|
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On 23/01/2010 6:00 PM, Bruce wrote:
bpuharic wrote: On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:42:10 -0500, John H wrote: On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:26:38 -0600, wrote: On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:55:46 -0500, bpuharic wrote: and the SCOTUS just ****ed us again. they ruled companies can do whatever they want in terms of paying for campaigns. this country, courtesy of the right wing, may be doomed Oh yee of little faith. While I'll agree the SCOTUS decision is the absolutely wrong one, you are starting to sound like a Republican, all doom and gloom. If there is one thing I have learned, in my short time on this planet, is this country is incredibly resilient. It's people are the hardest working, most creative, people you will find. We have faced far more difficult challenges than this current SCOTUS. We will survive, and we will prosper. Hell, eight years of Bush hasn't killed us. Need I say more? It's OK for Democrats to bribe each other with taxpayer money, but not OK for both Democrats and Republicans to recieve corporate money. Liberal thinking is quite strange. now let's see...which justices voted to allow even MORE corruption in the system? oh...the conservative ones Cite? No need too, SCOTUS is made up of both Dem and GOP appointees. It is public knowledge for those literate enough to read. Didn't see any chirp from the Dem appontees on this mater. Case closed. Dem and GOP are for it. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On 23/01/2010 6:00 PM, Bruce wrote:
bpuharic wrote: On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:26:38 -0600, wrote: On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:55:46 -0500, bpuharic wrote: and the SCOTUS just ****ed us again. they ruled companies can do whatever they want in terms of paying for campaigns. this country, courtesy of the right wing, may be doomed Oh yee of little faith. While I'll agree the SCOTUS decision is the absolutely wrong one, you are starting to sound like a Republican, given the fact 1 senator can deny healthcare to millions, our political process is seriously ****ed up. it's time to disband the senate all doom and gloom. If there is one thing I have learned, in my short time on this planet, is this country is incredibly resilient. It's people are the hardest working, most creative, people you will find. We have faced far more difficult challenges than this current SCOTUS. We will survive, and we will prosper. Hell, eight years of Bush hasn't killed us. Need I say more? you have a point. i hope folks dont forget bush. but it looks like mebbe they are. Disband the Senate? Your normally post a lot of weird **** but this is just dumb. If it was Canada, 400 geriatrics with nothing to do but cost us, I wold agree. But the US senate is at least active. Dumb to remove such a needed counterbalance. Millions of Canadians wish we had an active, elected and effective senate. It serves a big purpose. Parliamentry systems suck. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On 23/01/2010 6:14 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 20:00:24 -0500, wrote: bpuharic wrote: On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:26:38 -0600, wrote: On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:55:46 -0500, bpuharic wrote: you have a point. i hope folks dont forget bush. but it looks like mebbe they are. Disband the Senate? Your normally post a lot of weird **** but this is just dumb. uh why? what function does the senate serve? and, yes, there are plenty of democracies without a 'higher' chamber. so, other than your assertion that it's dumb, do you have any evidence? history is on my side, it seems I had this conversation with an American friend once. He too said what a waste of money with the stalling and expense and nothing gets done. But I then pointed out the wisdom the forfathers made in having a senate, as Canada is without one in essenace. Oh, we have a senate, but it isn't elected, it isn't effective and is a patronage pork appointment. Not worth more mention as the Canadian senate makes a wart look useful. But in the US, you have three effective branches, Senate, Congress and Administration. It prevents any one person from being a term dictator like the Prime Minister of Canada or the UK. There must be some agreements between the 3 branches or the process stalls and is part of the governemnt structure. In Canada, if the PM has a majority governemtn or the opposition can't afford and election, he/she is in essence a term dictator. And the results are more statism and less value for the people. And stalling is OK to DO!!! It is a functional part of US politics. If 49/51 or 50/50 or 51/49 percent of the people agree on something, the race is tight. If 40 states want it, but 10 do not, the balance exists to get it heard but not shoved through against the more populated states. If it stalls, perhaps it didn't have the needed support thus is a good thing it stalled. Stalling is the righ answer until the support discipates or rises. The US system, other than the corruption going on in bribes, contributions and influence peddling in DC, it is the best system in the world to date. Just needs a few minor adjustments. Might I suggest that politicial contributions by ANY organization be outlawed as a federal crime against democracy. Put it right beside conspiracy, extortion and fraud. Replace it with a head tax of $100 each year. Taxpayers/voters with declared US tax filings can donate it to ANY registered political party of choice. If you are bipartizan, send $50 to each if Dim and GOP. Or even another registered party or even independant! Yes, if you like Ron Paul and he is running as an independant, you can donate. Who says a president has to be Dim or GOP? Sort of like forced political contributions replacing the corruption peddling. So if a sorry assed billionaire calls up a senator or congress person for a GM or bank style bailout, they have to think the big picture, American people and not who is going to buy me into the seat. Then the power will be returned to the people. Make the corruption a crime. Wouldn't hurt to fine people $100 for not voting, but allow the option of "None" and if you don't like your choices, it is a valid option. The none vote should be published as it tells politicians where people want better choices. Too bad I couldn't travel back time and get that into the US Consitution. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
