Rummy is OUT!
POSTED BY: Eric
UPDATED: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 16:41
VIEWED: 9501
PAGE 5 of 10
Quote:What reality are you in, DISruptor?
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Just look around at WHAT? You're not offering any rebuttle, just the delusion that things MUST be bad. Why ? Because you hate Bush, so this must be the " worst economy in 50 years ". Stop listening to John Kerry and Howie Dean, and FACE REALITY.
(laugh SO hard every time I type that...
To be fair, you can call me Chrisisass or something if it tickles ya)
I deal with different economic levels of peeps all day every day. I SEE a bit of the world, and I'm in an affluent part of a tri-college area, not a slum, and poor folks are everywhere. Homeless KIDS walk the streets at night. It wasn't this bad here even 5 years ago.
Financially, I'm getting by, but I SEE how far my dollar goes. Or doesn't. Are you rich, is that it? Don't notice inflation, or cuts in social services? Don't see the increased dependence on food stamps? Just read the 4% and conjure everything's okay? Why? Because you LOVE Bush so this must be the " best economy in 50 years ". Stop listening to partian spin doctors and removed-from-real-life statistics, and FACE REALITY.
Workin' man Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Point accepted, however, it's not how much you pay that gets me, it's what I do or don't get for it. A tax cut that buys me a national deficit and war is no tax cut I want.
Originally posted by cartoon:
The least amount of federal taxes I've ever paid were for the years 1987, 1988, 1989 -- the last two years of Reagan's term, and first of the elder Bush's term. Both Republicans.
If I gotta PAY for peace and a balanced budget, I got no problem with that.
I'm patriotic that way.
Why do you economically hate your country?
If you don't like paying taxes, why don't you just go to....(thinking)....umm....a desert island or something?
Taxpayer Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Point accepted, however, it's not how much you pay that gets me, it's what I do or don't get for it. A tax cut that buys me a national deficit and war is no tax cut I want.
If I gotta PAY for peace and a balanced budget, I got no problem with that.
I'm patriotic that way.
Why do you economically hate your country?
If you don't like paying taxes, why don't you just go to....(thinking)....umm....a desert island or something?
Taxpayer Chrisisall
Hi, Chrisisall.
Check the figures for federal tax revenue generated over the years, particularly as comparable to the tax rates for those same years. In years when the federal tax rate has been lowered, the federal government has actually (for the most part) brought in more revenue, than in years when the tax rate was higher.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:More peeps spend more, 'cause they have more to spend, and tax revenue goes up. I get it, I think.
Originally posted by cartoon:
In years when the federal tax rate has been lowered, the federal government has actually (for the most part) actually brought in more revenue, than in years when the tax rate was higher.
I didn't put in an 'evil' emoticon in my post, thanks for takin' it kinda funny (not angry); that's how I meant it.
ChrisisallNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I didn't put in an 'evil' emoticon in my post, thanks for takin' it kinda funny (not angry); that's how I meant it.
Don't lose any sleep over how I take things.
For one thing, I learned a long time ago that #1) I'm not always right (I haven't kept a running tally, but it's even feasible that I'm wrong more often than I'm right
) and #2) It doesn't matter, either way, because most things over which people debate really don't have much of a bearing on the universe, so why get one's knickers in a bunch over them.Just this morning I listened to several of the students on my bus arguing over which way to park a car in a garage. They nearly came to blows, and really, in the scope of eternity, does it really matter? (Heck, I don't even have a garage, so the entire debate was inapplicable to me, anyhow.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Soldiers aren't people with the same rights to vote? What so to you Soldiers are like the non-land owners of way back when? Theirs is to do or die and not have an opinion on it? I'll pass that round my colleagues (you know the soldiers that aren't entitled to vote) tomorrow, they're sure to think your as big a wanker as most people who hear your comments.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Our founders, you remember, those pesky rebels, specifically wanted to AVOID making us a democracy, favoring a representitive republic. A democracy is nothing less than mob rule, where 51% of the public gets to tell the other 49% what to do. The SecDef, a CIVILIAN, is in charge of the military. Soldiers don't vote. They're SOLIDERS.
