes wondering whether he could keep his house.
He is now richer than a skunk.
According to much progressive rhetoric, he is now the enemy. According to Obama's tax plans, he should be forced to pay more to the federal government. If he resists being called "an enemy of the people" or if he does not want to be taxed more, he is labeled as ethically challenged (i.e., selfish and mean spirited).
His company hires over 500 people. Should he instead send that money to the Feds, who will use 40 percent of it on bureaucracy, 20 percent for graft and inefficiency and give back the remaining to 200 people paid to produce nothing?
He takes care of his own family and much of his extended family. Should he instead send that money to the government so that his extended family can go down to the welfare office and beg for handouts from federal workers sick of dealing with people they really don't like much?
He gives a large percent of his income to his church, which efficiently feeds hungry people and sends relief to victims of natural disasters all over the planet. Is he selfish because he doesn't want to send that money to a government that is, at times, hostile to his own religious beliefs and which will inefficiently attempt to use a small portion of that money for the same purposes?
He participates in his local community affairs. Does it make him selfish because he doesn't want to send those resources to a far away government which doesn't understand the issues of his local area as well as he does, and which will use much of his donation to buy votes for local politicians and pay off political supporters rather than address real problems?
No. I'll argue just the opposite. If my rich friend is a moral and ethical person, he will send the least amount possible to the federal government. Further, an ethical politician will tell Americans that class warfare is divisive and destructive and will remind us that society is not equal to government and ask that our contribution to that government be as small as possible.
More Stories from Columnists » Clayson
cross1242 wrote on Oct 19, 2008 12:40 PM:
" Today, Prof. Clayson acquaints us with the incipient class warfare in our society. He insists that attempts to have the rich pay their “fair share” (which Clayson places in quotes as well) is really class warfare of the poor against the rich.
Let’s see what one member of the rich, Warren Buffet, has to say about such class warfare. “There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” (For the article from which the quotation is taken, see: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/business/yourmoney/26every.html)
I’d point out that Prof. Clayson wasn’t concerned about class warfare during the past eight years when the burdens of this society were shifted from those with the ability to pay taxes to those with restricted ability to pay taxes. Taxes were decreased on the rich. Services for the poor were limited. Prof. Clayson is only concerned now that appears that the burden of taxation is likely to be shifted towards the rich once Obama becomes president. Such crass self-interest by Prof. Clayson and the rich of this country should not be rewarded. People should notice the self-interest of Prof. Clayson’s argument and not take the bait that it’s a valid argument.
I have objections to some of Prof. Clayson’s intermediate points as well. He says, “To a conservative, society is (in declining order) the family, the church, the community, local organizations and local governments.”
Baloney!
I’ve never heard of anyone making that assertion before. However, if does remind me of the “First Dude’s,” Todd Palin’s, membership in the Alaska Independence Party. It wanted to secede from the United States. Its leader had said that he was an “Alaskan” and not a citizen of the United States. Professor Clayson seems to take secession one step further. He isn’t a citizen of the United States OR a citizen of Iowa. He is a Waterlooan and nothing else. (Frankly, I suspect that this claim is intended to pave the way for Prof. Clayson to claim, after Obama is elected, to say that Waterloo is “occupied” by the foreign governments of Iowa and the United States that extract tribute from the good people of Waterloo.)
Prof. Clayson also says, “a far away, increasingly bureaucratic, inefficient, wasteful, and corrupt federal government, which tramples on its own founding document (the Constitution) like toilet paper dropped on the restroom floor.”
Baloney!
In view of the fact that it is the Bush Administration that has shredded the Constitution and it’s the Democrats who want to restore Constitutional government, that line should just get a great laugh from everyone.
He also says, “The unifying, but false, idea is simply this: society equals government.”
I’d like Prof. Clayson to prove that point or, at least, cite an authority for it. What he gratuitously asserts, I gratuitously deny. Government has an important role in our society, but I doubt that anyone claims that they are the same thing.
One of life’s mysteries is how someone with such a warped view of the world manages to hold down a spot as a featured columnist. "
Let’s see what one member of the rich, Warren Buffet, has to say about such class warfare. “There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” (For the article from which the quotation is taken, see: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/business/yourmoney/26every.html)
I’d point out that Prof. Clayson wasn’t concerned about class warfare during the past eight years when the burdens of this society were shifted from those with the ability to pay taxes to those with restricted ability to pay taxes. Taxes were decreased on the rich. Services for the poor were limited. Prof. Clayson is only concerned now that appears that the burden of taxation is likely to be shifted towards the rich once Obama becomes president. Such crass self-interest by Prof. Clayson and the rich of this country should not be rewarded. People should notice the self-interest of Prof. Clayson’s argument and not take the bait that it’s a valid argument.
I have objections to some of Prof. Clayson’s intermediate points as well. He says, “To a conservative, society is (in declining order) the family, the church, the community, local organizations and local governments.”
Baloney!
I’ve never heard of anyone making that assertion before. However, if does remind me of the “First Dude’s,” Todd Palin’s, membership in the Alaska Independence Party. It wanted to secede from the United States. Its leader had said that he was an “Alaskan” and not a citizen of the United States. Professor Clayson seems to take secession one step further. He isn’t a citizen of the United States OR a citizen of Iowa. He is a Waterlooan and nothing else. (Frankly, I suspect that this claim is intended to pave the way for Prof. Clayson to claim, after Obama is elected, to say that Waterloo is “occupied” by the foreign governments of Iowa and the United States that extract tribute from the good people of Waterloo.)
Prof. Clayson also says, “a far away, increasingly bureaucratic, inefficient, wasteful, and corrupt federal government, which tramples on its own founding document (the Constitution) like toilet paper dropped on the restroom floor.”
Baloney!
In view of the fact that it is the Bush Administration that has shredded the Constitution and it’s the Democrats who want to restore Constitutional government, that line should just get a great laugh from everyone.
He also says, “The unifying, but false, idea is simply this: society equals government.”
I’d like Prof. Clayson to prove that point or, at least, cite an authority for it. What he gratuitously asserts, I gratuitously deny. Government has an important role in our society, but I doubt that anyone claims that they are the same thing.
One of life’s mysteries is how someone with such a warped view of the world manages to hold down a spot as a featured columnist. "
Oboy wrote on Oct 19, 2008 1:16 PM:
" hetfield, what is the difference between abortion and miscarriage? I say the rich mans daughter can financially afford a miscarriage, where the poor folks daugher will have an abortion. Money will accomplish. Is the "pill" abortion? "
hetfield wrote on Oct 19, 2008 1:23 PM:
" I have objections to some of Prof. Clayson’s intermediate points as well. He says, “To a conservative, society is (in declining order) the family, the church, the community, local organizations and local governments.”
Baloney!
of coruse cross doesnt beleive family comes first and government last!socialists everywhere try to support govt and do-nothigns first and family values last! the erosion of the family, from easier divorces, welfare mommas, abortion, gay marriage and valueless parenting are socialist and liberal dogma. "it takes a village", "spread the wealth around", 'men marrying men', not the type of hope and change this country needs more of.
did you know that a san francisco 1st grade class went on a field trip last week? did they go to the local museum, or science fair, or even the area petting zoo? no they went to their female teachers gay marriage. sickening!
the erosion of the moral and value code of america is caused by liberals and their socialist ideals. barack hussein obama is on record for voting for all liberal legislation which cause and react to these socialist programs.
no way Jose', heck no BHO! "
Baloney!
of coruse cross doesnt beleive family comes first and government last!socialists everywhere try to support govt and do-nothigns first and family values last! the erosion of the family, from easier divorces, welfare mommas, abortion, gay marriage and valueless parenting are socialist and liberal dogma. "it takes a village", "spread the wealth around", 'men marrying men', not the type of hope and change this country needs more of.
did you know that a san francisco 1st grade class went on a field trip last week? did they go to the local museum, or science fair, or even the area petting zoo? no they went to their female teachers gay marriage. sickening!
the erosion of the moral and value code of america is caused by liberals and their socialist ideals. barack hussein obama is on record for voting for all liberal legislation which cause and react to these socialist programs.
no way Jose', heck no BHO! "
wcf reader wrote on Oct 19, 2008 1:24 PM:
" "One of life’s mysteries is how someone with such a warped view of the world manages to hold down a spot as a featured columnist. " cross1242 wrote on Oct 19, 2008 12:40 PM
what seems warped is the idea that because you don't agree with cross, he is the one who is warped? just because the media is 95% percent left leaning liberals, doesn't make their opinions correct.
first off cross....warren buffet is the richest person in the united states. he made something like a few hundred million dollars a day in the first part of october. clearly he isn't the average business owner, or "rich" person making $200,000 plus.
how much did buffet pay in taxes vs. how much was he required to pay in taxes? did he pay more? if not, why didn't he. he wants to blast the system, but if he thought it was so unfair, why didn't he pay more?
regardless, what is more selfish...someone wanting to keep what they earn or someone who wants what someone else earned...because they have 'enough'...i'd say the latter is the definition of greed. everyone has the same opportunities to make money...if you want more, make more. "
what seems warped is the idea that because you don't agree with cross, he is the one who is warped? just because the media is 95% percent left leaning liberals, doesn't make their opinions correct.
first off cross....warren buffet is the richest person in the united states. he made something like a few hundred million dollars a day in the first part of october. clearly he isn't the average business owner, or "rich" person making $200,000 plus.
how much did buffet pay in taxes vs. how much was he required to pay in taxes? did he pay more? if not, why didn't he. he wants to blast the system, but if he thought it was so unfair, why didn't he pay more?
regardless, what is more selfish...someone wanting to keep what they earn or someone who wants what someone else earned...because they have 'enough'...i'd say the latter is the definition of greed. everyone has the same opportunities to make money...if you want more, make more. "
hetfield wrote on Oct 19, 2008 1:26 PM:
" Cross mentions Todd Palins possible relationship with an alaskan cessation group.
Did you know that barack hussein obama has supported the same cessation program for Hawaii?
typical liberals. Todd isnt even in a position to enact law, but that doesnt matter to crossie and his socialist pals. barack hussein obama and his liberal buddies do try to enact legislation that will further erode America. "
Did you know that barack hussein obama has supported the same cessation program for Hawaii?
typical liberals. Todd isnt even in a position to enact law, but that doesnt matter to crossie and his socialist pals. barack hussein obama and his liberal buddies do try to enact legislation that will further erode America. "
Cherubim wrote on Oct 19, 2008 1:31 PM:
" John Edwards due to a request by Barack Obama agreed to not make public appearances until after the election. I wish, instead, John Edwards was free to fearlessly say again that the government, instead of putting money into the bank accounts of the unshamefull, and unrepentant Wall Street robbers and con men, should set up savings accounts for the average person on "main street':
In July of 2007 Senator John Edwards, proposed the following solutions:
"First, I will create a Family Savings and Credit Commission to make sure that financial services treat families safely.
...It will deal with all financial services ...It will ban the most abusive terms and make sure consumers understand the others.
...pass strong national laws protecting us against the worst abuses in credit markets predatory mortgages,abusive credit card terms, and payday loans with interest rates of 300 percent or higher.
Finally, I will help create alternatives to abusive lenders. I will help working families build up a cushion by matching their savings and bringing bank accounts to the 56 million without them. And I will support non-profit groups offering affordable, short-term loans. We need a new era of responsible lenders who see families as long-term investments, not quick bucks.
All across the economy, we need to do the same thing take on the special interests and put Washington back on the side of regular families. "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJlKE_BLAUM
http://www.johnedwards.com/news/speeches/20070621-reduce-debt "
In July of 2007 Senator John Edwards, proposed the following solutions:
"First, I will create a Family Savings and Credit Commission to make sure that financial services treat families safely.
...It will deal with all financial services ...It will ban the most abusive terms and make sure consumers understand the others.
...pass strong national laws protecting us against the worst abuses in credit markets predatory mortgages,abusive credit card terms, and payday loans with interest rates of 300 percent or higher.
Finally, I will help create alternatives to abusive lenders. I will help working families build up a cushion by matching their savings and bringing bank accounts to the 56 million without them. And I will support non-profit groups offering affordable, short-term loans. We need a new era of responsible lenders who see families as long-term investments, not quick bucks.
All across the economy, we need to do the same thing take on the special interests and put Washington back on the side of regular families. "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJlKE_BLAUM
http://www.johnedwards.com/news/speeches/20070621-reduce-debt "
wcf reader wrote on Oct 19, 2008 1:36 PM:
" cross...your arguments are so weak its difficult to even want to respond to.
how can you even bring up a shifted burden of taxes when tax rates were reduced for everyone. 40% don't even pay income taxes and the top 1% of earners pay over 30% of the income tax revenue...so how can you logically even argue that there is an unfair burden anywhere? the top 25 percent of earners pay 65% of the fed income tax....unfair???
why should the burden be further moved towards one quintile???
why is raising taxes on corporations going to have any positive impact on an individual???
the negative impacts of raising taxes on corporate america (highest in the world) is going to cost jobs/benefits and salaries and push the economy even further back.
your constitution argument is so utterly ridiculous, its laughable. talk about a reach... "
how can you even bring up a shifted burden of taxes when tax rates were reduced for everyone. 40% don't even pay income taxes and the top 1% of earners pay over 30% of the income tax revenue...so how can you logically even argue that there is an unfair burden anywhere? the top 25 percent of earners pay 65% of the fed income tax....unfair???
why should the burden be further moved towards one quintile???
why is raising taxes on corporations going to have any positive impact on an individual???
the negative impacts of raising taxes on corporate america (highest in the world) is going to cost jobs/benefits and salaries and push the economy even further back.
your constitution argument is so utterly ridiculous, its laughable. talk about a reach... "
wcf reader wrote on Oct 19, 2008 1:37 PM:
" and yes govt equals society when people are dependent upon govt to supply the basic goods and services that make up a civilized society....hence socialism... "
think wrote on Oct 19, 2008 4:20 PM:
" If Alaska were to get out of the Union I would move there in a heart beat. This Country is on the brink of a second revolution or a civil war.The 535 little kings running every phase of our life have no clue of the anger out here. The IRS the most brutal sadistic group of terrorists ever turned lose on citizens are worse than any loan shark’s enforcers to ever walk the planet enables these thugs to get away with murder.Don't think it can't happen. King George made that error. "
OFJohn wrote on Oct 19, 2008 4:29 PM:
" I find myself agreeing with more of Clayson's points than normal. I have concerns about the tax plan of Obama, especially when it comes to capital gains and investments income. With what the government has allowed Wall Street to do to our economy, we need to be encouraged and supported in our efforts to reap the rewards of our investments and gains made in our homes, businesses and investments that are subject to capital gains. We are all going to have to depend more and more on that type of income to support ourselves as our society ages. But, to put the classic "it's the liberals" spin on it is ludicrous and worthless. We have the largest deficit spender in history in office right now and he is no liberal, if I remember correctly. The government is now the largest it has ever been under this administration. The constituion has been "trampled on" by the fine folks in the W administration more openly and unapologetically than I would ever have imagined could happen in my life. Senator McCain has spoken against many of these same abuses himself. As for the folks calling for the bailout being the same as those "railing against the rich", well, that's just disingenuous and insulting to those of us who pay attention. Sure, those folks have done that. But they were calling for the bailout right along with Bush, Cheney, McCain and the rest of the Republican leadership. Clayson is not an idiot and makes some fairly decent points. It's just that he almost seems to go back and add a sentence or two that puts the blame on the liberals. That makes his writings idiotic and ridiclulous. The truth is that neither party operates in a manner that is even close to responsible or admirable in any way whatsoever. Clayson is smart enough to understand that conservative commentators get a fervent following and even more fervent opposition. But they are never ignored. But it is a shame and a disservice for anyone of his intellect to pander in this manner. The truth about our government showed it's ugly head through this economic mess. Neither party had the brains, guts or leadership to see this trainwreck roaring down mainstreet for years. Since then, both parties have only further proven themselves to be unfit, stupid and corrupt. Mr Clayson, how about actually using your intellectual and writing gifts and speaking the truth about BOTH parties and the dismal road they are leading us? THAT would be worth paying attention to. "
skelloch wrote on Oct 19, 2008 5:33 PM:
" (comment by a friend)
An excellent commentary by Dennis as usual.
What Dennis does not cover is how his friend, with a socialist government, will change his behavior. If his productivity is to be taxed as it increases, he will REDUCE his productivity. Further, he will "hide" his assets as best he can such that they will NOT be available to produce jobs or expand his business. He will intensify his commitment to TAX FREE municipal investments (assuming they remain under Obama) therein such that the same funds will not be invested in American industry. And of course, he may cause much of his capital to "flee" these shores so they are in a safer enviornment and now these funds are not available in this country to create jobs.
The socialists will never learn! "
An excellent commentary by Dennis as usual.
What Dennis does not cover is how his friend, with a socialist government, will change his behavior. If his productivity is to be taxed as it increases, he will REDUCE his productivity. Further, he will "hide" his assets as best he can such that they will NOT be available to produce jobs or expand his business. He will intensify his commitment to TAX FREE municipal investments (assuming they remain under Obama) therein such that the same funds will not be invested in American industry. And of course, he may cause much of his capital to "flee" these shores so they are in a safer enviornment and now these funds are not available in this country to create jobs.
The socialists will never learn! "
hetfield wrote on Oct 19, 2008 5:37 PM:
" Oboy wrote on Oct 19, 2008 1:16 PM:
" hetfield, what is the difference between abortion and miscarriage? I say the rich mans daughter can financially afford a miscarriage, where the poor folks daugher will have an abortion. Money will accomplish. Is the "pill" abortion? "
this has to be without a doubt the stupidest comment ever posted. are you serious? are you saying that rich families buy Dr.s off or pay a thug to make their daughters miscarriage? are you saying that miscarriages, a womens involuntary loss of a wanted child, akin to abortion, a womens choice to kill her child?
if you are representative of liberals, then the country is in worse shape than I thought. Absolutely sickening comment. "
" hetfield, what is the difference between abortion and miscarriage? I say the rich mans daughter can financially afford a miscarriage, where the poor folks daugher will have an abortion. Money will accomplish. Is the "pill" abortion? "
this has to be without a doubt the stupidest comment ever posted. are you serious? are you saying that rich families buy Dr.s off or pay a thug to make their daughters miscarriage? are you saying that miscarriages, a womens involuntary loss of a wanted child, akin to abortion, a womens choice to kill her child?
if you are representative of liberals, then the country is in worse shape than I thought. Absolutely sickening comment. "
Phil wrote on Oct 19, 2008 9:22 PM:
" Mr. Clayson, what about these "highly productive" people who get paid multi-million dollar golden parachutes even though their public traded companies lost millions of dollars? Did they earn that money with their great returns for their shareholders? Did they make this country more productive?
This is part of the two Americas John Edwards talks about, and if you think it is bogus then you are so out of touch with reality I am surprised you can get up and go to work in the morning.
As far as giving more to the government via taxes, I am sick of paying for a military budget that is the largest waste of money in the history of mankind. It get's our precious citizens killed by putting them needlessly in harms way and results in our civilians being killed by terrorists because of the desire to have military bases in every corner of the globe.
No Mr. Clayson, once again it is your column that is bogus. The more you write about America, the more obvious it is you know very, very little about it. "
This is part of the two Americas John Edwards talks about, and if you think it is bogus then you are so out of touch with reality I am surprised you can get up and go to work in the morning.
As far as giving more to the government via taxes, I am sick of paying for a military budget that is the largest waste of money in the history of mankind. It get's our precious citizens killed by putting them needlessly in harms way and results in our civilians being killed by terrorists because of the desire to have military bases in every corner of the globe.
No Mr. Clayson, once again it is your column that is bogus. The more you write about America, the more obvious it is you know very, very little about it. "
Phil wrote on Oct 19, 2008 9:28 PM:
" Oboy - I know what you meant - rich Republican women will still find a way to get an abortion if they want to, regardless of whether Roe vs Wade is still in force or not.
If Republicans were really pro-life there wouldn't be a death penalty and we wouldn't be fighting two wars right now.
Some lives are worth more than others according to them. And if you live in a Muslim country, your life isn't worth much at all to them. "
If Republicans were really pro-life there wouldn't be a death penalty and we wouldn't be fighting two wars right now.
Some lives are worth more than others according to them. And if you live in a Muslim country, your life isn't worth much at all to them. "
hetfield wrote on Oct 19, 2008 10:38 PM:
" Phil wrote on Oct 19, 2008 9:22 PM:
It get's our precious citizens killed by putting them needlessly in harms way and results in our civilians being killed by terrorists because of the desire to have military bases in every corner of the globe.
Phil is putting a price on each of the civilians killed in 911. apparantly he completely disregards those lives and doesnt want any response to their deaths.
Sorry, Phil, but Clayons knows more about America than you do. "
It get's our precious citizens killed by putting them needlessly in harms way and results in our civilians being killed by terrorists because of the desire to have military bases in every corner of the globe.
Phil is putting a price on each of the civilians killed in 911. apparantly he completely disregards those lives and doesnt want any response to their deaths.
Sorry, Phil, but Clayons knows more about America than you do. "
timbrackett wrote on Oct 20, 2008 5:01 AM:
" this article is ridiculous!
so, we give the rich people a bunch of tax breaks under the bush tax cuts, they get greedy, ruin our nations economy and then bush, etc. bail them out. but i'm supposed to believe rich people shouldn't be taxed...there is no "two americas"...it's actually the liberals and moderates who are engaged in class warfare.
the quote from warren buffet is correct. the only people engaging in class warfare are the wealthy. "
so, we give the rich people a bunch of tax breaks under the bush tax cuts, they get greedy, ruin our nations economy and then bush, etc. bail them out. but i'm supposed to believe rich people shouldn't be taxed...there is no "two americas"...it's actually the liberals and moderates who are engaged in class warfare.
the quote from warren buffet is correct. the only people engaging in class warfare are the wealthy. "
Newswatcher wrote on Oct 20, 2008 7:24 AM:
" Hey, what happened to the saying that "money can't buy happiness"?
Why do all you have-nots want what the rich have when you can pretty clearly see that it doesn't automatically bring happiness?
Like Sheryl Crow's song lyrics: "It's not getting what you want, It's wanting what you've got."
Needs vs wants are grossly distorted in our society. I think it's time the rich show the poor just how stressful it can be to manage the stuff, the money, the schedule, the people, the life. Hint: look at the fallout on Wallstreet, these people are miserable!
It's not about warfare between the wealthy and the poor (the wealthy pay, regardless of what you think). It's about yourself and how you think about where you're at, what you've done and what you'd do differently if you had a chance to go back and start your life over (knowing what you know now).
Suck it up folks, it's YOU that will make you happy, not Savior Obama + a Dem House & Senate that will spread the wealth around. You will STILL not be happy, because it's IN you to envy and complain rather than accept where you're at and enjoy your life.
Democrats = Glass is half-empty, someone took MY 1/2 glass of water! It's their fault and someone must PAY!
Republicans = Glass is half-full, I'm glad I did what it took to put this water into my glass. "
Why do all you have-nots want what the rich have when you can pretty clearly see that it doesn't automatically bring happiness?
Like Sheryl Crow's song lyrics: "It's not getting what you want, It's wanting what you've got."
Needs vs wants are grossly distorted in our society. I think it's time the rich show the poor just how stressful it can be to manage the stuff, the money, the schedule, the people, the life. Hint: look at the fallout on Wallstreet, these people are miserable!
It's not about warfare between the wealthy and the poor (the wealthy pay, regardless of what you think). It's about yourself and how you think about where you're at, what you've done and what you'd do differently if you had a chance to go back and start your life over (knowing what you know now).
Suck it up folks, it's YOU that will make you happy, not Savior Obama + a Dem House & Senate that will spread the wealth around. You will STILL not be happy, because it's IN you to envy and complain rather than accept where you're at and enjoy your life.
Democrats = Glass is half-empty, someone took MY 1/2 glass of water! It's their fault and someone must PAY!
