NationStates Jolt Archive

5 reasons Why we can't let Republicans Keep control of Congress

1. The Republicans are in favor for lowering taxes for the rich.

2. President Bush (You Know the Guy with an 82 IQ score) will be able to do whatever he wants. Don't get me started on that idiot.

3. Republicans have got us into 1.7 trillion dollars of deficit since Bill Clinton got us out of it.

4. Republicans will conitnue the failed "war" agianst terror. And the "weaponds of mass destruction" that magicaly disappeared. Parents, Do you want your sons/daughters fighting in this clearly failed war that bush says republicans plan to countiune 'til 2010.

5. Republicans plan to drill for more oil in the last frontier (Alaska) to drop gas prices down. This would ruin the enviorment up there and completly devestate the natrual wonder of Alaska. Bush is of course a large supporter in this idea.What's Happening to Alaska? Click Here to Read (http://www.spannerfilms.net/?lid=169)

1. The Republicans are in favor for lowering taxes for the rich.

2. President Bush (You Know the Guy with an 82 IQ score) will be able to do whatever he wants. Don't get me started on that idiot.

3. Republicans have got us into 1.7 trillion dollars of deficit since Bill Clinton got us out of it.

4. Republicans will conitnue the failed "war" agianst terror. And the "weaponds of mass destruction" that magicaly disappeared. Parents, Do you want your sons/daughters fighting in this clearly failed war that bush says republicans plan to countiune 'til 2010.

5. Republicans plan to drill for more oil in the last frontier (Alaska) to drop gas prices down. This would ruin the enviorment up there and completly devestate the natrual wonder of Alaska. Bush is of course a large supporter in this idea.What's Happening to Alaska? Click Here to Read (http://www.spannerfilms.net/?lid=169)



Well, I don't entirely agree with you, but concisely said. However, shouldn't it be "KEEP control of Congress."?

1. The Republicans are in favor for lowering taxes for the rich.

2. President Bush (You Know the Guy with an 82 IQ score) will be able to do whatever he wants. Don't get me started on that idiot.

3. Republicans have got us into 1.7 trillion dollars of deficit since Bill Clinton got us out of it.

4. Republicans will conitnue the failed "war" agianst terror. And the "weaponds of mass destruction" that magicaly disappeared. Parents, Do you want your sons/daughters fighting in this clearly failed war that bush says republicans plan to countiune 'til 2010.

5. Republicans plan to drill for more oil in the last frontier (Alaska) to drop gas prices down. This would ruin the enviorment up there and completly devestate the natrual wonder of Alaska. Bush is of course a large supporter in this idea.What's Happening to Alaska? Click Here to Read (http://www.spannerfilms.net/?lid=169)

Unfortunately,I think the Republicans already have a pretty good hold on Congress.

1. The Republicans are in favor for lowering taxes for the rich.

Because the rich PAY more taxes.

2. President Bush (You Know the Guy with an 82 IQ score) will be able to do whatever he wants. Don't get me started on that idiot.

He is not stupid or else he would not be President of the United States. He is not a good president nor can he speak well but he does get a few things correct from time to time.

3. Republicans have got us into 1.7 trillion dollars of deficit since Bill Clinton got us out of it.

Can you say the democrats would not have?

4. Republicans will conitnue the failed "war" agianst terror. And the "weaponds of mass destruction" that magicaly disappeared. Parents, Do you want your sons/daughters fighting in this clearly failed war that bush says republicans plan to countiune 'til 2010.

We have to fight the war on terror because a war on us is being waged.

5. Republicans plan to drill for more oil in the last frontier (Alaska) to drop gas prices down. This would ruin the enviorment up there and completly devestate the natrual wonder of Alaska. Bush is of course a large supporter in this idea.What's Happening to Alaska? Click Here to Read

Good. It would lower oil price and therefore improve the economy. It would also create jobs which would further improve the economy.

Because the rich PAY more taxes.
Wah-wah. It's tough being wealthy.