|
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
|
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
|
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:17:30 -0700, Canuck57
wrote: On 23/01/2010 11:51 AM, bpuharic wrote: the stock market has gone up from 6500 to 10500 under obama. Time will tell but the market is over bought for the fundimentals which tells me inflation is the cause. Jobless recovery at best. ROFLMAO!! so obama destroys the economy, except when he doesn't HAHAHAHAHAH!!!! no wonder you right whiners are confused! |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
|
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 09:42:25 -0700, Canuck57
wrote: On 23/01/2010 6:00 PM, Bruce wrote: bpuharic wrote: On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:42:10 -0500, John H wrote: Liberal thinking is quite strange. now let's see...which justices voted to allow even MORE corruption in the system? oh...the conservative ones Cite? No need too, SCOTUS is made up of both Dem and GOP appointees. It is public knowledge for those literate enough to read. Didn't see any chirp from the Dem appontees on this mater. Case closed. Dem and GOP are for it. hey genius. read my post immediately above yours. it has exactly the information you need. no wonder you didnt read it. you can't without weeping i'll buy you a box of kleenex, OK? |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 10:10:49 -0700, Canuck57
wrote: On 23/01/2010 6:14 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 20:00:24 -0500, wrote: bpuharic wrote: On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:26:38 -0600, wrote: so, other than your assertion that it's dumb, do you have any evidence? history is on my side, it seems I had this conversation with an American friend once. He too said what a waste of money with the stalling and expense and nothing gets done. But I then pointed out the wisdom the forfathers made in having a senate, as Canada is without one in essenace. Oh, we have a senate, but it isn't elected, it isn't effective and is a patronage pork appointment. Not worth more mention as the Canadian senate makes a wart look useful. so far you've said nothing...let's see what else you got... But in the US, you have three effective branches, Senate, Congress and Administration. hey genius...i know you're not american but our constitution separates the govt into the executive (president), the congress (senate and house) and the judicial branches so you're still saying nothing It prevents any one person from being a term dictator like the Prime Minister of Canada or the UK. There must be some agreements between the 3 branches or the process stalls and is part of the governemnt structure. In Canada, if the PM has a majority governemtn or the opposition can't afford and election, he/she is in essence a term dictator. And the results are more statism and less value for the people. And stalling is OK to DO!!! It is a functional part of US politics. hey genius...even in a parliamentary democracy, elections have to be held wthin a certain time limit. they can be called earlier, but not later. here in america we have fixed terms. and you still havent said why we need a senate, given the existence of an independent judiciary. and we already just had 6 years of GOP control of BOTH houses of congress as well as the presidency. If 49/51 or 50/50 or 51/49 percent of the people agree on something, the race is tight. If 40 states want it, but 10 do not, the balance exists to get it heard but not shoved through against the more populated states. If it stalls, perhaps it didn't have the needed support thus is a good thing it stalled. Stalling is the righ answer until the support discipates or rises. there's no reason why wyoming should have as much power as the people of california. unless, of course, you have a problem with democracy Might I suggest that politicial contributions by ANY organization be outlawed as a federal crime against democracy. Put it right beside conspiracy, extortion and fraud. except that our courts have ruled that giving money is a form of speech and is protected under our constitution. that ruling happened yesterday Sort of like forced political contributions replacing the corruption peddling. So if a sorry assed billionaire calls up a senator or congress person for a GM or bank style bailout, they have to think the big picture, American people and not who is going to buy me into the seat. Then the power will be returned to the people. Make the corruption a crime. except you're against democracy, remember? you just said it above. you said people in wyoming an north dakota should have the power to veto the will of the people of CA, TX, PA, etc |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 09:45:18 -0700, Canuck57
wrote: Disband the Senate? Your normally post a lot of weird **** but this is just dumb. If it was Canada, 400 geriatrics with nothing to do but cost us, I wold agree. But the US senate is at least active. Dumb to remove such a needed counterbalance. Millions of Canadians wish we had an active, elected and effective senate. actually they're inactive, which is the problem. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
|
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
|
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 12:41:30 -0500, Harry
wrote: wrote: On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 14:17:14 -0500, bpuharic wrote: it was corporate america's attitude that destroyed GM, not the UAW. What was GM's largest financial liability? Just a wild ass guess. LABOR nope. less than 10% of the vehicle's price but, of course, that's what the right whine WOULD guess |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
