NationStates Jolt Archive

I saw him on CSPAN tonight and he looked so sad and lifeless.
...some of you might say he appeared so prior to the election.
But he looks worse now.
Aw, I just wanna give him a hug.
He's still a hero to me, for standing up to that bastard. That took balls. I hope he runs again. He'll certainly have my vote.

That's very sweet of you to say. However, I think that the Democratic Party will be changing directions, now that it officially can't beat G.W.

He might run, but he'll probably be facing Hillary Clinton. That'll be a tough one to beat...

I saw him on CSPAN tonight and he looked so sad and lifeless.
...some of you might say he appeared so prior to the election.
But he looks worse now.
Aw, I just wanna give him a hug.
He's still a hero to me, for standing up to that bastard. That took balls. I hope he runs again. He'll certainly have my vote.
Most of that is because he's stopped using botox! Heh!

BTW ... he's still an amoral opportunist and a lying sack of horse manure.

John Kerry lost because he represents exactly what is wrong with America today. As long as Bush doesnt screw up even more than he already has, a Republican will surely be elected in 2008.

[QUOTE=The Hitler Jugend]John Kerry lost because he represents exactly what is wrong with America today. QUOTE]

Go Ralph Nader ;)

John Kerry lost because he represents exactly what is wrong with America today. As long as Bush doesnt screw up even more than he already has, a Republican will surely be elected in 2008.
That's not very convincing, coming from the fourth reich.

Go Ralph Nader ;)
Bah. Nader represents exactly what is wrong with the media today. There are much more legitimate third parties.

John Kerry lost because he represents exactly what is wrong with America today. As long as Bush doesnt screw up even more than he already has, a Republican will surely be elected in 2008.
only bush could screw up mroe than he already has, and he plans to do it. sadly america is stupid and he wil lget away with it

How can you feel bad for Kerry? The man was an immoral baby-slaying UN-loving flipper.

How can you feel bad for Kerry? The man was an immoral baby-slaying UN-loving flipper.
and he ate thsoe babies with syrup, canadian maple

hmm, yeah bush is greeeaaaaaaaatttttttttttt, in fact the countire's in such good condition we declared "Inagural party week" this morning (saw it on fox news) in which he plans to well , make big progress, going to youth concerts and partieing all day.... great president we have when you know the countrie's in such good shape, he can take the entire week off. (though it isent much different from what he's been doing at that ranch of his).

How can you feel bad for Kerry? The man was an immoral baby-slaying UN-loving flipper.
And you, my friend, are a brainwashed member of the religious right.
I still read your posts, however, because they make me laugh.
Like when you called me a Nazi.
*reminds Commando of the thread that showed the right wing website that supported Nazis*. OUCH.

and he ate thsoe babies with syrup, canadian maple
At least he has good taste.

Kerry had no direction, and that put George Walker Bush in the Oval Office.

and he ate thsoe babies with syrup, canadian maple

Mmmmm, tastes like socialism. Delish!

How can you feel bad for Kerry? The man was an immoral baby-slaying UN-loving flipper.

'Cause it's not like anyone got killed in the "war on terror"...

hmm, yeah bush is greeeaaaaaaaatttttttttttt, in fact the countire's in such good condition we declared "Inagural party week" this morning (saw it on fox news) in which he plans to well , make big progress, going to youth concerts and partieing all day.... great president we have when you know the countrie's in such good shape, he can take the entire week off. (though it isent much different from what he's been doing at that ranch of his).

How do you know what Bush does with his time? Im just wondering because you dont seem like a person with the knowledge of the presidents inner circle, nor do you seem to know how to spell country but i guess that does not matter, does it?

Kerry had no direction, and that put George Walker Bush in the Oval Office.

Nope. The VOTING MACHINES had no paper trail, and THAT put George Walker Bush in the Oval Office.

He cheated.

He's NOT my president...never has been, never will be. I do not acknowledge him so.

He does not represent ME...as he is supposed to represent ALL the people...no, he only represents those who agree with him. He will not compromise, or even listen.

In fact, EVERYTHING he says and does is against MY best interest. So screw him. He sucks. Only good thing about it is, four more years and that shithead is gone forever. And good riddance to him, too!

I just hope he fucks up so badly that it'll be twenty years before another Repukenican manages to get into the White House!

Death to the Christian Coalition!! Death to the Religious Reich morons who want to legislate MY morality!! I HATE them with every fiber of my being.

I love you, Jesus, PLEASE...save me from your followers!!

Don't feel bad for Kerry. He ran for president and lost. Too bad. What persay is wrong with the couuntry? I am just wondering. Itsnot unemployment is it? Becasue our unemployment rate is the sameas it was during the clinton years and everyone thought it was agreat rate then. It cannot be Iraq, because the 90's saw several military blunders; Kosovo, Somolia... etc. Is ithome owner ship? Cause that is at record levels. Please, please tell me how the country is in the the pot.

Don't feel bad for Kerry. He ran for president and lost. Too bad. What persay is wrong with the couuntry? I am just wondering. Itsnot unemployment is it? Becasue our unemployment rate is the sameas it was during the clinton years and everyone thought it was agreat rate then. It cannot be Iraq, because the 90's saw several military blunders; Kosovo, Somolia... etc. Is ithome owner ship? Cause that is at record levels. Please, please tell me how the country is in the the pot.
Well there's the whole "the religious right is in control" bit, which explains most of it. I've got nothing against the right wing, but I do when they are try to forbid us rights given us in the Constitution.

How can you feel bad for Kerry? The man was an immoral baby-slaying UN-loving flipper.
Is that all you can say? You never say anything more than "baaaa" like the rest of the mindless sheep you flock together with.

Nope.-
He does not represent ME...as he is supposed to represent ALL the people...no, he only represents those who agree with him. He will not compromise, or even listen.



How would you like your president represent you? Should he agree with you? He cant agree with everybody. But those people who elected him give him the authority to enact what he feels is right.

DOnt cry to hard please, because we do have a legislature. You can vote for them to represent you.

President Bush is your president, whether or not you like him or not. As long as you are a citizen, he is your president. Unless you are an illeagal immmigrant then he isnt your president. But then i dont really care what you think.

Well there's the whole "the religious right is in control" bit, which explains most of it. I've got nothing against the right wing, but I do when they are try to forbid us rights given us in the Constitution.

What rights have you been deprived? None that i know of. Dont just say you dont have rights and expect us to not question the statement.

What rights have you been deprived? None that i know of. Dont just say you dont have rights and expect us to not question the statement.

Well, for starters, the right to marry a member of the same sex.
Next, the right to put whatever I want to into my body.
Next, there's the whole PATRIOT Act thing, which violates so many rights...

Don't feel bad for Kerry. He ran for president and lost. Too bad. What persay is wrong with the couuntry? I am just wondering. Itsnot unemployment is it? Becasue our unemployment rate is the sameas it was during the clinton years and everyone thought it was agreat rate then. It cannot be Iraq, because the 90's saw several military blunders; Kosovo, Somolia... etc. Is ithome owner ship? Cause that is at record levels. Please, please tell me how the country is in the the pot.


Obviously YOU are not a job-seeker, or you would NOT say that it was as good as when we were under Clinton.

I tell you what...go to your local newspaper, and look at microfilms of your newspaper from circa 1998-1999. Go to the WANT ADS section. you'll notice there were about SIXTEEN PAGES of want ads for jobs. NOW, in this time, you are lucky if there are THREE pages!! So how is it "just as good?"

And don't spew bullshit figures about "the unemployment rate" because, firstly, Clinton had us at 2 percent. Best I have heard under Bush is 5.5 percent. Even so..."the unemployment rate" does not count "discouraged workers" as unemployed at all.

Discouraged workers are those who have been so long trying that they have given up looking for jobs...or have run out their unemployment benefits...or who were, for some othe reason, denied unemployment benefits...and are not officially counted as unemployed. But I betcha a lot of them ain't got two fuckin' quarters to rub together!

And them folks just LOVE Bush. Ask me. I know, I'm one of them...and (crossing fingers) I think Bush is GREAT!!

Okay, now can I put away the sarcasm??

Bush is a major fucking asshole! He's fucked the economy so royally, I am ready to move back home to Mommy, at age 34...so that I can work part-time, and go back to school...and drop the fuck out of this shit economy until everyone else builds it back up...which, of course, will take a DEMOCRATIC President.

I just thank God Mom is making me this offer. Because this economy fucking bites ASS!!

What rights have you been deprived? None that i know of. Dont just say you dont have rights and expect us to not question the statement.

I can't marry a guy, I don't have the right to privacy, and I don't have the rights to a lawyer or trial if convicted.

How would you like your president represent you? Should he agree with you? He cant agree with everybody. But those people who elected him give him the authority to enact what he feels is right.

DOnt cry to hard please, because we do have a legislature. You can vote for them to represent you.

President Bush is your president, whether or not you like him or not. As long as you are a citizen, he is your president. Unless you are an illeagal immmigrant then he isnt your president. But then i dont really care what you think.

Well I don't care what YOU think.

I am an American citizen. I DID NOT vote for the scumbag...he not only fails to represent me...but in fact, represents everything I HATE...and so, therefore, I do not acknowledge him my president. He will never be my president. I think he's an asshole.

Well, for starters, the right to marry a member of the same sex.
Next, the right to put whatever I want to into my body.
Next, there's the whole PATRIOT Act thing, which violates so many rights...

Really, where in the constitution does it say anything about marriage? You are not gauranteed that right at all. In fact that should be left as a state issue not a national one.

Put what into your body? Again, not in the constitution.

Patriot act? The right to privacy maybe. But even thats a stretch. HOw often have you had cops bust into your house for no reason? I never had. What other problem do you have with it? That they can read emails? So can your boss, you arent screaming about that are you?

Dont tell me the religous right is stealing your rights from the constitution when they werent in their in the first place.

Really, where in the constitution does it say anything about marriage? You are not gauranteed that right at all. In fact that should be left as a state issue not a national one.

Put what into your body? Again, not in the constitution.

Patriot act? The right to privacy maybe. But even thats a stretch. HOw often have you had cops bust into your house for no reason? I never had. What other problem do you have with it? That they can read emails? So can your boss, you arent screaming about that are you?

Dont tell me the religous right is stealing your rights from the constitution when they werent in their in the first place.
There's the "Pursuit of happiness" bit, which I believe covers the first two, but I'm no expert. And in the second, I meant drugs.

For the third:
I don't have a boss. Also, my boss couldn't read my private email.
And it's not a stretch, really. It doesn't matter if they have busted into my house, it matters that they now legally can do that, and much more, basically on a whim.

Guys i'm no Moderator but i would surely close this thread if i could. there are so many outragious and non supported claims that it's all a bunch of wishwash. If you guys want to prove a point, clearly state it without using obsene language and then give a reference to the text or source of your info, try not to post an oppinion unless the topic calls for one.

Obviously YOU are not a job-seeker, or you would NOT say that it was as good as when we were under Clinton.

I tell you what...go to your local newspaper, and look at microfilms of your newspaper from circa 1998-1999. Go to the WANT ADS section. you'll notice there were about SIXTEEN PAGES of want ads for jobs. NOW, in this time, you are lucky if there are THREE pages!! So how is it "just as good?"

And don't spew bullshit figures about "the unemployment rate" because, firstly, Clinton had us at 2 percent. Best I have heard under Bush is 5.5 percent. Even so..."the unemployment rate" does not count "discouraged workers" as unemployed at all.

Discouraged workers are those who have been so long trying that they have given up looking for jobs...or have run out their unemployment benefits...or who were, for some othe reason, denied unemployment benefits...and are not officially counted as unemployed. But I betcha a lot of them ain't got two fuckin' quarters to rub together!

And them folks just LOVE Bush. Ask me. I know, I'm one of them...and (crossing fingers) I think Bush is GREAT!!

Okay, now can I put away the sarcasm??

Bush is a major fucking asshole! He's fucked the economy so royally, I am ready to move back home to Mommy, at age 34...so that I can work part-time, and go back to school...and drop the fuck out of this shit economy until everyone else builds it back up...which, of course, will take a DEMOCRATIC President.

I just thank God Mom is making me this offer. Because this economy fucking bites ASS!!

Well your eloquent reply makes me glad that this is a forum and nto face to face.

2 percent? Find mean article that has that figure for unemployment.

Want ads in the paper? Who uses the the paper anymore as the primary source for looking for a job? Not as many thatused to since the internet is quicker and offers more.

IM happy you get along with your mom. But you may have trouble getting a job if you swear like a sailor during interviews the way you do on this forum.

Dont tell me that democrats have all the answers. Jimmy Carter was one of you guys remember? Boy that was a winner.

Your right i am not a job seeker. I have two. Im sorry you have trouble with one.

thank God Kerry lost. the country wasnt split, as they'd have you think-he lost and it wasnt close. even with the media going along with phony exit-polls. Least of all-imagine his wife as first lady? Imagine the french and germans making up our minds for us? wake up-you have no idea how lucky you are. Its so hard to understand why liberal democrats are such sore losers.

I can't marry a guy, I don't have the right to privacy, and I don't have the rights to a lawyer or trial if convicted.

Marriage is not a Constitutional issue. Its a religous or at best a state issue. I dont agree with a constitutional amendment banning Gay marriage but i do not believe is should be protected by the supreme court. Leave it to the states.

Yes you do have the right to privacy. COps still have to get warrants to go in a house.

If your convicted you already had your trial. And your miranda rights protect you so you can have a lawyer

Pursuit of happiness is in the Declaration of independence, not the constitution. Also, does one need to be married to be happy? Thats a whole other topic for a later time. Buy i still hold that marriage is a state, not national issue

Actually it seems Kerry and Bush niether deserve the Presidency, and niether do either parties. You guys seem to either be fiercely loyal to your parties without accurate info or are just ignorant, wait i repeated myself... Anyway, if i were you guys i'd clear my head, find some less biased facts to go by, and then give me a resonable arguemnt.. Oh and show me some proof (i.e. Text sources, Government reports, independant studies, etc.) In my oppinion, Washington was very intelligent in not wanting political parties, as i can today see why. smart man that washington, wish we had a few of those running for office today. They wouldn't be elected anyway with our current two-party, ain't budging, system anyway.

Pursuit of happiness is in the Declaration of independence, not the constitution. Also, does one need to be married to be happy? Thats a whole other topic for a later time. Buy i still hold that marriage is a state, not national issue
I don't need to be. But what if it would make me happy to be married and have all the legal benefits?

And oops, sorry about my mixing-up of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. I'm no expert on them...

IMO Al Gore should have run.

Kerry and his opinions are like the reeds blowing in the wind. No credibility.

Well Godby, i appreciate your idealism. unfortunatly we have parties and we must deal with them. I dont think it is bad. Also, what do i have to prove to you? Im just defending the man i voted for. I dont know what you stand for and until you tell me where you are on issues, i dont really care. No offence intended, mind you. Besides what if i did use governemnt texts? My opponents could still say they are biased, right?

Pursuit of happiness is in the Declaration of independence, not the constitution. Also, does one need to be married to be happy? Thats a whole other topic for a later time. Buy i still hold that marriage is a state, not national issue
I believe Marriage should be a personal issue, i don't tihnk the state or the federal government has the right to stop it.

I don't need to be. But what if it would make me happy to be married and have all the legal benefits?

And oops, sorry about my mixing-up of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. I'm no expert on them...

That comes to the issue. Should the national government deal with everything though. They gaurantee basic rights. I do not consider marriage definition a basic right. Its a state issue. The constitution is clear that powers not identified in the COnstitution are reserved for the states. So if you have a problem with who you are allowed to marry, yell at your governor, not the president.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Just sayin'.

That comes to the issue. Should the national government deal with everything though. They gaurantee basic rights. I do not consider marriage definition a basic right. Its a state issue. The constitution is clear that powers not identified in the COnstitution are reserved for the states. So if you have a problem with who you are allowed to marry, yell at your governor, not the president.
But if the President gets his nice little amendment to the Constitution, it won't matter who I yell at.

I believe Marriage should be a personal issue, i don't tihnk the state or the federal government has the right to stop it.

It origionally did not. I think that changed when the mormons came around then the gov stepped in. I do beleive the states should have a role. Because i beleive that marriage wont stop at gay marriage. It could go on to incest, bigamy, poligamy, beastiality, underage kids inanimate objects. SInce large sectors of the nation are against those things they should be able to vote oon it. But at a state level.

Just because i love some one or something doesnt mean i have to or ever should marry them or it.

That's very sweet of you to say. However, I think that the Democratic Party will be changing directions, now that it officially can't beat G.W.
God damn, guess he isn't the bumbling idiot that the left portrays him to be. Poor old droopy dawg couldn't beat him.

But if the President gets his nice little amendment to the Constitution, it won't matter who I yell at.

He wont. the only reason he proposed it was to tell supreme courts to stop legislating. Thats up to congresses. If congress passes a bill, then the supreme court of that state can decide on it.

But the amendment wont go through in the first palce.

How do you know what Bush does with his time? Im just wondering because you dont seem like a person with the knowledge of the presidents inner circle, nor do you seem to know how to spell country but i guess that does not matter, does it?I think that is rather the problem, isn't it? regular people don't know what happens in the white house. oh, and I wouldn't talk about his spelling. you know those floating commas? the apostrophes? they look like this: '. yeah, those belong in I'm and don't. but that doesn't (at least you didn't try and contract that incorrectly, but "Does not" can be pretty akward) matter, does it?

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Just sayin'.

What are you saying? that doesnt say anything thing about marriage. It says i cant use my freedom of speech to invade you privacy from what im reading. Does anyone else see something different here?

I honestly don't know how the election will turn out if Kerry runns again in 2008, but if Hillary runs, its a assured Republican victory. I know a lot of liberal democrats who would vote for next to anyone as long as they were running against Hillary Clinton. That woman is just plain evil.

I think that is rather the problem, isn't it? regular people don't know what happens in the white house. oh, and I wouldn't talk about his spelling. you know those floating commas? the apostrophes? they look like this: '. yeah, those belong in I'm and don't. but that doesn't (at least you didn't try and contract that incorrectly, but "Does not" can be pretty akward) matter, does it?

LOL got me. Do regular people need to know every thing that goes on in the white house. It seems the senate is doing a fine job of investigating and reporting that i do know need to know where our president urinates in the morning.

Sorry about the apostrophes, i just do not trust things that float

It origionally did not. I think that changed when the mormons came around then the gov stepped in. I do beleive the states should have a role. Because i beleive that marriage wont stop at gay marriage. It could go on to incest, bigamy, poligamy, beastiality, underage kids inanimate objects. SInce large sectors of the nation are against those things they should be able to vote oon it. But at a state level.

Just because i love some one or something doesnt mean i have to or ever should marry them or it.

If someone wants to marry another woman/guy or if someone wants to marry an inanimate object, why not let them. the only reason you should have is that they may get a tax break, woopidy do. If they're insane enough to want to do something like that then let them, so long as they aren't trying to marry me. And my only other gripe would be that both parties must agree. (i know it'd be kinda hard to get an inanimate object to agree or disagree, let it be married to but i mostly mean children and animals.

Sorry about the apostrophes, i just do not trust things that float
:D
I love that quote!
I should have told my English teacher that...

If someone wants to marry another woman/guy or if someone wants to marry an inanimate object, why not let them. the only reason you should have is that they may get a tax break, woopidy do. If they're insane enough to want to do something like that then let them, so long as they aren't trying to marry me.

Well if wee have everyone marrying their chairs for a tax break, then they are screwing the system. And then it should be a loop hole that closes and marriage should not be involved in taxes at all. In which case homosexuals wouldn't fight so hard for marriage since a large part of it is for the legal and tax reasons. Personally i think a flat tax is the way to go. But thats just me

It origionally did not. I think that changed when the mormons came around then the gov stepped in. I do beleive the states should have a role. Because i beleive that marriage wont stop at gay marriage. It could go on to incest, bigamy, poligamy, beastiality, underage kids inanimate objects. SInce large sectors of the nation are against those things they should be able to vote oon it. But at a state level.
Well, incest and underage kids are forbidden for marriage, I believe.
I forget what bigamy means, so sorry...

I say polygamy shouldn't be illegal, as there are polygamous relationships that do well. I knew a...
Well, I guess you could call them a "quadruplet", in the same sense of "couple".
2 guys and 2 girls, and they all loved each other. Unfortunately, it couldn't be legally recognized or anything.

:D
I love that quote!
I should have told my English teacher that...


Hey, throw that around...that will show those english people and their rules...

Well if wee have everyone marrying their chairs for a tax break, then they are screwing the system. And then it should be a loop hole that closes and marriage should not be involved in taxes at all. In which case homosexuals wouldn't fight so hard for marriage since a large part of it is for the legal and tax reasons. Personally i think a flat tax is the way to go. But thats just me
Interesting idea!
I like it! I can't believe I've never heard anybody else suggest just a flat tax.

I can't see a problem with it, although there might be something I missed.

What are you saying? that doesnt say anything thing about marriage. It says i cant use my freedom of speech to invade you privacy from what im reading. Does anyone else see something different here?

It says that because the right isn't in the constitution specifically doesn't mean you aren't entitled to, say, marry a toaster.

Most of that is because he's stopped using botox! Heh!

BTW ... he's still an amoral opportunist and a lying sack of horse manure.
C'mon, Eutrusca, no need to insult sacks of horse manure by comparing them to Jean Francois.

only bush could screw up mroe than he already has, and he plans to do it. sadly america is stupid and he wil lget away with it
Big talk from someone who couldn't be bothered to vote. Remember, Chess...you forfeited your right to bitch and moan.

Well, incest and underage kids are forbidden for marriage, I believe.
I forget what bigamy means, so sorry...

I say polygamy shouldn't be illegal, as there are polygamous relationships that do well. I knew a...
Well, I guess you could call them a "quadruplet", in the same sense of "couple".
2 guys and 2 girls, and they all loved each other. Unfortunately, it couldn't be legally recognized or anything.

The point i was making was that, those will be the next standards to fall in who should be allowed to marry. I think pedophilia, which is sex with kids, would create a very interesting situation in a school setting if the teacher could marry a student. Im just asking if this situation continues what if anything should not be allowed to marry? I beleive man and woman are it, because of historical precedent. Even the greeks married women. And i think marriage is for raising kids. The old fashioned way of doing it is still the most popular. ...aanyywhooo not we are off track. I think its a state issue, not washingtons

C'mon, Eutrusca, no need to insult sacks of horse manure by comparing them to Jean Francois.
Huh? S'plain dat fo me, willya? After all, I live in ( * GASP * ) a red state! :D

Interesting idea!
I like it! I can't believe I've never heard anybody else suggest just a flat tax.

I can't see a problem with it, although there might be something I missed.

Are you really agreeing wiht me? Sorry but ive been on my own in this forum for a while so im a little jaded.

Some democracts would say its unfair that the rich do not have to pay a higher percentage. But then again, the rich wouldnt be able to have tax write offs either .It would also save money on paper work

C'mon, Eutrusca, no need to insult sacks of horse manure by comparing them to Jean Francois.

Hey guys...this is a discussion, not a pep rally. I love bush but im not going to make one senence remarks on why kerry sucks when people are trying to figure out the actuall issues we voted on.

Well i think i need to be going but i had fun discussing. Neo-anarchist. Drop me a line some time. I just looooove telegrams!! And i like the way you dont get mad at me lol.

Are you really agreeing wiht me? Sorry but ive been on my own in this forum for a while so im a little jaded.
Yes, I'm really agreeing with you. Your idea makes sense to me.

Well if wee have everyone marrying their chairs for a tax break, then they are screwing the system. And then it should be a loop hole that closes and marriage should not be involved in taxes at all. In which case homosexuals wouldn't fight so hard for marriage since a large part of it is for the legal and tax reasons. Personally i think a flat tax is the way to go. But thats just meum, dude, under the tax laws, through some bizarre clauses, married couples pay more. not less. and also, you ever hear of a thing called love? you know, people actually caring about each other, and wanting to express it? yeah, gays have that too. it's pretty universal. and on a related note, my armchair is quite different from whatever person, man or woman, I happen to love. you see, my armchair is not a person. oh, and your flat tax thing is bullshit. because all it does is take more money from the poor and less from the rich. you notice how it scales up, so that the rich pay more: there's a reason for that. at some point the money stops going toward food, shelter, and clothing and starts going more toward yachts. at that point, more of it should also be going toward the people who don''t have enough for food, shelter, and clothing. see? make sense?

Yes, I'm really agreeing with you. Your idea makes sense to me.um, you didn't think too hard about this, I'm guessing, since you're usually on the reasoned, well thought out, plausible side of arguments I get into. see my explanation above for why the flat tax is complete and utter crap.

um, you didn't think too hard about this, I'm guessing, since you're usually on the reasoned, well thought out, plausible side of arguments I get into. see my explanation above for why the flat tax is complete and utter crap.
I meant flat tax for married couples.

I'm undecided about taxing the rich more, as I don't know enough about the issue to form an opinion yet.

and Fluffy the Bird, enigmatic angel of liberal values, dissappears into the night, having delivered a crippling blow to tonight's chosen opponent, the Grand Khazar! WOOSH!

um, dude, under the tax laws, through some bizarre clauses, married couples pay more. not less. and also, you ever hear of a thing called love? you know, people actually caring about each other, and wanting to express it? yeah, gays have that too. it's pretty universal. and on a related note, my armchair is quite different from whatever person, man or woman, I happen to love. you see, my armchair is not a person. oh, and your flat tax thing is bullshit. because all it does is take more money from the poor and less from the rich. you notice how it scales up, so that the rich pay more: there's a reason for that. at some point the money stops going toward food, shelter, and clothing and starts going more toward yachts. at that point, more of it should also be going toward the people who don''t have enough for food, shelter, and clothing. see? make sense?
Yes, it does make sense, until you realize that what with all the deductions, exemptions and whatnot available to those in the top 2% or so of income earners, many, many of them pay little or NO tax. I would love to see all deductions and all exemptions totally eliminated and everyone ( and I DO mean EVERYONE! ) taxed at the same percentage on the grand total of earnings from ALL sources. Think about it.

EDIT: addionally, the tax law could establish a cut-off for those below a certain income that would allow taxation at a decreasing percentage until it reached a minimum income level, after which there would be no tax at all.

Or, we could just give everybody a "per diem" for food, shelter, etc. Then, we can apply a flat tax after that.

Or, we could just give everybody a "per diem" for food, shelter, etc. Then, we can apply a flat tax after that.
A "negative tax?" Not a bad idea, on the whole, but that's already been proposed and rejected by Congress. Guess which President proposed that! :)

Clinton?

Well, maybe then they'd realize how ridiculous the per diems they give to their employees are. $47 for food, tax free! There are people who don't make that much money for their salaries.

Clinton?

Well, maybe then they'd realize how ridiculous the per diems they give to their employees are. $47 for food, tax free! There are people who don't make that much money for their salaries.

BLAAAT! Wrong'o! NIXON, of all people! LOL!

BTW ... I agree with you about the disparity. I'm just not sure what to do about it other than the flat tax and negative income tax ideas. :headbang:

I saw him on CSPAN tonight and he looked so sad and lifeless.
...some of you might say he appeared so prior to the election.
But he looks worse now.
Aw, I just wanna give him a hug.
He's still a hero to me, for standing up to that bastard. That took balls. I hope he runs again. He'll certainly have my vote.

Why do you design your posts to alienate your oponents. Do you just enjoy mudslinging?

/me voices a pointless political jibe.

/me voices a pointless political jibe.

/me counters your pointless political jibe and raises you one metaphysical harrangue!

That's very sweet of you to say. However, I think that the Democratic Party will be changing directions, now that it officially can't beat G.W.

Wait ... how is that a problem? Will GW be running again in 2008? I know the guy is a retarded 9 year old, but surely even he must know that he only gets 2 terms.

/me counters your pointless political jibe and raises you one metaphysical harrangue!
/me begins by stating that what you said is morally reprehensible, then goes off an an unrelated tangent, making sure to only use logic if I can throw in a fallacy and make it support me, and making sure to accuse you of being both pinko-commie-poofy-evil-scum and of being a Nazi.

Because it's the thought that counts!
:D

/me counters your pointless political jibe and raises you one metaphysical harrangue!
/me weeps softly into metaphorical pillow.

/me begins by stating that what you said is morally reprehensible, then goes off an an unrelated tangent, making sure to only use logic if I can throw in a fallacy and make it support me, and making sure to accuse you of being both pinko-commie-poofy-evil-scum and of being a Nazi.

Because it's the thought that counts!
:D

ROFLMAO!!!!! :D

/me weeps softly into metaphorical pillow.

Oh god! Even MORE ROFLMAO!!!! :D

Oh god! Even MORE ROFLMAO!!!! :D
ROFLMAOWTFBBQKTHXBI!

ROFLMAOWTFBBQKTHXBI!
Funniest thing I've read today. Errrrr . . . ROFLCOPTER!!!1

Funniest thing I've read today. Errrrr . . . ROFLCOPTER!!!1

God help us! We've all gone 'round the bend! :D

Wait ... how is that a problem? Will GW be running again in 2008? I know the guy is a retarded 9 year old, but surely even he must know that he only gets 2 terms.
Well, imagine how they'll do against a legitimate candidate.

Well, imagine how they'll do against a legitimate candidate.

SIGH! :headbang:

SIGH! :headbang:
8)

8)
:eek: :( :rolleyes: ;) :confused:

What was that emoticon for?

:eek: :( :rolleyes: ;) :confused:

What was that emoticon for?
It's a regular smiley. I never liked graphical smileys, but I am partial to the :fluffle:.

Its true there wasnt a real sense of direction with him, he only seemed to want to bring the troops home. He played on that far too much for obvious reasons....

Anyway if situations were reversed and we were all living in fear of being tortured or killed, i'd pray for a country brave enough to come in and change it all!!

*Takes deap breath*

Interesting idea!
I like it! I can't believe I've never heard anybody else suggest just a flat tax.

I can't see a problem with it, although there might be something I missed.


Flat tax sucks, because if everyone pays the same percentage, then it unfairly burdens the poor, who cannot afford it. I'm sorry, but the rich asshole CEO can go without a second fucking yacht before I'll see some poor family go without food!!!

Yes, it does make sense, until you realize that what with all the deductions, exemptions and whatnot available to those in the top 2% or so of income earners, many, many of them pay little or NO tax. I would love to see all deductions and all exemptions totally eliminated and everyone ( and I DO mean EVERYONE! ) taxed at the same percentage on the grand total of earnings from ALL sources. Think about it.

EDIT: addionally, the tax law could establish a cut-off for those below a certain income that would allow taxation at a decreasing percentage until it reached a minimum income level, after which there would be no tax at all.


Now THAT I would not have a problem with!!

The problem with a flat tax now is...those on the bottom end would end up paying more to make up for what the rich would NOT be paying, because those at the top would come down.

If there was something in there so that struggling, working poor families paid little or no tax...then, maybe I'd consider it a viable idea.

Now THAT I would not have a problem with!!

The problem with a flat tax now is...those on the bottom end would end up paying more to make up for what the rich would NOT be paying, because those at the top would come down.

If there was something in there so that struggling, working poor families paid little or no tax...then, maybe I'd consider it a viable idea.

There's a system like that now. Between EIC and the child tax credit, working poor families can get up to several thousand dollars more back at tax time than they paid into it during the year. I know this for a fact as I have use both. I was even able to claim EIC as a single college student. Between it, Pell grants, IVG, and the GI Bill, I was doing quite well. It wasn't until I went for my MA that I even applied for a student loan.