Republicans = Glass is half-full, I'm glad I did what it took to put this water into my glass. "
wcf reader wrote on Oct 20, 2008 8:52 AM:
" so phil and others...i'm guessing you went to college or recieved a secondary eduation of some sort, if not...your points are so invalidated its laughable. that being said, did your teachers/professors ever grade on the curve? if so, how did that make you feel? did you like to be the one settng the curve or those bennefiting from those that did....its that simple. people work hard for a reason. to say thanks for doing everything you've done, without you "THE REST OF US ARE OUT OF LUCK", but you haven't done your "SHARE" and we think you can do more is absoulutely preposterous!!!
what you ane everyone else fails to realize is the bennefit those at the top provide. why would anyone attempt to deter people from reaching that level, when its clearly identified that its necessary to have them and their income and production? WHY??? Only reason I can see is that you don't feel that you can acheive their 'success'....and thats nobody's fault but your own. they are the american dream.......
i've seen the ridiculous commercial for obama talking about how the company that makes the thread for flags is outsourced to a different company. does anyone not think that by rasising corporate income taxes and detering investment through other taxes obama plans to increase that it won't push jobs further away, or to lower benefits or pay?
busineses provide a service, but have to make a profit to survive. you increase their costs, it is going to have an impact on consumers & employees... "
what you ane everyone else fails to realize is the bennefit those at the top provide. why would anyone attempt to deter people from reaching that level, when its clearly identified that its necessary to have them and their income and production? WHY??? Only reason I can see is that you don't feel that you can acheive their 'success'....and thats nobody's fault but your own. they are the american dream.......
i've seen the ridiculous commercial for obama talking about how the company that makes the thread for flags is outsourced to a different company. does anyone not think that by rasising corporate income taxes and detering investment through other taxes obama plans to increase that it won't push jobs further away, or to lower benefits or pay?
busineses provide a service, but have to make a profit to survive. you increase their costs, it is going to have an impact on consumers & employees... "
xdfred wrote on Oct 20, 2008 9:46 AM:
" Phil wrote on Oct 19, 2008 9:22 PM:
" Mr. Clayson, what about these "highly productive" people who get paid multi-million dollar golden parachutes even though their public traded companies lost millions of dollars? Did they earn that money with their great returns for their shareholders? Did they make this country more productive?..." They made it more productive than congress. And they didn't take the money by force, either. It was given to them, Mr Wealth envy. I agree that stockholders need more say on CEO pay, but that's about it. "
" Mr. Clayson, what about these "highly productive" people who get paid multi-million dollar golden parachutes even though their public traded companies lost millions of dollars? Did they earn that money with their great returns for their shareholders? Did they make this country more productive?..." They made it more productive than congress. And they didn't take the money by force, either. It was given to them, Mr Wealth envy. I agree that stockholders need more say on CEO pay, but that's about it. "
xdfred wrote on Oct 20, 2008 9:48 AM:
" Phil wrote on Oct 19, 2008 9:28 PM:
" Oboy - I know what you meant - rich Republican women ..." And rich democrat women won't? WHich party pushes abortion and why? Democrats. Money. "
" Oboy - I know what you meant - rich Republican women ..." And rich democrat women won't? WHich party pushes abortion and why? Democrats. Money. "
xdfred wrote on Oct 20, 2008 9:54 AM:
" Phil wrote on Oct 19, 2008 9:28 PM:
"...If Republicans were really pro-life there wouldn't be a death penalty and we wouldn't be fighting two wars right now...." Pro life doesn't mean wimpy pacifist. Luke 22:36. Exodus 22:1. It means protecting the weak among us, our families, and ourselves. It has nothing to do with the death penalty. Of course, to a clueless socialist like you, an innocent baby in it's mother's womb is no different than a repeat serial rapist murderer, huh? The Catholic church states there should be no death penalty unless we have a catch and release program for violent killers, which we do. "
"...If Republicans were really pro-life there wouldn't be a death penalty and we wouldn't be fighting two wars right now...." Pro life doesn't mean wimpy pacifist. Luke 22:36. Exodus 22:1. It means protecting the weak among us, our families, and ourselves. It has nothing to do with the death penalty. Of course, to a clueless socialist like you, an innocent baby in it's mother's womb is no different than a repeat serial rapist murderer, huh? The Catholic church states there should be no death penalty unless we have a catch and release program for violent killers, which we do. "
xdfred wrote on Oct 20, 2008 9:56 AM:
" Phil wrote on Oct 19, 2008 9:22 PM:
"...This is part of the two Americas John Edwards..." When he's not chasing skirt and stirring up class warfare by other means. John Edwards is nothing more than a scam artist. So's Obama, but Obama's better at it. "
"...This is part of the two Americas John Edwards..." When he's not chasing skirt and stirring up class warfare by other means. John Edwards is nothing more than a scam artist. So's Obama, but Obama's better at it. "
Steady wrote on Oct 20, 2008 9:57 AM:
" Here is the thing. Are there gready rich people out there making money off some people? You bet there are. (I would contest there are gready poor people too.) Are there poor people out there not doing anything waiting for a hand out? You bet there are. (I would contest there are rich people waiting for hand outs as well.)
Realizing that not everyone is evil or lazy in their respective class, who has a better plan for everyone? If we only talk about taxes McCain has a better plan at spurring economic growth than Obama. McCain focuses on economic growth and job creation while Obama focuses on the redistribution of income.
As Tax Policy Center Director Len Burman states, "the major themes of the two plans are, in the case of Senator McCain's plan, that the major emphasis is on economic efficiency—cuts marginal tax rates, improves economic incentives…. In the case of Obama's plan, the goal is primarily to improve progressivity…to lower tax burdens on low-income people and raise them on higher-income people." Each presidential candidate achieves his stated goal,with Senator McCain generating the most new jobs, growth, and additional income for individuals. Senator Obama's plan drives up the tax rate for individuals with annual incomes above $250,000 and redistributes money to workers with lower incomes. "
Realizing that not everyone is evil or lazy in their respective class, who has a better plan for everyone? If we only talk about taxes McCain has a better plan at spurring economic growth than Obama. McCain focuses on economic growth and job creation while Obama focuses on the redistribution of income.
As Tax Policy Center Director Len Burman states, "the major themes of the two plans are, in the case of Senator McCain's plan, that the major emphasis is on economic efficiency—cuts marginal tax rates, improves economic incentives…. In the case of Obama's plan, the goal is primarily to improve progressivity…to lower tax burdens on low-income people and raise them on higher-income people." Each presidential candidate achieves his stated goal,with Senator McCain generating the most new jobs, growth, and additional income for individuals. Senator Obama's plan drives up the tax rate for individuals with annual incomes above $250,000 and redistributes money to workers with lower incomes. "
Independent wrote on Oct 20, 2008 10:57 AM:
" Steady, it's ironic that on "Meet The Press" Colin Powell said just the opposite of what you post.
I think I'll listen to Mr. Powell instead of you or Clayson. "
I think I'll listen to Mr. Powell instead of you or Clayson. "
wcf reader wrote on Oct 20, 2008 11:16 AM:
" Steady, well put. Greed isn't synonomous with Selfishness, but one has to be selish to be greedy.
to be selfish is to put yourself before others and most are guilty of it. you could make the argument that the person who makes 250,000 a year is selfish and has more than they 'need', and you can make the argument that one who is asking for another to contribute more than themself is shelfish.
who is more selfish? a person who expects to keep what they earn, or the person who expects a peice of what they didn't earn? to me the subject is that simple.
if you want to talk about other issues of compensation...so be it, but wallstreet is an anomaly as compared to the rest of the US. just as professional sports, hollywood, etc.
the rich, most lament are part of corporate executive types or entreuprenuers. the main point is i'd say 95 percent of the poeple in these positions earned them by demonstrating their intelligence, work ethic, etc.
of course there are executives that are grossly over compensated. i'd say a senator who takes part in less than 50% of his responsibilities he/she was elected for is grossly overpaid. in any case, compensation is based upon the responsibilities the job demands and who is qualified to do those jobs. most people aren't as intelligent or have the work ethic as say the CEO of Bank of America, or the ability to play golf of Tiger Woods, or the ability to act, sing, dance, etc of Hollywood and the music industry. "
to be selfish is to put yourself before others and most are guilty of it. you could make the argument that the person who makes 250,000 a year is selfish and has more than they 'need', and you can make the argument that one who is asking for another to contribute more than themself is shelfish.
who is more selfish? a person who expects to keep what they earn, or the person who expects a peice of what they didn't earn? to me the subject is that simple.
if you want to talk about other issues of compensation...so be it, but wallstreet is an anomaly as compared to the rest of the US. just as professional sports, hollywood, etc.
the rich, most lament are part of corporate executive types or entreuprenuers. the main point is i'd say 95 percent of the poeple in these positions earned them by demonstrating their intelligence, work ethic, etc.
of course there are executives that are grossly over compensated. i'd say a senator who takes part in less than 50% of his responsibilities he/she was elected for is grossly overpaid. in any case, compensation is based upon the responsibilities the job demands and who is qualified to do those jobs. most people aren't as intelligent or have the work ethic as say the CEO of Bank of America, or the ability to play golf of Tiger Woods, or the ability to act, sing, dance, etc of Hollywood and the music industry. "
hetfield wrote on Oct 20, 2008 11:24 AM:
" Phil wrote on Oct 19, 2008 9:28 PM:
" Oboy - I know what you meant - rich Republican women will still find a way to get an abortion if they want to, regardless of whether Roe vs Wade is still in force or not.
If Republicans were really pro-life there wouldn't be a death penalty and we wouldn't be fighting two wars right now.
Some lives are worth more than others according to them. And if you live in a Muslim country, your life isn't worth much at all to them. "
looks like the liberal sickness is spreading. for shame. "
" Oboy - I know what you meant - rich Republican women will still find a way to get an abortion if they want to, regardless of whether Roe vs Wade is still in force or not.
If Republicans were really pro-life there wouldn't be a death penalty and we wouldn't be fighting two wars right now.
Some lives are worth more than others according to them. And if you live in a Muslim country, your life isn't worth much at all to them. "
looks like the liberal sickness is spreading. for shame. "
hetfield wrote on Oct 20, 2008 11:26 AM:
" and tell me phil, what is the difference between an innocent new born and a murderer/rapist/molester? nothing in your small mind. everyone to you is a rapist.
sleep tight phil. you are going to have a heck of a time down south after you are gone! "
sleep tight phil. you are going to have a heck of a time down south after you are gone! "
xdfred wrote on Oct 20, 2008 11:49 AM:
" Independent wrote on Oct 20, 2008 10:57 AM:
" Steady, it's ironic that on "Meet The Press" Colin Powell said just the opposite of what you post.
I think I'll listen to Mr. Powell instead of you or Clayson. "
Wasn't Powell one of the key players in pushing us into Iraq? "
" Steady, it's ironic that on "Meet The Press" Colin Powell said just the opposite of what you post.
I think I'll listen to Mr. Powell instead of you or Clayson. "
Wasn't Powell one of the key players in pushing us into Iraq? "
cross1242 wrote on Oct 20, 2008 12:23 PM:
" xdfred @ Oct 20, 2008 11:49 AM said, "Wasn't Powell one of the key players in pushing us into Iraq? "
No, xdfred, he wasn't. He was counseling deplomacy. And, precisely because the Secretary of State was counseling W to NOT go into Iraq, he was cut out of the group making the decision. (This was SOP for W. For many decisions, he cut out whoever counseled against whatever W didn't want to do.
But, Powell, like a soldier, went along when a decision had been made. Thus he gave the UN speech on why we would invade Iraq even though he wasn't in favor of doing that.
Wrong facts again, xdfred. "
No, xdfred, he wasn't. He was counseling deplomacy. And, precisely because the Secretary of State was counseling W to NOT go into Iraq, he was cut out of the group making the decision. (This was SOP for W. For many decisions, he cut out whoever counseled against whatever W didn't want to do.
But, Powell, like a soldier, went along when a decision had been made. Thus he gave the UN speech on why we would invade Iraq even though he wasn't in favor of doing that.
Wrong facts again, xdfred. "
cross1242 wrote on Oct 20, 2008 12:26 PM:
" hetfield @ Oct 20, 2008 11:26 AM said, "sleep tight phil. you are going to have a heck of a time down south after you are gone!"
You know, suggesting that someone is going to (deleted) seems like the ultimate violation of the board rules against dealing in personalities. Does anyone else think that the violation should be pointed out to the editors? "
You know, suggesting that someone is going to (deleted) seems like the ultimate violation of the board rules against dealing in personalities. Does anyone else think that the violation should be pointed out to the editors? "
xdfred wrote on Oct 20, 2008 12:41 PM:
" cross1242 wrote on Oct 20, 2008 12:23 PM:
" xdfred @ Oct 20, 2008 11:49 AM said, "Wasn't Powell one of the key players in pushing us into Iraq? "
No, xdfred, he wasn't. He was counseling deplomacy. And, precisely because the Secretary of State was counseling W to NOT go into Iraq, he was cut out of the group making the decision. (This was SOP for W. For many decisions, he cut out whoever counseled against whatever W didn't want to do.
But, Powell, like a soldier, went along when a decision had been made. Thus he gave the UN speech on why we would invade Iraq even though he wasn't in favor of doing that.
Wrong facts again, xdfred. "
Brilliant, Cross. What in sight.....Or horse squeeze. Coming from you.....horse squeeze. "
" xdfred @ Oct 20, 2008 11:49 AM said, "Wasn't Powell one of the key players in pushing us into Iraq? "
No, xdfred, he wasn't. He was counseling deplomacy. And, precisely because the Secretary of State was counseling W to NOT go into Iraq, he was cut out of the group making the decision. (This was SOP for W. For many decisions, he cut out whoever counseled against whatever W didn't want to do.
But, Powell, like a soldier, went along when a decision had been made. Thus he gave the UN speech on why we would invade Iraq even though he wasn't in favor of doing that.
Wrong facts again, xdfred. "
Brilliant, Cross. What in sight.....Or horse squeeze. Coming from you.....horse squeeze. "
hetfield wrote on Oct 20, 2008 12:54 PM:
" perhaps so, however, his comments and oboys comments equating abortion with miscarriage probably earn an express ticket right there!
ahem, short of that, I do support their right to express it. You should support mine. "
ahem, short of that, I do support their right to express it. You should support mine. "
cubbies08 wrote on Oct 20, 2008 12:54 PM:
" think wrote on Oct 19, 2008 4:20 PM:
" If Alaska were to get out of the Union I would move there in a heart beat. This Country is on the brink of a second revolution or a civil war.The 535 little kings running every phase of our life have no clue of the anger out here. The IRS the most brutal sadistic group of terrorists ever turned lose on citizens are worse than any loan shark’s enforcers to ever walk the planet enables these thugs to get away with murder.Don't think it can't happen. King George made that error. "
People like you scare the (deleted) out of me. Do you have a bunker in your house ready for the Holocaust? I keep hearing how angry everyone is. Where? I'm not angry. Well maybe a little at two crooks, Barney Rubble..I mean Frank and Chris Dodd. There are to many crazies out there with a computer. As my dad always used to say, "it's a free country". So go ahead and move if you are not satisfied. I hear you can get some real cheap property in Pakistan. Nice mountain view. "
" If Alaska were to get out of the Union I would move there in a heart beat. This Country is on the brink of a second revolution or a civil war.The 535 little kings running every phase of our life have no clue of the anger out here. The IRS the most brutal sadistic group of terrorists ever turned lose on citizens are worse than any loan shark’s enforcers to ever walk the planet enables these thugs to get away with murder.Don't think it can't happen. King George made that error. "
People like you scare the (deleted) out of me. Do you have a bunker in your house ready for the Holocaust? I keep hearing how angry everyone is. Where? I'm not angry. Well maybe a little at two crooks, Barney Rubble..I mean Frank and Chris Dodd. There are to many crazies out there with a computer. As my dad always used to say, "it's a free country". So go ahead and move if you are not satisfied. I hear you can get some real cheap property in Pakistan. Nice mountain view. "
Stana wrote on Oct 20, 2008 1:53 PM:
" My Mother was born in 1920 the 13th out of 15 children. By the time she was born her older Sisters and sister in laws were already having children. In a farm close knit society like she was raised in, she knew as a family memeber much of what went on in the family private lives at a young age. She was there assisting at home births. Abortion was a part of thier life too. Even then. It happened... The ladies made it happen. There were in later years...DNC's ordered by the Dr. for the Mothers health, which were abortions in fact. So that is what the poster ment by rich mans daughters have misscarriages and poor mans daughters have abortions. Thats reality. "
cf1981 wrote on Oct 20, 2008 2:09 PM:
" hetfield, xfred and all the rest -- I truly feel happy for all of you, because in about three months you will be living in a country governed by President Obama! You too will know the joy of responsible government, a progressive social agenda and an end to a pointless war in Iraq, not to mention a true focus on our nation's real enemies on the Afghan/Pakistan border.
I know, this post has nothing to do with Clayson's article. Guess it doesn't matter... "
I know, this post has nothing to do with Clayson's article. Guess it doesn't matter... "
xdfred wrote on Oct 20, 2008 3:14 PM:
" Stana wrote on Oct 20, 2008 1:53 PM:
" My Mother was born in 1920 the 13th out of 15 children. By the time she was born her older Sisters and sister in laws were already having children. In a farm close knit society like she was raised in, she knew as a family memeber much of what went on in the family private lives at a young age. She was there assisting at home births. Abortion was a part of thier life too. Even then. It happened... The ladies made it happen. There were in later years...DNC's ordered by the Dr. for the Mothers health, which were abortions in fact. So that is what the poster ment by rich mans daughters have misscarriages and poor mans daughters have abortions. Thats reality. "
Sniff...sob.....Given the liberal mantra of the ends justifying the means, I'll say just one thing to this teary little story. Abortion is wrong. That's reality. "
" My Mother was born in 1920 the 13th out of 15 children. By the time she was born her older Sisters and sister in laws were already having children. In a farm close knit society like she was raised in, she knew as a family memeber much of what went on in the family private lives at a young age. She was there assisting at home births. Abortion was a part of thier life too. Even then. It happened... The ladies made it happen. There were in later years...DNC's ordered by the Dr. for the Mothers health, which were abortions in fact. So that is what the poster ment by rich mans daughters have misscarriages and poor mans daughters have abortions. Thats reality. "
Sniff...sob.....Given the liberal mantra of the ends justifying the means, I'll say just one thing to this teary little story. Abortion is wrong. That's reality. "
xdfred wrote on Oct 20, 2008 3:19 PM:
" cf1981 wrote on Oct 20, 2008 2:09 PM:
" hetfield, xfred and all the rest -- " Please. XDFred. Let's get it right.
I almost hope he wins. Remember the Carter years? How great that was? But the stakes are higher now.
Responsible government? Sure, ala Stalin.
"...a progressive social agenda..." Those have always succeeded.
"...and an end to a pointless war in Iraq..." Yes, surrendering usually ends the conflict. Then the slaughter begins. Remember Vietnam? Pol Pot?
"...a true focus on our nation's real enemies on the Afghan/Pakistan border...." So, those Al Quada islamists are different than the Al Quada islamists in Iraq. I get it.
Freedom of speech is great, And I thank the Courier for this venue of expression, does mean one thing. We must suffer foolish thoughts.
Suffer we must. "
" hetfield, xfred and all the rest -- " Please. XDFred. Let's get it right.
I almost hope he wins. Remember the Carter years? How great that was? But the stakes are higher now.
Responsible government? Sure, ala Stalin.
"...a progressive social agenda..." Those have always succeeded.
"...and an end to a pointless war in Iraq..." Yes, surrendering usually ends the conflict. Then the slaughter begins. Remember Vietnam? Pol Pot?
"...a true focus on our nation's real enemies on the Afghan/Pakistan border...." So, those Al Quada islamists are different than the Al Quada islamists in Iraq. I get it.
Freedom of speech is great, And I thank the Courier for this venue of expression, does mean one thing. We must suffer foolish thoughts.
Suffer we must. "
Steady wrote on Oct 20, 2008 3:23 PM:
" Independent, of course you will listen to who ever supports your views - no suprise there.
I wouldn't listen to me either, but I will choose to listen to Burman over Powell. Burman is who I quoted and happens to be an economist and tax expert. Burman is the director of the Tax Policy Center and critical of areas in McCain's plan as well. What experience in tax policy and economy does Powell have? Powell has many creditentials when it comes to security, military and foriegn affairs.
Believing Powell knows more than Burman when it has to do with taxes is just plain silly. "
I wouldn't listen to me either, but I will choose to listen to Burman over Powell. Burman is who I quoted and happens to be an economist and tax expert. Burman is the director of the Tax Policy Center and critical of areas in McCain's plan as well. What experience in tax policy and economy does Powell have? Powell has many creditentials when it comes to security, military and foriegn affairs.
Believing Powell knows more than Burman when it has to do with taxes is just plain silly. "
think wrote on Oct 20, 2008 3:49 PM:
" "People like you scare the (deleted) out of me. Do you have a bunker in your house ready for the Holocaust? I keep hearing how angry everyone is. Where? I'm not angry. Well maybe a little at two crooks, Barney Rubble..I mean Frank and Chris Dodd. There are to many crazies out there with a computer. As my dad always used to say, "it's a free country". So go ahead and move if you are not satisfied. I hear you can get some real cheap property in Pakistan. Nice mountain view. "
Yes I do and you should. Free Country huh? Try and build a shed without a permit. Go catch a carp out of the river with no license. Big brother in our doctor's business, in our banks and even up our........ You tell me it's free. FDR the great Socialist and his ideology did what Hitler couldn’t. Took away out freedom. "
Yes I do and you should. Free Country huh? Try and build a shed without a permit. Go catch a carp out of the river with no license. Big brother in our doctor's business, in our banks and even up our........ You tell me it's free. FDR the great Socialist and his ideology did what Hitler couldn’t. Took away out freedom. "
stana wrote on Oct 20, 2008 5:00 PM:
" Xdfred I am neither a liberal nor proabortion. Just stating the reality of the world. "
hetfield wrote on Oct 20, 2008 6:35 PM:
" cf, thanks for wishing socialism and trickle up welfare to the rest of us.
barack hussein obama wants to spread the wealth down and spread the poor up! what good will that possibly do? it will destroy investment in capital improvements, in creating industry, in exploring new technologies..
i'm glad that you think you wil lhave more hitler youth to hang out with cf, but in reality you will just have more people with you in the food stamp line.
this just in: it is the productive, intelligent, hard working people that make their own success. nobody should be given it at others expense, and noone is guaranteed success by the constitution, you know, that thing barack hussein obama despises and wants to rewrite.
go out and earn your way, stop picking the low lying fruit! "
barack hussein obama wants to spread the wealth down and spread the poor up! what good will that possibly do? it will destroy investment in capital improvements, in creating industry, in exploring new technologies..
i'm glad that you think you wil lhave more hitler youth to hang out with cf, but in reality you will just have more people with you in the food stamp line.
this just in: it is the productive, intelligent, hard working people that make their own success. nobody should be given it at others expense, and noone is guaranteed success by the constitution, you know, that thing barack hussein obama despises and wants to rewrite.
go out and earn your way, stop picking the low lying fruit! "
hetfield wrote on Oct 20, 2008 6:46 PM:
" cross, buzz. you are wrong again. Powell left any conservative ideals behind in 2003 when he openly disagreed with bush on affirmative action. Prior to that, going back to his failed run for office, he refused to let anyone know what his political ideals were. One of the reasons he failed as a politician. now he is out trying to become one. he picked the suppposed frontrunner to align with to pander for a position in his cabinet. One that will never come, because barack hussein obama will be defeated.
Rush is on record for saying powells choice to back BHO was racially motivated. heck yes it is! as is the fact that 90% of blacks who vote will vote for BHO, not because of his socialist ideals, not because of his lack of record on anything, but because he is 1/2 black. To those that are voting for bho for promises of hope are disillusioned. to those that can see through the baloney will vote for the man with experience and years of service to his country, not a fake messiah.
For powell to do anything else would be his downfall in the national spotlight, something he yearns for obviously.
And another thing. If powell disagreed with his commander in chief, he should have shown integrity and resigned instead of go against his beliefs. He was not a field soldier at the time facing the enemy. The oath he took required him to do so.
say no to phil, cross, cf and 50674's choice of false hope. vote no to BHO! "
Rush is on record for saying powells choice to back BHO was racially motivated. heck yes it is! as is the fact that 90% of blacks who vote will vote for BHO, not because of his socialist ideals, not because of his lack of record on anything, but because he is 1/2 black. To those that are voting for bho for promises of hope are disillusioned. to those that can see through the baloney will vote for the man with experience and years of service to his country, not a fake messiah.
For powell to do anything else would be his downfall in the national spotlight, something he yearns for obviously.
And another thing. If powell disagreed with his commander in chief, he should have shown integrity and resigned instead of go against his beliefs. He was not a field soldier at the time facing the enemy. The oath he took required him to do so.
say no to phil, cross, cf and 50674's choice of false hope. vote no to BHO! "
cross1242 wrote on Oct 20, 2008 7:31 PM:
" think @ Oct 20, 2008 3:49 PM said, "Free Country huh? Try and build a shed without a permit. Go catch a carp out of the river with no license. Big brother in our doctor's business, in our banks and even up our...."
So, "think," you figure that "freedom" includes being able to swing your arms where another guy's nose begins." You may not like it but you live with thousands of other folks around you. And, everything you cited is an example of something where someone else's nose begins. "
So, "think," you figure that "freedom" includes being able to swing your arms where another guy's nose begins." You may not like it but you live with thousands of other folks around you. And, everything you cited is an example of something where someone else's nose begins. "
Phil wrote on Oct 20, 2008 7:47 PM:
" hetfield - aren't you the great moral judge and jury? Just like Bush is the decider, you sit at God's right hand deciding who is worthy of his salvation.