Harry wrote:
John H wrote: On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 08:24:26 -0700, Canuck57 wrote: On 24/01/2010 3:50 AM, bpuharic wrote: On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 22:11:10 -0800, "CalifBill" wrote: wrote in message ... You earn $100. You get to keep $90. You earn $100,000. You get to keep $90,000. Which would you pick? Dumb example. People who choose to ignore an education and/or are lazy don't have the option to choose a $100K income. or they could be black, jewish, women, latino, etc. Uneducated black, Jewish, women, Latino, etc. I worked in the Silicon Valley as an engineer. Lots of Jewish, Black and Latino coworkers making in excess of $100k. All had university educations. Lots of black, Jewish, women, Latino, etc. i did my grad work at lehigh. they didn't admit women until '71. neither did princeton. there's still alot of bias in the system Can one imagine the howling if I set up a institution with the same funding like UNCF but called it UWCF? Racism is a two sided coin and isn't always what it seems. In fact, cries of racism are often crying wolf when there is no wolf. And the disease where it exists is not limited to WASPs, in fact some of the worst racism I have ever seen whas not white initiated. Them's blasphemous words around here, my friend. If there's the slightest chance a post can be called 'racist', the libs here will do so, unless a lib made the post, of course. And you assholes wonder why I read this newsgroup! What could be funnier than two of the biggest racists and sexists on wrecked boats, herring and canukistan, whine about racism and sexism. The world would be far better off with your heads on pikes outside the village gates, posted as a warning that your sort of smallmindedness isn't wanted among civilized men and women. Since we don't do much heads on pikes anymore, may the great god of herpes settle in on your faces. You consider yourself civilized. Now that's funny. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
wrote in message
... On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 14:17:14 -0500, bpuharic wrote: it was corporate america's attitude that destroyed GM, not the UAW. What was GM's largest financial liability? Continuing to build cars people don't want... -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Canuck57" wrote in message ... Government should have it's spending capped as a percentage of gross income to preven statism creap. If the greedy government wants more revenue, better make for a good economy with decent jobs or suck for it. You idiot... the gov't is the people. The gov't doesn't "make for a good economy." The people make up the economy. Ah. A closet conservative. Eisboch Not a closeted one. I'm certainly fiscally conservative. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"Canuck57" wrote in message
... On 24/01/2010 3:07 AM, Eisboch wrote: wrote in message ... wrote in message ... Government should have it's spending capped as a percentage of gross income to preven statism creap. If the greedy government wants more revenue, better make for a good economy with decent jobs or suck for it. You idiot... the gov't is the people. The gov't doesn't "make for a good economy." The people make up the economy. Ah. A closet conservative. Eisboch At least plum de tart sees at least this much. How few understand he fact that government is a consumer of wealth and not a creator of wealth? Certainly not enough or they would think of Obama debt as the devils work to destroy the US. It's not a "consumer of wealth." We create governments to (presumably) help people in situations they can't help themselves. Provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, etc. Get off your Obama is terrible rant. He didn't start this and he's making progress to end the corruption. Thank the Supreme Court for not only not helping, but making things much worse. Thanks GWB for stacking the Court with right wing freaks. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"Canuck57" wrote in message
... On 23/01/2010 8:13 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... On 23/01/2010 1:43 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: Yes, you're right. They're identical tax rates. My point was that a flat tax isn't appropriate because it's regressive for the lower earner. If you change the lower number to something more reasonable, say $40K/year vs. $100 (which was just a limiting case to use as an example). Someone who makes $40K could be someone who works really hard... 10 hours/day 6 days/week, perhaps two jobs. The person who makes $100K/yr. perhaps might only work 20 hrs./wk. We don't need to get into the socio/economic reasons, but there's no way to claim that the lower earner is working less hard. Yet, when you look at a flat tax, the $40K person would keep $36K. The $100K person would keep $90K. Who is hurt more? Again, which salary would you pick? The answer is likely obvious. Are we penalizing those who work hard, but have low-paying jobs? My answer is yes. Why not go the other way since we are socialising talk. Why not a fixed head tax, say $10,000 a year. If you can't pay it then you become a slave. You even lose the right to vote as you are considered a minor dependant unable to fend for ones self. That's a patently dumb argument. It's not what we're discussing, except in your twisted view of the world. Not any different than aggressive taxation, just two extremes of the same coin. There's no aggressive taxation going on. I'd be happy to pay more for more services and to help those who are less fortunate. Persecuting because one is oor isn't really much different than persecution those that are successful and produce. Neither is being persecuted. That's just your rant. The reasoning being in a nanny state of government health care, your ass is just as expensive as mine to keep. We went to the same schools, thus should be taxed the same in value. We