Funny, you drag Kerry through the mud for saying soldiers are stupid, then say they are less than other people, less deserving of an opinion, less deserving of the vote. I'd say you were a hypocrite, but your characterisation of the people to fight the wars you arm chair saber rattlers haven't got the balls to pony up for is much much worse than Kerry's, so I really don't think hypocrite is a strong enough word.
And yep, Democracy is mob rule, if you take mob rule as the majority of people deciding, which is far from perfect but better than a minority enforcing their will, which is obviously what you would like. You're down with dictatorships, good luck with that.
Quote:No dear, it's an analogy and it had little to do with saddam, just pointing out it's not unpatriotic to question the government in a free democracy, I realise you don't understand that concept, so it's probably best we move on.
Trying to equate Rumsfeld to Saddam is absurd beyond all reason. Nothing more need be said.
Quote:Like I said, blind men can not see...
There was no evidence that the election was stolen in the past, only shrill, whiney Democrats who can't stand to lose.
Quote:Just another example of people taking ideology over evidence, again if you are incapable of working that out I'll go with the words and pictures tack next time.
And since the holocaust has nothing to do w/ this discussion, I'll ignore that remark.
Quote:You don't understand logic, that's cool, good luck with that. Doesn't make your original assertion any less false because you are incapable of recognising nor admitting it.
I also ignored your idiotic faux logic statement because it didn't merrit any reply. It was silly, and still is.
Quote:Where of course everything is fine because nothing is wrong within the walled enclaves (of reality or your mind, either or, not that I'd want to insinuate that your mind bears any relation to reality, of course it does not).
Democrats love to fan the flames of hysteria and cry wolf. It's their lot in life. Listen to them, everything is a CRISIS!!
Quote:Yes, but for some reason you continue to listen to Rush Limbaugh. Must be the hate mongering, you go in for that in a big way I've noticed.
Living here, you get use to these clowns and their absurd claims.
Quote:Yes, but of course we are used to that from you.
All fuss, no facts.
Quote:Not really dear, I just think it's great that the republicans haven't got their virtual dictatorship any more which you loved so much. But you not getting your own way all the time is going to make any peace and freedom loving person happy, so that's hardly news.
No big surprise you'd side w/ such folk.
I've not really got a horse in that race, from my perspective their both arseholes when in power. They both treat their allies like commodities and slaves. They both expect free trade to the world and offer nothing back. Clinton's international policy was crap too, the only difference is Clinton helped with reducing terrorism, for instance helping the peace process in Ireland, George Bush merely attempted to 'pacify' people.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see the
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What is it that divides us so? As citizens of the same country, with the same basic guarantee of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, how can we be so far apart in ideology? Is it the ideology itself that is flawed, or is there another, darker reason for the gulf that separates us.
Could it be as simple as the classic good vs. evil reasoning that has been drilled into our brains from the time we were old enough to have cognizant thought, the same old prejudices that have plagued mankind forever, or just the ignorance of past generations perpetuating itself as opposed to the enlightenment of logical reasoning.
I have a theory or two, but stating them would just fuel debate. It’s difficult to find the underlying cause of this national derision, but to say that there is genuine dislike between members of one group of people, call them liberals, and another, the self proclaimed conservatives, is certainly no stretch of the imagination.
Why is it then, that when given an opportunity to unite in an effort to enrich every person’s life – with the vast cultural diversity of this entire planet and with the potential for such great strides in all things that can indeed make this world sustainable for many generations to come, why is it that we continue to denigrate one another? Ok, so maybe I’m coming off like Rodney King when he uttered that infamous line, “why can’t we just all get along…”, but, in all seriousness, I feel that this ruinous path that we’ve let ourselves be put upon will eventually lead to a very real and very disastrous result. And we haven’t even started building the ships to ferry us to that safer world just beyond the horizon.