He is not stupid or else he would not be President of the United States. He is not a good president nor can he speak well but he does get a few things correct from time to time.
Well, he IS stupid, and he IS Prez, so there goes your supposition. And getting "a few things correct from time to time" doesn't bear it out. The same could be said for a stategically-shaven ape.
Can you say the democrats would not have?
Who knows? I know I don't have the power to peer into the infinte branches of the Multiverse - but then again, you don't either. Maybe it's all a dream - *knocks head on table* - No, it isn't - we're stuck with it. 1.7 trillion in debt and counting. Heckuva job there, Georgie-boy.
We have to fight the war on terror because a war on us is being waged.
You don't "have" to do anything. It's what certain people want you to do that's at issue. Why don't you learn more of their motivations - 'cause it sure as Hell ain't about winning wars on nouns.
Good. It would lower oil price and therefore improve the economy. It would also create jobs which would further improve the economy.
And destroy ecosystems you obviously know little - and care little - about. Asshat.

1. The Republicans are in favor for lowering taxes for the rich.

2. President Bush (You Know the Guy with an 82 IQ score) will be able to do whatever he wants. Don't get me started on that idiot.

3. Republicans have got us into 1.7 trillion dollars of deficit since Bill Clinton got us out of it.

4. Republicans will conitnue the failed "war" agianst terror. And the "weaponds of mass destruction" that magicaly disappeared. Parents, Do you want your sons/daughters fighting in this clearly failed war that bush says republicans plan to countiune 'til 2010.

5. Republicans plan to drill for more oil in the last frontier (Alaska) to drop gas prices down. This would ruin the enviorment up there and completly devestate the natrual wonder of Alaska. Bush is of course a large supporter in this idea.What's Happening to Alaska? Click Here to Read (http://www.spannerfilms.net/?lid=169)

This is about as trollish as you can get, I think...

1. The Republicans are in favor for lowering taxes for the rich.

You say that like it's abad thing.

3. Republicans have got us into 1.7 trillion dollars of deficit since Bill Clinton got us out of it.
Most convincing argument you could give me.

1. The Republicans are in favor for lowering taxes for the rich.

Yes, the rich are condemned not only to pay more taxes than the poor, but they also have to pay proportionally more taxes than the poor. They are being punished for their success, and it is a vile practice. If anything, we need to institute a fair tax (http://www.fairtax.org/) system.

3. Republicans have got us into 1.7 trillion dollars of deficit since Bill Clinton got us out of it.

That's the price of providing safety to all American citizens. Clinton didn't do that, and the result was 9/11. Do you care more about 3000 American lives, or about $1.7 trillion dollars?

5. Republicans plan to drill for more oil in the last frontier (Alaska) to drop gas prices down. This would ruin the enviorment up there and completly devestate the natrual wonder of Alaska. Bush is of course a large supporter in this idea.

You are quite uninformed about the proposed ANWR drilling project. 99.99% of Alaska would be untouched by the plan, since the oil is heavily concentrated in one region. Also, the part where the drilling would occur is just frozen wasteland! There is no animal life to speak of out there -- just snow and ice. You should read more about it.

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,179005,00.html

This is about as trollish as you can get, I think...

Then I wouldn't bother having you accompany me on a stroll through Mirkwood.

This is about as trollish as you can get, I think...

I don't think so. All he's doing is stating his reasons for not voting Republican in Congress.

[B]2. President Bush (You Know the Guy with an 82 IQ score) will be able to do whatever he wants. Don't get me started on that idiot.[/URL]

I'm afraid you got his IQ wrong, he has one in the single digits...

Good. It would lower oil price and therefore improve the economy. It would also create jobs which would further improve the economy.

ANWR has enough oil to satisfy about a month of the nation's demand. It would do fuck-all for the economy.

1. The Republicans are in favor for lowering taxes for the rich.

2. President Bush (You Know the Guy with an 82 IQ score) will be able to do whatever he wants. Don't get me started on that idiot.

3. Republicans have got us into 1.7 trillion dollars of deficit since Bill Clinton got us out of it.

4. Republicans will conitnue the failed "war" agianst terror. And the "weaponds of mass destruction" that magicaly disappeared. Parents, Do you want your sons/daughters fighting in this clearly failed war that bush says republicans plan to countiune 'til 2010.

5. Republicans plan to drill for more oil in the last frontier (Alaska) to drop gas prices down. This would ruin the enviorment up there and completly devestate the natrual wonder of Alaska. Bush is of course a large supporter in this idea.What's Happening to Alaska? Click Here to Read (http://www.spannerfilms.net/?lid=169)
I am not american, but I daresay that I think lowering taxes for the rich is a good idea, because wealth redistribution is theft. Taxes should be at a flat rate. And learn how to spell favour.

That's the price of providing safety to all American citizens. Clinton didn't do that, and the result was 9/11. Do you care more about 3000 American lives, or about $1.7 trillion dollars?

Yep. If I stub my toe tomorrow, it's Clinton's fault, too...

I am not american, but I daresay that I think lowering taxes for the rich is a good idea, because wealth redistribution is theft.

Yes, when the rich redistribute everybody else's wealth into their own pockets, it is theft.

I don't think so. All he's doing is stating his reasons for not voting Republican in Congress.

Like this reason?

2. President Bush (You Know the Guy with an 82 IQ score) will be able to do whatever he wants. Don't get me started on that idiot.

I am not american, but I daresay that I think lowering taxes for the rich is a good idea, because wealth redistribution is theft. Taxes should be at a flat rate. And learn how to spell favour.

Americans don't put the 'u' in favour or colour.

Well, he IS stupid, and he IS Prez, so there goes your supposition. And getting "a few things correct from time to time" doesn't bear it out. The same could be said for a stategically-shaven ape.

I really agree with you, because the highest leaders in America aren't really what you would call the smartest of all Americans (Hence our stereotypic image of us being dumb). It's because of them that we're seen as an unintelligent people.

Americans don't put the 'u' in favour or colour.

Or humor or honor.

Yes, the rich are condemned not only to pay more taxes than the poor, but they also have to pay proportionally more taxes than the poor. They are being punished for their success, and it is a vile practice. If anything, we need to institute a fair tax system.

A fair syatem would be the more income you get the higher the taxes are for you not the other way around like Bushy wants.

Also to Mr. Trollish guy,

You don't have to get into such details;)
*detect sarcasm

Or humor or honor.

Or armor.

Like this reason?

Silly, but not trolling.

Silly, but not trolling.

You don't think it's inflammatory?

Republicans have got us into 1.7 trillion dollars of deficit since Bill Clinton got us out of
You seem to forget that we're at war. The deficit is at 2% of GDP, which is far too low given that we're currently at war.
And remember, Bush is on his way to keeping his promise of slashing the deficit in half by 2008.

I really agree with you, because the highest leaders in America aren't really what you would call the smartest of all Americans.......

Yes but they are the richest. His "poorest" millionaire Condoleezza Rice, had a Chevron oil tanker named after her.

You don't think it's inflammatory?

Not really. Saying ''anyone who is going to vote Republican is an idiot'' might be, but calling him one isn't.

5 reasons Why we can't let Republicans Keep control of Congress

1. The Republicans are in favor for lowering taxes for the rich.
Supply-side economics actually works. See the economic boom of the 1980s. In the end, lower taxes = more tax revenue as incomes increase. Just look at a Laffer curve if you disagree with this assessment. Also note the VERY LOW unemployment numbers we have right now. Oh yeah, the Deficit is falling because we are seeing more tax revenues now as a result of the tax cuts. I know you don't know a thing about economics, but believe me supply-side economics works.

2. President Bush (You Know the Guy with an 82 IQ score) will be able to do whatever he wants. Don't get me started on that idiot.
Where did you get those numbers? I guess that low IQ is why his transcripts indicate his grades were better than John F'ing Kerry's while at Yale.