ge the same government protection from police, in fact since I make more I have more to loose this even pose a lower risk. So why not a fixed head tax? blah, blah... same noise, repeated endlessly, as though it's someday going to make sense. Liberal ears are often denialists to the truth. All thesy see is liberal greed and what they want to see. Same noise... meaningless. And taxaton is fixed, governmetn cannot raise or lower it without a referendum of all affected. And you can only vote if you pay a minimum of $1000 in taxes. None of this mentality of losers telling winners how it works. Sorry to burst your bubble, but something very similar is going on in California. It's a budget disaster. Yep, people said no to spiraling taxes and liberalism kept spending. Sooner or later someone is going to have to shut down government until the books balance. Talk to Bush. He's the one who screwed the pooch. Government should have it's spending capped as a percentage of gross income to preven statism creap. If the greedy government wants more revenue, better make for a good economy with decent jobs or suck for it. You idiot... the gov't is the people. The gov't doesn't "make for a good economy." The people make up the economy. Why should not government have a revenue and spending cap? Why should a person not be guaranteed a good percentage of their gross income? Because sometimes running a deficit is the smart economic thing to do. Look it up. So, now you're playing the nanny by "guaranteeing" a percentage of income? We still get a very healthy chunk of money, so you're just ranting without logic. Or are we all to become slaves to the Obama marxist state? Blah, blah... meaningless drooling from a loonie. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"Canuck57" wrote in message
... On 23/01/2010 8:14 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... On Jan 23, 12:08 pm, wrote: On 23/01/2010 12:31 AM, nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill wrote in message m... wrote in message ... "Bill wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:40:09 -0500, wrote: The top brackets ought to be paying 49%, and there should be no cap on earnings subject to social security and medicare taxes. As long as the top 1% controls 50% of the campaign contributions and 100% of the media you won't see that. They may pass that as the published top rate but there will be enough tax shelters and loopholes so they won't actually pay that. The government has a long rich history of using the tax code to drive social policy. If you do politically correct things you get tax breaks, big ones. Is why there will never be a flat tax. Taxation is the ultimate control. A flat tax is regressive. -- Nom=de=Plume Actually is neither Regressive or Progressive. You're just wrong. I don't know how to say it politely. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax No, he's not. Regression means that the more you make, the less you pay - hardly a flat tax. You have to remember that the theory behind the flat tax offers no deductions. It's a simple percentage of your income. Didn't say regression - said regressive... and punative for those who make just a bit. You earn $100. You get to keep $90. You earn $100,000. You get to keep $90,000. Which would you pick? 90,000 of course. But it is fair, for each dollar the use is the same. Bet the $90,000 earner also worked harder. Why should he pay 30% when the lacky gets a 10% rate? Are we penalizing those who work? Besides, that whole position is simple-minded. In regard to taxes there is no choice to be made as the two examples are exactly the same... they are being taxed equally. It's an easy sixth grade math problem. I didn't see knuckle's (no offense intended) reply for some reason. Yes, you're right. They're identical tax rates. My point was that a flat tax isn't appropriate because it's regressive for the lower earner. If you change the lower number to something more reasonable, say $40K/year vs. $100 (which was just a limiting case to use as an example). Someone who makes $40K could be someone who works really hard... 10 hours/day 6 days/week, perhaps two jobs. The person who makes $100K/yr. perhaps might only work 20 hrs./wk. We don't need to get into the socio/economic reasons, but there's no way to claim that the lower earner is working less hard. Yet, when you look at a flat tax, the $40K person would keep $36K. The $100K person would keep $90K. Who is hurt more? Again, which salary would you pick? The answer is likely obvious. Are we penalizing those who work hard, but have low-paying jobs? My answer is yes. Let's take a progressive (e.g., non-flat tax) rate. The upper income person is taxed at 20% and the lower one is taxed at 5%. (Quite a difference, right? Yet...) The numbers: Lower incomer keeps $38K. The upper incomer keeps $80K. Clearly, the upper incomer still keeps a decent amount and most people would still pick being this person. Yet, the lower incomer isn't hurt nearly as much. Now if one wanted to discuss compensation, then of course anyone would take the 100k job. Of course, not everyone is qualified or able to perform it. But that's a completely different subject. True enough I suppose. Of course, there's baggage sometimes associated with higher salaries... different subject as you say. You are making **** up. Your assumptions have no bearing on the truth: Many low-wage employees work harder because their skill level can only get them a job involving 9-5 actual labor. Those who chose to get an education are paid more for what they know than what they do - physically. There is no comparison. "Choose to get an education." Hmm... what about those who are limited by their native intelligence? We should punish them for doing the manual labor? Getting through school is primarily about character, determination and will, beyond a basic IQ that is. For most people, their biggest roadblock is themselves. While I can see the attraction of a utopian society where all are treated the same, like most idealistic notions of how things work it ignores hat humans are needy and greedy at the core. Thus in reality falls flat on it's ass like socialism, keynesian, marxism... all a bunch of BS. Because only capitalism adapts to people and isn't myopic, unduely manipulative and dogmatic. For example, marriage, born of capitalism. Big guy hunts for food, starving woman trades sex for food, next thing you know she is knocked up. Decides to take care of the mans wounds so he can hunt for more, a bond developed and they institutionalised is as marriage as civilization developed. Capitalistic because the guy like sex and the care, and women liked the protection and food. Equitable trade. Capitalism will outlive them all. So get your education, the more you have to offer that can't be found elsewhere that others want, gets you a bigger return. You really need to take a pill. Capitalism without regulation doesn't work. Get it through your head. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"CalifBill" wrote in message
m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "CalifBill" wrote in message m... "bpuharic" wrote in message ... You earn $100. You get to keep $90. You earn $100,000. You get to keep $90,000. Which would you pick? Dumb example. People who choose to ignore an education and/or are lazy don't have the option to choose a $100K income. or they could be black, jewish, women, latino, etc. Uneducated black, Jewish, women, Latino, etc. I worked in the Silicon Valley as an engineer. Lots of Jewish, Black and Latino coworkers making in excess of $100k. All had university educations. Lots of black, Jewish, women, Latino, etc. Working as assemblers and janitors and secretaries that made a hell of a lot less than the engineers. They also did not have advanced education. And most of us making a $100k plus were working more hours than those making $35k or so. Probably working harder also. I worked and put myself through college, did take advantage of the corporate tuition reimbursement to help pay for that. Evil corporation, making it advantageous for me to go to school. My nephew, makes very little, mostly odd jobs, 45 years old. Thought he was a computer guru, but never went to JC, or night school to get a certificate, etc. Lazy. Problem with most of those in dire straights, other than those with major health problems, is lack of education or lazy. All true no doubt, but that doesn't include all people making $35K/year. -- Nom=de=Plume 35k is not dire straights. With four kids???? You're cracked. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
wrote in message
... On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 10:19:11 -0500, Harry wrote: Capitalism and the free market are all about exploiting those who have to work for a licing, nothing more. What is the alternative, communism? Every time it has actually been tried you still ended up with a two tier society with rich aparachicks and slave workers. The only communist society that still survives from the early 20th century experiments is Cuba. Even Cuba is nibbling around the edges of the free market. The alternative is a well-regulated capitalistic economy. That actually works. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"Canuck57" wrote in message
... On 24/01/2010 3:50 AM, bpuharic wrote: On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 22:11:10 -0800, "CalifBill" wrote: wrote in message ... You earn $100. You get to keep $90. You earn $100,000. You get to keep $90,000. Which would you pick? Dumb example. People who choose to ignore an education and/or are lazy don't have the option to choose a $100K income. or they could be black, jewish, women, latino, etc. Uneducated black, Jewish, women, Latino, etc. I worked in the Silicon Valley as an engineer. Lots of Jewish, Black and Latino coworkers making in excess of $100k. All had university educations. Lots of black, Jewish, women, Latino, etc. i did my grad work at lehigh. they didn't admit women until '71. neither did princeton. there's still alot of bias in the system Can one imagine the howling if I set up a institution with the same funding like UNCF but called it UWCF? Racism is a two sided coin and isn't always what it seems. In fact, cries of racism are often crying wolf when there is no wolf. And the disease where it exists is not limited to WASPs, in fact some of the worst racism I have ever seen whas not white initiated. So, basically, bottom line... you're a racist. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"John H" wrote in message
... On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 08:24:26 -0700, Canuck57 wrote: On 24/01/2010 3:50 AM, bpuharic wrote: On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 22:11:10 -0800, "CalifBill" wrote: wrote in message ... You earn $100. You get to keep $90. You earn $100,000. You get to keep $90,000. Which would you pick? Dumb example. People who choose to ignore an education and/or are lazy don't have the option to choose a $100K income. or they could be black, jewish, women, latino, etc. Uneducated black, Jewish, women, Latino, etc. I worked in the Silicon Valley as an engineer. Lots of Jewish, Black and Latino coworkers making in excess of $100k. All had university educations. Lots of black, Jewish, women, Latino, etc. i did my grad work at lehigh. they didn't admit women until '71. neither did princeton. there's still alot of bias in the system Can one imagine the howling if I set up a institution with the same funding like UNCF but called it UWCF? Racism is a two sided coin and isn't always what it seems. In fact, cries of racism are often crying wolf when there is no wolf. And the disease where it exists is not limited to WASPs, in fact some of the worst racism I have ever seen whas not white initiated. Them's blasphemous words around here, my friend. If there's the slightest chance a post can be called 'racist', the libs here will do so, unless a lib made the post, of course. -- "Your honor can never be taken from you. Cherish it, in yourself and in others." (Unknown) John H Of course, you are also, by your own words. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"bpuharic" wrote in message
... On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 08:25:29 -0700, Canuck57 wrote: On 23/01/2010 6:10 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:58:30 -0700, wrote: Liberals are always for big fat lard government. Too bad only liberals would get the bills for liberal sized mistakes like debt and bailouts. and right wingers are always for big fat, lard, church based govt. Obviously you are a low morals loser. and obviously you're a taliban wannabee Sure sounds like one from time to time. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"Canuck57" wrote in message
... On 23/01/2010 11:27 AM, wrote: On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 23:36:21 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Since this is a court decision it might take a constitutional amendment to fix it. I haven't read the decision yet but it might say they have a constitutional right to buy politicians. They have been doing it right along but now it is sanctioned by the court. They've been doing it with at least some restrictions. Now, currently, they've wiped those out. Something needs to get done, but I'm not sure an amendment is the way. Maybe. It's not easy to do, esp. with the current climate in DC. The problem is,. you can't legislate away a constitutional right. I am still wading my way through the decision but it is clear this was not just a liberal judge/conservative judge thing (sorry). They all concur on some points. Oh yes you can... Prop. 8 in California. It's under judicial review right now for that very issue. Don't bank on it. Roman people too thought the same thing. Roman people? You mean Romans? You must be prepared to defend your liberties or lose them. How? If the Court takes them away, how do you defend them? Buy a gun? If Senate, Congress and the Presidente decide to burn an ammedment and people don't effectively complain then it is gone. ?? Burn an amendment? Hitler, Chavez and many others have done just this in recent times. Seeing Obama toss out corporate debt law so easily with GM, I would be real nervious and have a lot of anxiety if the current governemnt were to tinker with the supreme court or ammendments. In fact much of todays economic issues stem from the lack of accountability of debt, and respect for repayment to others. What GM did was squander/steal $177 billion and no one is going to jail. The white collar, including governemnt now makes the rules their way. Oh... it's all Obama and GMs fault. got it. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"Canuck57" wrote in message
... On 23/01/2010 12:01 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:31:44 -0700, wrote: On 22/01/2010 5:38 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message t... On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:55:46 -0500, bpuharic wrote: and the SCOTUS just ****ed us again. they ruled companies can do whatever they want in terms of paying for campaigns. this country, courtesy of the right wing, may be doomed Oh yee of little faith. While I'll agree the SCOTUS decision is the absolutely wrong one, you are starting to sound like a Republican, all doom and gloom. If there is one thing I have learned, in my short time on this planet, is this country is incredibly resilient. It's people are the hardest working, most creative, people you will find. We have faced far more difficult challenges than this current SCOTUS. We will survive, and we will prosper. Hell, eight years of Bush hasn't killed us. Need I say more? I hope you're right. I'm an optimistic person, but this ruling is pretty extreme. It's going to take a lot of Congressional action to nullify it, and I'm not sure Congress is up for the task. Who do you think appoints the SCOTUS? Didn't see any new liberal-democrat Obama appointees oppose it. in the last 30 years, dems have appointed 3 justices. the GOP has appointed 7. Perhaps we should have a truce. Does not mater be you left or right, statism and corruption is the enemy here. Governmetn is now large enough it works for itself and not the people. The US government (any party) has the most corruption as they have most of the money. Statism and corruption destroy left and right wealth. Everyone looses. it's not that government is too large. it's that it's been captured by the very people it's supposed to regulate, and has often turned against the people who give it its power And because the voters are politically corrupted themselves. "Obama will pay for my gas and morgage...".... Low morals, low wisdom, low life entitlement mentality. Willing to sell their American liberties and mutual self respect to the first pied piper that shows up. Decay of morality in society. Evvy, greed and corruption now rule. It isn't going to change any time soon. It isn't going to change in your mind... angry expat, racist. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"Canuck57" wrote in message
... On 23/01/2010 1:48 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: "John wrote in message ... On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 13:34:10 -0600, wrote: On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:35:17 -0700, Canuck57 wrote: When a multinational based in China, the communist one, decides to take an interest in our elections, tell me again how strange Liberal thinking is. So? Are you now imposing who can bribe who? You mean only democrats can accept bribes? I guess that must be it. I'm an American, and I have this funny idea, America should be run by Americans. We don't need any help from Chinese communists to run it, or Canadians, for that matter. Soros couldn't take money from the Chinese? Could Chinese individuals not make contributions? You obviously don't like the ruling, so you're making up ridiculous reasons to be against it. Talk about a strawman. Talk about not thinking! Soros (or Gates or whomever) would never have the financial resources compared to a multi-billion dollar company. I believe you have to be a US citizen to make campaign contributions, so Chinese individuals could not make