It’s almost funny, (if it weren’t so sad), that so often the truth is stranger than fiction. I would be willing to bet that there are more than a few writers of science fiction who would not have thought that their works of just a few years past could indeed, become fact.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Dayve:
What is that divides us so? As citizens of the same country, with the same basic guarantee of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, how can we be so far apart in ideology? Is it the ideology itself that is flawed, or is there another, darker reason for the gulf that separates us.
Could it be as simple as the classic good vs. evil reasoning that has been drilled into our brains from the time we were old enough to have cognizant thought, the same old prejudices that have plagued mankind forever, or just the ignorance of past generations perpetuating itself as opposed to the enlightenment of logical reasoning.
I have a theory or two, but stating them would just fuel debate. It’s difficult to find the underlying cause of this national derision, but to say that there is genuine dislike between members of one group of people, call them liberals, and another, the self proclaimed conservatives, is certainly no stretch of the imagination.
I realise I don't get much say in this discussion, being a Canadian and all. However, from what I have learned of American History the country has rarely been truly united.
In the war of independence there were varying sides (from outright hostility to peaceful negotiation to loyalty).
The American Civil War (or you might just call it The Civil War)... well obviously not united.
The Second World War there were the isolationists and those that wanted to 'join the fray.'
The Vietnam war... well we all know about that.
And lastly, the current Iraq War (War on Terror, Invasion of Iraq, Rebuilding of Iraq; whichever name is being applied right now).
Canada has a similar problem: Québec. The difference between the struggles is that Québec has not openly rebelled (except the FLQ, which were considered Terrorists even by Québecois). The closest they came was a referendum (a democratic vote). Not to mention the fact that it is a distinct society within a specific territory.
My opinion as to the reason... well I don't really have one. With America as a Confederation I would've assumed it would be drawn along state lines but it does not seem to be so.
I got nothing...
And if someday on some little piss-ant moon/My hand is a little too slow, or my aim a little bit off/At least I’ll go down fighting, not lying abed surrounded by quacks - "Sir Warrick" by Geezer
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You can't please everybody all of the time.
Gotta love Bush's appointments. We have a horse breeder as the leader of FEMA. And now we have the president of Texas A&M as the Defense Secertary. 
Everybody always has the advantage over us, but that's what makes us special...and Browncoats.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by TPage:
I realise I don't get much say in this discussion, being a Canadian and all.
Being Canadian shouldn't dissuade you from posting your opinions on the U.S. One needn't be a duck to talk about ducks. (Actually, I imagine that ducks don't talk at all, so that's a bad analogy.)
Quote:
Originally posted by TPage:
In the war of independence there were varying sides (from outright hostility to peaceful negotiation to loyalty).
Actually, the majority of British colonists (Americans) living here at the time were not in favor of the revolution. Also, the American forces (if you can call them that) lost far more battles than they won -- and even the final victory at Yorktown would likely never have happened without the French (as much as I hate to admit it -- the French did more to win that conflict merely by harrassing the British elsewhere, than anything the U.S. army did here in the actual war).
Quote:
Originally posted by TPage:
My opinion as to the reason... well I don't really have one. With America as a Confederation I would've assumed it would be drawn along state lines but it does not seem to be so.
Actually, from what I've read (and heard), prior to the U.S. Civil War, the United States of America was most commonly refered to as a plural, not a singular noun. The United States of America are such and such... not, the United States of American is such and such.
I believe (from my former hobby of collecting currency) the first uniform federal currency was issued in 1862. Prior to that, there were a few pre-federal issued bank notes, but most currency was issued by the individual states.
It was after the Civil War that the federal powers in this country really solidified, and the federal government started meddling in the affairs of its individual states in a far more intrusive manner.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME