|
Winning elections is not good enough
On 18/02/2011 5:50 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 19:43:29 -0500, wrote: On 2/18/2011 6:21 PM, wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 16:20:04 -0700, wrote: On 18/02/2011 9:15 AM, Frogwatch wrote: On Feb 18, 11:01 am, need wrote: In , payer3389 @mypacks.net says... On 2/18/11 10:44 AM, Frogwatch wrote: The Obamanations are not interested in democracy as shown by what is happening in Wisconsin. When the other side wins the election, they engage in an illegal walkout to prevent legislation. Remember "Card Check" where they tried to deny people the right to vote on unionization? They have no interest in Democracy, they are interested in raw power. Winning the election was not good enough because they do not recognize who won. When that happens, the next step is.................. ...right-wing racist-birthers like you move to another country? Yes, we know you are trying to clear this group for your 2012 propaganda run. Remember how each and every Progressive here answered Tim's call for civility with a defined, NO, NO, NO!? Here is your story. Democrats, being thugs... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71gsn...layer_embedded Here is another "brave" liberal, attacking old women... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVFdaz_VUJE Here is another advocate of "free speech" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBDqG...1&feature=fvwp I wonder if our friend Donnie was in this crowd? http://www.breitbart.tv/hate-rally-p...ca-with-trash- left-behind/ Oh, did you notice Tim doesn't post here anymore? The lefties do not recognize elections and routinely attack any dissent and then blame everyone else. Their own shot Gifford and they blamed Palin. Lefties eventually always resort to mass murder as Obama's best friend Bill Ayers said he wanted when he said he wanted to kill 20 million Americans. The liberal lefties up here are the same. Irrational zealots of telling others they will pay for their welfare. Nosy types too. I think you should move to Yemen immediately. I'm sure they'd welcome your dislike of gov't. Are you the only fool that thinks government is doing a good job? Please tell us which part of government you'd like to do without. Where do I start.... - eliminate bailouts - eliminate money for nothing programs - 1/2 of military spending, chop (troops come home) - wage roll back for all DC civis earning over $50k/year - except for Social Security/Disability/Vets, the social programs get hacked, no more "free" housing and kickbacks. - want education spending, show results or try something different - work towards outlawing government debt expansion - SEC, start throwing corrupt into jail and confiscating their assets (RICO). He Wagoner, bank CEOs watch this one. - foreign aid, eliminated, US taxpayers should not be funding other countries debts and dysfunction. Did you know 74% of Whitehouse staff got a 9% raise last year? Piggies are having a feast while others suffer. -- Socialism is a great ideal as long as someone else pays for it. And when no one is left to pay for it, they all can share nothing. |
Winning elections is not good enough
In article ,
says... In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:53:49 -0500, I am Perfect wrote: In article , says... In article , says... On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 11:21:48 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch wrote: On Feb 18, 2:17*pm, jps wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 11:11:29 -0800, wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 12:26:17 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:00:23 -0800, jps wrote: You think using a majority to supress the people and votes of the opposition is fair play? Oh like the 111th congress? You folks said the republicans should suck it up and go along. When they didn't you said they were obstructionists. Aren't the Wisconsin democrats shutting down the government? Where is your outrage? I wonder what their constitution says about legislators who abandon their jobs? Perhaps the governor can simply replace them. In real life, I imagine all they have to do is walk through and spit in the lobby to demonstrate that they are still working. We are going to be entering uncharted territory though. Nobody really knows what happens when a state files for bankruptcy. How do they discharge their debts when they don't have the money and they can't just print it like the federal government does. Will they try to print some kind of scrip and see if people would take it? Are they just going to tell their debtors to sue them? We better get used to questions like this because the whole country has a "Greece" moment coming. I doubt our protests will be as peaceful as Egypt or even Greece. It might be more like Warsaw 1944 except the populace is better armed. *;-) There's no "Greece" or Egypt "moment" coming. That's a paranoid fantasy. For some it's a sexual fantasy involving their big guns. A true liberal, jps wishes violence against those he disagrees with. Do the Libs really want to incite violence against those who support the constitution? Ah, yes, wrap yourself in the flag and the constitution. You'd better because you've got no clothes otherwise. Accusing libs of wanting to incite violence is laughable. It's the knee jerk wingers who resort to threats and violence when they can't win. Who are the idiots who open carry when the president is coming to visit? Are those liberals or "conservatives?" Who marches with signs about blood being necessary to keep the tree of freedom alive? Those are liberals? For someone with a brain, you sure have some insane ideas. If you're an idiot savant, your gift is surely not in understanding politics or people. One guy with a long gun, compared to this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71gsn...layer_embedded Here is another "brave" liberal, attacking old women... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVFdaz_VUJE Here is another advocate of "free speech" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBDqG...1&feature=fvwp I wonder if our friend Donnie was in this crowd? http://www.breitbart.tv/hate-rally-p...ca-with-trash- left-behind/ Plonk away, but these are the facts. Liberals including the one in the Whitehouse are doing everything you have suggested above. Here it is in full color. The best you have is Pelosi lying about something she said happened on the steps of congress and one guy with a long gun that saw a rally and stopped by as far as you know. You keep saying the conservatives are the ones pushing violence and destruction yet the video shows just the opposite. Please show what facts you have that Pelosi lied. I sure hope that was a joke. No, I'd like you to tell me how you know that Pelosi lied about something happening on the steps of congress. There was at least a dozen cameras rolling, the slurs never happened. A group even offered 150,000 dollars to anybody who could produce proof beyond what Pelosi made up as she was threatening the folks at the Capitol with the huge mallet, trolling for "B" roll. That's not proof that she lied and you know it. It is as much proof as Pelosi and the known activists she was with have to the initial accusation. In fact, I believe the video tape(s) are clear proof that she lied. Her story was destroyed several ways from daylight, when the tapes came out. |
Winning elections is not good enough
In article ,
says... In article , says... On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:50:16 -0500, I am Perfect wrote: In article , says... On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:53:49 -0500, I am Perfect wrote: In article , says... In article , says... On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 11:21:48 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch wrote: On Feb 18, 2:17*pm, jps wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 11:11:29 -0800, wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 12:26:17 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:00:23 -0800, jps wrote: You think using a majority to supress the people and votes of the opposition is fair play? Oh like the 111th congress? You folks said the republicans should suck it up and go along. When they didn't you said they were obstructionists. Aren't the Wisconsin democrats shutting down the government? Where is your outrage? I wonder what their constitution says about legislators who abandon their jobs? Perhaps the governor can simply replace them. In real life, I imagine all they have to do is walk through and spit in the lobby to demonstrate that they are still working. We are going to be entering uncharted territory though. Nobody really knows what happens when a state files for bankruptcy. How do they discharge their debts when they don't have the money and they can't just print it like the federal government does. Will they try to print some kind of scrip and see if people would take it? Are they just going to tell their debtors to sue them? We better get used to questions like this because the whole country has a "Greece" moment coming. I doubt our protests will be as peaceful as Egypt or even Greece. It might be more like Warsaw 1944 except the populace is better armed. *;-) There's no "Greece" or Egypt "moment" coming. That's a paranoid fantasy. For some it's a sexual fantasy involving their big guns. A true liberal, jps wishes violence against those he disagrees with. Do the Libs really want to incite violence against those who support the constitution? Ah, yes, wrap yourself in the flag and the constitution. You'd better because you've got no clothes otherwise. Accusing libs of wanting to incite violence is laughable. It's the knee jerk wingers who resort to threats and violence when they can't win. Who are the idiots who open carry when the president is coming to visit? Are those liberals or "conservatives?" Who marches with signs about blood being necessary to keep the tree of freedom alive? Those are liberals? For someone with a brain, you sure have some insane ideas. If you're an idiot savant, your gift is surely not in understanding politics or people. One guy with a long gun, compared to this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71gsn...layer_embedded Here is another "brave" liberal, attacking old women... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVFdaz_VUJE Here is another advocate of "free speech" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBDqG...1&feature=fvwp I wonder if our friend Donnie was in this crowd? http://www.breitbart.tv/hate-rally-p...ca-with-trash- left-behind/ Plonk away, but these are the facts. Liberals including the one in the Whitehouse are doing everything you have suggested above. Here it is in full color. The best you have is Pelosi lying about something she said happened on the steps of congress and one guy with a long gun that saw a rally and stopped by as far as you know. You keep saying the conservatives are the ones pushing violence and destruction yet the video shows just the opposite. Please show what facts you have that Pelosi lied. I sure hope that was a joke. No, I'd like you to tell me how you know that Pelosi lied about something happening on the steps of congress. Prove she told the truth. I never said she told the truth. The poster, however, said that she lied. I want the poster to prove it. The video tapes are clear, the audio is clear. There were no slurs, she lied. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On 18/02/2011 7:18 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 19:43:29 -0500, wrote: Are you the only fool that thinks government is doing a good job? and how's wall street doing after sucking 10 trillion out of the economy in the last 3 years? we back at full employment? You still do not get it do you? Government, big governmetn including Obama are not the solution, they ARE the problem. The more government gets, the less the people get. US Government is BROKE. Bankrupt. DC quite literally buys its own bonds as not one else in the world, not even it's own citizens will buy the toilet paper. It is like you loaning money you don't have to to yourself. Markets are only up for one reason. Would you rather have stock in say Kraft, Conoco Philips or something of *appreciating* value, or be holding worthless US dollars that will depreciate rapidly? Few know, UK tried this once. They devalued their currency by 30% overnight because of DEBT. Took them over a decade to recover. -- Socialism is a great ideal as long as someone else pays for it. And when no one is left to pay for it, they all can share nothing. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On 18/02/2011 7:17 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 16:20:04 -0700, wrote: The liberal lefties up here are the same. Irrational zealots of telling others they will pay for their welfare. Nosy types too he's RIGHT! let's do what the conservatives say! welfare ONLY for the RICH! starve the middle class! Well, you keep voting for it. Ever wonder where all that Obama spend really goes? I mean REALLY goes? -- Socialism is a great ideal as long as someone else pays for it. And when no one is left to pay for it, they all can share nothing. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On 19/02/2011 6:50 AM, BAR wrote:
In , payer3389 @mypacks.net says... On 2/18/11 10:44 AM, Frogwatch wrote: The Obamanations are not interested in democracy as shown by what is happening in Wisconsin. When the other side wins the election, they engage in an illegal walkout to prevent legislation. Remember "Card Check" where they tried to deny people the right to vote on unionization? They have no interest in Democracy, they are interested in raw power. Winning the election was not good enough because they do not recognize who won. When that happens, the next step is.................. ...right-wing racist-birthers like you move to another country? Venezuela has the political system that you like. The outgoing legislature voted Chavez the ability to rule by decree. Too bad Pelosi and Reed couldn't do that for Obama before Pelosi and crew move to the minority. Venezuela is Marxist. Capitalists would prefer Brazil. -- Socialism is a great ideal as long as someone else pays for it. And when no one is left to pay for it, they all can share nothing. |
Winning elections is not good enough
|
Winning elections is not good enough
On 18/02/2011 11:44 AM, jps wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 10:38:16 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch wrote: On Feb 18, 1:09 pm, wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 12:26:17 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:00:23 -0800, wrote: You think using a majority to supress the people and votes of the opposition is fair play? Oh like the 111th congress? You folks said the republicans should suck it up and go along. When they didn't you said they were obstructionists. They never went along with anything. What R's do best is obstruct, even when it's in the best interest of their constituents and the country. Aren't the Wisconsin democrats shutting down the government? Where is your outrage? I like it when Gov't gets shut down. It forces people to confront the issues. I wonder what their constitution says about legislators who abandon their jobs? Perhaps the governor can simply replace them. In real life, I imagine all they have to do is walk through and spit in the lobby to demonstrate that they are still working. The governor is using strong arm tactics to undermine collective bargaining. It's happening all over the country in areas where R's only interest is in serving the wealthy and big business by undercutting unions. We are going to be entering uncharted territory though. Nobody really knows what happens when a state files for bankruptcy. How do they discharge their debts when they don't have the money and they can't just print it like the federal government does. Will they try to print some kind of scrip and see if people would take it? Are they just going to tell their debtors to sue them? It'll be good if it happens. People will have to deal with the reality of government going into complete disfunction. All those who believe that government is evil will be crying like little babies. We better get used to questions like this because the whole country has a "Greece" moment coming. I doubt our protests will be as peaceful as Egypt or even Greece. It might be more like Warsaw 1944 except the populace is better armed. ;-) Oh, you mean the right wing is better armed. This is what all the jerks have been spoiling for. We're going to do a little cleansing in the USA? There is going to be a counter protest at the Wis Capitol organized by Breitbart. Union/Obama thugs should carefully consider before they resort to violence the consequences of such. I hope a union thug finds Breitbart, removes his balls (or what's left of them) and stuffs them down his throat. "Union/Obama thugs." Further proves your blind partisan idiocy. I don't think the left has a clue why investors are scared ****less about investing the USA for jobs. Because the cost metrics are so screwed up it make ZERO sense to invest new moneys in the USA right now. None. High risk, tax greed, union greed, insolvent banks and currency depreciation and a return rate not worth the ink as the return sucks. If it is on the TSX or NYSE, I want lots of foreign content. I quite routinely make 10-25%/year investing *outside* of USA and Canada. If I didn't believe in diversification I wouldn't invest at all in NA. But select non-union plays exist. -- Socialism is a great ideal as long as someone else pays for it. And when no one is left to pay for it, they all can share nothing. |
Winning elections is not good enough
|
Winning elections is not good enough
bpuharic wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 19:43:29 -0500, wrote: Are you the only fool that thinks government is doing a good job? and how's wall street doing after sucking 10 trillion out of the economy in the last 3 years? we back at full employment? Wall Street again? Businesses don't suck money from the economy, blind man. They conduct business with strict rules in place. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 11:12:52 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote: In article , says... And then there is DEA that serves no function at all except to pioneer new ways to take our rights. expanded unwarranted searches surveillance beyond the worst things NSA does property abuses Swat raids that kill innocents etc ... and doing absolutely nothing to stem the flow of drugs Don't forget prisons to house drug violation offenders. The "war on drugs" is a huge and expensive disgrace. It's a tiny portion of the Federal budget. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 12:20:45 -0500, John H
wrote: On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 11:12:52 -0600, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... And then there is DEA that serves no function at all except to pioneer new ways to take our rights. expanded unwarranted searches surveillance beyond the worst things NSA does property abuses Swat raids that kill innocents etc ... and doing absolutely nothing to stem the flow of drugs Don't forget prisons to house drug violation offenders. The "war on drugs" is a huge and expensive disgrace. Speaking of prisons.... http://urbanlegends.about.com/librar...rrectional.htm Beautiful, ain't it? More nonsense BS from a crazy person. http://www.snopes.com/photos/architecture/prison.asp |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 21:09:38 -0500, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 10:31:39 -0700, Canuck57 wrote: On 18/02/2011 5:50 PM, wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 19:43:29 -0500, wrote: Please tell us which part of government you'd like to do without. Where do I start.... - eliminate bailouts - eliminate money for nothing programs - 1/2 of military spending, chop (troops come home) - wage roll back for all DC civis earning over $50k/year - except for Social Security/Disability/Vets, the social programs get hacked, no more "free" housing and kickbacks. - want education spending, show results or try something different - work towards outlawing government debt expansion - SEC, start throwing corrupt into jail and confiscating their assets (RICO). He Wagoner, bank CEOs watch this one. - foreign aid, eliminated, US taxpayers should not be funding other countries debts and dysfunction. Did you know 74% of Whitehouse staff got a 9% raise last year? Piggies are having a feast while others suffer. Cutting half of the DoD budget is a good start but if you ignore SS/Medicare you will never get a handle on the deficit. The rest may be good symbolism but they are insignificant. Completely untrue and misleading as usual. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 10:23:49 -0700, Canuck57
wrote: On 18/02/2011 4:21 PM, wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 16:20:04 -0700, wrote: On 18/02/2011 9:15 AM, Frogwatch wrote: On Feb 18, 11:01 am, need wrote: In , payer3389 @mypacks.net says... On 2/18/11 10:44 AM, Frogwatch wrote: The Obamanations are not interested in democracy as shown by what is happening in Wisconsin. When the other side wins the election, they engage in an illegal walkout to prevent legislation. Remember "Card Check" where they tried to deny people the right to vote on unionization? They have no interest in Democracy, they are interested in raw power. Winning the election was not good enough because they do not recognize who won. When that happens, the next step is.................. ...right-wing racist-birthers like you move to another country? Yes, we know you are trying to clear this group for your 2012 propaganda run. Remember how each and every Progressive here answered Tim's call for civility with a defined, NO, NO, NO!? Here is your story. Democrats, being thugs... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71gsn...layer_embedded Here is another "brave" liberal, attacking old women... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVFdaz_VUJE Here is another advocate of "free speech" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBDqG...1&feature=fvwp I wonder if our friend Donnie was in this crowd? http://www.breitbart.tv/hate-rally-p...ca-with-trash- left-behind/ Oh, did you notice Tim doesn't post here anymore? The lefties do not recognize elections and routinely attack any dissent and then blame everyone else. Their own shot Gifford and they blamed Palin. Lefties eventually always resort to mass murder as Obama's best friend Bill Ayers said he wanted when he said he wanted to kill 20 million Americans. The liberal lefties up here are the same. Irrational zealots of telling others they will pay for their welfare. Nosy types too. I think you should move to Yemen immediately. I'm sure they'd welcome your dislike of gov't. Have more peaceful places to consider. I wouldn't move to a Muslim country for any reason. Don't worry, they won't let you in. Either would Panama or Costa Rica if they find out what you'd be doing/saying about their gov't. |
Winning elections is not good enough
|
Winning elections is not good enough
On 2/19/2011 11:01 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 11:12:52 -0600, Boating All Out wrote: In , says... And then there is DEA that serves no function at all except to pioneer new ways to take our rights. expanded unwarranted searches surveillance beyond the worst things NSA does property abuses Swat raids that kill innocents etc ... and doing absolutely nothing to stem the flow of drugs Don't forget prisons to house drug violation offenders. The "war on drugs" is a huge and expensive disgrace. It's a tiny portion of the Federal budget. No date tonite Jessica? |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 21:04:53 -0500, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:08:32 -0800, wrote: Scroll down to the total spending section. The agencies you listed would still have to be covered elsewhere. What you're suggesting cutting would be miniscule. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Un...federal_budget I agree. You just asked what we could do without. The only thing that will make a dent in the deficit is defense and the entitlements. So, then why do you think we can do without the other areas? The nukes are in the DoE, but I guess education isn't too important either. We managed to build all the currently operating reactors before the department of energy. If anything they have stifled the production of carbon free energy. And, you don't see to care if they're safe or not. Certainly, we don't want any regulatory agency involved. What total nonsense. We also do not have a clue how we are going to handle the exploding entitlements. That is what is going on in California and this week, Wisconsin. They have thousands of government retirees with unfunded pensions they can't cover. The problem with the federal government is 80 million boomers entering Social Security/Medicare who want the same deal their parents got. It ain't gonna happen but we still won't tell them. Again and again... this is a LONG TERM problem not a short term problem. Taxing the rich sounds like an attractive idea and I hope they do it but it is still chump change compared to the size of the problem. If you took the total net worth of the Forbes 400 richest Americans it would still barely cover the deficit next year and you would have killed the goose that lays the eggs because you would have liquidated all of their companies. The top 400 people make as much as the bottom 50%... that's what 100M people vs 400! I understand what you are saying but if you add up their total net worth it is about 1.5 trillion. And, they shouldn't be taxed, certainly not an extra 4%!! That would be too much to handle for them, apparently. They should be taxed more but don't expect that to fix the deficit. It would go a long way toward doing just that. That money is not real anyway. Bill Gates has 40 billion in Microsoft stock but it he tried to sell it, the price would drop to zero pretty fast. Most of their fortunes are funny money ... like the SS trust fund or the crap that passed for money in the mortgage business a few years ago. It is paper people call money, until you actually try to get it out and spend it. I have no idea what point you're trying to make. So what? Our deficit is far beyond what 400 people can cover. So, you think that completely eliminating the deficit is that important? It isn't. Nobody ever said "completely" but it is 40% of all spending right now and things are not looking better in the out years without some serious changes. It's about 10% of GDP. Not good, but not terrible, esp. compared to the 1940s. That is also the fatal flaw in privatizing Social Security. You could certainly see big increases in apparent value but that would fall off pretty fast as soon as you cashed it in. We simply do not have enough money coming into the system to support the boomers. It doesn't matter it is social security or your 401k. You still have 2-3 kids supporting each old person. Defense spending needs to be decreased. Some taxes (on the top earners) needs to go up. SS/Medicare need to have changes over time. I agree we need to raise taxes but that does not fix SS/Medicare. We simply have a problem with the number of retired people vs the number of workers. The only thing that will fix this is raising the retirement age and trimming benefits but that is still the 3d rail. Unfortunately business has used their pension plans to balance their bottom line by rolling employees into pension plans and getting them off the payroll, lowering the effective retirement age to 55 or even 50 when the real age should be closer to 75 if you look at life expectancy. These people are also taking their SS at 62. It would be 30 years before that's much of a problem. There are plenty of things that can be done. You act like withdrawing money is somehow damaging to the system. It isn't. We are already in trouble. We are NOT already in trouble with SS/Medicare. That's just right-wing fear bs. That also helps the employment problem, on paper, by removing the number of people looking for a job. We just don't know how you pay for it. Yes I am a perfect example of the problem. IBM pushed me out the door, on full pension, at 49. It is very possible, even likely, that I will be retired, longer than I worked.Since they are not putting money into the pension plan, it is also likely that it will go broke, throwing it back on the government. I'd suggest putting your money where your mouth is. Sounds to me you're well enough off to do without some of the benefits. It wasn't my choice. I was laid off. They said I could keep coming in if I wanted to but they were not going to pay me anymore. So, you're bitter about it. Sorry for your loss, but leave the rest of the country out of your paranoia. |
Winning elections is not good enough
|
Winning elections is not good enough
Completely untrue and misleading as usual. Untrue and misleading. Is that right Jessica? |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 00:17:10 -0500, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 20:04:02 -0800, wrote: On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 21:09:38 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 10:31:39 -0700, Canuck57 wrote: On 18/02/2011 5:50 PM, wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 19:43:29 -0500, wrote: Please tell us which part of government you'd like to do without. Where do I start.... - eliminate bailouts - eliminate money for nothing programs - 1/2 of military spending, chop (troops come home) - wage roll back for all DC civis earning over $50k/year - except for Social Security/Disability/Vets, the social programs get hacked, no more "free" housing and kickbacks. - want education spending, show results or try something different - work towards outlawing government debt expansion - SEC, start throwing corrupt into jail and confiscating their assets (RICO). He Wagoner, bank CEOs watch this one. - foreign aid, eliminated, US taxpayers should not be funding other countries debts and dysfunction. Did you know 74% of Whitehouse staff got a 9% raise last year? Piggies are having a feast while others suffer. Cutting half of the DoD budget is a good start but if you ignore SS/Medicare you will never get a handle on the deficit. The rest may be good symbolism but they are insignificant. Completely untrue and misleading as usual. What is untrue? You don't think SS and Medicare are a budget buster in the out years? SS/MC are not in trouble right now. They will be if nothing is changed, but NOT RIGHT NOW. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 00:35:29 -0500, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 20:10:01 -0800, wrote: On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 21:04:53 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:08:32 -0800, wrote: Scroll down to the total spending section. The agencies you listed would still have to be covered elsewhere. What you're suggesting cutting would be miniscule. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Un...federal_budget I agree. You just asked what we could do without. The only thing that will make a dent in the deficit is defense and the entitlements. So, then why do you think we can do without the other areas? The nukes are in the DoE, but I guess education isn't too important either. We managed to build all the currently operating reactors before the department of energy. If anything they have stifled the production of carbon free energy. And, you don't see to care if they're safe or not. Certainly, we don't want any regulatory agency involved. What total nonsense. The only serious nuclear accident we ever had was on the Department of Energy's watch (Carter Administration) We did a lot better when it was being watched by an agency that ONLY regulated nukes, (the AEC) not the huge bureaucracy Carter invented. Oops... Ford abolished the AEC. Nice try. FYI, Carter was a nuclear engineer. We also do not have a clue how we are going to handle the exploding entitlements. That is what is going on in California and this week, Wisconsin. They have thousands of government retirees with unfunded pensions they can't cover. The problem with the federal government is 80 million boomers entering Social Security/Medicare who want the same deal their parents got. It ain't gonna happen but we still won't tell them. Again and again... this is a LONG TERM problem not a short term problem. Taxing the rich sounds like an attractive idea and I hope they do it but it is still chump change compared to the size of the problem. If you took the total net worth of the Forbes 400 richest Americans it would still barely cover the deficit next year and you would have killed the goose that lays the eggs because you would have liquidated all of their companies. The top 400 people make as much as the bottom 50%... that's what 100M people vs 400! I understand what you are saying but if you add up their total net worth it is about 1.5 trillion. And, they shouldn't be taxed, certainly not an extra 4%!! That would be too much to handle for them, apparently. They should be taxed more but don't expect that to fix the deficit. It would go a long way toward doing just that. It might help a little but the rich don't really have that much money. I already showed you the total net worth of the Forbes 400 would only handle our current deficit for about 18 months. Bear in mind that is their unrealized profit on securities that the can't really write a check for. Get a calculator, go to Forbes and add it up yourself if you are bored. Go get a calculator and figure out how much of an increase of 4% for those making over $250K will have on deficit reduction. That money is not real anyway. Bill Gates has 40 billion in Microsoft stock but it he tried to sell it, the price would drop to zero pretty fast. Most of their fortunes are funny money ... like the SS trust fund or the crap that passed for money in the mortgage business a few years ago. It is paper people call money, until you actually try to get it out and spend it. I have no idea what point you're trying to make. So what? Our deficit is far beyond what 400 people can cover. So, you think that completely eliminating the deficit is that important? It isn't. Nobody ever said "completely" but it is 40% of all spending right now and things are not looking better in the out years without some serious changes. It's about 10% of GDP. Not good, but not terrible, esp. compared to the 1940s. In the 40s we were the engine of manufacturing for the world. Right now we import a lot more than we make. 24% of our GDP is simply reselling Chinese goods. Where is this new prosperity going to come from? So, you didn't address the question. We're not going back on any level to 1940-something. (that is from a study from Harry's alma mater Yale) That is also the fatal flaw in privatizing Social Security. You could certainly see big increases in apparent value but that would fall off pretty fast as soon as you cashed it in. We simply do not have enough money coming into the system to support the boomers. It doesn't matter it is social security or your 401k. You still have 2-3 kids supporting each old person. Defense spending needs to be decreased. Some taxes (on the top earners) needs to go up. SS/Medicare need to have changes over time. I agree we need to raise taxes but that does not fix SS/Medicare. We simply have a problem with the number of retired people vs the number of workers. The only thing that will fix this is raising the retirement age and trimming benefits but that is still the 3d rail. Unfortunately business has used their pension plans to balance their bottom line by rolling employees into pension plans and getting them off the payroll, lowering the effective retirement age to 55 or even 50 when the real age should be closer to 75 if you look at life expectancy. These people are also taking their SS at 62. It would be 30 years before that's much of a problem. There are plenty of things that can be done. You act like withdrawing money is somehow damaging to the system. It isn't. We are already in trouble. We are NOT already in trouble with SS/Medicare. That's just right-wing fear bs. Oh you believe in the trust fund myth? Very few economists agree with you. Really? Unfortunately, for you, they do. Try again. That also helps the employment problem, on paper, by removing the number of people looking for a job. We just don't know how you pay for it. Yes I am a perfect example of the problem. IBM pushed me out the door, on full pension, at 49. It is very possible, even likely, that I will be retired, longer than I worked.Since they are not putting money into the pension plan, it is also likely that it will go broke, throwing it back on the government. I'd suggest putting your money where your mouth is. Sounds to me you're well enough off to do without some of the benefits. It wasn't my choice. I was laid off. They said I could keep coming in if I wanted to but they were not going to pay me anymore. So, you're bitter about it. Sorry for your loss, but leave the rest of the country out of your paranoia. OK I will take your word for it. Everything is fine. Never said that, but you're not willing to look at anything but absolutes. That's intellectually lazy. |
, , , , , , ,
|
Winning elections is not good enough
In article ,
says... In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:53:49 -0500, I am Perfect wrote: In article , says... In article , says... On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 11:21:48 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch wrote: On Feb 18, 2:17*pm, jps wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 11:11:29 -0800, wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 12:26:17 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:00:23 -0800, jps wrote: You think using a majority to supress the people and votes of the opposition is fair play? Oh like the 111th congress? You folks said the republicans should suck it up and go along. When they didn't you said they were obstructionists. Aren't the Wisconsin democrats shutting down the government? Where is your outrage? I wonder what their constitution says about legislators who abandon their jobs? Perhaps the governor can simply replace them. In real life, I imagine all they have to do is walk through and spit in the lobby to demonstrate that they are still working. We are going to be entering uncharted territory though. Nobody really knows what happens when a state files for bankruptcy. How do they discharge their debts when they don't have the money and they can't just print it like the federal government does. Will they try to print some kind of scrip and see if people would take it? Are they just going to tell their debtors to sue them? We better get used to questions like this because the whole country has a "Greece" moment coming. I doubt our protests will be as peaceful as Egypt or even Greece. It might be more like Warsaw 1944 except the populace is better armed. *;-) There's no "Greece" or Egypt "moment" coming. That's a paranoid fantasy. For some it's a sexual fantasy involving their big guns. A true liberal, jps wishes violence against those he disagrees with. Do the Libs really want to incite violence against those who support the constitution? Ah, yes, wrap yourself in the flag and the constitution. You'd better because you've got no clothes otherwise. Accusing libs of wanting to incite violence is laughable. It's the knee jerk wingers who resort to threats and violence when they can't win. Who are the idiots who open carry when the president is coming to visit? Are those liberals or "conservatives?" Who marches with signs about blood being necessary to keep the tree of freedom alive? Those are liberals? For someone with a brain, you sure have some insane ideas. If you're an idiot savant, your gift is surely not in understanding politics or people. One guy with a long gun, compared to this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71gsn...layer_embedded Here is another "brave" liberal, attacking old women... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVFdaz_VUJE Here is another advocate of "free speech" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBDqG...1&feature=fvwp I wonder if our friend Donnie was in this crowd? http://www.breitbart.tv/hate-rally-p...ca-with-trash- left-behind/ Plonk away, but these are the facts. Liberals including the one in the Whitehouse are doing everything you have suggested above. Here it is in full color. The best you have is Pelosi lying about something she said happened on the steps of congress and one guy with a long gun that saw a rally and stopped by as far as you know. You keep saying the conservatives are the ones pushing violence and destruction yet the video shows just the opposite. Please show what facts you have that Pelosi lied. I sure hope that was a joke. No, I'd like you to tell me how you know that Pelosi lied about something happening on the steps of congress. There was at least a dozen cameras rolling, the slurs never happened. A group even offered 150,000 dollars to anybody who could produce proof beyond what Pelosi made up as she was threatening the folks at the Capitol with the huge mallet, trolling for "B" roll. That's not proof that she lied and you know it. It is as much proof as Pelosi and the known activists she was with have to the initial accusation. In fact, I believe the video tape(s) are clear proof that she lied. Her story was destroyed several ways from daylight, when the tapes came out. Because a camera wasn't on an incident is proof that it didn't happen???? I guess that rules out a LOT of things in life. The creation of the world, to start with. |
Winning elections is not good enough
In article ,
says... In article , says... In article , says... On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:50:16 -0500, I am Perfect wrote: In article , says... On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:53:49 -0500, I am Perfect wrote: In article , says... In article , says... On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 11:21:48 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch wrote: On Feb 18, 2:17*pm, jps wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 11:11:29 -0800, wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 12:26:17 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:00:23 -0800, jps wrote: You think using a majority to supress the people and votes of the opposition is fair play? Oh like the 111th congress? You folks said the republicans should suck it up and go along. When they didn't you said they were obstructionists. Aren't the Wisconsin democrats shutting down the government? Where is your outrage? I wonder what their constitution says about legislators who abandon their jobs? Perhaps the governor can simply replace them. In real life, I imagine all they have to do is walk through and spit in the lobby to demonstrate that they are still working. We are going to be entering uncharted territory though. Nobody really knows what happens when a state files for bankruptcy. How do they discharge their debts when they don't have the money and they can't just print it like the federal government does. Will they try to print some kind of scrip and see if people would take it? Are they just going to tell their debtors to sue them? We better get used to questions like this because the whole country has a "Greece" moment coming. I doubt our protests will be as peaceful as Egypt or even Greece. It might be more like Warsaw 1944 except the populace is better armed. *;-) There's no "Greece" or Egypt "moment" coming. That's a paranoid fantasy. For some it's a sexual fantasy involving their big guns. A true liberal, jps wishes violence against those he disagrees with. Do the Libs really want to incite violence against those who support the constitution? Ah, yes, wrap yourself in the flag and the constitution. You'd better because you've got no clothes otherwise. Accusing libs of wanting to incite violence is laughable. It's the knee jerk wingers who resort to threats and violence when they can't win. Who are the idiots who open carry when the president is coming to visit? Are those liberals or "conservatives?" Who marches with signs about blood being necessary to keep the tree of freedom alive? Those are liberals? For someone with a brain, you sure have some insane ideas. If you're an idiot savant, your gift is surely not in understanding politics or people. One guy with a long gun, compared to this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71gsn...layer_embedded Here is another "brave" liberal, attacking old women... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVFdaz_VUJE Here is another advocate of "free speech" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBDqG...1&feature=fvwp I wonder if our friend Donnie was in this crowd? http://www.breitbart.tv/hate-rally-p...ca-with-trash- left-behind/ Plonk away, but these are the facts. Liberals including the one in the Whitehouse are doing everything you have suggested above. Here it is in full color. The best you have is Pelosi lying about something she said happened on the steps of congress and one guy with a long gun that saw a rally and stopped by as far as you know. You keep saying the conservatives are the ones pushing violence and destruction yet the video shows just the opposite. Please show what facts you have that Pelosi lied. I sure hope that was a joke. No, I'd like you to tell me how you know that Pelosi lied about something happening on the steps of congress. Prove she told the truth. I never said she told the truth. The poster, however, said that she lied. I want the poster to prove it. The video tapes are clear, the audio is clear. There were no slurs, she lied. Again, because a camera didn't record an event means that it didn't happen? I guess that rules out God then! |
Winning elections is not good enough
In article ,
says... In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:53:49 -0500, I am Perfect wrote: In article , says... In article , says... On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 11:21:48 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch wrote: On Feb 18, 2:17*pm, jps wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 11:11:29 -0800, wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 12:26:17 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:00:23 -0800, jps wrote: You think using a majority to supress the people and votes of the opposition is fair play? Oh like the 111th congress? You folks said the republicans should suck it up and go along. When they didn't you said they were obstructionists. Aren't the Wisconsin democrats shutting down the government? Where is your outrage? I wonder what their constitution says about legislators who abandon their jobs? Perhaps the governor can simply replace them. In real life, I imagine all they have to do is walk through and spit in the lobby to demonstrate that they are still working. We are going to be entering uncharted territory though. Nobody really knows what happens when a state files for bankruptcy. How do they discharge their debts when they don't have the money and they can't just print it like the federal government does. Will they try to print some kind of scrip and see if people would take it? Are they just going to tell their debtors to sue them? We better get used to questions like this because the whole country has a "Greece" moment coming. I doubt our protests will be as peaceful as Egypt or even Greece. It might be more like Warsaw 1944 except the populace is better armed. *;-) There's no "Greece" or Egypt "moment" coming. That's a paranoid fantasy. For some it's a sexual fantasy involving their big guns. A true liberal, jps wishes violence against those he disagrees with. Do the Libs really want to incite violence against those who support the constitution? Ah, yes, wrap yourself in the flag and the constitution. You'd better because you've got no clothes otherwise. Accusing libs of wanting to incite violence is laughable. It's the knee jerk wingers who resort to threats and violence when they can't win. Who are the idiots who open carry when the president is coming to visit? Are those liberals or "conservatives?" Who marches with signs about blood being necessary to keep the tree of freedom alive? Those are liberals? For someone with a brain, you sure have some insane ideas. If you're an idiot savant, your gift is surely not in understanding politics or people. One guy with a long gun, compared to this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71gsn...layer_embedded Here is another "brave" liberal, attacking old women... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVFdaz_VUJE Here is another advocate of "free speech" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBDqG...1&feature=fvwp I wonder if our friend Donnie was in this crowd? http://www.breitbart.tv/hate-rally-p...ca-with-trash- left-behind/ Plonk away, but these are the facts. Liberals including the one in the Whitehouse are doing everything you have suggested above. Here it is in full color. The best you have is Pelosi lying about something she said happened on the steps of congress and one guy with a long gun that saw a rally and stopped by as far as you know. You keep saying the conservatives are the ones pushing violence and destruction yet the video shows just the opposite. Please show what facts you have that Pelosi lied. I sure hope that was a joke. No, I'd like you to tell me how you know that Pelosi lied about something happening on the steps of congress. There was at least a dozen cameras rolling, the slurs never happened. A group even offered 150,000 dollars to anybody who could produce proof beyond what Pelosi made up as she was threatening the folks at the Capitol with the huge mallet, trolling for "B" roll. That's not proof that she lied and you know it. It is as much proof as Pelosi and the known activists she was with have to the initial accusation. In fact, I believe the video tape(s) are clear proof that she lied. Her story was destroyed several ways from daylight, when the tapes came out. Because a camera wasn't on an incident is proof that it didn't happen???? I guess that rules out a LOT of things in life. The creation of the world, to start with. There were nearly a dozen video angles of that particular point in time, from many vantagepoints. It is clear that in this case, she lied. |
Winning elections is not good enough
In article ,
says... In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:53:49 -0500, I am Perfect wrote: In article , says... In article , says... On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 11:21:48 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch wrote: On Feb 18, 2:17*pm, jps wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 11:11:29 -0800, wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 12:26:17 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:00:23 -0800, jps wrote: You think using a majority to supress the people and votes of the opposition is fair play? Oh like the 111th congress? You folks said the republicans should suck it up and go along. When they didn't you said they were obstructionists. Aren't the Wisconsin democrats shutting down the government? Where is your outrage? I wonder what their constitution says about legislators who abandon their jobs? Perhaps the governor can simply replace them. In real life, I imagine all they have to do is walk through and spit in the lobby to demonstrate that they are still working. We are going to be entering uncharted territory though. Nobody really knows what happens when a state files for bankruptcy. How do they discharge their debts when they don't have the money and they can't just print it like the federal government does. Will they try to print some kind of scrip and see if people would take it? Are they just going to tell their debtors to sue them? We better get used to questions like this because the whole country has a "Greece" moment coming. I doubt our protests will be as peaceful as Egypt or even Greece. It might be more like Warsaw 1944 except the populace is better armed. *;-) There's no "Greece" or Egypt "moment" coming. That's a paranoid fantasy. For some it's a sexual fantasy involving their big guns. A true liberal, jps wishes violence against those he disagrees with. Do the Libs really want to incite violence against those who support the constitution? Ah, yes, wrap yourself in the flag and the constitution. You'd better because you've got no clothes otherwise. Accusing libs of wanting to incite violence is laughable. It's the knee jerk wingers who resort to threats and violence when they can't win. Who are the idiots who open carry when the president is coming to visit? Are those liberals or "conservatives?" Who marches with signs about blood being necessary to keep the tree of freedom alive? Those are liberals? For someone with a brain, you sure have some insane ideas. If you're an idiot savant, your gift is surely not in understanding politics or people. One guy with a long gun, compared to this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71gsn...layer_embedded Here is another "brave" liberal, attacking old women... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVFdaz_VUJE Here is another advocate of "free speech" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBDqG...1&feature=fvwp I wonder if our friend Donnie was in this crowd? http://www.breitbart.tv/hate-rally-p...ca-with-trash- left-behind/ Plonk away, but these are the facts. Liberals including the one in the Whitehouse are doing everything you have suggested above. Here it is in full color. The best you have is Pelosi lying about something she said happened on the steps of congress and one guy with a long gun that saw a rally and stopped by as far as you know. You keep saying the conservatives are the ones pushing violence and destruction yet the video shows just the opposite. Please show what facts you have that Pelosi lied. I sure hope that was a joke. No, I'd like you to tell me how you know that Pelosi lied about something happening on the steps of congress. There was at least a dozen cameras rolling, the slurs never happened. A group even offered 150,000 dollars to anybody who could produce proof beyond what Pelosi made up as she was threatening the folks at the Capitol with the huge mallet, trolling for "B" roll. That's not proof that she lied and you know it. It is as much proof as Pelosi and the known activists she was with have to the initial accusation. In fact, I believe the video tape(s) are clear proof that she lied. Her story was destroyed several ways from daylight, when the tapes came out. Because a camera wasn't on an incident is proof that it didn't happen???? I guess that rules out a LOT of things in life. The creation of the world, to start with. There were nearly a dozen video angles of that particular point in time, from many vantagepoints. It is clear that in this case, she lied. Bull****. Like I said, because a camera didn't catch something doesn't mean that it didn't happen. You have NO proof that she lied about that incident and you know it, or you should know it. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On 19/02/2011 9:05 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 11:40:15 -0700, wrote: On 18/02/2011 12:12 PM, wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 10:38:16 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch wrote: On Feb 18, 1:09 pm, wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 12:26:17 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:00:23 -0800, wrote: You think using a majority to supress the people and votes of the opposition is fair play? Oh like the 111th congress? You folks said the republicans should suck it up and go along. When they didn't you said they were obstructionists. They never went along with anything. What R's do best is obstruct, even when it's in the best interest of their constituents and the country. Aren't the Wisconsin democrats shutting down the government? Where is your outrage? I like it when Gov't gets shut down. It forces people to confront the issues. I wonder what their constitution says about legislators who abandon their jobs? Perhaps the governor can simply replace them. In real life, I imagine all they have to do is walk through and spit in the lobby to demonstrate that they are still working. The governor is using strong arm tactics to undermine collective bargaining. It's happening all over the country in areas where R's only interest is in serving the wealthy and big business by undercutting unions. We are going to be entering uncharted territory though. Nobody really knows what happens when a state files for bankruptcy. How do they discharge their debts when they don't have the money and they can't just print it like the federal government does. Will they try to print some kind of scrip and see if people would take it? Are they just going to tell their debtors to sue them? It'll be good if it happens. People will have to deal with the reality of government going into complete disfunction. All those who believe that government is evil will be crying like little babies. We better get used to questions like this because the whole country has a "Greece" moment coming. I doubt our protests will be as peaceful as Egypt or even Greece. It might be more like Warsaw 1944 except the populace is better armed. ;-) Oh, you mean the right wing is better armed. This is what all the jerks have been spoiling for. We're going to do a little cleansing in the USA? There is going to be a counter protest at the Wis Capitol organized by Breitbart. Union/Obama thugs should carefully consider before they resort to violence the consequences of such. Maybe he'll shoot some video, doctor it, then claim they've taken control of the White House. Should be renamed the Debt House. Maybe you should rename your house the Loony House. Loonie house is worth more than a greenback house these days. Used to be the CAD was 70 cents USD. Now it is $1.013 and rising. You don't think I moved back to Canada in 2004 by mistake? I could see the economic collapse a mile away and with INS dragging it arse....because my old man didn't pay his taxes since 1958 or so... even though mine were up to date. Plus a 2005 law was coming to make it harder to manage my Canadian investments from the US. So I consolidated in Canada. Made for a no brainier as the tide was indeed turning. Went from 90% invested in the USA to 10%, converting most of it at about 70 cents USD to CAD, now they are at essentially par. In Canada, that is a 42% non-taxable gain as I do not professional trade currency, just made it worth my while to repatriate. So in fact my loonie house is worth more than your USD debt house. All the US government did was scare away a high rate taxpayer. -- Socialism is a great ideal as long as someone else pays for it. And when no one is left to pay for it, they all can share nothing. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On 18/02/2011 12:11 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 12:26:17 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:00:23 -0800, wrote: You think using a majority to supress the people and votes of the opposition is fair play? Oh like the 111th congress? You folks said the republicans should suck it up and go along. When they didn't you said they were obstructionists. Aren't the Wisconsin democrats shutting down the government? Where is your outrage? I wonder what their constitution says about legislators who abandon their jobs? Perhaps the governor can simply replace them. In real life, I imagine all they have to do is walk through and spit in the lobby to demonstrate that they are still working. We are going to be entering uncharted territory though. Nobody really knows what happens when a state files for bankruptcy. How do they discharge their debts when they don't have the money and they can't just print it like the federal government does. Will they try to print some kind of scrip and see if people would take it? Are they just going to tell their debtors to sue them? We better get used to questions like this because the whole country has a "Greece" moment coming. I doubt our protests will be as peaceful as Egypt or even Greece. It might be more like Warsaw 1944 except the populace is better armed. ;-) There's no "Greece" or Egypt "moment" coming. That's a paranoid fantasy. Agreed, it will be at least a generation of poverty. -- Socialism is a great ideal as long as someone else pays for it. And when no one is left to pay for it, they all can share nothing. |
Winning elections is not good enough
In article ,
says... On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 23:01:11 -0800, wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 00:17:10 -0500, wrote: Cutting half of the DoD budget is a good start but if you ignore SS/Medicare you will never get a handle on the deficit. The rest may be good symbolism but they are insignificant. Completely untrue and misleading as usual. What is untrue? You don't think SS and Medicare are a budget buster in the out years? SS/MC are not in trouble right now. They will be if nothing is changed, but NOT RIGHT NOW. WTF? Both are paying out more than they take in. In any other business that is called running at a loss. There is no likely scenario that will make that get any better. One of the current proposals is to remove the FICA tax altogether so they do not have to perpetuate this lie of "insurance" or "an investment". SS/Medicare will just become welfare. That will make it easier to ration, means test and alter benefits. The 2% reduction "employee contribution" is the first step. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On 18/02/2011 2:29 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 16:10:48 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 11:11:29 -0800, wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 12:26:17 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:00:23 -0800, wrote: You think using a majority to supress the people and votes of the opposition is fair play? Oh like the 111th congress? You folks said the republicans should suck it up and go along. When they didn't you said they were obstructionists. Aren't the Wisconsin democrats shutting down the government? Where is your outrage? I wonder what their constitution says about legislators who abandon their jobs? Perhaps the governor can simply replace them. In real life, I imagine all they have to do is walk through and spit in the lobby to demonstrate that they are still working. We are going to be entering uncharted territory though. Nobody really knows what happens when a state files for bankruptcy. How do they discharge their debts when they don't have the money and they can't just print it like the federal government does. Will they try to print some kind of scrip and see if people would take it? Are they just going to tell their debtors to sue them? We better get used to questions like this because the whole country has a "Greece" moment coming. I doubt our protests will be as peaceful as Egypt or even Greece. It might be more like Warsaw 1944 except the populace is better armed. ;-) There's no "Greece" or Egypt "moment" coming. That's a paranoid fantasy. I guess you were absent the day they taught arithmetic. Why don't you find something a little more biting if you're trying to insult me. Are you denying the deficit is a problem and that the entitlements are unsustainable? Never denied it. What I'm denying is that it's a short-term problem. It's a long-term problem. Obama's recent budget addressed it in the long term to the tune of $1.1 T (some things I don't agree with, but that's another story). Of course Sen. Sessions said it didn't go deep enough, but of course he proposed nearly the exact same deficit reduction amount a short while ago. That is what brought down the Greek economy We are not Greece... I know that's an incredible statement for some people... They said GM was too big to fail. Here is a hint, that was hogwash. US is NOT too big to fail, and in fact is going through that right now. Too big to fail instantly, yes, too big to fail - nope. Smart money is leaving the US. Look at the stocks, those with foreign content are doing better than pure domestic plays. Even Warrent Buffet knows this. Obama is a debt monger, debt worshiper. And there is no known route to wealth through excessive unmanageable debt. Iceland tried the very policy Obama is trying, it failed miserably. Iceland tried this before too, in 1974 they had 43% inflation. Today, they have high unemployment, stagnant economy and basic minimum wages. Look at Japans lost decades. UK devalued the pound by 30% once, took the economy more than a decade to recover. Fact remains, and no liberalism will ever override reality.... you can't debt-spend your way out of a debt problem. In Debt We Trust -- Obama. That spells economic doom. Might take decades, might take days, but be sure the future in debt is not bright. Never invest in a chronic debtor, you lose money that way. -- Socialism is a great ideal as long as someone else pays for it. And when no one is left to pay for it, they all can share nothing. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On 18/02/2011 9:25 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 22:44:30 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 13:29:01 -0800, wrote: We better get used to questions like this because the whole country has a "Greece" moment coming. I doubt our protests will be as peaceful as Egypt or even Greece. It might be more like Warsaw 1944 except the populace is better armed. ;-) There's no "Greece" or Egypt "moment" coming. That's a paranoid fantasy. I guess you were absent the day they taught arithmetic. Why don't you find something a little more biting if you're trying to insult me. I apologize, that was snarky. Apology accepted. Are you denying the deficit is a problem and that the entitlements are unsustainable? Never denied it. What I'm denying is that it's a short-term problem. It's a long-term problem. Obama's recent budget addressed it in the long term to the tune of $1.1 T (some things I don't agree with, but that's another story). Of course Sen. Sessions said it didn't go deep enough, but of course he proposed nearly the exact same deficit reduction amount a short while ago. $1.1T is trivial compared to the problem. That barely covers where we are now and there are only a small fraction of the boomers on the public dole. If he can't touch the current deficit, how will he handle the hockey stick that is in the next decade? I don't think the GOP is really talking about it either. They're talking about when it suits them. Sessions was talking about it along with the rest of the right-wing nuts. They would love to gut all the social programs. I'd say that it's in their DNA, except they don't believe in science. That is what brought down the Greek economy We are not Greece... I know that's an incredible statement for some people... No we are not Greece. The world could survive a total collapse of Greece. When the US gets a cold, the world gets pneumonia. We are not even close to a "collapse"... guess you didn't hear but the economy is getting better. You believe Obama bull****? A record number of people are expected to lose their homes THIS YEAR. Civic and state debt defaults are skyrocketing. Infamous last words. They said that after the Titanic hit the iceberg, we are too big to sink. -- Socialism is a great ideal as long as someone else pays for it. And when no one is left to pay for it, they all can share nothing. |
Winning elections is not good enough
In article ,
says... In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:53:49 -0500, I am Perfect wrote: In article , says... In article , says... On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 11:21:48 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch wrote: On Feb 18, 2:17*pm, jps wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 11:11:29 -0800, wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 12:26:17 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:00:23 -0800, jps wrote: You think using a majority to supress the people and votes of the opposition is fair play? Oh like the 111th congress? You folks said the republicans should suck it up and go along. When they didn't you said they were obstructionists. Aren't the Wisconsin democrats shutting down the government? Where is your outrage? I wonder what their constitution says about legislators who abandon their jobs? Perhaps the governor can simply replace them. In real life, I imagine all they have to do is walk through and spit in the lobby to demonstrate that they are still working. We are going to be entering uncharted territory though. Nobody really knows what happens when a state files for bankruptcy. How do they discharge their debts when they don't have the money and they can't just print it like the federal government does. Will they try to print some kind of scrip and see if people would take it? Are they just going to tell their debtors to sue them? We better get used to questions like this because the whole country has a "Greece" moment coming. I doubt our protests will be as peaceful as Egypt or even Greece. It might be more like Warsaw 1944 except the populace is better armed. *;-) There's no "Greece" or Egypt "moment" coming. That's a paranoid fantasy. For some it's a sexual fantasy involving their big guns. A true liberal, jps wishes violence against those he disagrees with. Do the Libs really want to incite violence against those who support the constitution? Ah, yes, wrap yourself in the flag and the constitution. You'd better because you've got no clothes otherwise. Accusing libs of wanting to incite violence is laughable. It's the knee jerk wingers who resort to threats and violence when they can't win. Who are the idiots who open carry when the president is coming to visit? Are those liberals or "conservatives?" Who marches with signs about blood being necessary to keep the tree of freedom alive? Those are liberals? For someone with a brain, you sure have some insane ideas. If you're an idiot savant, your gift is surely not in understanding politics or people. One guy with a long gun, compared to this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71gsn...layer_embedded Here is another "brave" liberal, attacking old women... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVFdaz_VUJE Here is another advocate of "free speech" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBDqG...1&feature=fvwp I wonder if our friend Donnie was in this crowd? http://www.breitbart.tv/hate-rally-p...ca-with-trash- left-behind/ Plonk away, but these are the facts. Liberals including the one in the Whitehouse are doing everything you have suggested above. Here it is in full color. The best you have is Pelosi lying about something she said happened on the steps of congress and one guy with a long gun that saw a rally and stopped by as far as you know. You keep saying the conservatives are the ones pushing violence and destruction yet the video shows just the opposite. Please show what facts you have that Pelosi lied. I sure hope that was a joke. No, I'd like you to tell me how you know that Pelosi lied about something happening on the steps of congress. There was at least a dozen cameras rolling, the slurs never happened. A group even offered 150,000 dollars to anybody who could produce proof beyond what Pelosi made up as she was threatening the folks at the Capitol with the huge mallet, trolling for "B" roll. That's not proof that she lied and you know it. It is as much proof as Pelosi and the known activists she was with have to the initial accusation. In fact, I believe the video tape(s) are clear proof that she lied. Her story was destroyed several ways from daylight, when the tapes came out. Because a camera wasn't on an incident is proof that it didn't happen???? I guess that rules out a LOT of things in life. The creation of the world, to start with. There were nearly a dozen video angles of that particular point in time, from many vantagepoints. It is clear that in this case, she lied. Bull****. Like I said, because a camera didn't catch something doesn't mean that it didn't happen. You have NO proof that she lied about that incident and you know it, or you should know it. But you are wrong. Every angle was covered during the event, video and audio were quite clear. The story as she told it did not add up and the audio was conclusive. That's why with a dozen or more professional videographers, several working for Pelosi herself as she trolled for an incident, even with $100,000 on the line, not one shred of audio or video even came close to squaring with Pelosi's story, much less any evidence of it's truthfulness. She made it up, she lied, period. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 11:28:20 -0500, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 23:01:11 -0800, wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 00:17:10 -0500, wrote: Cutting half of the DoD budget is a good start but if you ignore SS/Medicare you will never get a handle on the deficit. The rest may be good symbolism but they are insignificant. Completely untrue and misleading as usual. What is untrue? You don't think SS and Medicare are a budget buster in the out years? SS/MC are not in trouble right now. They will be if nothing is changed, but NOT RIGHT NOW. WTF? Both are paying out more than they take in. In any other business that is called running at a loss. There is no likely scenario that will make that get any better. One of the current proposals is to remove the FICA tax altogether so they do not have to perpetuate this lie of "insurance" or "an investment". SS/Medicare will just become welfare. That will make it easier to ration, means test and alter benefits. So what. That's a long-term problem not a short term one. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...rming_soc.html http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...shortfall.html |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 11:08:52 -0700, Canuck57
wrote: On 19/02/2011 9:05 PM, wrote: On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 11:40:15 -0700, wrote: On 18/02/2011 12:12 PM, wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 10:38:16 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch wrote: On Feb 18, 1:09 pm, wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 12:26:17 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:00:23 -0800, wrote: You think using a majority to supress the people and votes of the opposition is fair play? Oh like the 111th congress? You folks said the republicans should suck it up and go along. When they didn't you said they were obstructionists. They never went along with anything. What R's do best is obstruct, even when it's in the best interest of their constituents and the country. Aren't the Wisconsin democrats shutting down the government? Where is your outrage? I like it when Gov't gets shut down. It forces people to confront the issues. I wonder what their constitution says about legislators who abandon their jobs? Perhaps the governor can simply replace them. In real life, I imagine all they have to do is walk through and spit in the lobby to demonstrate that they are still working. The governor is using strong arm tactics to undermine collective bargaining. It's happening all over the country in areas where R's only interest is in serving the wealthy and big business by undercutting unions. We are going to be entering uncharted territory though. Nobody really knows what happens when a state files for bankruptcy. How do they discharge their debts when they don't have the money and they can't just print it like the federal government does. Will they try to print some kind of scrip and see if people would take it? Are they just going to tell their debtors to sue them? It'll be good if it happens. People will have to deal with the reality of government going into complete disfunction. All those who believe that government is evil will be crying like little babies. We better get used to questions like this because the whole country has a "Greece" moment coming. I doubt our protests will be as peaceful as Egypt or even Greece. It might be more like Warsaw 1944 except the populace is better armed. ;-) Oh, you mean the right wing is better armed. This is what all the jerks have been spoiling for. We're going to do a little cleansing in the USA? There is going to be a counter protest at the Wis Capitol organized by Breitbart. Union/Obama thugs should carefully consider before they resort to violence the consequences of such. Maybe he'll shoot some video, doctor it, then claim they've taken control of the White House. Should be renamed the Debt House. Maybe you should rename your house the Loony House. Loonie house is worth more than a greenback house these days. Used to be the CAD was 70 cents USD. Now it is $1.013 and rising. You don't think I moved back to Canada in 2004 by mistake? I could see the economic collapse a mile away and with INS dragging it arse....because my old man didn't pay his taxes since 1958 or so... even though mine were up to date. Plus a 2005 law was coming to make it harder to manage my Canadian investments from the US. So I consolidated in Canada. You moved back to Canada because you were thrown out of the US. Feel free to stay there or move to Yemen. Made for a no brainier as the tide was indeed turning. Went from 90% invested in the USA to 10%, converting most of it at about 70 cents USD to CAD, now they are at essentially par. In Canada, that is a 42% non-taxable gain as I do not professional trade currency, just made it worth my while to repatriate. So in fact my loonie house is worth more than your USD debt house. All the US government did was scare away a high rate taxpayer. You're the loonie. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 11:49:27 -0500, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 23:06:26 -0800, wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 00:35:29 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 20:10:01 -0800, wrote: On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 21:04:53 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:08:32 -0800, wrote: Scroll down to the total spending section. The agencies you listed would still have to be covered elsewhere. What you're suggesting cutting would be miniscule. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Un...federal_budget I agree. You just asked what we could do without. The only thing that will make a dent in the deficit is defense and the entitlements. So, then why do you think we can do without the other areas? The nukes are in the DoE, but I guess education isn't too important either. We managed to build all the currently operating reactors before the department of energy. If anything they have stifled the production of carbon free energy. And, you don't see to care if they're safe or not. Certainly, we don't want any regulatory agency involved. What total nonsense. The only serious nuclear accident we ever had was on the Department of Energy's watch (Carter Administration) We did a lot better when it was being watched by an agency that ONLY regulated nukes, (the AEC) not the huge bureaucracy Carter invented. Oops... Ford abolished the AEC. Nice try. FYI, Carter was a nuclear engineer. DoE was a Carter invention. Nobody said ERDA was a good idea either but it was not the same huge bureaucracy DoE became. I was in DC at the time, working in those buildings. I saw what happened. Each time they changed the name, another office was started up and the existing office just got a new sign. The joke at GSA was they were going to hang the signs with thumb screws. Sure... DoE... created by a Dem, therefore it's horrible. What total nonsense. You just want to eliminate anything that doesn't directly involved profit. We also do not have a clue how we are going to handle the exploding entitlements. That is what is going on in California and this week, Wisconsin. They have thousands of government retirees with unfunded pensions they can't cover. The problem with the federal government is 80 million boomers entering Social Security/Medicare who want the same deal their parents got. It ain't gonna happen but we still won't tell them. Again and again... this is a LONG TERM problem not a short term problem. Taxing the rich sounds like an attractive idea and I hope they do it but it is still chump change compared to the size of the problem. If you took the total net worth of the Forbes 400 richest Americans it would still barely cover the deficit next year and you would have killed the goose that lays the eggs because you would have liquidated all of their companies. The top 400 people make as much as the bottom 50%... that's what 100M people vs 400! I understand what you are saying but if you add up their total net worth it is about 1.5 trillion. And, they shouldn't be taxed, certainly not an extra 4%!! That would be too much to handle for them, apparently. They should be taxed more but don't expect that to fix the deficit. It would go a long way toward doing just that. It might help a little but the rich don't really have that much money. I already showed you the total net worth of the Forbes 400 would only handle our current deficit for about 18 months. Bear in mind that is their unrealized profit on securities that the can't really write a check for. Get a calculator, go to Forbes and add it up yourself if you are bored. Go get a calculator and figure out how much of an increase of 4% for those making over $250K will have on deficit reduction. What do you think the median income of that group is? $500,000? $1M? Lets take the best case scenario and say $1M They would pay an extra $40,000 times 1.9 million households ... $80 billion, not a small number but still chump change compared to the $1.1 trillion deficit. Go "figure" your math some more. You're not even close. The real question is how many of those people would actually pay that tax. The really rich people would find a way to shelter that income. When you hear those stories about Eisenhower's 90% tax rate, you don't hear about all the tax shelters that kept anyone from actually paying that rate. Reagan was the one who removed the lion's share of those shelters, in the 1986 rewrite of the tax code. As long as rich people pay for our elections they will not pay the taxes you think they should pay. What??? Pay for our elections? Talk to the Supreme Court. The right-wing on that court has decided the corps are people. That money is not real anyway. Bill Gates has 40 billion in Microsoft stock but it he tried to sell it, the price would drop to zero pretty fast. Most of their fortunes are funny money ... like the SS trust fund or the crap that passed for money in the mortgage business a few years ago. It is paper people call money, until you actually try to get it out and spend it. I have no idea what point you're trying to make. So what? Our deficit is far beyond what 400 people can cover. So, you think that completely eliminating the deficit is that important? It isn't. Nobody ever said "completely" but it is 40% of all spending right now and things are not looking better in the out years without some serious changes. It's about 10% of GDP. Not good, but not terrible, esp. compared to the 1940s. In the 40s we were the engine of manufacturing for the world. Right now we import a lot more than we make. 24% of our GDP is simply reselling Chinese goods. Where is this new prosperity going to come from? So, you didn't address the question. We're not going back on any level to 1940-something. (that is from a study from Harry's alma mater Yale) That is also the fatal flaw in privatizing Social Security. You could certainly see big increases in apparent value but that would fall off pretty fast as soon as you cashed it in. We simply do not have enough money coming into the system to support the boomers. It doesn't matter it is social security or your 401k. You still have 2-3 kids supporting each old person. Defense spending needs to be decreased. Some taxes (on the top earners) needs to go up. SS/Medicare need to have changes over time. I agree we need to raise taxes but that does not fix SS/Medicare. We simply have a problem with the number of retired people vs the number of workers. The only thing that will fix this is raising the retirement age and trimming benefits but that is still the 3d rail. Unfortunately business has used their pension plans to balance their bottom line by rolling employees into pension plans and getting them off the payroll, lowering the effective retirement age to 55 or even 50 when the real age should be closer to 75 if you look at life expectancy. These people are also taking their SS at 62. It would be 30 years before that's much of a problem. There are plenty of things that can be done. You act like withdrawing money is somehow damaging to the system. It isn't. We are already in trouble. We are NOT already in trouble with SS/Medicare. That's just right-wing fear bs. Oh you believe in the trust fund myth? Very few economists agree with you. Really? Unfortunately, for you, they do. Try again. That also helps the employment problem, on paper, by removing the number of people looking for a job. We just don't know how you pay for it. Yes I am a perfect example of the problem. IBM pushed me out the door, on full pension, at 49. It is very possible, even likely, that I will be retired, longer than I worked.Since they are not putting money into the pension plan, it is also likely that it will go broke, throwing it back on the government. I'd suggest putting your money where your mouth is. Sounds to me you're well enough off to do without some of the benefits. It wasn't my choice. I was laid off. They said I could keep coming in if I wanted to but they were not going to pay me anymore. So, you're bitter about it. Sorry for your loss, but leave the rest of the country out of your paranoia. OK I will take your word for it. Everything is fine. Never said that, but you're not willing to look at anything but absolutes. That's intellectually lazy. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 11:28:33 -0700, Canuck57
wrote: On 18/02/2011 2:29 PM, wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 16:10:48 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 11:11:29 -0800, wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 12:26:17 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:00:23 -0800, wrote: You think using a majority to supress the people and votes of the opposition is fair play? Oh like the 111th congress? You folks said the republicans should suck it up and go along. When they didn't you said they were obstructionists. Aren't the Wisconsin democrats shutting down the government? Where is your outrage? I wonder what their constitution says about legislators who abandon their jobs? Perhaps the governor can simply replace them. In real life, I imagine all they have to do is walk through and spit in the lobby to demonstrate that they are still working. We are going to be entering uncharted territory though. Nobody really knows what happens when a state files for bankruptcy. How do they discharge their debts when they don't have the money and they can't just print it like the federal government does. Will they try to print some kind of scrip and see if people would take it? Are they just going to tell their debtors to sue them? We better get used to questions like this because the whole country has a "Greece" moment coming. I doubt our protests will be as peaceful as Egypt or even Greece. It might be more like Warsaw 1944 except the populace is better armed. ;-) There's no "Greece" or Egypt "moment" coming. That's a paranoid fantasy. I guess you were absent the day they taught arithmetic. Why don't you find something a little more biting if you're trying to insult me. Are you denying the deficit is a problem and that the entitlements are unsustainable? Never denied it. What I'm denying is that it's a short-term problem. It's a long-term problem. Obama's recent budget addressed it in the long term to the tune of $1.1 T (some things I don't agree with, but that's another story). Of course Sen. Sessions said it didn't go deep enough, but of course he proposed nearly the exact same deficit reduction amount a short while ago. That is what brought down the Greek economy We are not Greece... I know that's an incredible statement for some people... They said GM was too big to fail. Here is a hint, that was hogwash. US is NOT too big to fail, and in fact is going through that right now. Too big to fail instantly, yes, too big to fail - nope. Sure... throw people out on the street... that's the right-wing solution to the economy! Smart money is leaving the US. Look at the stocks, those with foreign content are doing better than pure domestic plays. Even Warrent Buffet knows this. You're not smart. You left. Therefore, the dumb people are leaving. Obama is a debt monger, debt worshiper. And there is no known route to wealth through excessive unmanageable debt. Iceland tried the very policy Obama is trying, it failed miserably. Iceland tried this before too, in 1974 they had 43% inflation. Today, they have high unemployment, stagnant economy and basic minimum wages. Look at Japans lost decades. Look at the racist/birthers... like yourself. UK devalued the pound by 30% once, took the economy more than a decade to recover. Fact remains, and no liberalism will ever override reality.... you can't debt-spend your way out of a debt problem. In Debt We Trust -- Obama. That spells economic doom. Might take decades, might take days, but be sure the future in debt is not bright. Never invest in a chronic debtor, you lose money that way. Never could a black man do a good job, apparently. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 11:11:28 -0700, Canuck57
wrote: On 18/02/2011 12:11 PM, wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 12:26:17 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:00:23 -0800, wrote: You think using a majority to supress the people and votes of the opposition is fair play? Oh like the 111th congress? You folks said the republicans should suck it up and go along. When they didn't you said they were obstructionists. Aren't the Wisconsin democrats shutting down the government? Where is your outrage? I wonder what their constitution says about legislators who abandon their jobs? Perhaps the governor can simply replace them. In real life, I imagine all they have to do is walk through and spit in the lobby to demonstrate that they are still working. We are going to be entering uncharted territory though. Nobody really knows what happens when a state files for bankruptcy. How do they discharge their debts when they don't have the money and they can't just print it like the federal government does. Will they try to print some kind of scrip and see if people would take it? Are they just going to tell their debtors to sue them? We better get used to questions like this because the whole country has a "Greece" moment coming. I doubt our protests will be as peaceful as Egypt or even Greece. It might be more like Warsaw 1944 except the populace is better armed. ;-) There's no "Greece" or Egypt "moment" coming. That's a paranoid fantasy. Agreed, it will be at least a generation of poverty. Agreed, you're an idiot with no business acumen. |
Winning elections is not good enough
|
Winning elections is not good enough
In article ,
says... In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:53:49 -0500, I am Perfect wrote: In article , says... In article , says... On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 11:21:48 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch wrote: On Feb 18, 2:17*pm, jps wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 11:11:29 -0800, wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 12:26:17 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:00:23 -0800, jps wrote: You think using a majority to supress the people and votes of the opposition is fair play? Oh like the 111th congress? You folks said the republicans should suck it up and go along. When they didn't you said they were obstructionists. Aren't the Wisconsin democrats shutting down the government? Where is your outrage? I wonder what their constitution says about legislators who abandon their jobs? Perhaps the governor can simply replace them. In real life, I imagine all they have to do is walk through and spit in the lobby to demonstrate that they are still working. We are going to be entering uncharted territory though. Nobody really knows what happens when a state files for bankruptcy. How do they discharge their debts when they don't have the money and they can't just print it like the federal government does. Will they try to print some kind of scrip and see if people would take it? Are they just going to tell their debtors to sue them? We better get used to questions like this because the whole country has a "Greece" moment coming. I doubt our protests will be as peaceful as Egypt or even Greece. It might be more like Warsaw 1944 except the populace is better armed. *;-) There's no "Greece" or Egypt "moment" coming. That's a paranoid fantasy. For some it's a sexual fantasy involving their big guns. A true liberal, jps wishes violence against those he disagrees with. Do the Libs really want to incite violence against those who support the constitution? Ah, yes, wrap yourself in the flag and the constitution. You'd better because you've got no clothes otherwise. Accusing libs of wanting to incite violence is laughable. It's the knee jerk wingers who resort to threats and violence when they can't win. Who are the idiots who open carry when the president is coming to visit? Are those liberals or "conservatives?" Who marches with signs about blood being necessary to keep the tree of freedom alive? Those are liberals? For someone with a brain, you sure have some insane ideas. If you're an idiot savant, your gift is surely not in understanding politics or people. One guy with a long gun, compared to this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71gsn...layer_embedded Here is another "brave" liberal, attacking old women... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVFdaz_VUJE Here is another advocate of "free speech" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBDqG...1&feature=fvwp I wonder if our friend Donnie was in this crowd? http://www.breitbart.tv/hate-rally-p...ca-with-trash- left-behind/ Plonk away, but these are the facts. Liberals including the one in the Whitehouse are doing everything you have suggested above. Here it is in full color. The best you have is Pelosi lying about something she said happened on the steps of congress and one guy with a long gun that saw a rally and stopped by as far as you know. You keep saying the conservatives are the ones pushing violence and destruction yet the video shows just the opposite. Please show what facts you have that Pelosi lied. I sure hope that was a joke. No, I'd like you to tell me how you know that Pelosi lied about something happening on the steps of congress. There was at least a dozen cameras rolling, the slurs never happened. A group even offered 150,000 dollars to anybody who could produce proof beyond what Pelosi made up as she was threatening the folks at the Capitol with the huge mallet, trolling for "B" roll. That's not proof that she lied and you know it. It is as much proof as Pelosi and the known activists she was with have to the initial accusation. In fact, I believe the video tape(s) are clear proof that she lied. Her story was destroyed several ways from daylight, when the tapes came out. Because a camera wasn't on an incident is proof that it didn't happen???? I guess that rules out a LOT of things in life. The creation of the world, to start with. There were nearly a dozen video angles of that particular point in time, from many vantagepoints. It is clear that in this case, she lied. Bull****. Like I said, because a camera didn't catch something doesn't mean that it didn't happen. You have NO proof that she lied about that incident and you know it, or you should know it. But you are wrong. Every angle was covered during the event, video and audio were quite clear. The story as she told it did not add up and the audio was conclusive. That's why with a dozen or more professional videographers, several working for Pelosi herself as she trolled for an incident, even with $100,000 on the line, not one shred of audio or video even came close to squaring with Pelosi's story, much less any evidence of it's truthfulness. She made it up, she lied, period. Are you really trying to say that every single utterence by someone was covered? HORSE****. You have NO PROOF that that she lied. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:29 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com