I sleep well thanks, I hope you do also, but just in case I would say your prayers each night. Never know if you will need them or night. Say a few for Bush also, I have a feeling he is REALLY going to need them. "
I sleep well thanks, I hope you do also, but just in case I would say your prayers each night. Never know if you will need them or night. Say a few for Bush also, I have a feeling he is REALLY going to need them. "
Phil wrote on Oct 20, 2008 7:54 PM:
" xdfred - let's see hetfield decides who receives eternal salvation and you decide which lives are more deserving of living than others.
Pro-life is just that - pro LIFE - any life, doesn't matter whose it is.
So I guess you are admitting you are just anti-choice, not pro-life. That some lives deserve to be destroyed and others don't. In fact I bet if a fetus could be tested and found that it would probably grow up to be a murderer, terrorist, gay, or perhaps even a black, liberal future president, you would no doubt be in favor of abortion in that case.
Thanks for clearing that up. "
Pro-life is just that - pro LIFE - any life, doesn't matter whose it is.
So I guess you are admitting you are just anti-choice, not pro-life. That some lives deserve to be destroyed and others don't. In fact I bet if a fetus could be tested and found that it would probably grow up to be a murderer, terrorist, gay, or perhaps even a black, liberal future president, you would no doubt be in favor of abortion in that case.
Thanks for clearing that up. "
50674 wrote on Oct 20, 2008 9:25 PM:
" Once again hetfield speaks in his all-knowing wisdon, LMAO!!! How many times do you have to be told I am NOT an Obama supporter, I am AGAINST McCain? You continue to prove the theory that you never really read anything, believe only what you want and are nothing more than a closed-minded contradiction. "
Phil wrote on Oct 20, 2008 10:01 PM:
" wcf reader says - "what you ane everyone else fails to realize is the bennefit those at the top provide."
You mean all those great benefits Rush provides (racism, bigotry, habitual telling of lies, etc.) for those millions he is paid. The thousands of jobs he is providing - the great dent he is putting into the balance of trade.
Yes, some of those at the top do provide good things for others, and some like Rush or those who simply inherit millions, don't.
Tax laws should be structured so that those who actually provide some benefits get some relief, while those like Rush, and those who receive golden parachutes for running shareholders investments into the ground, don't. "
You mean all those great benefits Rush provides (racism, bigotry, habitual telling of lies, etc.) for those millions he is paid. The thousands of jobs he is providing - the great dent he is putting into the balance of trade.
Yes, some of those at the top do provide good things for others, and some like Rush or those who simply inherit millions, don't.
Tax laws should be structured so that those who actually provide some benefits get some relief, while those like Rush, and those who receive golden parachutes for running shareholders investments into the ground, don't. "
hetfield wrote on Oct 20, 2008 10:06 PM:
" phil you are wrong again. i never said i decided who goes where. God does and he probably hates to hear how you leftists decide to kill his babies.
pro-life is a term abortionists caused to be made up. there really is no such a thing. Pro-abortion, yes. Pro-life? all mankind should have pro-life values. unfortunately the left in the US lack these values. womens right to choose? poppeycock! why not mens right? why not the unborns right?
leftists will never win this argument. your comment again regarding 'fetus growing up to be...' is preposterus and disgusting.
unfortunately for you the constitution gives the right to the unborn. unfortunately for babies, liberal judges for political reason only, sentenced those babies to death.
barack hussein obama is at the head of the boat on this push at this time. voting against infanticide? that is sickening and requires a complete lack of morals. he even said he wouldnt punish his daughters with a pregnancy. again, he would rather pay up and kill a baby.
*shivers. "
pro-life is a term abortionists caused to be made up. there really is no such a thing. Pro-abortion, yes. Pro-life? all mankind should have pro-life values. unfortunately the left in the US lack these values. womens right to choose? poppeycock! why not mens right? why not the unborns right?
leftists will never win this argument. your comment again regarding 'fetus growing up to be...' is preposterus and disgusting.
unfortunately for you the constitution gives the right to the unborn. unfortunately for babies, liberal judges for political reason only, sentenced those babies to death.
barack hussein obama is at the head of the boat on this push at this time. voting against infanticide? that is sickening and requires a complete lack of morals. he even said he wouldnt punish his daughters with a pregnancy. again, he would rather pay up and kill a baby.
*shivers. "
MAC wrote on Oct 21, 2008 5:57 AM:
" Seems to me the proper term for people against abortion should be pro-birth...since most of these ranters could give a flying fig what happens to these children AFTER they are born. "
timbrackett wrote on Oct 21, 2008 6:29 AM:
" well said, MAC. the thing that kills me is all those from the christian right who have forsaken every other christian principal over the issue of abortion--and now march lock-step with anything and everything the republicans do...including support for mccain who only recently took up the pro-life cause.
can you believe that i have actually heard christians say with all sincerity that they don't believe one can be a democrat and be a christian?!?
thankfully, the evangelical christians under 35 see through the bull**** and are swarming to obama. if this election is close, it will be this voting bloc, a group that gave bush the edge in '04, that will make the difference for obama in '08. "
can you believe that i have actually heard christians say with all sincerity that they don't believe one can be a democrat and be a christian?!?
thankfully, the evangelical christians under 35 see through the bull**** and are swarming to obama. if this election is close, it will be this voting bloc, a group that gave bush the edge in '04, that will make the difference for obama in '08. "
Phil wrote on Oct 21, 2008 9:17 AM:
" hetfield - there is one thing wrong with your argument - no judge, no congressman, no liberal decides which fetus will be carried to term or not. Only one person makes that final decision - the person carrying it in their body.
There is no law, no rule, nothing that forces any person to have an abortion - ever.
Blame who you want - and you will - but you really need to deal with the people who make that decision.
Of course it will be someone else's fault in your mind - and you will continue to blame everyone from me to liberal judges to Planned Parenthood.
You just can't face the fact that there are people who can make that decision in accordance with their own values and conscience. Nope, you need to do God's bidding and make that decision for them.
Sorry, that's between them and their God - you, and the rest of us, need to stay out of it. "
There is no law, no rule, nothing that forces any person to have an abortion - ever.
Blame who you want - and you will - but you really need to deal with the people who make that decision.
Of course it will be someone else's fault in your mind - and you will continue to blame everyone from me to liberal judges to Planned Parenthood.
You just can't face the fact that there are people who can make that decision in accordance with their own values and conscience. Nope, you need to do God's bidding and make that decision for them.
Sorry, that's between them and their God - you, and the rest of us, need to stay out of it. "
Phil wrote on Oct 21, 2008 9:20 AM:
" Full disclosure - this is copied from another web site - but I thought the views of this life long Republican from west Texas would make a good contrast to the views of Mr. Clayson.
"Here are the key sections of the e-mail from a man who says he voted for George W. Bush twice but has donated to Barack Obama this cycle:
I am sick to death of the negativity and lack of substance offered by McCain's campaign. The Ayrs [sic] "connection" is ludicrous, and the attempt to paint the "good touch, bad touch" training program for kiddoes is disgusting. Books could, and will be written about Palin's shallowness, and the arrogance that attempted to foist her on us. If these are products of the "'Straight Talk' Express" then I'd hate to see full blown Bushism.
BTW, I am a white Southerner, the descendant of a Civil War-era Tory. My family was voting Republican by 1868, if not 1864 -- way before all these Johnny-come-latelies, whose ancestors were in the Klan. Regardless, I cannot stand any more hubris, incompetence, cronyism, profiteering, lies, malfeasance, mismanagement, or perversion of justice -- whether by Bush, his enablers in Congress, or their successors.
I have guns and plenty of them. I am not fearful of losing them.
I have several Bibles. I am free to read them or not; and to interpret them as I wish. I am not fearful of losing that, either.
And I am not looking over my shoulder for some gay who will ask for my hand in marriage. And even if one were to do so, all I need do is decline.
I believe in the literal truth of the Bible; and I believe in my heart that it teaches abortion is murder. But the GOP has been in power more than long enough to overturn that. I conclude that it is not going away.
The concern I have -- greater than "God, guns, and gays" -- is going to war for a pack of lies. Bush's hands are bloodier than any abortion doctor's and he has exchanged the nation's moral high ground for a miry pit. He has perverted justice, and permitted Alberto Gonzales and Monica Goodling to pervert Justice. And I don't think Bush has the capacity to even realize that he's done anything wrong." "
"Here are the key sections of the e-mail from a man who says he voted for George W. Bush twice but has donated to Barack Obama this cycle:
I am sick to death of the negativity and lack of substance offered by McCain's campaign. The Ayrs [sic] "connection" is ludicrous, and the attempt to paint the "good touch, bad touch" training program for kiddoes is disgusting. Books could, and will be written about Palin's shallowness, and the arrogance that attempted to foist her on us. If these are products of the "'Straight Talk' Express" then I'd hate to see full blown Bushism.
BTW, I am a white Southerner, the descendant of a Civil War-era Tory. My family was voting Republican by 1868, if not 1864 -- way before all these Johnny-come-latelies, whose ancestors were in the Klan. Regardless, I cannot stand any more hubris, incompetence, cronyism, profiteering, lies, malfeasance, mismanagement, or perversion of justice -- whether by Bush, his enablers in Congress, or their successors.
I have guns and plenty of them. I am not fearful of losing them.
I have several Bibles. I am free to read them or not; and to interpret them as I wish. I am not fearful of losing that, either.
And I am not looking over my shoulder for some gay who will ask for my hand in marriage. And even if one were to do so, all I need do is decline.
I believe in the literal truth of the Bible; and I believe in my heart that it teaches abortion is murder. But the GOP has been in power more than long enough to overturn that. I conclude that it is not going away.
The concern I have -- greater than "God, guns, and gays" -- is going to war for a pack of lies. Bush's hands are bloodier than any abortion doctor's and he has exchanged the nation's moral high ground for a miry pit. He has perverted justice, and permitted Alberto Gonzales and Monica Goodling to pervert Justice. And I don't think Bush has the capacity to even realize that he's done anything wrong." "
xdfred wrote on Oct 21, 2008 9:38 AM:
" stana wrote on Oct 20, 2008 5:00 PM:
" Xdfred I am neither a liberal nor proabortion. Just stating the reality of the world. "
Wow. Don't I feel special. Someone stating the reality of the world, whatever that means.
Abortion is wrong. That is the reality of the world. Two can play word games. "
" Xdfred I am neither a liberal nor proabortion. Just stating the reality of the world. "
Wow. Don't I feel special. Someone stating the reality of the world, whatever that means.
Abortion is wrong. That is the reality of the world. Two can play word games. "
xdfred wrote on Oct 21, 2008 9:49 AM:
" Phil wrote on Oct 20, 2008 7:54 PM:
" xdfred - let's see hetfield decides who receives eternal salvation and you decide which lives are more deserving of living than others...." Juries do that
"...Pro-life is just that - pro LIFE - any life, doesn't matter whose it is...." Go write a book, the world according to Phil, and in it put the fact that the life of an innocent unborn is equal to that of a hardcore MS13 murderer. Because that is what you are saying. That murderous Al Quada thugs are equal to someone who has done nothing to deserve any punishment, much less a gruesome death. Write that book...."
MAC wrote on Oct 21, 2008 5:57 AM:
" Seems to me the proper term for people against abortion should be pro-birth...since most of these ranters could give a flying fig what happens to these children AFTER they are born. " So only the wealthy and well off should hve children? How well off were your parents? And what do you base your totally assinine accusation on? Are conservatives to blame for the millions of children that starve to death in this country each year? Are conservatives to blame for failing school systems? High crime? What?
Phil wrote on Oct 20, 2008 10:01 PM:
" wcf reader says - "what you ane everyone else fails to realize is the bennefit those at the top provide."
You mean all those great benefits Rush provides (racism, bigotry, habitual telling of lies, etc.) for those millions he is paid. The thousands of jobs he is providing - the great dent he is putting into the balance of trade..." Trying to argue with success again? The true sign of a real loser. Wealth envy. Your scorn would be better served for wealthy career politicians. "
" xdfred - let's see hetfield decides who receives eternal salvation and you decide which lives are more deserving of living than others...." Juries do that
"...Pro-life is just that - pro LIFE - any life, doesn't matter whose it is...." Go write a book, the world according to Phil, and in it put the fact that the life of an innocent unborn is equal to that of a hardcore MS13 murderer. Because that is what you are saying. That murderous Al Quada thugs are equal to someone who has done nothing to deserve any punishment, much less a gruesome death. Write that book...."
MAC wrote on Oct 21, 2008 5:57 AM:
" Seems to me the proper term for people against abortion should be pro-birth...since most of these ranters could give a flying fig what happens to these children AFTER they are born. " So only the wealthy and well off should hve children? How well off were your parents? And what do you base your totally assinine accusation on? Are conservatives to blame for the millions of children that starve to death in this country each year? Are conservatives to blame for failing school systems? High crime? What?
Phil wrote on Oct 20, 2008 10:01 PM:
" wcf reader says - "what you ane everyone else fails to realize is the bennefit those at the top provide."
You mean all those great benefits Rush provides (racism, bigotry, habitual telling of lies, etc.) for those millions he is paid. The thousands of jobs he is providing - the great dent he is putting into the balance of trade..." Trying to argue with success again? The true sign of a real loser. Wealth envy. Your scorn would be better served for wealthy career politicians. "
xdfred wrote on Oct 21, 2008 9:52 AM:
" timbrackett wrote on Oct 21, 2008 6:29 AM:
" well said, MAC. the thing that kills me is all those from the christian right who have forsaken every other christian principal over the issue of abortion--and now march lock-step with anything and everything the republicans do...including support for mccain who only recently took up the pro-life cause...." Your knowledge of Christianity and Christian principles is second only to your knowledge of the first amendment and spelling. And what, in your ridiculous opinion, Christian principles are you even talking about?
Why does Barack Hussein Obama want to take our guns away? (Hint: read the words of Mao and Marx) "
" well said, MAC. the thing that kills me is all those from the christian right who have forsaken every other christian principal over the issue of abortion--and now march lock-step with anything and everything the republicans do...including support for mccain who only recently took up the pro-life cause...." Your knowledge of Christianity and Christian principles is second only to your knowledge of the first amendment and spelling. And what, in your ridiculous opinion, Christian principles are you even talking about?
Why does Barack Hussein Obama want to take our guns away? (Hint: read the words of Mao and Marx) "
xdfred wrote on Oct 21, 2008 9:58 AM:
" Phil wrote on Oct 20, 2008 7:54 PM:
"..So I guess you are admitting you are just anti-choice, not pro-life. That some lives deserve to be destroyed and others don't. In fact I bet if a fetus could be tested and found that it would probably grow up to be a murderer, terrorist, gay, or perhaps even a black, liberal future president, you would no doubt be in favor of abortion in that case...."
I learned a long time ago that there are people running around that need killing. Badly. As a result of what they have done to others. But that has nothing to do with your totally moronic assertions with regard to the liberal ideology of group. No one can be that dumb, so this must be a really bad attempt at being clever.
Let me spell it out for you.
Murder is wrong.
Abortion is murder.
Abortion is wrong.
Legal execution is not murder.
Legal execution is not wrong.
Killing in self defence is not murder.
Killing in self defence is not wrong.
Killing the enemy in time of war is not murder.
Killing the enemy is not wrong.
Save the racist innuendos for liberal fools who buy into that garbage. "
"..So I guess you are admitting you are just anti-choice, not pro-life. That some lives deserve to be destroyed and others don't. In fact I bet if a fetus could be tested and found that it would probably grow up to be a murderer, terrorist, gay, or perhaps even a black, liberal future president, you would no doubt be in favor of abortion in that case...."
I learned a long time ago that there are people running around that need killing. Badly. As a result of what they have done to others. But that has nothing to do with your totally moronic assertions with regard to the liberal ideology of group. No one can be that dumb, so this must be a really bad attempt at being clever.
Let me spell it out for you.
Murder is wrong.
Abortion is murder.
Abortion is wrong.
Legal execution is not murder.
Legal execution is not wrong.
Killing in self defence is not murder.
Killing in self defence is not wrong.
Killing the enemy in time of war is not murder.
Killing the enemy is not wrong.
Save the racist innuendos for liberal fools who buy into that garbage. "
xdfred wrote on Oct 21, 2008 10:00 AM:
" timbrackett wrote on Oct 21, 2008 6:29 AM:
"...can you believe that i have actually heard christians say with all sincerity that they don't believe one can be a democrat and be a christian?..." Given what democrats stand for these days, you'd be better off believing it. "
"...can you believe that i have actually heard christians say with all sincerity that they don't believe one can be a democrat and be a christian?..." Given what democrats stand for these days, you'd be better off believing it. "
cubbies08 wrote on Oct 21, 2008 10:57 AM:
" THink...Welcome to the real world. It is all about laws, and regulations. Personally I like that. It keeps my neighbor from having 20 cars parked on his lot with no wheels on them. Yes healthcare is regulated..to make it better and safer for the patient. If you don't have rules and laws you have anarchy. "
timbrackett wrote on Oct 21, 2008 12:24 PM:
" hetfield. over the past several months i have posted several statistics showing that young evangelicals are leaving the republican party and voting for barack obama. 15% of evangelical voters aged 18-29 have left the republican party since 2005. (source: pew research center) that is a large chunk of voters who voted for bush in '04. and this voting bloc has been the only reliable youth voting bloc over the past several presidential election cycles. while other young people are unreliable on election day, young evangelicals can be counted on to appear at the polls and cast their ballots. "
myvoicematterstome wrote on Oct 21, 2008 1:22 PM:
" So what Clayson is saying is: Leave the rich guy alone, just keep taxing the poor and middle income people. "
xdfred wrote on Oct 21, 2008 1:53 PM:
" timbrackett wrote on Oct 21, 2008 12:24 PM:
" hetfield. over the past several months i have posted several statistics showing that young evangelicals are leaving the republican party and voting for barack obama. 15% of evangelical voters aged 18-29 have left the republican party since 2005. (source: pew research center) that is a large chunk of voters who voted for bush in '04. and this voting bloc has been the only reliable youth voting bloc over the past several presidential election cycles. while other young people are unreliable on election day, young evangelicals can be counted on to appear at the polls and cast their ballots. " And your point is????? "
" hetfield. over the past several months i have posted several statistics showing that young evangelicals are leaving the republican party and voting for barack obama. 15% of evangelical voters aged 18-29 have left the republican party since 2005. (source: pew research center) that is a large chunk of voters who voted for bush in '04. and this voting bloc has been the only reliable youth voting bloc over the past several presidential election cycles. while other young people are unreliable on election day, young evangelicals can be counted on to appear at the polls and cast their ballots. " And your point is????? "
50674 wrote on Oct 21, 2008 2:14 PM:
" "Save the racist innuendos for liberal fools who buy into that garbage."
Classic remark of the day from someone who uses MS13 as an example. "
Classic remark of the day from someone who uses MS13 as an example. "
xdfred wrote on Oct 21, 2008 3:32 PM:
" 50674 wrote on Oct 21, 2008 2:14 PM:
" "Save the racist innuendos for liberal fools who buy into that garbage."
Classic remark of the day from someone who uses MS13 as an example. "
Is that the best you can do? Like you know what MS13 even is. "
" "Save the racist innuendos for liberal fools who buy into that garbage."
Classic remark of the day from someone who uses MS13 as an example. "
Is that the best you can do? Like you know what MS13 even is. "
Phil wrote on Oct 21, 2008 3:33 PM:
" xdfred - going by the proper definition of the term murder - found in Webster's - some corrections need to be made to your statements:
Murder is wrong - correct.
Abortion is murder - incorrect - since it is legal under our system it is not murder and cannot be defined as such.
Abortion is wrong - is it? If the mother's life is in danger? If the women is a victim of rape or incest? If it is known the fetus won't survive birth? Lots of tough situations here - but you say they are all wrong - you are sure about that? The woman and her doctor don't get any say about that?
Legal execution is not murder - correct - but is it moral? Singapore, Japan and the U.S. are the only fully developed countries that have retained the death penalty. So basically we are a 3rd world country when it comes to this.
Legal execution is not wrong - that's your opinion - many others disagree - see above.
Killing in self defense is not murder - correct.
Killing in self defense is not wrong - if it is the only solution - correct.
Killing the enemy in time of war is not murder - correct - however killing civilians who are not in the armed forces is - whether it was intentional or not.
Killing the enemy is not wrong - see above.
You don't get to have it both ways - if something is legal, it cannot be defined as murder.
And one more:
War is not illegal/wrong - correct, but only if you were attacked first, thus Iraq is illegal and wrong. "
Murder is wrong - correct.
Abortion is murder - incorrect - since it is legal under our system it is not murder and cannot be defined as such.
Abortion is wrong - is it? If the mother's life is in danger? If the women is a victim of rape or incest? If it is known the fetus won't survive birth? Lots of tough situations here - but you say they are all wrong - you are sure about that? The woman and her doctor don't get any say about that?
Legal execution is not murder - correct - but is it moral? Singapore, Japan and the U.S. are the only fully developed countries that have retained the death penalty. So basically we are a 3rd world country when it comes to this.
Legal execution is not wrong - that's your opinion - many others disagree - see above.
Killing in self defense is not murder - correct.
Killing in self defense is not wrong - if it is the only solution - correct.
Killing the enemy in time of war is not murder - correct - however killing civilians who are not in the armed forces is - whether it was intentional or not.
Killing the enemy is not wrong - see above.
You don't get to have it both ways - if something is legal, it cannot be defined as murder.
And one more:
War is not illegal/wrong - correct, but only if you were attacked first, thus Iraq is illegal and wrong. "
xdfred wrote on Oct 21, 2008 3:33 PM:
" myvoicematterstome wrote on Oct 21, 2008 1:22 PM:
" So what Clayson is saying is: Leave the rich guy alone, just keep taxing the poor and middle income people. "
If you'd quit listening to the wealth envy crowd and ask yourself who pays taxes around here, you'd find the high acheivers pay almost all the taxes in this country. "
" So what Clayson is saying is: Leave the rich guy alone, just keep taxing the poor and middle income people. "
If you'd quit listening to the wealth envy crowd and ask yourself who pays taxes around here, you'd find the high acheivers pay almost all the taxes in this country. "
Phil wrote on Oct 21, 2008 3:47 PM:
" xdfred - envious, of Rush? You are kidding, right? All the money in the world isn't worth the slime he covers himself in each day. He is a moral degenerate and proud of it. Multiple wives, drug abuser (since reformed-so he says), smuggles Viagra with him on his visits to foreign countries - but since he isn't married, and didn't travel with a female companion, what would he need that for? Slams fellow Republican Gen. Powell with racist remarks.
Yes, I am big time jealous of that life. How I wish that were me. NOT. I want to keep my dignity.
He adds so much to our economy every day - such a productive member of society. If only there were thousands more like him. HA!HA!HA!HA!
Truth is if there weren't so many empty heads out there lapping up his garbage every day he would probably be living in a homeless shelter, that's how much "talent" he has.
You right wingers like to slam "liberal" radio like Air America, say how it doesn't have any ratings. Well liberals don't need someone to tell them how to think each day. They don't need someone to reassure them (falsely) that they really aren't practicing bigotry or class warfare or other things that go against their values. But the right wingers do - so Rush (and his copycats) are it. "
Yes, I am big time jealous of that life. How I wish that were me. NOT. I want to keep my dignity.
He adds so much to our economy every day - such a productive member of society. If only there were thousands more like him. HA!HA!HA!HA!
Truth is if there weren't so many empty heads out there lapping up his garbage every day he would probably be living in a homeless shelter, that's how much "talent" he has.
You right wingers like to slam "liberal" radio like Air America, say how it doesn't have any ratings. Well liberals don't need someone to tell them how to think each day. They don't need someone to reassure them (falsely) that they really aren't practicing bigotry or class warfare or other things that go against their values. But the right wingers do - so Rush (and his copycats) are it. "
Newswatcher wrote on Oct 21, 2008 4:09 PM:
" myvoicematterstome,
The rich guy has not been left alone, for every $1 they earn, they pay $.40-$.50 or more back to the Govt.
The tax bracket is NOT FLAT, people!
The poor DON'T pay taxes and the middle income people are the ones that McCain wants to help!
Obama has lied to you all! Don't believe him about his tax plans (or much of anything else he lies about). Hid tax plan would KILL business growth across the USA. "
The rich guy has not been left alone, for every $1 they earn, they pay $.40-$.50 or more back to the Govt.
The tax bracket is NOT FLAT, people!
The poor DON'T pay taxes and the middle income people are the ones that McCain wants to help!
Obama has lied to you all! Don't believe him about his tax plans (or much of anything else he lies about). Hid tax plan would KILL business growth across the USA. "
cross1242 wrote on Oct 21, 2008 4:29 PM:
" xdfred @ Oct 21, 2008 9:52 AM asked, "Why does Barack Hussein Obama want to take our guns away?"
xdfred, why do you think Obama wants "to take our guns away?" (No fair quoting Rush or some other right-wing nut who has said so. It's got to be from Obama's own site or own statements.)
Just so you know, if I were in charge, I'd take your handguns away in a heartbeat. I'd apply a magnet to the whole country and suck up every last handgun in the country. I'd then melt them down and make them into plowshares. However, I'm completely confident that Obama won't satisfy me on that score. Oh, well. I'm not a single issue voter. "
xdfred, why do you think Obama wants "to take our guns away?" (No fair quoting Rush or some other right-wing nut who has said so. It's got to be from Obama's own site or own statements.)
Just so you know, if I were in charge, I'd take your handguns away in a heartbeat. I'd apply a magnet to the whole country and suck up every last handgun in the country. I'd then melt them down and make them into plowshares. However, I'm completely confident that Obama won't satisfy me on that score. Oh, well. I'm not a single issue voter. "
xdfred wrote on Oct 21, 2008 4:44 PM:
" Phil wrote on Oct 21, 2008 3:33 PM:
"...Murder is wrong - correct...." Unless you're Ted Kennedy.
"...Abortion is murder - incorrect - since it is legal under our system it is not murder and cannot be defined as such...." So, according to you, only what is illegal is wrong. And getting back to what is legal, according to our Constitution, the legislature writes laws. When did any legislature write the law making abortion legal?
"...Abortion is wrong - is it? If the mother's life is in danger?...." Extremely rare to have to kill the baby to save the mother. Try again.
"....If the women is a victim of rape or incest?..." That's the babies fault? So, It's OK to kill the baby but not the rapist, right?
"...fetus won't survive birth?..." Also, extremely rare. But why would I expect a pro abortion hatchet man to know anything about life and birth?
"...Lots of tough situations here - ..." Sure, if you like spin
"...but you say they are all wrong - you are sure about that? The woman and her doctor don't get any say about that?..." That's right. Because neither of them speak for the baby. And there is a profit motive. Abortion is big business. Lot's of money. Lot's of political contributions. To democrats.
"..Legal execution is not murder - correct - but is it moral?..." Wait a minute. Up above you said soemthing had to be illegal to be wrong? Which is it?
"...Singapore, Japan and the U.S. are the only fully developed countries that have retained the death penalty. So basically we are a 3rd world country when it comes to this...." Japan is a third world country? That's news. And irrelevant.
"...Legal execution is not wrong - that's your opinion - many others disagree - see above...." Depends on who you ask.
"....Killing in self defense is not murder - correct...." Gee thanks.
"....Killing in self defense is not wrong - if it is the only solution - correct...." Impossible to determine.
"....Killing the enemy in time of war is not murder - correct - however killing civilians who are not in the armed forces is - whether it was intentional or not..." Now you are wrong. There is a huge difference between intentional killing of non-combatants and accidental. Huge. And it's really a shame you can't see that.
"...Killing the enemy is not wrong - see above..."
"...You don't get to have it both ways - if something is legal, it cannot be defined as murder..." Back to legal again. Gee, wonder why so many of us want the law changed? And again, what legislature wrote that law?
"...And one more:..." Oh, please do.
"...War is not illegal/wrong - correct, but only if you were attacked first, thus Iraq is illegal and wrong...." Did Germany attack us in WWII? WWI? Did N Korea attack us in the '50's? Who attacked who in the US civil war? According to you and your liberal thinking, we have to bleed before we can fight back. No thanks. Let's have a show of hands as to who thinks that is ridiculous.
Go home. "
"...Murder is wrong - correct...." Unless you're Ted Kennedy.
"...Abortion is murder - incorrect - since it is legal under our system it is not murder and cannot be defined as such...." So, according to you, only what is illegal is wrong. And getting back to what is legal, according to our Constitution, the legislature writes laws. When did any legislature write the law making abortion legal?
"...Abortion is wrong - is it? If the mother's life is in danger?...." Extremely rare to have to kill the baby to save the mother. Try again.
"....If the women is a victim of rape or incest?..." That's the babies fault? So, It's OK to kill the baby but not the rapist, right?
"...fetus won't survive birth?..." Also, extremely rare. But why would I expect a pro abortion hatchet man to know anything about life and birth?
"...Lots of tough situations here - ..." Sure, if you like spin
"...but you say they are all wrong - you are sure about that? The woman and her doctor don't get any say about that?..." That's right. Because neither of them speak for the baby. And there is a profit motive. Abortion is big business. Lot's of money. Lot's of political contributions. To democrats.
"..Legal execution is not murder - correct - but is it moral?..." Wait a minute. Up above you said soemthing had to be illegal to be wrong? Which is it?
"...Singapore, Japan and the U.S. are the only fully developed countries that have retained the death penalty. So basically we are a 3rd world country when it comes to this...." Japan is a third world country? That's news. And irrelevant.
"...Legal execution is not wrong - that's your opinion - many others disagree - see above...." Depends on who you ask.
"....Killing in self defense is not murder - correct...." Gee thanks.
"....Killing in self defense is not wrong - if it is the only solution - correct...." Impossible to determine.
"....Killing the enemy in time of war is not murder - correct - however killing civilians who are not in the armed forces is - whether it was intentional or not..." Now you are wrong. There is a huge difference between intentional killing of non-combatants and accidental. Huge. And it's really a shame you can't see that.
"...Killing the enemy is not wrong - see above..."
"...You don't get to have it both ways - if something is legal, it cannot be defined as murder..." Back to legal again. Gee, wonder why so many of us want the law changed? And again, what legislature wrote that law?
"...And one more:..." Oh, please do.
"...War is not illegal/wrong - correct, but only if you were attacked first, thus Iraq is illegal and wrong...." Did Germany attack us in WWII? WWI? Did N Korea attack us in the '50's? Who attacked who in the US civil war? According to you and your liberal thinking, we have to bleed before we can fight back. No thanks. Let's have a show of hands as to who thinks that is ridiculous.
Go home. "
50674 wrote on Oct 21, 2008 4:51 PM:
" xdfred you are really stretching now. Why wouldn't I know what MS13 is? I know YOU know because of the "slant" all your opinions have. I have many Hispanic relatives and KNOW exactly what MS13 is and furthermore exactly YOUR reason for bring that particular gang's name up. You think others don't know and certainly didn't want to mentions Crips or Bloods lest someone (rightfully) label you for what you are. You have nothing but opinions and I disagree with them. But if you try to deny your bias, bigotry and prejudice I'll call you on it. ANd you will try to use as many words as possible to continue to say little. Now stoop on down and make another ridiculous accusation that my relatives are members. You are so transparent. "
xdfred wrote on Oct 21, 2008 5:00 PM:
" cross1242 wrote on Oct 21, 2008 4:29 PM:
" xdfred @ Oct 21, 2008 9:52 AM asked, "Why does Barack Hussein Obama want to take our guns away?"
xdfred, why do you think Obama wants "to take our guns away?" (No fair quoting Rush or some other right-wing nut who has said so. It's got to be from Obama's own site or own statements.).." Plenty of his own statements:
“You support the D.C. handgun ban, and you’ve said that it’s constitutional?” interviewer Leon Harris asked Obama during a Feb. 12 interview on ABC’s affiliate in Washington.
“Right, right,” replied the Illinois senator, nodding his head.
The D.C. law banned “handgun possession in the home” and required that rifles or shotguns be disassembled or rendered inoperable with trigger locks at all times..."
When he was a candidate for the Illinois Senate in 1996, a political questionnaire in his name answered “Yes” to a question of whether supported state legislation to “ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?” When this was reported, Obama’s campaign claimed that a staffer had filled out the questionnaire and given answers the candidate never approved.
“No, my writing wasn’t on that particular questionnaire,” Obama told ABC News anchor Charlie Gibson. “As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns.”
But Factcheck.org said, “Actually, Obama’s writing was on the 1996 document.”
During Obama’s time on the board of the liberal Joyce Foundation, he “oversaw the distribution of $18 million to gun-ban groups, including major funding for the Violence Policy Center,” according to the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre. This is more than the NRA plans to spend in 2008 to advertise its critique of Obama. “Before he ran for public office, Obama was considered the prime candidate to lead that deep-pocketed anti-gun money machine,” LaPierre wrote.
"...As a member of the Illinois Senate, Obama voted for a bill to ban and confiscate assault weapons that the NRA said was so poorly drafted that “it would have also banned most semiauto and single and double barrel shotguns commonly used by sportsmen.”
Someone should tell Mr. Obama’s running mate, Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, who used to shoot off his mouth by boasting, “I’m the guy who originally wrote the assault weapon ban,” but who told a Virginia audience in September how much he loves his “little over and under.”
Obama has proposed banning inexpensive handguns, so-called Saturday night specials, that poor women and men could afford for self-defense, according to NRA documentation. He also has proposed a 500 percent increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition. To the extent that he favors any right to keep and bear arms, it appears to be only for the rich, not the poor.
On Sept. 5, at a factory in Duryea, Pa., a woman asked Obama about “a rumor” that, if elected president, he planned some kind of gun ban. His reaction, which only the Wall Street Journal’s Christopher Cooper has reported, has been described as Obama’s “Gun Meltdown.”
Obama tried his usual response, that he respects the “traditions of gun ownership” but favored control measures in big cities to keep guns out of criminal hands.
“If you’ve got a gun in your house, I’m not taking it,” Obama said to the skeptical audience. “This can’t be the reason not to vote for me. Can everyone hear me in the back? I see a couple of sportsmen back there. I’m not going to take away your guns.”
But during his emotional meltdown, Obama offered a moment of disarming honesty: “Even if I want to take [your guns] away,” he said, “I don’t have the votes in Congress.”
"...Just so you know, if I were in charge, I'd take your handguns away in a heartbeat. I'd apply a magnet to the whole country and suck up every last handgun in the country...." Do you have these fantasies often?
"...I'd then melt them down and make them into plowshares...." I'd ask why you would want to do that, but I know you don't have any good reasons. The heck with the Constitution,too, huh? And what would police use? Slingshots? Or is your fantasy magnet selective?
"...However, I'm completely confident that Obama won't satisfy me on that score. Oh, well. I'm not a single issue voter..." A lot of us are.
Molon Labe "
" xdfred @ Oct 21, 2008 9:52 AM asked, "Why does Barack Hussein Obama want to take our guns away?"
xdfred, why do you think Obama wants "to take our guns away?" (No fair quoting Rush or some other right-wing nut who has said so. It's got to be from Obama's own site or own statements.).." Plenty of his own statements:
“You support the D.C. handgun ban, and you’ve said that it’s constitutional?” interviewer Leon Harris asked Obama during a Feb. 12 interview on ABC’s affiliate in Washington.
“Right, right,” replied the Illinois senator, nodding his head.
The D.C. law banned “handgun possession in the home” and required that rifles or shotguns be disassembled or rendered inoperable with trigger locks at all times..."
When he was a candidate for the Illinois Senate in 1996, a political questionnaire in his name answered “Yes” to a question of whether supported state legislation to “ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?” When this was reported, Obama’s campaign claimed that a staffer had filled out the questionnaire and given answers the candidate never approved.
“No, my writing wasn’t on that particular questionnaire,” Obama told ABC News anchor Charlie Gibson. “As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns.”
But Factcheck.org said, “Actually, Obama’s writing was on the 1996 document.”
During Obama’s time on the board of the liberal Joyce Foundation, he “oversaw the distribution of $18 million to gun-ban groups, including major funding for the Violence Policy Center,” according to the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre. This is more than the NRA plans to spend in 2008 to advertise its critique of Obama. “Before he ran for public office, Obama was considered the prime candidate to lead that deep-pocketed anti-gun money machine,” LaPierre wrote.
"...As a member of the Illinois Senate, Obama voted for a bill to ban and confiscate assault weapons that the NRA said was so poorly drafted that “it would have also banned most semiauto and single and double barrel shotguns commonly used by sportsmen.”
Someone should tell Mr. Obama’s running mate, Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, who used to shoot off his mouth by boasting, “I’m the guy who originally wrote the assault weapon ban,” but who told a Virginia audience in September how much he loves his “little over and under.”
Obama has proposed banning inexpensive handguns, so-called Saturday night specials, that poor women and men could afford for self-defense, according to NRA documentation. He also has proposed a 500 percent increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition. To the extent that he favors any right to keep and bear arms, it appears to be only for the rich, not the poor.
On Sept. 5, at a factory in Duryea, Pa., a woman asked Obama about “a rumor” that, if elected president, he planned some kind of gun ban. His reaction, which only the Wall Street Journal’s Christopher Cooper has reported, has been described as Obama’s “Gun Meltdown.”
Obama tried his usual response, that he respects the “traditions of gun ownership” but favored control measures in big cities to keep guns out of criminal hands.
“If you’ve got a gun in your house, I’m not taking it,” Obama said to the skeptical audience. “This can’t be the reason not to vote for me. Can everyone hear me in the back? I see a couple of sportsmen back there. I’m not going to take away your guns.”
But during his emotional meltdown, Obama offered a moment of disarming honesty: “Even if I want to take [your guns] away,” he said, “I don’t have the votes in Congress.”
"...Just so you know, if I were in charge, I'd take your handguns away in a heartbeat. I'd apply a magnet to the whole country and suck up every last handgun in the country...." Do you have these fantasies often?
"...I'd then melt them down and make them into plowshares...." I'd ask why you would want to do that, but I know you don't have any good reasons. The heck with the Constitution,too, huh? And what would police use? Slingshots? Or is your fantasy magnet selective?
"...However, I'm completely confident that Obama won't satisfy me on that score. Oh, well. I'm not a single issue voter..." A lot of us are.
Molon Labe "
xdfred wrote on Oct 21, 2008 5:07 PM:
" Phil wrote on Oct 21, 2008 3:47 PM:
" xdfred - envious, of Rush? You are kidding, right? All the money in the world isn't worth the slime he covers himself in each day...." Slime such as? Do you have anything to even remotely back that up?
"...Slams fellow Republican Gen. Powell with racist remarks...." Are we making false accusations again?
"...You right wingers like to slam "liberal" radio like Air America.." Is it even still around? So that's why nobody listened to it.
"....Yes, I am big time jealous of that life...." Obviously. Pitiful. It must be awful, noing you're not even fit to clean his shoes. Awful.
"...Truth is if there weren't so many empty heads out there lapping up his garbage every day..." That's got to be it. It has to be. Because if Rush is indeed right, that would mean you're an even bigger loser.
Try all you want. It's actually quite entertaining. You can't argue with success. And you can't hide failure. Air America=failure. "
" xdfred - envious, of Rush? You are kidding, right? All the money in the world isn't worth the slime he covers himself in each day...." Slime such as? Do you have anything to even remotely back that up?
"...Slams fellow Republican Gen. Powell with racist remarks...." Are we making false accusations again?
"...You right wingers like to slam "liberal" radio like Air America.." Is it even still around? So that's why nobody listened to it.
"....Yes, I am big time jealous of that life...." Obviously. Pitiful. It must be awful, noing you're not even fit to clean his shoes. Awful.
"...Truth is if there weren't so many empty heads out there lapping up his garbage every day..." That's got to be it. It has to be. Because if Rush is indeed right, that would mean you're an even bigger loser.
Try all you want. It's actually quite entertaining. You can't argue with success. And you can't hide failure. Air America=failure. "
hetfield wrote on Oct 21, 2008 7:46 PM:
" Phil wrote on Oct 21, 2008 9:17 AM:
" hetfield - there is one thing wrong with your argument - no judge, no congressman, no liberal decides which fetus will be carried to term or not. Only one person makes that final decision - the person carrying it in their body.
There is no law, no rule, nothing that forces any person to have an abortion - ever.
Blame who you want - and you will - but you really need to deal with the people who make that decision.
Of course it will be someone else's fault in your mind - and you will continue to blame everyone from me to liberal judges to Planned Parenthood.
You just can't face the fact that there are people who can make that decision in accordance with their own values and conscience. Nope, you need to do God's bidding and make that decision for them.
Sorry, that's between them and their God - you, and the rest of us, need to stay out of it. "
Phil, you are a sick lil puppy indeed. women do not choose how long they carry their baby(you were clearly a fetus, the rest of us were babies.) Women who are sick either morally or mentally kill their babies. Other women have the misfortune of having a miscarriage.
Liberal justices with liberal ideals appointed by liberal presidents and approved by liberal congressmen changed the law to allow abortion, thus the killing of innocents, decades ago.
the US constitution affirmed the right of everyone for "the pursuit of life...". also a better reinforcer of life is the bible 'thou shalt not kill' relates to murder and the taking of innocent life. It does not relate to executing guilty murderers and rapists, and it does not relate to those killed in just wars.
if you want to fake it and think that since US laws now say it is ok to kill or murder unborn babies, that is on you, not the rest of us.
Stop putting the price of those killed on 9-11 on Bush and the civilian deaths in Iraq.
I stand by my original post that if you, or anyone else, supports, allows, or participates, or chooses to have an abortion has packed their bags and are heading south.
supporting candidates who support abortion and infanticide(barack hussein obama) also shows no morals or values for the unborn.
Good luck on your trip. I dont decide if anyone is going or not, but God does. if he punches your ticket, then boom, outta here.
Now before I get a rash of hate posters, this is my opinion, and as such, is not debateable. "
" hetfield - there is one thing wrong with your argument - no judge, no congressman, no liberal decides which fetus will be carried to term or not. Only one person makes that final decision - the person carrying it in their body.
There is no law, no rule, nothing that forces any person to have an abortion - ever.
Blame who you want - and you will - but you really need to deal with the people who make that decision.
Of course it will be someone else's fault in your mind - and you will continue to blame everyone from me to liberal judges to Planned Parenthood.
You just can't face the fact that there are people who can make that decision in accordance with their own values and conscience. Nope, you need to do God's bidding and make that decision for them.
Sorry, that's between them and their God - you, and the rest of us, need to stay out of it. "
Phil, you are a sick lil puppy indeed. women do not choose how long they carry their baby(you were clearly a fetus, the rest of us were babies.) Women who are sick either morally or mentally kill their babies. Other women have the misfortune of having a miscarriage.
Liberal justices with liberal ideals appointed by liberal presidents and approved by liberal congressmen changed the law to allow abortion, thus the killing of innocents, decades ago.
the US constitution affirmed the right of everyone for "the pursuit of life...". also a better reinforcer of life is the bible 'thou shalt not kill' relates to murder and the taking of innocent life. It does not relate to executing guilty murderers and rapists, and it does not relate to those killed in just wars.
if you want to fake it and think that since US laws now say it is ok to kill or murder unborn babies, that is on you, not the rest of us.
Stop putting the price of those killed on 9-11 on Bush and the civilian deaths in Iraq.
I stand by my original post that if you, or anyone else, supports, allows, or participates, or chooses to have an abortion has packed their bags and are heading south.
supporting candidates who support abortion and infanticide(barack hussein obama) also shows no morals or values for the unborn.
Good luck on your trip. I dont decide if anyone is going or not, but God does. if he punches your ticket, then boom, outta here.
Now before I get a rash of hate posters, this is my opinion, and as such, is not debateable. "
Phil wrote on Oct 21, 2008 8:45 PM:
" xdfred - thanks for clearing up the fact you get to decide how to interpret the laws of this nation - both legal and moral.
"And if Rush is indeed right" - that's why voters are flocking to his message. Funny, you didn't try to refute or defend the issues about his great moral character that are part of the public record. Guess that's cause you know Rush is the one not worthy of cleaning anyone's shoes - or anything else.
Sad, very, very, sad. What a tortured life you lead. "
"And if Rush is indeed right" - that's why voters are flocking to his message. Funny, you didn't try to refute or defend the issues about his great moral character that are part of the public record. Guess that's cause you know Rush is the one not worthy of cleaning anyone's shoes - or anything else.
Sad, very, very, sad. What a tortured life you lead. "
hetfield wrote on Oct 21, 2008 9:53 PM:
" Phil wrote on Oct 21, 2008 3:47 PM:
" xdfred - envious, of Rush? You are kidding, right? All the money in the world isn't worth the slime he covers himself in each day. He is a moral degenerate and proud of it. Multiple wives, drug abuser (since reformed-so he says), smuggles Viagra with him on his visits to foreign countries - but since he isn't married, and didn't travel with a female companion, what would he need that for? Slams fellow Republican Gen. Powell with racist remarks.
slams powell? he said powells decision to join up barack hussein obama was all about race. why is that racist? he also said he would research what other liberal white person has powell come out with. the answer was no one.
powell chose to disown bush over bush's stance on affirmative action. powell then got bored out of the spotlight so he pandered to barack and is now promised a position under him
powell never once came out on his liberal views prior to this. in the 90's during his campaign he never once let the nation know what his stances were. he was never a conservative.
simple. next subject! "
" xdfred - envious, of Rush? You are kidding, right? All the money in the world isn't worth the slime he covers himself in each day. He is a moral degenerate and proud of it. Multiple wives, drug abuser (since reformed-so he says), smuggles Viagra with him on his visits to foreign countries - but since he isn't married, and didn't travel with a female companion, what would he need that for? Slams fellow Republican Gen. Powell with racist remarks.
slams powell? he said powells decision to join up barack hussein obama was all about race. why is that racist? he also said he would research what other liberal white person has powell come out with. the answer was no one.
powell chose to disown bush over bush's stance on affirmative action. powell then got bored out of the spotlight so he pandered to barack and is now promised a position under him
powell never once came out on his liberal views prior to this. in the 90's during his campaign he never once let the nation know what his stances were. he was never a conservative.
simple. next subject! "
cross1242 wrote on Oct 21, 2008 11:00 PM:
" xdfred @ Oct 21, 2008 5:00 PM wrote about how Obama might take his guns away.
Hey! You win. Here I thought that Obama didn't care all that much about guns either way. But, thanks to you, I now have real hope that maybe your guns will be taken away.
We live in a modern civilized society and not the old west. We just don't need handguns for any rational purpose. People who think they do need handguns really scare me. "
Hey! You win. Here I thought that Obama didn't care all that much about guns either way. But, thanks to you, I now have real hope that maybe your guns will be taken away.
We live in a modern civilized society and not the old west. We just don't need handguns for any rational purpose. People who think they do need handguns really scare me. "
timbrackett wrote on Oct 21, 2008 11:24 PM:
" if you don't see my point now, you will see it on november 4th. i'll be sure to post exit poll data showing how the republican party hurt its own cause by driving away the youth vote, particularly the young evangelical vote. you can't drive away 15% of a reliable voting bloc and expect to win elections. "
hetfield wrote on Oct 22, 2008 7:11 AM:
" whatever tim. up above you say 18 yrds old voted 4 years ago. yeah, maybe for hall monitor in 5th grade.
that is the real barack hussein obama popstar demographic alright. "
that is the real barack hussein obama popstar demographic alright. "
Phil wrote on Oct 22, 2008 8:12 AM:
" Getting back to Mr. Clayson's article for a moment and his concern about taxing the wealthier amoung us, here is a comment on the tax changes Sen. Obama proposes (copied from another site):
"Obama’s plan means that even for the richest of filers, the difference between his tax system and McCain’s concerns approximately $45,000 in additional taxes for every $1 million wealthy filers earn in income after they reach the highest possible bracket. That’s enough to buy a small B.M.W., yes, but in the great scheme of things, this does not seem to qualify as an argument about socialism.
If it did, then Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford would be Bolsheviks."
So if you are at the top of the tax bracket already, and you go out and earn another $1 MILLION, you now get to keep ONLY $605,000 of that million instead of $650,000 of it.
I can see why the wealthy are shaking in their boots about this.
Poor Rush might not be able to afford as much Viagra on his next international "adventure". "
"Obama’s plan means that even for the richest of filers, the difference between his tax system and McCain’s concerns approximately $45,000 in additional taxes for every $1 million wealthy filers earn in income after they reach the highest possible bracket. That’s enough to buy a small B.M.W., yes, but in the great scheme of things, this does not seem to qualify as an argument about socialism.
If it did, then Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford would be Bolsheviks."
So if you are at the top of the tax bracket already, and you go out and earn another $1 MILLION, you now get to keep ONLY $605,000 of that million instead of $650,000 of it.
I can see why the wealthy are shaking in their boots about this.
Poor Rush might not be able to afford as much Viagra on his next international "adventure". "
xdfred wrote on Oct 22, 2008 8:30 AM:
" Phil wrote on Oct 21, 2008 8:45 PM:
" xdfred - thanks for clearing up the fact you get to decide how to interpret the laws of this nation - both legal and moral.
"And if Rush is indeed right" - that's why voters are flocking to his message. Funny, you didn't try to refute or defend the issues about his great moral character that are part of the public record. Guess that's cause you know Rush is the one not worthy of cleaning anyone's shoes - or anything else.
Sad, very, very, sad. What a tortured life you lead. " Tortured? What a yutz. I'm not the one foaming at the mouth over Rush Limbaugh. That would appear to be you, wouldn't it? As to defending his character, it doesn't need defending from me. And let's compare his character to Barack Hussein Obama's, shall we? Phil: Not fit to clean Limbaugh's shoes. "
" xdfred - thanks for clearing up the fact you get to decide how to interpret the laws of this nation - both legal and moral.