contributions. http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml Want to make a bet on that? Bet I could legally contribute to Obama or Palin, hell, why not both! So if either wins, I win! Recipes: Open up a US corporation, any LLC will do. From there direct a donation. Foreign owned, but a US corporation. That simple. A US corporation is a US entity. And if that isn't good enough, I am sure there are plenty of Americans that would do it for a fee. In fact, bet I could write a $1000 cheque from an American address and bank account and get both the Dem or GOP to cash it. I really doubt all the cheques are checked. I can even provide a valid SSN if needed. And there is always cash in a brief case. There is a reason why government does not make everything plastic, they too want cash under the table. Just another unenforcable law. But not that I recommend trying it. So, you're an idiot and a potential criminal. Great combo. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"Canuck57" wrote in message
... On 23/01/2010 12:34 PM, thunder wrote: On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:35:17 -0700, Canuck57 wrote: When a multinational based in China, the communist one, decides to take an interest in our elections, tell me again how strange Liberal thinking is. So? Are you now imposing who can bribe who? You mean only democrats can accept bribes? I guess that must be it. I'm an American, and I have this funny idea, America should be run by Americans. We don't need any help from Chinese communists to run it, or Canadians, for that matter. Unfortuantely as a Canadian I am affectd by what goes on in the USA. I have friends that are Americans. My father and grand parents were Americans. I am not a hill billy Canadian hateful of the USA because Chretien says so. Not you typical herd sheeple. I am so glad! I hope you are intensely affected! Profoundly affected. Canada shares the longest border in the world, mostly unprotected. What the USA does is going to affect people I know on both sides of this ruse border. I wish the USA comes out of this as much as anybody can. Yeah, and you cared so much you left. But unfortunately the amount of liberal indebtedness is coming back to haunt. China is reducing credit internally and externally, so Obama and Harpo can't borrow the debt-corruption-spend any longer. That is why they are in a tiff. The credit company has put government on notice. Rightfully so too, as our governments are the biggest debt welchers going. Nothing worse than the attitude of a welcher. I now know why they had debtor courts at one time. These welchers need jail and or slavery time to fix their attitdude. And, and ignorant ex-pat. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
wrote in message
... On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 16:16:04 -0500, BAR wrote: Bill and Hillary Clinton didn't have any problems accepting money from the Chinese. And, they didn't have any problems repaying the Chinese for their support. I think that the most ironic thing about the Clinton China connection is the assault weapons ban that specifically exempted the guns the Chinese army was dumping here. (most notably Thumbhole "AK"s and knockoffs of the AR-15). We imported over 2 million in 5 years. Shhhh... the NRA will get you. It's un-American to criticize guns or their manufacture. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
|
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message ... On 24/01/2010 3:07 AM, Eisboch wrote: wrote in message ... wrote in message ... Government should have it's spending capped as a percentage of gross income to preven statism creap. If the greedy government wants more revenue, better make for a good economy with decent jobs or suck for it. You idiot... the gov't is the people. The gov't doesn't "make for a good economy." The people make up the economy. Ah. A closet conservative. Eisboch At least plum de tart sees at least this much. How few understand he fact that government is a consumer of wealth and not a creator of wealth? Certainly not enough or they would think of Obama debt as the devils work to destroy the US. It's not a "consumer of wealth." We create governments to (presumably) help people in situations they can't help themselves. Provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, etc. Get off your Obama is terrible rant. He didn't start this and he's making progress to end the corruption. Thank the Supreme Court for not only not helping, but making things much worse. Thanks GWB for stacking the Court with right wing freaks. Notice you did not say "provide the general welfare". |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
|
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Jan 24, 1:07*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message ... On 23/01/2010 1:48 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: "John *wrote in message . .. On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 13:34:10 -0600, wrote: On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:35:17 -0700, Canuck57 wrote: When a multinational based in China, the communist one, decides to take an interest in our elections, tell me again how strange Liberal thinking is. So? *Are you now imposing who can bribe who? *You mean only democrats can accept bribes? I guess that must be it. *I'm an American, and I have this funny idea, America should be run by Americans. *We don't need any help from Chinese communists to run it, or Canadians, for that matter. Soros couldn't take money from the Chinese? Could Chinese individuals not make contributions? You obviously don't like the ruling, so you're making up ridiculous reasons to be against it. Talk about a strawman. Talk about not thinking! Soros (or Gates or whomever) would never have the financial resources compared to a multi-billion dollar company. I believe you have to be a US citizen to make campaign contributions, so Chinese individuals could not make contributions. http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml Want to make a bet on that? *Bet I could legally contribute to Obama or Palin, hell, why not both! *So if either wins, I win! Recipes: Open up a US corporation, any LLC will do. *From there direct a donation. Foreign owned, but a US corporation. *That simple. *A US corporation is a US entity. And if that isn't good enough, I am sure there are plenty of Americans that would do it for a fee. In fact, bet I could write a $1000 cheque from an American address and bank account and get both the Dem or GOP to cash it. *I really doubt all the cheques are checked. *I can even provide a valid SSN if needed. And there is always cash in a brief case. *There is a reason why government does not make everything plastic, they too want cash under the table. Just another unenforcable law. *But not that I recommend trying it. So, you're an idiot and a potential criminal. Great combo. -- Nom=de=Plume And D'Plume? You are a 60's cult movie star http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XghPOP2b9mw |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
|
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
wrote in message
... On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 12:23:09 -0500, bpuharic wrote: you mean the president the GOP impeached? yeah. looks like he had ALOT of control over congress, right? Bill Clinton was the cheerleader on the commodities deregulation bill that allowed CDOs. you mean the gramm bill? named after phil gramm, the REPUBLICAN who authored it, on behalf of his enron VP wife? that the bill you referring to? No that was Gramm-Leach-Bliley in 1999. Clinton was in favor of that too, along with 43% of the democrats voting for it. BTW that was what allowed banks to be brokerage houses. I am talking about The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 that repealed the bucket shop laws and allowed CDOs The house voted 292-60 (9 democrats said no) and the senate gave it unanimous consent The democrats are neck deep in that **** hole. You can go look at the vote if you want http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2000/roll603.xml Perhaps it's time to revoke it and get back to some normal banking behavior. I am sure you can find his signing statement on youtube. It was in the 60 Minutes piece on this. He is smiling and telling us how this is a great step forward. Trying to rewrite history and saying he was opposed to deregulation is dishonest. i never said he was opposed. i said he was powerless to oppose it. the GOP impeached him. his power was, to say the least, marginal. BTW if you are still hurt from the correction a couple years ago you were not properly diversified. I only have one major holding that is still a loser (EXP). My IBM stock is doing better than it was in 2006. FLR is still a "double". CLNE is more like 4- 5x from 2006. ROFLMAO!! me and 100M other americans. you right wingers really love to hate the middle class, don't you? So there are 100m Americans who made bad choices with their money this reminds me of the east german communist party statement during anti-communist rioting....'the party had lost faith in the people' the right SCREWS the middle class like $2 whores THEN tells 100M hard working americans it's their fault, otherwise it would be free market capitalism that's at fault. and god knows we CANT have that, right? It sure sounds like that was a bi-partisan screwing if those 2 deregulation bills were the cause. The democrats and Bill Clinton were leading the charge to pump up the market and increase corporate power over us. Stop blaming Clinton and the democrats for something that's obviously been supported far longer and with more fervor by the right wing. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
wrote in message
... On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 12:24:30 -0500, bpuharic wrote: What was GM's largest financial liability? it wasn't labor. labor accounts for less than 10% of a car's cost try again...you already proved how much right wingers hate the middle class when you blamed us for the financial meltdown, instead of your god, wall street. You try again, The biggest cost of a GM car was the pension and benefit obligation ... and we ARE the middle class Which were negotiated liabilities. You act like the unions were in charge. Management made the deals too. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 22:11:10 -0800, "CalifBill" wrote: "bpuharic" wrote in message . .. You earn $100. You get to keep $90. You earn $100,000. You get to keep $90,000. Which would you pick? Dumb example. People who choose to ignore an education and/or are lazy don't have the option to choose a $100K income. or they could be black, jewish, women, latino, etc. Uneducated black, Jewish, women, Latino, etc. I worked in the Silicon Valley as an engineer. Lots of Jewish, Black and Latino coworkers making in excess of $100k. All had university educations. Lots of black, Jewish, women, Latino, etc. i did my grad work at lehigh. they didn't admit women until '71. neither did princeton. there's still alot of bias in the system So you went to racist, sexist school. Bad for you. Every school I went to had blacks, Latinos, and every religion possible and all 3 sexes. I did go to school in San Francisco. Hell, I was a minority at San Francisco City College. And we even allowed a future murderer to matriculate there when I was going to school. OJ Simpson. My best friend growing up was Chinese and my mom's best friend and her LVN was black. Too bad you grew up in a racist area. Must have rubbed off on you. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 10:29:22 -0500, John H wrote: Them's blasphemous words around here, my friend. If there's the slightest chance a post can be called 'racist', the libs here will do so, unless a lib made the post, of course. the right thinks that racism never existed in this country...unless it's blacks against poor, innocent, concerned whites... the history of lynching not withstanding Blacks in the south were racist also. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:25 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com