"And if Rush is indeed right" - that's why voters are flocking to his message. Funny, you didn't try to refute or defend the issues about his great moral character that are part of the public record. Guess that's cause you know Rush is the one not worthy of cleaning anyone's shoes - or anything else.
Sad, very, very, sad. What a tortured life you lead. " Tortured? What a yutz. I'm not the one foaming at the mouth over Rush Limbaugh. That would appear to be you, wouldn't it? As to defending his character, it doesn't need defending from me. And let's compare his character to Barack Hussein Obama's, shall we? Phil: Not fit to clean Limbaugh's shoes. "
xdfred wrote on Oct 22, 2008 8:37 AM:
" cross1242 wrote on Oct 21, 2008 11:00 PM:
" xdfred @ Oct 21, 2008 5:00 PM wrote about how Obama might take his guns away.
Hey! You win. Here I thought that Obama didn't care all that much about guns either way. But, thanks to you, I now have real hope that maybe your guns will be taken away...." Get used to disappointment. So neither you nor Obama respect the Constititution of the United States. How telling.
"....We live in a modern civilized society and not the old west. We just don't need handguns for any rational purpose. People who think they do need handguns really scare me. " I suggest hiding under your bed. You're too dumb to know what I or others need. And it's the bill of rights, not needs, isn't it.
Is your idea of a modern society one in which we are to be victims of thugs your failed socialist experiments turn loose on us? England is a prime example of your backward thinking. Confiscated guns and the crime rate soars. Are you naive enough to think gun bans reduce crime? Look at the high crime areas around here? Common denominator: Democrat controlled, be kind to criminals laws, victim disarmamnet zones. Or are you, as well as Obama, a disciple of Marx? Mao?
Luke 22:36
Exodus 22:1
Molon labe "
" xdfred @ Oct 21, 2008 5:00 PM wrote about how Obama might take his guns away.
Hey! You win. Here I thought that Obama didn't care all that much about guns either way. But, thanks to you, I now have real hope that maybe your guns will be taken away...." Get used to disappointment. So neither you nor Obama respect the Constititution of the United States. How telling.
"....We live in a modern civilized society and not the old west. We just don't need handguns for any rational purpose. People who think they do need handguns really scare me. " I suggest hiding under your bed. You're too dumb to know what I or others need. And it's the bill of rights, not needs, isn't it.
Is your idea of a modern society one in which we are to be victims of thugs your failed socialist experiments turn loose on us? England is a prime example of your backward thinking. Confiscated guns and the crime rate soars. Are you naive enough to think gun bans reduce crime? Look at the high crime areas around here? Common denominator: Democrat controlled, be kind to criminals laws, victim disarmamnet zones. Or are you, as well as Obama, a disciple of Marx? Mao?
Luke 22:36
Exodus 22:1
Molon labe "
xdfred wrote on Oct 22, 2008 8:39 AM:
" Phil AKA Mr gimme.
"...So if you are at the top of the tax bracket already, and you go out and earn another $1 MILLION, you now get to keep ONLY $605,000 of that million instead of $650,000 of it...." That's enough motivation to just kick back and relax and not earn the million. Why bother? And where does it end? Remeber the Carter years? What was the top tax rate then? And what was the result? Lousy economy.
"....Poor Rush might not be able to afford as much Viagra on his next international "adventure". "..." There's that envy again. "
"...So if you are at the top of the tax bracket already, and you go out and earn another $1 MILLION, you now get to keep ONLY $605,000 of that million instead of $650,000 of it...." That's enough motivation to just kick back and relax and not earn the million. Why bother? And where does it end? Remeber the Carter years? What was the top tax rate then? And what was the result? Lousy economy.
"....Poor Rush might not be able to afford as much Viagra on his next international "adventure". "..." There's that envy again. "
Newswatcher wrote on Oct 22, 2008 8:48 AM:
" timb,
Any young evangelical voter who votes for Obama has been hoodwinked by the Great Orator and his supporting Liberal Media who tells you all only what you want to hear.
They are buying the election and cheating all the way to the booth!
Just like they're trying to take down Palin for getting new clothes for the VP campaign. Good grief! How much did they spend on Obama's suits, ties, shirts, shoes, socks, constant haircuts, razors, cigarettes, etc? We'll never know, because the media won't ask, they don't care. They only care if it looks bad for the Republicans. Look, Sarah probably had a maternity wardrobe and a few new outfits. Did you think she should just pull out her 2-3 yr old stuff to wear for campaigns? Is that what Obama does? Is that what Hillary did?
No, but the Liberal media tries to do ANYTHING to destroy Palin while they keep Obama's lies a secret! You young people are so gullible it's sad.
Get real here, kiddo!
Obama has absolutely no credibility and no business being President at this time in our country.
If he's so great, give him another 4 years to get some experience, some actual voting history that shows who/what he is, perhaps some wisdom, hopefully some integrity, time to clean out his other shady friends, distance himself from Freddie/Fannie heads and ACORN (which is btw blowing up more each and every day!), write another book, etc. THEN try to vote him in, perhaps he'll qualify with more than just some good speeches.
Right now, Obama has no business being our Commander in Chief, the poll of the military shows high support for McCain. Biden even stated in the Spring that McCain would be a better President than Obama! Plus he also said Obama WOULD certainly be tested in his first 6 months. Are you getting a few clues yet?
Right now, the issue swept under the rug is Security for our country. Obama took a vacation when the last dangerous attack happened, when Russia attacked Georgia (fyi, that's not the USA Georgia, ok?). McCain stood up to them and Obama said nothing, nadda, nil, he went to Hawaii. No big deal to him. Now THAT's some scary attitude, tim! He is in over his head!
True evangelicals know the risk of voting in to POTUS an admitted Muslim sympathizer right now. Not to judge all Muslims, but at this time, we simply do NOT know Obama's history (nor can we believe his explanations of his relationships) enough to trust him. In case you're SO young, as you appear in your entry of 11:24 on 10/21, it was extreme Muslims that blew up US planes and buildings full of innocent people on 9/11/01. Just in case you don't remember, go to You Tube and watch some video and refresh your memory. Obama sympathizes with people of this religion.
No evangelical who supports that view has any idea what the Muslim teachings are that drove these extremists to their actions. No, not all Muslim's are bad, but even the good ones did NOT stand up to the extremists and stop the madness they created and are continuing to spread. Being nice to them won't fix it either, tim. That's what Obama thinks will happen. It doesn't work that way. You need to learn more about this, because if you are a young evangelical voter, you are obviously in the dark about what these terrorists teachings are all about.
Obama's a known liar with no leadership experience and no evangelical I know of, young OR not young would ever vote for a man who has been caught lying like this and throwing his friends under the bus the way he has - especially his Spiritual Adviser of 20 years, the man he said 'brought him to Christ'! Why would you vote for this man? For HOPE? For Health Insurance? For handouts? For what, tim? Just WHAT do you KNOW Obama would give you?
What do you Dem's say about Bush's 'lie'? Oh, you call for impeachment! What did you Obamites say about Hillary's 'sniper lies'? Oh, the end of her run for POTUS! Why don't you discredit Obama for his blatant 'lies'?
Most of all, think Security, because it won't matter WHAT our economy is like if we get provoked again, like Biden has predicted we will. By then, it would be too late for McCain's experience, wisdom, toughness and resolve to help us. We'd have a guy who will want to give a 'speech' to protect us. Or, maybe he'd want to go back to Hawaii! How nice!! "
Any young evangelical voter who votes for Obama has been hoodwinked by the Great Orator and his supporting Liberal Media who tells you all only what you want to hear.
They are buying the election and cheating all the way to the booth!
Just like they're trying to take down Palin for getting new clothes for the VP campaign. Good grief! How much did they spend on Obama's suits, ties, shirts, shoes, socks, constant haircuts, razors, cigarettes, etc? We'll never know, because the media won't ask, they don't care. They only care if it looks bad for the Republicans. Look, Sarah probably had a maternity wardrobe and a few new outfits. Did you think she should just pull out her 2-3 yr old stuff to wear for campaigns? Is that what Obama does? Is that what Hillary did?
No, but the Liberal media tries to do ANYTHING to destroy Palin while they keep Obama's lies a secret! You young people are so gullible it's sad.
Get real here, kiddo!
Obama has absolutely no credibility and no business being President at this time in our country.
If he's so great, give him another 4 years to get some experience, some actual voting history that shows who/what he is, perhaps some wisdom, hopefully some integrity, time to clean out his other shady friends, distance himself from Freddie/Fannie heads and ACORN (which is btw blowing up more each and every day!), write another book, etc. THEN try to vote him in, perhaps he'll qualify with more than just some good speeches.
Right now, Obama has no business being our Commander in Chief, the poll of the military shows high support for McCain. Biden even stated in the Spring that McCain would be a better President than Obama! Plus he also said Obama WOULD certainly be tested in his first 6 months. Are you getting a few clues yet?
Right now, the issue swept under the rug is Security for our country. Obama took a vacation when the last dangerous attack happened, when Russia attacked Georgia (fyi, that's not the USA Georgia, ok?). McCain stood up to them and Obama said nothing, nadda, nil, he went to Hawaii. No big deal to him. Now THAT's some scary attitude, tim! He is in over his head!
True evangelicals know the risk of voting in to POTUS an admitted Muslim sympathizer right now. Not to judge all Muslims, but at this time, we simply do NOT know Obama's history (nor can we believe his explanations of his relationships) enough to trust him. In case you're SO young, as you appear in your entry of 11:24 on 10/21, it was extreme Muslims that blew up US planes and buildings full of innocent people on 9/11/01. Just in case you don't remember, go to You Tube and watch some video and refresh your memory. Obama sympathizes with people of this religion.
No evangelical who supports that view has any idea what the Muslim teachings are that drove these extremists to their actions. No, not all Muslim's are bad, but even the good ones did NOT stand up to the extremists and stop the madness they created and are continuing to spread. Being nice to them won't fix it either, tim. That's what Obama thinks will happen. It doesn't work that way. You need to learn more about this, because if you are a young evangelical voter, you are obviously in the dark about what these terrorists teachings are all about.
Obama's a known liar with no leadership experience and no evangelical I know of, young OR not young would ever vote for a man who has been caught lying like this and throwing his friends under the bus the way he has - especially his Spiritual Adviser of 20 years, the man he said 'brought him to Christ'! Why would you vote for this man? For HOPE? For Health Insurance? For handouts? For what, tim? Just WHAT do you KNOW Obama would give you?
What do you Dem's say about Bush's 'lie'? Oh, you call for impeachment! What did you Obamites say about Hillary's 'sniper lies'? Oh, the end of her run for POTUS! Why don't you discredit Obama for his blatant 'lies'?
Most of all, think Security, because it won't matter WHAT our economy is like if we get provoked again, like Biden has predicted we will. By then, it would be too late for McCain's experience, wisdom, toughness and resolve to help us. We'd have a guy who will want to give a 'speech' to protect us. Or, maybe he'd want to go back to Hawaii! How nice!! "
think wrote on Oct 22, 2008 9:03 AM:
" "cubbies08 wrote on Oct 21, 2008 10:57 AM:
" THink...Welcome to the real world. It is all about laws, and regulations. Personally I like that. It keeps my neighbor from having 20 cars parked on his lot with no wheels on them. Yes healthcare is regulated..to make it better and safer for the patient. If you don't have rules and laws you have anarchy. " You people have been so brainwashed you really have no clue as to what a free Country is. I have only pity for you. Rather than leave my Country I’ll just wait and sooner or later in the near future we will get it back. As Cross would say, the time is near. I would suggest reading on France or Russia and see what happens when the masses are stepped on to the breaking point. "
" THink...Welcome to the real world. It is all about laws, and regulations. Personally I like that. It keeps my neighbor from having 20 cars parked on his lot with no wheels on them. Yes healthcare is regulated..to make it better and safer for the patient. If you don't have rules and laws you have anarchy. " You people have been so brainwashed you really have no clue as to what a free Country is. I have only pity for you. Rather than leave my Country I’ll just wait and sooner or later in the near future we will get it back. As Cross would say, the time is near. I would suggest reading on France or Russia and see what happens when the masses are stepped on to the breaking point. "
Newswatcher wrote on Oct 22, 2008 9:04 AM:
" Phil,
What you blinded Liberals don't get is that the reason the economy would slip under Obama's tax plan is because we don't WANT to work harder to give non-workers tens of thousands of dollars more each year than we already give!
We don't WANT you to sit there in front of your big screen TV with your hands out while we work our butts off 50-60+ hours a week, just waiting for the Govt to take even MORE of what we earned than they already take and hand it out to YOU.
It's crazy! We already pay out the NOSE and now you want us to continue to work hard, work even HARDER, hire more people, plus pay for their health insurance AND make tens of thousands of dollars less?
What kind of an idiot is motivated by THAT?
Oh, let me guess, it's our "Patriotic Duty"! Now I get it! Well how about what Kennedy said to all of you:
"Ask NOT what my country can do for me, but WHAT I can do for my country!!" "
What you blinded Liberals don't get is that the reason the economy would slip under Obama's tax plan is because we don't WANT to work harder to give non-workers tens of thousands of dollars more each year than we already give!
We don't WANT you to sit there in front of your big screen TV with your hands out while we work our butts off 50-60+ hours a week, just waiting for the Govt to take even MORE of what we earned than they already take and hand it out to YOU.
It's crazy! We already pay out the NOSE and now you want us to continue to work hard, work even HARDER, hire more people, plus pay for their health insurance AND make tens of thousands of dollars less?
What kind of an idiot is motivated by THAT?
Oh, let me guess, it's our "Patriotic Duty"! Now I get it! Well how about what Kennedy said to all of you:
"Ask NOT what my country can do for me, but WHAT I can do for my country!!" "
Phil wrote on Oct 22, 2008 11:34 AM:
" Newswatcher - so that is what happened in the 1990's under Clinton - when the tax brackets gave us solid surpluses? Returning upper income tax payers to those tax rates will cause the economy to "slip" as you say.
Seems to me it has moved beyond slipping and into crash territory.
By the way, if this affects you I congratulate your success at making over $250,000 annually.
Oh, by the way, I don't own a big screen TV and I don't receive any government money.
And about that health insurance - sure is expensive isn't it? Wish we had a plan like Japan or Taiwan or Switzerland or Germany here. But no, we would rather blow twice as much of our GNP on health care than other countries do. Do you know that in those countries it is not only unheard of, but would be considered a scandal, for someone to go bankrupt due to medical issues. It just doesn't happen. "
Seems to me it has moved beyond slipping and into crash territory.
By the way, if this affects you I congratulate your success at making over $250,000 annually.
Oh, by the way, I don't own a big screen TV and I don't receive any government money.
And about that health insurance - sure is expensive isn't it? Wish we had a plan like Japan or Taiwan or Switzerland or Germany here. But no, we would rather blow twice as much of our GNP on health care than other countries do. Do you know that in those countries it is not only unheard of, but would be considered a scandal, for someone to go bankrupt due to medical issues. It just doesn't happen. "
Phil wrote on Oct 22, 2008 11:52 AM:
" xdfred - let's be up front here, the reason you don't defend Rush's character is cause you can't - there is nothing to defend, he doesn't have any character. Just a big mouth.
I will admit he has done well for himself and created quite a platform for his views. But what does he do with it? Does he try to bring the country together? Offer creative solutions?
Nope, the divisions in this country over the past 20 years have deepened, and not in small part to Rush and his copycats. The 1970's, even with Watergate, were never as divisive and destructive in tenor as the past 20 years have been.
Thanks Rush! You are a real American hero - to the 5% of Americans who are wingnuts! "
I will admit he has done well for himself and created quite a platform for his views. But what does he do with it? Does he try to bring the country together? Offer creative solutions?
Nope, the divisions in this country over the past 20 years have deepened, and not in small part to Rush and his copycats. The 1970's, even with Watergate, were never as divisive and destructive in tenor as the past 20 years have been.
Thanks Rush! You are a real American hero - to the 5% of Americans who are wingnuts! "
MAC wrote on Oct 22, 2008 11:54 AM:
" Interesting that a self professed neo-con would quote JFK, because as y'all should remember, Kennedy was a liberal Democrat...just like brothers Bobby and Ted.
As long as we are talking Kennedy quotes, here's one few seem to remember...
"Few men are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital, quality for those who seek to change a world which yields most painfully to change."
--Robert Kennedy "
As long as we are talking Kennedy quotes, here's one few seem to remember...
"Few men are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital, quality for those who seek to change a world which yields most painfully to change."
--Robert Kennedy "
Phil wrote on Oct 22, 2008 12:23 PM:
" Mr. Clayson forgot to list John McCain on his list of candidates who support the rich paying more. There is video of this available on the internet, but here is Sen. McCain's response to a question when he ran for president in 2000:
Audience member: "Why is it that someone like my father who goes to school for 13 years gets penalized in a huge tax bracket because he's a doctor."
McCain: "I think it's to some degree because we feel obviously that wealthy people can afford more."
Audience member: "Are we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism?"
McCain: "Here's what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more."
I guess what McCain might be trying to say here is that its your patriotic duty - right? "
Audience member: "Why is it that someone like my father who goes to school for 13 years gets penalized in a huge tax bracket because he's a doctor."
McCain: "I think it's to some degree because we feel obviously that wealthy people can afford more."
Audience member: "Are we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism?"
McCain: "Here's what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more."
I guess what McCain might be trying to say here is that its your patriotic duty - right? "
timbrackett wrote on Oct 22, 2008 12:42 PM:
" hetfield--i was speaking of a demographic! look up the word in the dictionary and then come up with a response. a person who is 18 years old today was not part of the 18-29 year old young evangelical voting demographic four years ago. but they are now and they are trending away from your beloved republican party in droves!
newswatcher--do you really believe what you just posted? because of 9/11 we can't be friends with any muslims, ever?
and the young evangelicals leaving the republican party haven't been hoodwinked. they simply care about more than one issue (abortion) and don't care about all of the smears and innuendo their parents and grandparents have slung at obama. (i.e. my grandmother, a conservative baptist woman, still believes obama is a muslim and was sworn into the u.s. senate using the koran instead of the bible.)
and when i'm at work i don't think about the guy abusing welfare. it doesn't factor into my motivation at all, because i'm a man and i'm motivated by the fact that men should work--regardless of how much is being taken out of my check by that big, mean government. but, sometimes while i'm working i remember how blessed and fortunate i am to have a good job in this economy. i also think about all of the impoverished people throughout the world who would give anything to have the opportunities i have had and the job i now have.
and why would you not want to work harder for the poor people who abuse welfare, but over the last 7-8 years you have worked harder for the rich people who have abused corporate welfare? "
newswatcher--do you really believe what you just posted? because of 9/11 we can't be friends with any muslims, ever?
and the young evangelicals leaving the republican party haven't been hoodwinked. they simply care about more than one issue (abortion) and don't care about all of the smears and innuendo their parents and grandparents have slung at obama. (i.e. my grandmother, a conservative baptist woman, still believes obama is a muslim and was sworn into the u.s. senate using the koran instead of the bible.)
and when i'm at work i don't think about the guy abusing welfare. it doesn't factor into my motivation at all, because i'm a man and i'm motivated by the fact that men should work--regardless of how much is being taken out of my check by that big, mean government. but, sometimes while i'm working i remember how blessed and fortunate i am to have a good job in this economy. i also think about all of the impoverished people throughout the world who would give anything to have the opportunities i have had and the job i now have.
and why would you not want to work harder for the poor people who abuse welfare, but over the last 7-8 years you have worked harder for the rich people who have abused corporate welfare? "
xdfred wrote on Oct 22, 2008 12:52 PM:
" Trouble for Barack Hussein Obama....from a fellow democrat.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78671 "
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78671 "
xdfred wrote on Oct 22, 2008 1:08 PM:
" From Neal Boortz:
As of November 5, 2008, when President Obama officially becomes president-elect, our company will instill a few new policies which are in keeping with his new, inspiring issues of change and fairness:
1. All salespeople will be pooling their sales and bonuses into a common pool that will be divided equally between all of you. This will serve to give those of you who are under-achieving a "fair shake".
2. All low level workers will be pooling their wages, including overtime, into a common pool, dividing it equally amongst you. This will help those who are "too busy for overtime" to reap the rewards from those who have more spare time and can work extra hours.
3. All top management will now be referred to as "the government." We will not participate in this "pooling" experience because the law doesn't apply to us.
4. The "government" will give eloquent speeches to all employees every week, encouraging its workers to continue to work hard "for the good of all".
5. The employees will be thrilled with these new policies because it's "good to spread the wealth around". Those of you who have underachieved will finally get an opportunity; those of you who have worked hard and had success will feel more "patriotic".
6. The last few people who were hired should clean out their desks. Don't feel bad, though, because President Obama will give you free healthcare, free handouts, free oil for heating your home, free food stamps, and he'll let you stay in your home for as long as you want even if you can't pay your mortgage. If you appeal directly to our democratic congress, you might even get a free flat screen TV and a coupon for free haircuts (shouldn't all Americans be entitled to nice looking hair?)!!! "
As of November 5, 2008, when President Obama officially becomes president-elect, our company will instill a few new policies which are in keeping with his new, inspiring issues of change and fairness:
1. All salespeople will be pooling their sales and bonuses into a common pool that will be divided equally between all of you. This will serve to give those of you who are under-achieving a "fair shake".
2. All low level workers will be pooling their wages, including overtime, into a common pool, dividing it equally amongst you. This will help those who are "too busy for overtime" to reap the rewards from those who have more spare time and can work extra hours.
3. All top management will now be referred to as "the government." We will not participate in this "pooling" experience because the law doesn't apply to us.
4. The "government" will give eloquent speeches to all employees every week, encouraging its workers to continue to work hard "for the good of all".
5. The employees will be thrilled with these new policies because it's "good to spread the wealth around". Those of you who have underachieved will finally get an opportunity; those of you who have worked hard and had success will feel more "patriotic".
6. The last few people who were hired should clean out their desks. Don't feel bad, though, because President Obama will give you free healthcare, free handouts, free oil for heating your home, free food stamps, and he'll let you stay in your home for as long as you want even if you can't pay your mortgage. If you appeal directly to our democratic congress, you might even get a free flat screen TV and a coupon for free haircuts (shouldn't all Americans be entitled to nice looking hair?)!!! "
xdfred wrote on Oct 22, 2008 1:42 PM:
" MAC wrote on Oct 22, 2008 11:54 AM:
" Interesting that a self professed neo-con would quote JFK, because as y'all should remember, Kennedy was a liberal Democrat...just like brothers Bobby and Ted." Not hardly. JFK wasn't a gun grabber, and he pushed tax cuts. Liberals: Writing history at every opportunity. "
" Interesting that a self professed neo-con would quote JFK, because as y'all should remember, Kennedy was a liberal Democrat...just like brothers Bobby and Ted." Not hardly. JFK wasn't a gun grabber, and he pushed tax cuts. Liberals: Writing history at every opportunity. "
cross1242 wrote on Oct 22, 2008 1:53 PM:
" xdfred @ Oct 22, 2008 8:37 AM admonished me for lack of respect for the 2nd Amendment because I'd like to melt down all the handguns in the country.
xdfred, what are you so worried about? If the 2nd Amendment really protected your desire to pack heat, then there would be nothing that either I or Obama could do to take your handguns away from you.
Perhaps you're just paranoid about your guns. "
xdfred, what are you so worried about? If the 2nd Amendment really protected your desire to pack heat, then there would be nothing that either I or Obama could do to take your handguns away from you.
Perhaps you're just paranoid about your guns. "
cross1242 wrote on Oct 22, 2008 1:58 PM:
" Newswatcher @ Oct 22, 2008 8:48 AM said, "True evangelicals know the risk of voting in to POTUS an admitted Muslim sympathizer right now."
"Newswatcher" are you out of your cotton-picken mind? There is nothing wrong with Muslim's as a group. And Obama has been a Christian his whole life. The whole thing about Obama being a Muslim or Muslim sympathizer is a LIE that has been rejected many, many times. "
"Newswatcher" are you out of your cotton-picken mind? There is nothing wrong with Muslim's as a group. And Obama has been a Christian his whole life. The whole thing about Obama being a Muslim or Muslim sympathizer is a LIE that has been rejected many, many times. "
xdfred wrote on Oct 22, 2008 2:00 PM:
" Phil wrote on Oct 22, 2008 11:52 AM:
" xdfred - let's be up front here, the reason you don't defend Rush's character is cause you can't - there is nothing to defend, he doesn't have any character. Just a big mouth..." I don't think you have the juice or the brains to speak for me.
".. will admit he has done well for himself and created quite a platform for his views. But what does he do with it? Does he try to bring the country together? Offer creative solutions?..." Not his job. And you don't have the juice or the brains to tell him what his job is.
"...Nope, the divisions in this country over the past 20 years have deepened, and not in small part to Rush and his copycats. The 1970's, even with Watergate, were never as divisive and destructive in tenor as the past 20 years have been...." The relentless attacks on religion, family, gun rights, actions of race warlords, punitive taxes, none of that has anything to do with the divisions in this country. No, it's all Rush, isn't it? I don't think you have the juice, or the brains to determine why there is so much division in this country.
Looks like you need some juice and brains. "
" xdfred - let's be up front here, the reason you don't defend Rush's character is cause you can't - there is nothing to defend, he doesn't have any character. Just a big mouth..." I don't think you have the juice or the brains to speak for me.
".. will admit he has done well for himself and created quite a platform for his views. But what does he do with it? Does he try to bring the country together? Offer creative solutions?..." Not his job. And you don't have the juice or the brains to tell him what his job is.
"...Nope, the divisions in this country over the past 20 years have deepened, and not in small part to Rush and his copycats. The 1970's, even with Watergate, were never as divisive and destructive in tenor as the past 20 years have been...." The relentless attacks on religion, family, gun rights, actions of race warlords, punitive taxes, none of that has anything to do with the divisions in this country. No, it's all Rush, isn't it? I don't think you have the juice, or the brains to determine why there is so much division in this country.
Looks like you need some juice and brains. "
xdfred wrote on Oct 22, 2008 2:02 PM:
" Phil wrote on Oct 22, 2008 12:23 PM:
" Mr. Clayson forgot to list John McCain on his list of candidates who support the rich paying more. There is video of this available on the internet, but here is Sen. McCain's response to a question when he ran for president in 2000:
Audience member: "Why is it that someone like my father who goes to school for 13 years gets penalized in a huge tax bracket because he's a doctor."
McCain: "I think it's to some degree because we feel obviously that wealthy people can afford more."
Audience member: "Are we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism?"
McCain: "Here's what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more." Any guesses why he didn't win? And why he changed his tune?
"...I guess what McCain might be trying to say here is that its your patriotic duty - right? " There's that lack of brains and juice again. Maybe you should quit while you're behind. "
" Mr. Clayson forgot to list John McCain on his list of candidates who support the rich paying more. There is video of this available on the internet, but here is Sen. McCain's response to a question when he ran for president in 2000:
Audience member: "Why is it that someone like my father who goes to school for 13 years gets penalized in a huge tax bracket because he's a doctor."
McCain: "I think it's to some degree because we feel obviously that wealthy people can afford more."
Audience member: "Are we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism?"
McCain: "Here's what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more." Any guesses why he didn't win? And why he changed his tune?
"...I guess what McCain might be trying to say here is that its your patriotic duty - right? " There's that lack of brains and juice again. Maybe you should quit while you're behind. "
xdfred wrote on Oct 22, 2008 2:04 PM:
" timbrackett wrote on Oct 22, 2008 12:42 PM:
"...i also think about all of the impoverished people throughout the world who would give anything to have the opportunities i have had and the job i now have.
and why would you not want to work harder for the poor people who abuse welfare, but over the last 7-8 years you have worked harder for the rich people who have abused corporate welfare? " Brings tears to the eyes, doesn't it? Say, weren't you whining about your job the other day? "
"...i also think about all of the impoverished people throughout the world who would give anything to have the opportunities i have had and the job i now have.
and why would you not want to work harder for the poor people who abuse welfare, but over the last 7-8 years you have worked harder for the rich people who have abused corporate welfare? " Brings tears to the eyes, doesn't it? Say, weren't you whining about your job the other day? "
xdfred wrote on Oct 22, 2008 2:06 PM:
" cross1242 wrote on Oct 22, 2008 1:58 PM:
" Newswatcher @ Oct 22, 2008 8:48 AM said, "True evangelicals know the risk of voting in to POTUS an admitted Muslim sympathizer right now."
"Newswatcher" are you out of your cotton-picken mind? There is nothing wrong with Muslim's as a group..." You obviously haven't been to a Muslim country, dhimmi?
"...Obama has been a Christian his whole life...." Prove it. "
" Newswatcher @ Oct 22, 2008 8:48 AM said, "True evangelicals know the risk of voting in to POTUS an admitted Muslim sympathizer right now."
"Newswatcher" are you out of your cotton-picken mind? There is nothing wrong with Muslim's as a group..." You obviously haven't been to a Muslim country, dhimmi?
"...Obama has been a Christian his whole life...." Prove it. "
xdfred wrote on Oct 22, 2008 2:09 PM:
" " xdfred @ Oct 22, 2008 8:37 AM admonished me for lack of respect for the 2nd Amendment because I'd like to melt down all the handguns in the country...." Yep.
"...xdfred, what are you so worried about? If the 2nd Amendment really protected your desire to pack heat, then there would be nothing that either I or Obama could do to take your handguns away from you..." I'm not worried about anything. I just don't like Marxist gun grabbers in office. And I don't like those who step on the Constitution while in office and push gun control laws in spite of the second amendment. Do we have a Constitution, or do we live as subjects? Obama and his ilk want us to be subjects.
BTW, Obama got the Brady bunch endorsement. "
"...xdfred, what are you so worried about? If the 2nd Amendment really protected your desire to pack heat, then there would be nothing that either I or Obama could do to take your handguns away from you..." I'm not worried about anything. I just don't like Marxist gun grabbers in office. And I don't like those who step on the Constitution while in office and push gun control laws in spite of the second amendment. Do we have a Constitution, or do we live as subjects? Obama and his ilk want us to be subjects.
BTW, Obama got the Brady bunch endorsement. "
Phil wrote on Oct 22, 2008 2:16 PM:
" xdfred - "Trouble for Barack Hussein Obama....from a fellow democrat" - come on you can do better than that. Talk about not having the juice or the brains....
Now that you mention it, that's a good term to describe Rush - he doesn't have the juice or the brains. He's more like a toxic waste dump, the goo just oozes out, and if you get too close to it, you become poisoned. "
Now that you mention it, that's a good term to describe Rush - he doesn't have the juice or the brains. He's more like a toxic waste dump, the goo just oozes out, and if you get too close to it, you become poisoned. "
Newswatcher wrote on Oct 22, 2008 2:46 PM:
" Mac, wrong! I'm not a self-professed anything, I just pulled my head out of the sand 2 months ago, after blindly falling for Obama's speeches for a year. This guys a phony!
cross, wrong! I said in my post, I don't judge all Muslims (CAN U READ?). Obama has NOT been a Christian all his life, Rev. J Wright introduced him to Jesus Christ and their relationship was 20 years old. Let's see, your math would be what now? You say Obama's been a Christian his whole life does this make him now 20-something? Who knew!
and Phil, wrong again! In the 1990's, the Republican Congress kept spending under control, something which puppet Bush and your beloved Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reid have let run wild the last 2 years. Without checks and balances in the system, a tax+spend=happy Dem POTUS and a tax+spend=crazy Congress, our economy will bust. Oh well, I guess you don't care, we'll have HOPE! Yea!!! for HOPE! WHEEE! Isn't HOPE fun? What the $%$# is HOPE for a reason to vote for a POTUS?
"
cross, wrong! I said in my post, I don't judge all Muslims (CAN U READ?). Obama has NOT been a Christian all his life, Rev. J Wright introduced him to Jesus Christ and their relationship was 20 years old. Let's see, your math would be what now? You say Obama's been a Christian his whole life does this make him now 20-something? Who knew!
and Phil, wrong again! In the 1990's, the Republican Congress kept spending under control, something which puppet Bush and your beloved Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reid have let run wild the last 2 years. Without checks and balances in the system, a tax+spend=happy Dem POTUS and a tax+spend=crazy Congress, our economy will bust. Oh well, I guess you don't care, we'll have HOPE! Yea!!! for HOPE! WHEEE! Isn't HOPE fun? What the $%$# is HOPE for a reason to vote for a POTUS?
"
cross1242 wrote on Oct 22, 2008 3:11 PM:
" xdfred @ Oct 22, 2008 2:00 PM referred to: "relentless attacks on religion, family, gun rights, actions of race warlords, punitive taxes...."
Oh, baloney!
What attacks on "religion, family, gun rights, actions of race warlords, punitive taxes." All of that is just a product of your fevered imagination. I particularly object to your term "race warlords." I have no idea who you may be referring to. But, I suspect that it represents your principal fear that white men are not in control of everything anymore. Maybe you should re-examine your motivations. "
Oh, baloney!
What attacks on "religion, family, gun rights, actions of race warlords, punitive taxes." All of that is just a product of your fevered imagination. I particularly object to your term "race warlords." I have no idea who you may be referring to. But, I suspect that it represents your principal fear that white men are not in control of everything anymore. Maybe you should re-examine your motivations. "
xdfred wrote on Oct 22, 2008 3:45 PM:
" Phil wrote on Oct 22, 2008 2:16 PM:
" xdfred - "Trouble for Barack Hussein Obama....from a fellow democrat"
Barack Hussein Obama's citizenship is being called into question by a fellow democrat. This has nothing to do with me, clueless.
"...Now that you mention it, that's a good term to describe Rush - he doesn't have the juice or the brains. He's more like a toxic waste dump, the goo just oozes out, and if you get too close to it, you become poisoned..." Are you going to shake your fist at him, too? Your attempted insults are another sign of pure envy. Green with it. You can't argue with success. Point to one leftwinger that has done as well. Anybody. There isn't one.
You're not fit to wash Rush's dishes. "
" xdfred - "Trouble for Barack Hussein Obama....from a fellow democrat"
Barack Hussein Obama's citizenship is being called into question by a fellow democrat. This has nothing to do with me, clueless.
"...Now that you mention it, that's a good term to describe Rush - he doesn't have the juice or the brains. He's more like a toxic waste dump, the goo just oozes out, and if you get too close to it, you become poisoned..." Are you going to shake your fist at him, too? Your attempted insults are another sign of pure envy. Green with it. You can't argue with success. Point to one leftwinger that has done as well. Anybody. There isn't one.
You're not fit to wash Rush's dishes. "
Phil wrote on Oct 22, 2008 3:51 PM:
" cross - that's the typical right-wing defense - they're victims - everyone is out to get them - especially liberal press (biggest joke of all). Nothing in their idealogy is the cause of their problems - it is always somebody else's fault.
Who attacks their religion? Nobody.
Who has taken away their guns? Nobody.
Who has burdened them with punitive taxes? Nobody.
Or as xdfred likes to say - Prove It. "
Who attacks their religion? Nobody.
Who has taken away their guns? Nobody.
Who has burdened them with punitive taxes? Nobody.
Or as xdfred likes to say - Prove It. "
xdfred wrote on Oct 22, 2008 3:52 PM:
" cross1242 wrote on Oct 22, 2008 3:11 PM:
" xdfred @ Oct 22, 2008 2:00 PM referred to: "relentless attacks on religion, family, gun rights, actions of race warlords, punitive taxes...."
"Oh, baloney!" Translation: I can't dispute what you've said, but want to sound off anyway.
"...What attacks on "religion, family, gun rights, actions of race warlords, punitive taxes." All of that is just a product of your fevered imagination...." Of course it is.
"...I particularly object to your term "race warlords."..." I particularly don't care about your objections.
"...I have no idea who you may be referring to...." Take your pick. The world renown shakedown artist Jesse Jackson, Al 'Tawana Brawley' Sharpton, or Barack Hussein Obama's favorites, Lou Farrakhan and Jeremiah Wright.
"....But, I suspect that it represents your principal fear that white men are not in control of everything anymore. Maybe you should re-examine your motivations..." As usual, you are more than wrong again. It must be hard, hard work to make so many seriously embarrassing goofs time and time again. Hard work. Explains the dementia. And the lack of shame. "
" xdfred @ Oct 22, 2008 2:00 PM referred to: "relentless attacks on religion, family, gun rights, actions of race warlords, punitive taxes...."
"Oh, baloney!" Translation: I can't dispute what you've said, but want to sound off anyway.
"...What attacks on "religion, family, gun rights, actions of race warlords, punitive taxes." All of that is just a product of your fevered imagination...." Of course it is.
"...I particularly object to your term "race warlords."..." I particularly don't care about your objections.
"...I have no idea who you may be referring to...." Take your pick. The world renown shakedown artist Jesse Jackson, Al 'Tawana Brawley' Sharpton, or Barack Hussein Obama's favorites, Lou Farrakhan and Jeremiah Wright.
"....But, I suspect that it represents your principal fear that white men are not in control of everything anymore. Maybe you should re-examine your motivations..." As usual, you are more than wrong again. It must be hard, hard work to make so many seriously embarrassing goofs time and time again. Hard work. Explains the dementia. And the lack of shame. "
Phil wrote on Oct 22, 2008 3:59 PM:
" xdfred - well at least I've moved up from his shoes to his dishes.
Who says I am arguing with his "success"? You know that medical condition Rush had that prevented him from having to bravely run away to Canada during Vietnam? (because there ain't no way that wimp would have served) Well that's what Rush's career will be compared to someday.
I wouldn't trade positions with him ever - but I'll bet you would - in a heartbeat. Wouldn't you? "
Who says I am arguing with his "success"? You know that medical condition Rush had that prevented him from having to bravely run away to Canada during Vietnam? (because there ain't no way that wimp would have served) Well that's what Rush's career will be compared to someday.
I wouldn't trade positions with him ever - but I'll bet you would - in a heartbeat. Wouldn't you? "
Phil wrote on Oct 22, 2008 4:04 PM:
" Newswatcher - the tax brackets that led to our surpluses in the 1990's were passed by a Democratic Congress without a single Republican vote. Yes, spending caps were followed after that and I do applaud the Congress and President Clinton for maintaining fiscal discipline during that time.
But our current deficit spending started way before Reid and Pelosi had any say in things. Could they have done better - sure. Starting with the military budget which has doubled under Bush - there's about $300-400 billion of excess that could be cut. That would make a dent. "
But our current deficit spending started way before Reid and Pelosi had any say in things. Could they have done better - sure. Starting with the military budget which has doubled under Bush - there's about $300-400 billion of excess that could be cut. That would make a dent. "
cubbies09 wrote on Oct 22, 2008 4:10 PM:
" I see ... Biden stuck his foot in his mouth again yesterday. How did this clown get picked for the VP candidate? "
xdfred wrote on Oct 22, 2008 4:16 PM:
" Phil wrote on Oct 22, 2008 3:59 PM:
" xdfred - well at least I've moved up from his shoes to his dishes." OK. Stick with the shoes.
"...Who says I am arguing with his "success"?.." Let's see. He's extremely successful, and you are arguing with that success. So to answer your ridiculous question, I am.
"..You know that medical condition Rush had that prevented him from having to bravely run away to Canada during Vietnam?..." Nope. Don't really care. Was it the same thing Clinton had when he went to England?
"...I wouldn't trade positions with him ever.." Couldn't. Not wouldn't. Couldn't. "
" xdfred - well at least I've moved up from his shoes to his dishes." OK. Stick with the shoes.
"...Who says I am arguing with his "success"?.." Let's see. He's extremely successful, and you are arguing with that success. So to answer your ridiculous question, I am.
"..You know that medical condition Rush had that prevented him from having to bravely run away to Canada during Vietnam?..." Nope. Don't really care. Was it the same thing Clinton had when he went to England?
"...I wouldn't trade positions with him ever.." Couldn't. Not wouldn't. Couldn't. "
xdfred wrote on Oct 22, 2008 4:19 PM:
" Phil wrote on Oct 22, 2008 3:51 PM:
" cross - that's the typical right-wing defense - they're victims - everyone is out to get them - especially liberal press (biggest joke of all). Nothing in their idealogy is the cause of their problems - it is always somebody else's fault.
"..Who attacks their religion?..." Let's see. Obama did talking about bitter people on the campaign. The ACLU has made a ton of money attacking religion.
"...Who has taken away their guns? You got me there. But it wasn't for lack of trying. Look up CAGE.
"..Who has burdened them with punitive taxes?..." Carter, Clinton.... "
" cross - that's the typical right-wing defense - they're victims - everyone is out to get them - especially liberal press (biggest joke of all). Nothing in their idealogy is the cause of their problems - it is always somebody else's fault.
"..Who attacks their religion?..." Let's see. Obama did talking about bitter people on the campaign. The ACLU has made a ton of money attacking religion.
"...Who has taken away their guns? You got me there. But it wasn't for lack of trying. Look up CAGE.
"..Who has burdened them with punitive taxes?..." Carter, Clinton.... "
Phil wrote on Oct 22, 2008 5:19 PM:
" xdfred - you are right - I couldn't be that arrogant, that racist, have that much hate, nor lie as much as Rush does.
See - we agree on something. "
See - we agree on something. "
hetfield wrote on Oct 22, 2008 6:38 PM:
" did you see the ap has the race tied.
mccain must be up by 10 or more pts now!!
suckers. liberals. same thing "
mccain must be up by 10 or more pts now!!
suckers. liberals. same thing "
the_bat wrote on Oct 22, 2008 10:27 PM:
" skelloch adds a couple of good points to an article with some good points...
"skelloch wrote on OCT 19, 2008 5:33 PM:
(comment by a friend)
An excellent commentary by Dennis as usual.
What Dennis does not cover is how his friend, with a socialist government, will change his behavior. If his productivity is to be taxed as it increases, he will REDUCE his productivity. Further, he will "hide" his assets as best he can such that they will NOT be available to produce jobs or expand his business. He will intensify his commitment to TAX FREE municipal investments (assuming they remain under Obama) therein such that the same funds will not be invested in American industry. And of course, he may cause much of his capital to "flee" these shores so they are in a safer enviornment and now these funds are not available in this country to create jobs.
The socialists will never learn! "
To that I would add that these are points worth pondering.
I recently heard it said that, "fair is a word used only by children and Democrats." That sounds about right.
What, in fact, "fair" and "fair share" has come to mean, when used by Democrats, is code-speak for government control of the economy. Now there has always been some of that. And, some regulation may, in fact, be needful, but what we're looking at now is an increasingly thorough takeover of the private sector and it may prove very difficult to undo once the folly — and folly it is — has been done.
Today, we live in a country where roughly 5% of the population pay 70% of the taxes. And something like 30 to 40% of us pay no income tax at all. If there were such a thing as "fairness" this would not be the case. Frankly, I think it's high time to spread the tax burden across ALL the population.
^o^
...There was once a time when our heroes were the builders, architects, and captains of industry. Now they're spoiled Hollywood celebrities and politicians. No wonder we're in the mess we are in. "
"skelloch wrote on OCT 19, 2008 5:33 PM:
(comment by a friend)
An excellent commentary by Dennis as usual.
What Dennis does not cover is how his friend, with a socialist government, will change his behavior. If his productivity is to be taxed as it increases, he will REDUCE his productivity. Further, he will "hide" his assets as best he can such that they will NOT be available to produce jobs or expand his business. He will intensify his commitment to TAX FREE municipal investments (assuming they remain under Obama) therein such that the same funds will not be invested in American industry. And of course, he may cause much of his capital to "flee" these shores so they are in a safer enviornment and now these funds are not available in this country to create jobs.
The socialists will never learn! "
To that I would add that these are points worth pondering.
I recently heard it said that, "fair is a word used only by children and Democrats." That sounds about right.
What, in fact, "fair" and "fair share" has come to mean, when used by Democrats, is code-speak for government control of the economy. Now there has always been some of that. And, some regulation may, in fact, be needful, but what we're looking at now is an increasingly thorough takeover of the private sector and it may prove very difficult to undo once the folly — and folly it is — has been done.
Today, we live in a country where roughly 5% of the population pay 70% of the taxes. And something like 30 to 40% of us pay no income tax at all. If there were such a thing as "fairness" this would not be the case. Frankly, I think it's high time to spread the tax burden across ALL the population.
^o^
...There was once a time when our heroes were the builders, architects, and captains of industry. Now they're spoiled Hollywood celebrities and politicians. No wonder we're in the mess we are in. "
the_bat wrote on Oct 22, 2008 10:40 PM:
" timbrackett wrote on OCT 21, 2008 12:24 PM:
" hetfield. over the past several months i have posted several statistics showing that young evangelicals are leaving the republican party and voting for barack obama. 15% of evangelical voters aged 18-29 have left the republican party since 2005. ... "
Hmm... If that's actually true... maybe Rosie O'Donnell was right?
^o^
...Y'know? Back when she made that crack about evangelical Christians being more dangerous than al-Queda? "
" hetfield. over the past several months i have posted several statistics showing that young evangelicals are leaving the republican party and voting for barack obama. 15% of evangelical voters aged 18-29 have left the republican party since 2005. ... "
Hmm... If that's actually true... maybe Rosie O'Donnell was right?
^o^
...Y'know? Back when she made that crack about evangelical Christians being more dangerous than al-Queda? "
cross1242 wrote on Oct 22, 2008 11:14 PM:
" hetfield @ Oct 22, 2008 6:38 PM seems to think that McCain will still win.
You might try looking over this site:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
It shows 11 national polls and ALL of them show Obama winning -- some by greater than 10%.
Then, you also might look at this site:
http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/pollyvote/index.php/who-is-polly/pollycomp-models.html
It shows 16 quantitative predictions by political scientists of the results of the election. (That is, they are predicting the winner and not just saying "who's ahead today.") All 16 methods predict that Obama will win.
"hetfield," you'd better wake up and smell the coffee. "
You might try looking over this site:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
It shows 11 national polls and ALL of them show Obama winning -- some by greater than 10%.
Then, you also might look at this site:
http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/pollyvote/index.php/who-is-polly/pollycomp-models.html
It shows 16 quantitative predictions by political scientists of the results of the election. (That is, they are predicting the winner and not just saying "who's ahead today.") All 16 methods predict that Obama will win.
"hetfield," you'd better wake up and smell the coffee. "
timbrackett wrote on Oct 23, 2008 2:57 AM:
" xdfred...no, i have never whined about my job, here or anywhere else. just further proof that you don't actually read and comprehend.
while many of us here are interested in fair and honest debates of the issues with our comments...you pick and choose whatever fits your (small) mindset.
every comment i have ever made about my job has been very clear that i enjoy my job! "
while many of us here are interested in fair and honest debates of the issues with our comments...you pick and choose whatever fits your (small) mindset.
every comment i have ever made about my job has been very clear that i enjoy my job! "
xdfred wrote on Oct 23, 2008 8:33 AM:
" Phil wrote on Oct 22, 2008 5:19 PM:
" xdfred - you are right - I couldn't be that arrogant, that racist, have that much hate, nor lie as much as Rush does." Wow. Big man with unfounded accusations. I'll play along. Yes you are. Everyone knows hardcore liberals are the biggest racists on the planet. "
" xdfred - you are right - I couldn't be that arrogant, that racist, have that much hate, nor lie as much as Rush does." Wow. Big man with unfounded accusations. I'll play along. Yes you are. Everyone knows hardcore liberals are the biggest racists on the planet. "
xdfred wrote on Oct 23, 2008 8:34 AM:
" timbrackett wrote on Oct 23, 2008 2:57 AM:
" xdfred...no, i have never whined about my job, here or anywhere else. just further proof that you don't actually read and comprehend.
while many of us here are interested in fair and honest debates of the issues with our comments...you pick and choose whatever fits your (small) mindset.
every comment i have ever made about my job has been very clear that i enjoy my job! "
You were whining about how you had to work nights and weekends. "
" xdfred...no, i have never whined about my job, here or anywhere else. just further proof that you don't actually read and comprehend.
while many of us here are interested in fair and honest debates of the issues with our comments...you pick and choose whatever fits your (small) mindset.
every comment i have ever made about my job has been very clear that i enjoy my job! "
You were whining about how you had to work nights and weekends. "
50674 wrote on Oct 23, 2008 9:44 AM:
" Problem with you xdfred is you take your perceptions and try to make them facts in your mind. No one takes anything you say seriously. But, keep plugging away. I work ONLY nights and weekends. That isn't a whine ...it's a statement. Add your spin to it however you wish. I've made my point. "
Phil wrote on Oct 23, 2008 10:13 AM:
" Those of you crying socialism need to learn the meaning of the word. Returning the tax brackets on upper income taxpayers to the rates they were in the 1990's - which I doubt most of you are - is not socialism and you know it.
Government redistributes income all the time in many ways - from hiring their own employees, to awarding contracts, to giving money to schools, to welfare and Social Security.
Again, those of you on the right, starting with Mr. Clayson, need to lose the "woe is me victimhood" mentality.
This is a nation - we are a society - dependent on each other. We all contribute in multiple ways to that society including financially.
Will there be those who rip off the rest of us? ALWAYS. Some won't contribute and sit there with their hand out. Others will take our money and overcharge us for their work or supply us shoddy and inferior work. Some will buy their way into the process to gain an advantage.
Either way, the rest of us have to make up for the rip off artists.
Whether you admit it or not, there are people working as hard as they can and still struggling. So we are supposed to say "tough luck" to them? Trust me, we waste a heck of lot more money paying the rip off artists than we do helping the ones needing a break.
Socialism - you folks don't know the first thing about socialism. Go back to your economics text books, if you ever took the class. If you didn't, sign up for one, then tell us about socialism when you pass Econ 101. "
Government redistributes income all the time in many ways - from hiring their own employees, to awarding contracts, to giving money to schools, to welfare and Social Security.
Again, those of you on the right, starting with Mr. Clayson, need to lose the "woe is me victimhood" mentality.
This is a nation - we are a society - dependent on each other. We all contribute in multiple ways to that society including financially.
Will there be those who rip off the rest of us? ALWAYS. Some won't contribute and sit there with their hand out. Others will take our money and overcharge us for their work or supply us shoddy and inferior work. Some will buy their way into the process to gain an advantage.
Either way, the rest of us have to make up for the rip off artists.
Whether you admit it or not, there are people working as hard as they can and still struggling. So we are supposed to say "tough luck" to them? Trust me, we waste a heck of lot more money paying the rip off artists than we do helping the ones needing a break.
Socialism - you folks don't know the first thing about socialism. Go back to your economics text books, if you ever took the class. If you didn't, sign up for one, then tell us about socialism when you pass Econ 101. "
xdfred wrote on Oct 23, 2008 11:19 AM:
" All,
What is the purpose of Federal income taxes? To fund government programs -supposedly within the limits of the Constitution-, or redistribute wealth? "
What is the purpose of Federal income taxes? To fund government programs -supposedly within the limits of the Constitution-, or redistribute wealth? "
xdfred wrote on Oct 23, 2008 11:37 AM:
" Who is Barack Hussein Obama? Who knows, he hides it well.
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_secrecy/2008/10/22/143157.html "
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_secrecy/2008/10/22/143157.html "
cross1242 wrote on Oct 23, 2008 12:02 PM:
" xdfred @ Oct 23, 2008 11:37 AM asked, "Who is Barack Hussein Obama? Who knows, he hides it well."
xdfred, Obama's been campaigning and been checked out by reporters for 20 MONTHS! If you don't know everything possible about him, then it's because you don't want to know about him. Or, perhaps better stated, you want to know disqualifying facts about Obama but there are none. "
xdfred, Obama's been campaigning and been checked out by reporters for 20 MONTHS! If you don't know everything possible about him, then it's because you don't want to know about him. Or, perhaps better stated, you want to know disqualifying facts about Obama but there are none. "
Phil wrote on Oct 23, 2008 12:02 PM:
" I see that grandchildren of Barry Goldwater who still reside in Arizona have joined the grandchildren of late Pres. Eisenhower in supporting Sen. Obama for president.
I am sure Rush will soon announce on his show that their endorsement is racially motivated. "
I am sure Rush will soon announce on his show that their endorsement is racially motivated. "
timbrackett wrote on Oct 23, 2008 12:43 PM:
" i work second shift. i've never whined about my shift. it is the shift i knew i would be working when i took my job.
and i have never whined about working weekends, i have merely made the point that if i held the same job eight years ago, i would not have to work so many weekends because my dollar would have beeen worth more then than it is now. "
and i have never whined about working weekends, i have merely made the point that if i held the same job eight years ago, i would not have to work so many weekends because my dollar would have beeen worth more then than it is now. "
xdfred wrote on Oct 23, 2008 2:04 PM:
" cross1242 wrote on Oct 23, 2008 12:02 PM:
" xdfred @ Oct 23, 2008 11:37 AM asked, "Who is Barack Hussein Obama? Who knows, he hides it well."
xdfred, Obama's been campaigning and been checked out by reporters for 20 MONTHS! If you don't know everything possible about him, then it's because you don't want to know about him. Or, perhaps better stated, you want to know disqualifying facts about Obama but there are none. " I know quite a bit about him. And what I know brings up serious questions. Like why is he secretive about his shady past? Why he won't own up to his involvement with ACORN?
South side Chicago shyster is what I know about him. "
" xdfred @ Oct 23, 2008 11:37 AM asked, "Who is Barack Hussein Obama? Who knows, he hides it well."
xdfred, Obama's been campaigning and been checked out by reporters for 20 MONTHS! If you don't know everything possible about him, then it's because you don't want to know about him. Or, perhaps better stated, you want to know disqualifying facts about Obama but there are none. " I know quite a bit about him. And what I know brings up serious questions. Like why is he secretive about his shady past? Why he won't own up to his involvement with ACORN?
South side Chicago shyster is what I know about him. "
xdfred wrote on Oct 23, 2008 2:08 PM:
" 50674 wrote on Oct 23, 2008 9:44 AM:
" Problem with you xdfred is you take your perceptions and try to make them facts in your mind...."
That is what a perception is, nitwit. It's what you perceive to be a fact. You've got them, too.
"....No one takes anything you say seriously...." You speak for everyone now?
"....But, keep plugging away...." Gee, thanks.
"....I work ONLY nights and weekends...." Who cares.
"....That isn't a whine ...it's a statement...." See above.
"...Add your spin to it however you wish. I've made my point." And your hat hides it well.
I really get the feeling that there are a few posters here that share different names. Just based on writing style, or lack thereof. "
" Problem with you xdfred is you take your perceptions and try to make them facts in your mind...."
That is what a perception is, nitwit. It's what you perceive to be a fact. You've got them, too.
"....No one takes anything you say seriously...." You speak for everyone now?
"....But, keep plugging away...." Gee, thanks.
"....I work ONLY nights and weekends...." Who cares.
"....That isn't a whine ...it's a statement...." See above.
"...Add your spin to it however you wish. I've made my point." And your hat hides it well.
I really get the feeling that there are a few posters here that share different names. Just based on writing style, or lack thereof. "
xdfred wrote on Oct 23, 2008 2:09 PM:
" Phil wrote on Oct 23, 2008 12:02 PM:
" I see that grandchildren of Barry Goldwater who still reside in Arizona have joined the grandchildren of late Pres. Eisenhower in supporting Sen. Obama for president.
I am sure Rush will soon announce on his show that their endorsement is racially motivated. " There's that envy and liberal racism again. "
" I see that grandchildren of Barry Goldwater who still reside in Arizona have joined the grandchildren of late Pres. Eisenhower in supporting Sen. Obama for president.
I am sure Rush will soon announce on his show that their endorsement is racially motivated. " There's that envy and liberal racism again. "
xdfred wrote on Oct 23, 2008 2:10 PM:
" I see no left wingers dare answer the question about the purpose of income taxes. I know what Barack Hussein Obama thinks. "
Phil wrote on Oct 23, 2008 3:02 PM:
" Former Minnesota Republican governor Arne Carlson has announced he is supporting Sen. Obama for president.
Rush Limbaugh immediately denounced it as a "racially motivated" endorsement. "
Rush Limbaugh immediately denounced it as a "racially motivated" endorsement. "
cross1242 wrote on Oct 23, 2008 3:23 PM:
" Phil @ Oct 23, 2008 10:13 AM talks about the bug-a-boo of those on the hard right: socialism. You're completely right -- not that you need me to tell you that. My conclusion is that if we argue about "socialism," we're doomed to failure. That's because the lefties and the righties aren't talking about the same thing.
For those on the hard right, "socialism" is a "code word." It's a code word for what xdfred refers to as "redistribution of wealth." For them, it amounts to "taking money away from me and giving it to people that I don't like very much."
The people that they "don't like very much" means people that they consider to be lazy or, otherwise, unworthy of being given their money that was hard earned.
The way they see it, I think, is that the only reason anyone in this country needs any assistance is that he or she hasn't worked hard. Rather, he or she and just taken life easy expecting everything needed to be supplied by others -- mostly the government. That concept of life is reinforced by the belief that he or she "made it" purely on his or her own. They figure that if they made it on their own, then anyone can and should make it on their own too.
The idea that we are a society of 300,000,000 people makes as much sense as saying, "If I flap my arms, I can fly to the moon." A society of a neighborhood, or a church, or a club can be comprehended. But, one huge society is not seen as real.
Part of the answer may be to point out that life is more risky than they think. They may have done well, but luck as well as skill had a lot to do with it. Membership in our big society is a lot like having an insurance policy. If an individuals luck or skill don't produce a winner, then the society will make sure that you get to try again. And, like insurance, the bigger the pool of the insured, the more risks that can be taken and the more expensive risks can be accommodated.
Those on the hard right may consent to helping others out but they maintain that they only want to help the "deserving poor." The "undeserving poor" can rot, they think. But the insurance policy for our society is a "no fault" policy. Everyone gets helped.
Some people may still see life as it was on the frontier. There, people were totally on their own. They had to be. There was no one else who could help. But, the frontier is long gone. Now, we're living cheek by jowl. That may be something of a strain to have to accommodate others. But, it also means that there are other people with whom the risks of life can be shared.
Anyway, that's my theory. We can't argue about the classical definition of "socialism." Rather, it has to be taken as a code word for something else that is found to be very scary.
If we could get those on the hard right to understand that to live in today's world, we've got to live with everyone. And, part of living with others is to help out those who have been crushed by the complicated society we live in. "
For those on the hard right, "socialism" is a "code word." It's a code word for what xdfred refers to as "redistribution of wealth." For them, it amounts to "taking money away from me and giving it to people that I don't like very much."
The people that they "don't like very much" means people that they consider to be lazy or, otherwise, unworthy of being given their money that was hard earned.
The way they see it, I think, is that the only reason anyone in this country needs any assistance is that he or she hasn't worked hard. Rather, he or she and just taken life easy expecting everything needed to be supplied by others -- mostly the government. That concept of life is reinforced by the belief that he or she "made it" purely on his or her own. They figure that if they made it on their own, then anyone can and should make it on their own too.
The idea that we are a society of 300,000,000 people makes as much sense as saying, "If I flap my arms, I can fly to the moon." A society of a neighborhood, or a church, or a club can be comprehended. But, one huge society is not seen as real.
Part of the answer may be to point out that life is more risky than they think. They may have done well, but luck as well as skill had a lot to do with it. Membership in our big society is a lot like having an insurance policy. If an individuals luck or skill don't produce a winner, then the society will make sure that you get to try again. And, like insurance, the bigger the pool of the insured, the more risks that can be taken and the more expensive risks can be accommodated.
Those on the hard right may consent to helping others out but they maintain that they only want to help the "deserving poor." The "undeserving poor" can rot, they think. But the insurance policy for our society is a "no fault" policy. Everyone gets helped.
Some people may still see life as it was on the frontier. There, people were totally on their own. They had to be. There was no one else who could help. But, the frontier is long gone. Now, we're living cheek by jowl. That may be something of a strain to have to accommodate others. But, it also means that there are other people with whom the risks of life can be shared.
Anyway, that's my theory. We can't argue about the classical definition of "socialism." Rather, it has to be taken as a code word for something else that is found to be very scary.
If we could get those on the hard right to understand that to live in today's world, we've got to live with everyone. And, part of living with others is to help out those who have been crushed by the complicated society we live in. "
cross1242 wrote on Oct 23, 2008 3:37 PM:
" xdfred @ Oct 23, 2008 2:04 PM said, "South side Chicago shyster is what I know about him."
He graduated from Columbia and Harvard and you call him a "shyster"? I think you statement proves that you have what is known as "invincible ignorance." ("Vincible ignorance" is cured by education. "Invincible ignorance" can't be cured because the person can't or won't learn.) "
He graduated from Columbia and Harvard and you call him a "shyster"? I think you statement proves that you have what is known as "invincible ignorance." ("Vincible ignorance" is cured by education. "Invincible ignorance" can't be cured because the person can't or won't learn.) "
cross1242 wrote on Oct 23, 2008 3:40 PM:
" xdfred @ Oct 23, 2008 11:19 AM said, "What is the purpose of Federal income taxes? To fund government programs -supposedly within the limits of the Constitution-, or redistribute wealth?"
Both, actually. A government program is usually intended to help people out. The fact that you label that as "redistribution of wealth" can't be helped. "
Both, actually. A government program is usually intended to help people out. The fact that you label that as "redistribution of wealth" can't be helped. "
Phil wrote on Oct 23, 2008 3:47 PM:
" xdfred - there is no reason to answer your question about the purpose of income taxes.
Bush/Cheney thought they were for collecting money to give to their friends at KBR and Halliburton.
I'm glad you know what Sen. Obama thinks about them.
Do you also know what John Sidney McCain thinks about them? Cause every time we think we know what he thinks about something, someone finds a quote from a few years ago where he thought something else altogether. He's like that fish in the bottom of the boat that just won't quit flopping around.
In other news, Rudy Guliani has reaffirmed his support for John McCain. Rush says it is racially motivated. "
Bush/Cheney thought they were for collecting money to give to their friends at KBR and Halliburton.
I'm glad you know what Sen. Obama thinks about them.
Do you also know what John Sidney McCain thinks about them? Cause every time we think we know what he thinks about something, someone finds a quote from a few years ago where he thought something else altogether. He's like that fish in the bottom of the boat that just won't quit flopping around.
In other news, Rudy Guliani has reaffirmed his support for John McCain. Rush says it is racially motivated. "
cubbies08 wrote on Oct 23, 2008 4:16 PM:
" Has anyone seen the recent poll in the military times? CHeck it out at www.militarytimes.com/static/projects/pages/081003
Overall the military would vote 68% to 33% in favor of McCain. Every segment of the armed forces was strong for McCain except one...Black/African-American was 79% to 12% for Obama. Is this racism? It was the only segment that was pro Obama. "
Overall the military would vote 68% to 33% in favor of McCain. Every segment of the armed forces was strong for McCain except one...Black/African-American was 79% to 12% for Obama. Is this racism? It was the only segment that was pro Obama. "
think wrote on Oct 23, 2008 5:01 PM:
" Hey Cross, aren’t your churches supposed to take care of the needy? If you want your donation dollars going to fund illegal’s then fine. Don’t ask me to pay for the self pitying; I’m a victim mentality that now fills our streets with drunks, druggies and other riff raft. I want to keep my money I’ve busted my back for over 40+ years and I owe no one a cent. How many of these druggies and drunks are doing something to help your church? I am getting sick of you religious fanatics trying to cram your belief in the invisible man down my throat. For what’s its worth I am Wiccan but I am not shoving a pentacle in front of you everyday. "
xdfred wrote on Oct 23, 2008 5:11 PM:
" cross1242 wrote on Oct 23, 2008 3:37 PM:
" xdfred @ Oct 23, 2008 2:04 PM said, "South side Chicago shyster is what I know about him."
He graduated from Columbia and Harvard and you call him a "shyster"? I think you statement proves ..." Blah blah blah. I never said he was uneducated. Or are you ignorant enough to believe Harvard and Columbia don't graduate shysters?
From Larry Elder:
"As for the current financial crisis, does Obama bear some responsibility?
In the subprime crisis, many people took out unaffordable loans, and lenders lent under government policies that encouraged them to make risky loans. As a lawyer, Obama and his firm filed a class action lawsuit against Citibank, alleging that the bank systematically shut out minority borrowers. According to The Associated Press: "The case was settled out of court. Some class members got cash payments, and the bank agreed to help ease the way for low- and moderate-income people to apply for mortgages."
Bottom line. When the Communist Party USA approvingly says Obama would "advance progressive politics for the long term" -- run."
Barck Hussein Obama=Shyster "
" xdfred @ Oct 23, 2008 2:04 PM said, "South side Chicago shyster is what I know about him."
He graduated from Columbia and Harvard and you call him a "shyster"? I think you statement proves ..." Blah blah blah. I never said he was uneducated. Or are you ignorant enough to believe Harvard and Columbia don't graduate shysters?
From Larry Elder:
"As for the current financial crisis, does Obama bear some responsibility?
In the subprime crisis, many people took out unaffordable loans, and lenders lent under government policies that encouraged them to make risky loans. As a lawyer, Obama and his firm filed a class action lawsuit against Citibank, alleging that the bank systematically shut out minority borrowers. According to The Associated Press: "The case was settled out of court. Some class members got cash payments, and the bank agreed to help ease the way for low- and moderate-income people to apply for mortgages."
Bottom line. When the Communist Party USA approvingly says Obama would "advance progressive politics for the long term" -- run."
Barck Hussein Obama=Shyster "
xdfred wrote on Oct 23, 2008 5:13 PM:
" cross1242 wrote on Oct 23, 2008 3:40 PM:
" xdfred @ Oct 23, 2008 11:19 AM said, "What is the purpose of Federal income taxes? To fund government programs -supposedly within the limits of the Constitution-, or redistribute wealth?"
Both, actually. A government program is usually intended to help people out. The fact that you label that as "redistribution of wealth" can't be helped. " Well, that's what it is. Taking money by force and giving it to someone else for nothing in return is exactly that. And where in the Constitution does it say the government is permitted to help people out as you put it? "
" xdfred @ Oct 23, 2008 11:19 AM said, "What is the purpose of Federal income taxes? To fund government programs -supposedly within the limits of the Constitution-, or redistribute wealth?"
Both, actually. A government program is usually intended to help people out. The fact that you label that as "redistribution of wealth" can't be helped. " Well, that's what it is. Taking money by force and giving it to someone else for nothing in return is exactly that. And where in the Constitution does it say the government is permitted to help people out as you put it? "
xdfred wrote on Oct 23, 2008 5:15 PM:
" Phil wrote on Oct 23, 2008 3:47 PM:
" xdfred - there is no reason to answer your question about the purpose of income taxes..." Because you can't.
"..Bush/Cheney thought they were for collecting money to give to their friends at KBR and Halliburton..." Really? They just gave it away? We didn't get anything in return? Liar. "
" xdfred - there is no reason to answer your question about the purpose of income taxes..." Because you can't.
"..Bush/Cheney thought they were for collecting money to give to their friends at KBR and Halliburton..." Really? They just gave it away? We didn't get anything in return? Liar. "
xdfred wrote on Oct 23, 2008 5:18 PM:
" cross1242 the generous, with other peoples money, that is, wrote on Oct 23, 2008 3:23 PM:
"..If we could get those on the hard right to understand that to live in today's world, we've got to live with everyone. And, part of living with others is to help out those who have been crushed by the complicated society we live in. " That is called charity. Charity is voluntarily reaching into your own wallet and willingly helping your neighbor.
Care to compare charitable contributions of the great Obama vs McCain? Biden vs. Palin? Bush vs Kerry?
Conservatives understand charity a lot better than you do.
Socialism is a bad word.
Barack Hussein Obama=socialism in its ugliest form. "
"..If we could get those on the hard right to understand that to live in today's world, we've got to live with everyone. And, part of living with others is to help out those who have been crushed by the complicated society we live in. " That is called charity. Charity is voluntarily reaching into your own wallet and willingly helping your neighbor.
Care to compare charitable contributions of the great Obama vs McCain? Biden vs. Palin? Bush vs Kerry?
Conservatives understand charity a lot better than you do.
Socialism is a bad word.
Barack Hussein Obama=socialism in its ugliest form. "
xdfred wrote on Oct 23, 2008 5:21 PM:
" cross1242 wrote on Oct 23, 2008 3:37 PM:
"Vincible ignorance" is cured by education...." Good. Give it a try sometime. "
"Vincible ignorance" is cured by education...." Good. Give it a try sometime. "
Newswatcher wrote on Oct 23, 2008 5:31 PM:
" Cubbies08 has a very compelling site to check out. I had heard the same but didn't have the link.
Thanks for the ALL IMPORTANT info.
Obama supporters, you should think this through with your head, not your ears!
Like it or not, a high percentage of Obama's numbers ARE due to race. He worked his tail off to steal minority support from Hillary & Bill. Funny thing, he's only 1/2 black. Many times in that arena, 1/2 just isn't enough.
I think a black POTUS would be an AWESOME accomplishment and milestone! I rooted for him for almost a year because I DIDN'T care about race. Until he made it about race and then he turned colors and started appearing as the chameleon politician he promised he'd never be. You see, a black President is fine, but not this candidate, not just because he's 1/2 black. He's too inexperienced, lacks wisdom and integrity, easily lies to the American public and has gotten this far due to an extremely unprofessional Liberal Media.
I guess if it just makes you all feel warm and fuzzy all over to elect Obama because he gives good speeches of 'hope' and you like the idealistic notion of our 1st black POTUS, go ahead. You won't be voting for a successful man, you'll be voting for a speech giver. If you vote for him, you're voting for his lack of accomplishments, a minimal and irresponsible (present) voting record, questionable integrity (lies easily), lack of honesty and no military knowledge, so vote your little warm fuzzy heart out. How nice for our country that you should be so limp-brained and gullible!
I have studied BOTH candidates and their VP's. From what I've learned of all of them I will proudly vote for John McCain. He has experience bringing change within the political party. He has unequivocable military success, he took no porkbarrel $, he has not donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to corrupt ACORN, he has not befriended homegrown terrorists and American-hating pastors for decades and then denied it. McCain has never entertained, let alone condoned (as Obama did) a USA socialist ideology (Obama both wrote & spoke of it). John McCain will NOT further damage our frail economy with a Small Business Owner's tax increase so he can "Spread The Wealth". Last but not least John McCain warned the Feds to look into the actions of Freddie and Fannie 2 years ago (Obama made their top heads his advisers). If McCain's warnings had been heeded, thousands of the bad mortgages Fannie & Freddie birthed would not have happened, consequently we wouldn't be in such a dire mortgage crisis right now. "
Thanks for the ALL IMPORTANT info.
Obama supporters, you should think this through with your head, not your ears!
Like it or not, a high percentage of Obama's numbers ARE due to race. He worked his tail off to steal minority support from Hillary & Bill. Funny thing, he's only 1/2 black. Many times in that arena, 1/2 just isn't enough.
I think a black POTUS would be an AWESOME accomplishment and milestone! I rooted for him for almost a year because I DIDN'T care about race. Until he made it about race and then he turned colors and started appearing as the chameleon politician he promised he'd never be. You see, a black President is fine, but not this candidate, not just because he's 1/2 black. He's too inexperienced, lacks wisdom and integrity, easily lies to the American public and has gotten this far due to an extremely unprofessional Liberal Media.
I guess if it just makes you all feel warm and fuzzy all over to elect Obama because he gives good speeches of 'hope' and you like the idealistic notion of our 1st black POTUS, go ahead. You won't be voting for a successful man, you'll be voting for a speech giver. If you vote for him, you're voting for his lack of accomplishments, a minimal and irresponsible (present) voting record, questionable integrity (lies easily), lack of honesty and no military knowledge, so vote your little warm fuzzy heart out. How nice for our country that you should be so limp-brained and gullible!
I have studied BOTH candidates and their VP's. From what I've learned of all of them I will proudly vote for John McCain. He has experience bringing change within the political party. He has unequivocable military success, he took no porkbarrel $, he has not donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to corrupt ACORN, he has not befriended homegrown terrorists and American-hating pastors for decades and then denied it. McCain has never entertained, let alone condoned (as Obama did) a USA socialist ideology (Obama both wrote & spoke of it). John McCain will NOT further damage our frail economy with a Small Business Owner's tax increase so he can "Spread The Wealth". Last but not least John McCain warned the Feds to look into the actions of Freddie and Fannie 2 years ago (Obama made their top heads his advisers). If McCain's warnings had been heeded, thousands of the bad mortgages Fannie & Freddie birthed would not have happened, consequently we wouldn't be in such a dire mortgage crisis right now. "
cross1242 wrote on Oct 23, 2008 5:57 PM:
" xdfred @ Oct 23, 2008 5:11 PM asked, "Or are you ignorant enough to believe Harvard and Columbia don't graduate shysters?"
I am a lawyer. I've never seen or heard of a graduate of Harvard or Columbia who was a "shyster." And, believe me, when you're on the inside of the profession, you know who you sullies the profession. "
I am a lawyer. I've never seen or heard of a graduate of Harvard or Columbia who was a "shyster." And, believe me, when you're on the inside of the profession, you know who you sullies the profession. "
cross1242 wrote on Oct 23, 2008 6:02 PM:
" xdfred @ Oct 23, 2008 5:18 PM said, "That is called charity. Charity is voluntarily reaching into your own wallet and willingly helping your neighbor."
xdfred is only a believer in helping others to the extent funds are voluntarily available. If the funds are gone, he'll let them starve.
Others are serious about charity. They are willing to use the compulsory forces of the state to ensure that nobody starves on their watch.
Saying "voluntary charity only" is grossly indifferent to the need. "
xdfred is only a believer in helping others to the extent funds are voluntarily available. If the funds are gone, he'll let them starve.
Others are serious about charity. They are willing to use the compulsory forces of the state to ensure that nobody starves on their watch.
Saying "voluntary charity only" is grossly indifferent to the need. "
cross1242 wrote on Oct 23, 2008 6:07 PM:
" xdfred 2 Oct 23, 2008 5:15 PM said, "Really? They just gave it [federal money] away? We didn't get anything in return? Liar."
Effectively, yes. There are Congressional investigations underway about whether Halliburton delivered value for what they were paid. There have been stories in the papers about millions of dollars disappearing. The fact that you obviously don't remember them again shows invincible ignorance on your part. "
Effectively, yes. There are Congressional investigations underway about whether Halliburton delivered value for what they were paid. There have been stories in the papers about millions of dollars disappearing. The fact that you obviously don't remember them again shows invincible ignorance on your part. "
the_bat wrote on Oct 23, 2008 6:44 PM:
" " xdfred @ Oct 23, 2008 11:37 AM asked, "Who is Barack Hussein Obama? Who knows, he hides it well."
xdfred, Obama's been campaigning and been checked out by reporters for 20 MONTHS! If you don't know everything possible about him, then it's because you don't want to know about him. Or, perhaps better stated, you want to know disqualifying facts about Obama but there are none. "
This is so laughable it's not even funny.
"Checked out by reporters...."
Indeed.
^o^
...This is the point where we know they really are drinking the Kool-Aid. "
xdfred, Obama's been campaigning and been checked out by reporters for 20 MONTHS! If you don't know everything possible about him, then it's because you don't want to know about him. Or, perhaps better stated, you want to know disqualifying facts about Obama but there are none. "
This is so laughable it's not even funny.
"Checked out by reporters...."
Indeed.
^o^
...This is the point where we know they really are drinking the Kool-Aid. "
hetfield wrote on Oct 23, 2008 10:40 PM:
" cross, phil and the muppets have been busy lately. hmm. perhaps they are perplexed how their liberal mainstream media, the Almighty Perplexed, have now come out and said the race is a dead heat.
the great race of hope is not turning out in the great barack hussein obamas way and the left is nervous.
borat insane and his band of misfits, thugs, and trite are running for hawaii, hoping when they get back they even are still in the race.
of course his grandmamaobama has been so sick all week, that barack hussein obama finally left today.
can you say political stunt? if she was so gravely ill, why didnt he leave Monday? hmmm.
maybe if she was hospitalized he would have left earlier. she is at home. maybe his brother who lives in a hut will come home as well. maybe dad will stop by too? "
the great race of hope is not turning out in the great barack hussein obamas way and the left is nervous.
borat insane and his band of misfits, thugs, and trite are running for hawaii, hoping when they get back they even are still in the race.
of course his grandmamaobama has been so sick all week, that barack hussein obama finally left today.
can you say political stunt? if she was so gravely ill, why didnt he leave Monday? hmmm.
maybe if she was hospitalized he would have left earlier. she is at home. maybe his brother who lives in a hut will come home as well. maybe dad will stop by too? "
skelloch wrote on Oct 24, 2008 7:40 AM:
" I hope that Cross1242 has a sign on his house and vehicle that says "gun free zone" so that the law abiding citizen who is armed won't waste their time trying to defend cross1242 from an attack or assault by a crazed criminal who doesn't care about gun laws. If you don't believe in self defense, you are another "sheep" in waiting. This is a real world, and if you don't want to be part of it, find a reclusive place to exist, and don't pollute the internet with, as it's called "horse squeeze". "
cross1242 wrote on Oct 24, 2008 8:29 AM:
" skelloch @ Oct 24, 2008 7:40 AM said, "I hope that Cross1242 has a sign on his house and vehicle that says "gun free zone" so that the law abiding citizen who is armed won't waste their time trying to defend cross1242 from an attack or assault by a crazed criminal who doesn't care about gun laws."
skelloch, you think it's easy to fire a gun directly at another human being to kill of bring them down?
Brilliant!
You should go tell the armed forces that all the training to get troops to not even think twice about killing aren't necessary at all. Tell them that people haven't been bred with an implanted rule, "Thou shalt not kill."
The number of times handguns are used for self-defense is infinitesimally small compared to the accidents, suicides, and the number of times the gun winds up being used against its owner. The fact is, that handguns in the hands of private individuals just makes them feel tougher than they are. "
skelloch, you think it's easy to fire a gun directly at another human being to kill of bring them down?
Brilliant!
You should go tell the armed forces that all the training to get troops to not even think twice about killing aren't necessary at all. Tell them that people haven't been bred with an implanted rule, "Thou shalt not kill."
The number of times handguns are used for self-defense is infinitesimally small compared to the accidents, suicides, and the number of times the gun winds up being used against its owner. The fact is, that handguns in the hands of private individuals just makes them feel tougher than they are. "
cross1242 wrote on Oct 24, 2008 8:31 AM:
" hetfield @ Oct 23, 2008 10:40 PM tries to make fun of Obama's tip home to see his grandmother who partially raised him.
hetfield, you are truly a class act. "
hetfield, you are truly a class act. "
cross1242 wrote on Oct 24, 2008 8:42 AM:
" Newswatcher @ Oct 23, 2008 5:31 PM said, "Like it or not, a high percentage of Obama's numbers ARE due to race."
Let's see, Blacks in this county have suffered through 500 years of slavery and Jim Crow and Newswatcher thinks its unfair when most Blacks vote for the first of them to be a serious candidate for President.
And some of us think that maybe electing a Black will go a long, long way to instill in Blacks a belief that the American Dream does apply to them. And it may finally get the last of Whites who still harbor prejudice against Blacks to relieve them of that prejudice. A long shot, maybe, but worth it.
And lest you think that all that is why I'll vote for Obama, my chief reason for voting for Obama, my chief reason is that Obama's probably the smartest person to run for president in 50 years. And we all know that after 8 years of Bush, we need someone that smart to get us out of all the troubles that we're in. "
Let's see, Blacks in this county have suffered through 500 years of slavery and Jim Crow and Newswatcher thinks its unfair when most Blacks vote for the first of them to be a serious candidate for President.
And some of us think that maybe electing a Black will go a long, long way to instill in Blacks a belief that the American Dream does apply to them. And it may finally get the last of Whites who still harbor prejudice against Blacks to relieve them of that prejudice. A long shot, maybe, but worth it.
And lest you think that all that is why I'll vote for Obama, my chief reason for voting for Obama, my chief reason is that Obama's probably the smartest person to run for president in 50 years. And we all know that after 8 years of Bush, we need someone that smart to get us out of all the troubles that we're in. "
cross1242 wrote on Oct 24, 2008 8:48 AM:
" xdfred @ Oct 23, 2008 5:11 PM said, "From Larry Elder:
"As for the current financial crisis, does Obama bear some responsibility?
In the subprime crisis, many people took out unafordable loans, and lenders lent under government policies that encouraged them to make risky loans. As a lawyer, Obama and his firm filed a class action lawsuit against Citibank, alleging that the bank systematically shut out minority borrowers. According to The Associated Press: "The case was settled out of court. Some class members got cash payments, and the bank agreed to help ease the way for low- and moderate-income people to apply for mortgages."
Oh, Baloney!
So you think we should go back to the good old days when banks could "redline" at their pleasure? And you think that helping to make them stop doing that contributed to the current financial breakdown?
Your belief is laughable. But mainly you excuse the "geniuses" on Wall Street who dreamed up derivative securities out of packaging bad loans. "
"As for the current financial crisis, does Obama bear some responsibility?
In the subprime crisis, many people took out unafordable loans, and lenders lent under government policies that encouraged them to make risky loans. As a lawyer, Obama and his firm filed a class action lawsuit against Citibank, alleging that the bank systematically shut out minority borrowers. According to The Associated Press: "The case was settled out of court. Some class members got cash payments, and the bank agreed to help ease the way for low- and moderate-income people to apply for mortgages."
Oh, Baloney!
So you think we should go back to the good old days when banks could "redline" at their pleasure? And you think that helping to make them stop doing that contributed to the current financial breakdown?
Your belief is laughable. But mainly you excuse the "geniuses" on Wall Street who dreamed up derivative securities out of packaging bad loans. "
xdfred wrote on Oct 24, 2008 9:11 AM:
" cross1242 wrote on Oct 23, 2008 6:02 PM:
" xdfred @ Oct 23, 2008 5:18 PM said, "That is called charity. Charity is voluntarily reaching into your own wallet and willingly helping your neighbor."
"...xdfred is only a believer in helping others to the extent funds are voluntarily available. If the funds are gone, he'll let them starve..." That is beneath even you. Typical for a sleazy lawyer, though, assuming you really are one.
"...Others are serious about charity..." What a crock. It's easy to beat your mighty chest and say somebody should do something about that.
"... They are willing to use the compulsory forces of the state to ensure that..." they control people. Like in Somalia. You fight for Aidid and you get to eat.
"..Saying "voluntary charity only" is grossly indifferent to the need. " Voluntary charity is redundant.
Keeping people from starving/freezing is one thing. Enabling poor behavior is another. "
" xdfred @ Oct 23, 2008 5:18 PM said, "That is called charity. Charity is voluntarily reaching into your own wallet and willingly helping your neighbor."
"...xdfred is only a believer in helping others to the extent funds are voluntarily available. If the funds are gone, he'll let them starve..." That is beneath even you. Typical for a sleazy lawyer, though, assuming you really are one.
"...Others are serious about charity..." What a crock. It's easy to beat your mighty chest and say somebody should do something about that.
"... They are willing to use the compulsory forces of the state to ensure that..." they control people. Like in Somalia. You fight for Aidid and you get to eat.
"..Saying "voluntary charity only" is grossly indifferent to the need. " Voluntary charity is redundant.
Keeping people from starving/freezing is one thing. Enabling poor behavior is another. "
xdfred wrote on Oct 24, 2008 9:12 AM:
" cross1242 wrote on Oct 23, 2008 6:07 PM:
" xdfred 2 Oct 23, 2008 5:15 PM said, "Really? They just gave it [federal money] away? We didn't get anything in return? Liar."
Effectively, yes. There are Congressional investigations underway about whether Halliburton delivered value for what they were paid. There have been stories in the papers about millions of dollars disappearing. The fact that you obviously don't remember them again shows invincible ignorance on your part. " OK, so we went from they were given the money for nothing, to there are investigations to see if they were given the money for nothing. Nice dodge. "
" xdfred 2 Oct 23, 2008 5:15 PM said, "Really? They just gave it [federal money] away? We didn't get anything in return? Liar."
Effectively, yes. There are Congressional investigations underway about whether Halliburton delivered value for what they were paid. There have been stories in the papers about millions of dollars disappearing. The fact that you obviously don't remember them again shows invincible ignorance on your part. " OK, so we went from they were given the money for nothing, to there are investigations to see if they were given the money for nothing. Nice dodge. "
xdfred wrote on Oct 24, 2008 10:37 AM:
" cross1242 wrote on Oct 24, 2008 8:29 AM:
"...rule, "Thou shalt not kill."..." Actually, it's thou shall not murder. Exodus 22:11
"...The number of times handguns are used for self-defense is infinitesimally small compared to the accidents, suicides, and the number of times the gun winds up being used against its owner. The fact is, that handguns in the hands of private individuals just makes them feel tougher than they are. " Baloney! Pure Baloney! Prof Lott researched this topic and deduced defensive uses for handguns at between 3/4 of a million to 2.5 million times a year. Even going with the low number, it's much higher than criminal misuse, counselor. Baloney!
Nothing but Baloney!
Cross=Oscar Meyer "
"...rule, "Thou shalt not kill."..." Actually, it's thou shall not murder. Exodus 22:11
"...The number of times handguns are used for self-defense is infinitesimally small compared to the accidents, suicides, and the number of times the gun winds up being used against its owner. The fact is, that handguns in the hands of private individuals just makes them feel tougher than they are. " Baloney! Pure Baloney! Prof Lott researched this topic and deduced defensive uses for handguns at between 3/4 of a million to 2.5 million times a year. Even going with the low number, it's much higher than criminal misuse, counselor. Baloney!
Nothing but Baloney!
Cross=Oscar Meyer "
xdfred wrote on Oct 24, 2008 10:40 AM:
" cross1242 wrote on Oct 24, 2008 8:48 AM:
"...So you think we should go back to the good old days when banks could "redline" at their pleasure? And you think that helping to make them stop doing that contributed to the current financial breakdown?..." Do you make this stuff up? Not giving a loan to someone who can't pay it back is not redlining. And why would a bank, who is in business to make money through loans, refuse a loan to a QUALIFIED applicant because of this redlining myth? Redlining may have happened in the old south at neighborhood banks, but not these days.
Save the baloney, Oscar. "
"...So you think we should go back to the good old days when banks could "redline" at their pleasure? And you think that helping to make them stop doing that contributed to the current financial breakdown?..." Do you make this stuff up? Not giving a loan to someone who can't pay it back is not redlining. And why would a bank, who is in business to make money through loans, refuse a loan to a QUALIFIED applicant because of this redlining myth? Redlining may have happened in the old south at neighborhood banks, but not these days.
Save the baloney, Oscar. "
hetfield wrote on Oct 24, 2008 1:04 PM:
" cross1242 wrote on Oct 24, 2008 8:42 AM:
" Newswatcher @ Oct 23, 2008 5:31 PM said, "Like it or not, a high percentage of Obama's numbers ARE due to race."
Let's see, Blacks in this county have suffered through 500 years of slavery and Jim Crow and Newswatcher thinks its unfair when most Blacks vote for the first of them to be a serious candidate for President.
And some of us think that maybe electing a Black will go a long, long way to instill in Blacks a belief that the American Dream does apply to them. And it may finally get the last of Whites who still harbor prejudice against Blacks to relieve them of that prejudice. A long shot, maybe, but worth it.
And lest you think that all that is why I'll vote for Obama, my chief reason for voting for Obama, my chief reason is that Obama's probably the smartest person to run for president in 50 years. And we all know that after 8 years of Bush, we need someone that smart to get us out of all the troubles that we're in. "
cross, 500 years? wrong..but dont let facts get in the way. american dream? hmm..why is it that when a conservative, who happens to be black, has already acheieved this dream dont get credit, or are completely disregarded by the left? Then leftist policies such as 'all americans should own a home' are enacted and the market blows up. or when affirmative action is implemented and the wrong person gets a job who tested lower?
i'm sure barack hussein obama will fix all of this for you. "
" Newswatcher @ Oct 23, 2008 5:31 PM said, "Like it or not, a high percentage of Obama's numbers ARE due to race."
Let's see, Blacks in this county have suffered through 500 years of slavery and Jim Crow and Newswatcher thinks its unfair when most Blacks vote for the first of them to be a serious candidate for President.
And some of us think that maybe electing a Black will go a long, long way to instill in Blacks a belief that the American Dream does apply to them. And it may finally get the last of Whites who still harbor prejudice against Blacks to relieve them of that prejudice. A long shot, maybe, but worth it.
And lest you think that all that is why I'll vote for Obama, my chief reason for voting for Obama, my chief reason is that Obama's probably the smartest person to run for president in 50 years. And we all know that after 8 years of Bush, we need someone that smart to get us out of all the troubles that we're in. "
cross, 500 years? wrong..but dont let facts get in the way. american dream? hmm..why is it that when a conservative, who happens to be black, has already acheieved this dream dont get credit, or are completely disregarded by the left? Then leftist policies such as 'all americans should own a home' are enacted and the market blows up. or when affirmative action is implemented and the wrong person gets a job who tested lower?
i'm sure barack hussein obama will fix all of this for you. "
timbrackett wrote on Oct 24, 2008 1:37 PM:
" with the exception of one national poll, obama still maintains a 7-10 point lead and a huge electoral college lead. why would obama supporters be nervous? i'm not nervous. in fact, i requested a vacation day for november 4th. i'm gonna get some champagne and celebrate the impending obama presidency.
and if you don't believe in polls (science), all you have to do is look at the money trail. mccain is pulling out of states that were "toss-up" and "leaning mccain" as fast as he can right now, simply trying to shore up states that were once "solid mccain". that is where you find the true panic. "
and if you don't believe in polls (science), all you have to do is look at the money trail. mccain is pulling out of states that were "toss-up" and "leaning mccain" as fast as he can right now, simply trying to shore up states that were once "solid mccain". that is where you find the true panic. "
xdfred wrote on Oct 24, 2008 3:37 PM:
" timbrackett wrote on Oct 24, 2008 1:37 PM:
" with the exception of one national poll, obama still maintains a 7-10 point lead and a huge electoral college lead. why would obama supporters be nervous? i'm not nervous. in fact, i requested a vacation day for november 4th. i'm gonna get some champagne and celebrate the impending obama presidency...." Muslims aren't supposed to drink. If Mr. I surrender wins, you'd better start learning how to abstain.
"...and if you don't believe in polls (science), all you have to do is look at the money trail. mccain is pulling out of states that were "toss-up" and "leaning mccain" as fast as he can right now, simply trying to shore up states that were once "solid mccain". that is where you find the true panic...." All that matters is the election. So don't un cork that bottle just yet. Besides, you'll shoot your eye out, kid. "
" with the exception of one national poll, obama still maintains a 7-10 point lead and a huge electoral college lead. why would obama supporters be nervous? i'm not nervous. in fact, i requested a vacation day for november 4th. i'm gonna get some champagne and celebrate the impending obama presidency...." Muslims aren't supposed to drink. If Mr. I surrender wins, you'd better start learning how to abstain.
"...and if you don't believe in polls (science), all you have to do is look at the money trail. mccain is pulling out of states that were "toss-up" and "leaning mccain" as fast as he can right now, simply trying to shore up states that were once "solid mccain". that is where you find the true panic...." All that matters is the election. So don't un cork that bottle just yet. Besides, you'll shoot your eye out, kid. "
hetfield wrote on Oct 24, 2008 3:52 PM:
" fact on the polls. barack hussein obama is losing at least 10% of registered democrats which his two previous rotten democratic nominees enjoyed.
those two lost with more democrats voting for them.
sorry libs, but the love dreamfest with the popstar will soon be at an end. "
those two lost with more democrats voting for them.
sorry libs, but the love dreamfest with the popstar will soon be at an end. "
xdfred wrote on Oct 24, 2008 3:54 PM:
" Well now....
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78945
The gift that keeps on giving:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78945 "
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78945
The gift that keeps on giving:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78945 "
cross1242 wrote on Oct 24, 2008 6:13 PM:
" xdfred @ Oct 24, 2008 3:37 PM said, "All that matters is the election. So don't un cork that bottle just yet."
hetfield @ Oct 24, 2008 3:52 PM said, "sorry libs, but the love dreamfest with the popstar will soon be at an end."
You two have got to be smoking something mighty powerful "
hetfield @ Oct 24, 2008 3:52 PM said, "sorry libs, but the love dreamfest with the popstar will soon be at an end."
You two have got to be smoking something mighty powerful "
cross1242 wrote on Oct 24, 2008 6:45 PM:
" Regarding projections on who is going to win the presidential election, one place to put a lot of stock in (literally) is the Iowa Electronic Markets that's done at SUI in Iowa City. It's at:
http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/graphs/graph_PRES08_WTA.cfm
These people have to put down real cash money to buy a share of, say, Obama or McCain. Originally, stocks cost $1. Right now, you have to pay about $85 to buy in on Obama but only $15 for McCain. So, there isn't much doubt who the people with skin in the game think will win. "
http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/graphs/graph_PRES08_WTA.cfm
These people have to put down real cash money to buy a share of, say, Obama or McCain. Originally, stocks cost $1. Right now, you have to pay about $85 to buy in on Obama but only $15 for McCain. So, there isn't much doubt who the people with skin in the game think will win. "
hetfield wrote on Oct 24, 2008 7:02 PM:
" a socialist!! no wonder barack hussein obama is hiding in hawaii!!
you had to know he had this in his closet. but, he has so many other things the media elitists will ignore this too..
that is going to be difficult! "
you had to know he had this in his closet. but, he has so many other things the media elitists will ignore this too..
that is going to be difficult! "
cross1242 wrote on Oct 24, 2008 10:33 PM:
" hetfield @ Oct 24, 2008 7:02 PM said, "a socialist!! no wonder barack hussein obama is hiding in hawaii!!"
hetfield, no matter how many times you write the word "socialist" doesn't make it so.
And complaining because he went off to see the grandmother who raised him is definitely a "no class" complaint. "
hetfield, no matter how many times you write the word "socialist" doesn't make it so.
And complaining because he went off to see the grandmother who raised him is definitely a "no class" complaint. "
hetfield wrote on Oct 24, 2008 10:45 PM:
" cross1242 wrote on Oct 24, 2008 6:45 PM:
" Regarding projections on who is going to win the presidential election, one place to put a lot of stock in (literally) is the Iowa Electronic Markets that's done at SUI in Iowa City. It's at:
http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/graphs/graph_PRES08_WTA.cfm
These people have to put down real cash money to buy a share of, say, Obama or McCain. Originally, stocks cost $1. Right now, you have to pay about $85 to buy in on Obama but only $15 for McCain. So, there isn't much doubt who the people with skin in the game think will win. "
give me a break cross. UofI is one of the most liberal uni's in the country. and that is supposed to impress anyone?
i will give you a better judge of what people with skin in think. the freaking NYSE! these yahoos read the liberal papers too, and their clients do as well. People are dying to hide their money as they are being told barack hussein obama has already won!
now that is the fact, jack! the market is struggling right now due to what obama and friends did to the housing market, and what they next fear obama will do if elected. When McCain wins, buy low, bud, cuz the price is going up, up, up!
this was too easy, cross. i think you let one get by you. "
" Regarding projections on who is going to win the presidential election, one place to put a lot of stock in (literally) is the Iowa Electronic Markets that's done at SUI in Iowa City. It's at:
http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/graphs/graph_PRES08_WTA.cfm
These people have to put down real cash money to buy a share of, say, Obama or McCain. Originally, stocks cost $1. Right now, you have to pay about $85 to buy in on Obama but only $15 for McCain. So, there isn't much doubt who the people with skin in the game think will win. "
give me a break cross. UofI is one of the most liberal uni's in the country. and that is supposed to impress anyone?
i will give you a better judge of what people with skin in think. the freaking NYSE! these yahoos read the liberal papers too, and their clients do as well. People are dying to hide their money as they are being told barack hussein obama has already won!
now that is the fact, jack! the market is struggling right now due to what obama and friends did to the housing market, and what they next fear obama will do if elected. When McCain wins, buy low, bud, cuz the price is going up, up, up!
this was too easy, cross. i think you let one get by you. "
cross1242 wrote on Oct 25, 2008 6:31 AM:
" hetfield @ Oct 24, 2008 10:45 PM seems to think that he refutes the utility of the Iowa Electronic Markets by flinging the tired accusation that it's a very liberal institution.
hetfield, you just don't get it. Even if the University of Iowa was as liberal as you claim, it makes no difference at all. What the Iowa Electronics Markets is is people all over the country/world buying shares in what they think is going happen in the election. Essentially, it's a bet. And the vast majority of people are now betting that Obama will win. And, since they put up real money, they likelihood that they are just throwing away their money is extremely low. "
hetfield, you just don't get it. Even if the University of Iowa was as liberal as you claim, it makes no difference at all. What the Iowa Electronics Markets is is people all over the country/world buying shares in what they think is going happen in the election. Essentially, it's a bet. And the vast majority of people are now betting that Obama will win. And, since they put up real money, they likelihood that they are just throwing away their money is extremely low. "
hetfield wrote on Oct 25, 2008 9:56 AM:
" So cross you are saying that this so called market is more effective than our national markets and global markets? all of these markets are reacting to the barack hussein obama created housing failure and the fear that the messiah will be elected prez. this fear is based on BHO's socialist ideals that spread wealth and destroys business. it eliminates jobs, creates depressions, and destroys the dollar.
i see waht you are saying. the UofI's market is what you want the outcome of the election to represent.
sorry, but the smart money isnt buying. "
i see waht you are saying. the UofI's market is what you want the outcome of the election to represent.
sorry, but the smart money isnt buying. "
Due to the amount of spam and negative comments received, the Courier implement a registered-user system for participation in the comment portion of our site. In doing so, the Courier reserves the right to ban any user(s) at any time without notice if we feel they are not following the terms of agreement.
DISCLAIMER: The Courier provides our story commenting feature in order to solicit feedback, debate and discussion on topics of local interest. Please keep in mind that civility is a necessary component of productive conversation. All blatantly inflammatory or otherwise inappropriate comments (i.e. vulgarity, marketing, etc.) are subject to rejection and/or removal. Comments will appear if and when they are approved. For a more in-depth explanation of our policy, please see our Rules of the Road. Thanks for reading, and thanks for participating.
~ADVERTISEMENT~
NEWS |
SPORTS |
COMMUNITY |
BUSINESS |
ENTERTAINMENT |
FEATURES |
OPINIONS |
OBITUARIES |
CLASSIFIEDS |
PRIVACY POLICY |
CONTACT US |
CARRIER PAGES
|
hetfield wrote on Oct 19, 2008 11:51 AM:
other differences; life for the unborn vs aborting babies. The constitution states 'the right to life', it does not state 'oh, but women(not men) should be able to end life because it suits them better. Let alone the immorality of making that insideous decision.
Also, small federal government which gives states the rights to legislate vs huge, wasteful, spending governments. Defense of our borders and securities and fair taxation are the backbone of our national government. Not controlling every aspect of our nation, fiscally or monetarily. creating and supporting huge bureaucracies should not be governments job.
Good job Clayson! Your points do not fall on deaf ears. "