3. Republicans have got us into 1.7 trillion dollars of deficit since Bill Clinton got us out of it.
I'm no fan of a bunch of the Republican's spending, but I might add that the proposed spending increases by the Democrats were far more than what the Republicans passed. In other words, our deficits would be over $3 trillion at this point with proposed Democrat spending.

4. Republicans will conitnue the failed "war" agianst terror. And the "weaponds of mass destruction" that magicaly disappeared. Parents, Do you want your sons/daughters fighting in this clearly failed war that bush says republicans plan to countiune 'til 2010.
Guess what? We were attacked. Say what you want about Iraq, but we had to go into Afghanistan. We did nothing for a decade and got 9/11.

5. Republicans plan to drill for more oil in the last frontier (Alaska) to drop gas prices down. This would ruin the enviorment up there and completly devestate the natrual wonder of Alaska. Bush is of course a large supporter in this idea.What's Happening to Alaska? Click Here to Read (http://www.spannerfilms.net/?lid=169)
GOOD! This is why I want a Republican congress. That way our enemies in the Middle East won't be able to hold us hostage. The Democrats complain about energy dependency but don't want any solutions.

We can't burn fossil fuels, dams hurt fish, wind power hurts birds and ruins the view from Martha's Vineyard, nuclear power is a no-no. Seriously, what can we do? The Democrats are stuck in la-la land when it comes to energy policy.

You seem to forget that we're at war. The deficit is at 2% of GDP, which is far too low given that we're currently at war.
And remember, Bush is on his way to keeping his promise of slashing the deficit in half by 2008.

But Yet, The Debt clock on my desktop countinues to go up.........

You don't think it's inflammatory?

Not especially. I mean, it's been six years - does the truth wrankle so that it inflames one to hear it six years on?

Good. It would lower oil price and therefore improve the economy. It would also create jobs which would further improve the economy.

Money isn't everything. Pantsface.

Guess what? We were attacked. Say what you want about Iraq, but we had to go into Afghanistan. We did nothing for a decade and got 9/11.

I agree with you on Afgahnistan, but Iraq did nothing to help us in the war on terror. Yes, it was a sad day on 9/11, but blaming Iraq for it is not going to get us out of any trouble.

The Democrats are stuck in la-la land when it comes to energy policy.

So obliterating the Arctic circle is just plain sense talking? Do us all a favour...

:rolleyes:

I'm no fan of a bunch of the Republican's spending, but I might add that the proposed spending increases by the Democrats were far more than what the Republicans passed. In other words, our deficits would be over $3 billion at this point with proposed Democrat spending.

Who taught you how to count? 3 billion is smaller 1.3 than trillion.

Guess what? We were attacked. Say what you want about Iraq, but we had to go into Afghanistan. We did nothing for a decade and got 9/11.

I agree 100% in going to Afghanistan. But we are loosing there while Republocans fiddle away all their time in Iraq.

So obliterating the Arctic circle is just plain sense talking? Do us all a favour...

:rolleyes:

Thank You!

In other words, our deficits would be over $3 billion at this point with proposed Democrat spending.

If there was a $3 billion deficit, I'd be cheering. That's next to nothing in terms of the overall US budget. The current deficit is five HUNDRED times that.

So obliterating the Arctic circle is just plain sense talking? Do us all a favour...

:rolleyes:

Guess what? The Kyoto protocol was defeated by a unanimous 95-0 vote in the US Senate. The Dems won't pass it. They've already voted it down.

As for Global Warming, each major volcano eruption puts more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than man has in the past 100 years. If greenhouse gases are the cause of global warming, the only way you would be able to stop it is if you could cool all of the magma in the earth's mantle.

If there was a $3 billion deficit, I'd be cheering. That's next to nothing in terms of the overall US budget. The current deficit is five HUNDRED times that.

I mis-typed, I meant 3 TRILLION

So obliterating the Arctic circle is just plain sense talking? Do us all a favour...
I tried to write a long post, but these fucking forums kept it from posting it.
Basically, we need oil. There's oil in the Arctic. And we're not getting it because of caribou.
That's not jsut folly, that's decadence. And at any rate, the caribou in other areas where there's drilling seem to be doing fine. (Caribou population at Prudhoe Bay has increased sixfold since drilling began)

Guess what? The Kyoto protocol was defeated by a unanimous 95-0 vote in the US Senate. The Dems won't pass it. They've already voted it down.

As for Global Warming, each major volcano eruption puts more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than man has in the past 100 years. If greenhouse gases are the cause of global warming, the only way you would be able to stop it is if you could cool all of the magma in the earth's mantle.

Thanks for blithely ignoring what I said. It helps underscore how the neocon thinkers out there are so famously wide of the mark where reality is concerned. I didn't mention Kyoto or greenhouse gases.

I did mention the Arctic however. You fail again, IDF.

*edit: guess I better go check in Moderation to see if you try to get me forumbanned for not agreeing with you in public again.

I think the biggest reason that I believe the D's should get at least one house of congress has a lot to do with my views on divided government. I think having at least one house in the hands of the other party is good for government health and competitiveness. Keeps everyone on their toes.

Americans don't put the 'u' in favour or colour.

so? it's supposed to be spelled with a u.

Not really. Saying ''anyone who is going to vote Republican is an idiot'' might be, but calling him one isn't.

I would just think that calling other people idiots would naturally tend to be an irritant, whether or not it is the actual person being spoke of.

Not especially. I mean, it's been six years - does the truth wrankle so that it inflames one to hear it six years on?

Did you have to dig up the dead horse before you could beat it again?

I mis-typed, I meant 3 TRILLION

Considering a nice big chunk of the debt is from a war the demoncrats don't support....I think you're talking out your ass.

so? it's supposed to be spelled with a u.

In the UK, not in America.

Did you have to dig up the dead horse before you could beat it again?

There's a world of difference between a dead horse and a feeble horse, and you know it.

Thanks for blithely ignoring what I said. It helps underscore how the neocon thinkers out there are so famously wide of the mark where reality is concerned. I didn't mention Kyoto or greenhouse gases.

I did mention the Arctic however. You fail again, IDF.

How do I fail here Mr. Commi-Lib?

The facts are we need energy. Bitching and moaning about every method to get energy isn't going to solve anything.

Tell me how you plan on getting us our energy.

Hydrogen powered cars are NOT going to happen. Hydrogen is one of the most reactive elements and is thus very dangerous. See Hindenberg

The drilling at Prudhoe Bay has done very little damage to the environment. We need to drill in ANWR as soon as possible. We also need to build more refineries. The dems bitched about gas prices for the past year when their policies are the problem. They have no right to complain on energy prices.

We also need to begin getting oil share. We have an estimated amount of over 1 trillion recoverable barrels of oil in the US.

so? it's supposed to be spelled with a u.

On one side of the pond yes, on the other, no.

Considering a nice big chunk of the debt is from a war the demoncrats don't support....I think you're talking out your ass.

Look at their proposed MediScare, Medicaid, and other welfare spending proposals. Those definitely cost more than the war.

Since really the topic has gone to the Pres let's start talking about his first term This sums it all up:

He is the first President in U.S. history to enter office with a criminal record. He invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing cost of over one billion dollars per week. He spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted the U.S. Treasury. He shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history. He set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period. He set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period. He set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the U.S. stock market.

In his first year in office, over 2 million Americans lost their jobs and that trend continues every month.

He's proud that the members of his cabinet are the richest of any administration in U.S. history. His "poorest millionaire," Condoleezza Rice, had a Chevron oil tanker named after her. He set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips by a U.S. President. He's the all-time U.S. and world record-holder for receiving the most corporate campaign donations. His largest lifetime campaign contributor, and one of his best friends, Kenneth Lay, presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in U.S. History, Enron.

His political party used Enron private jets and corporate attorneys to assure his success with the U.S. Supreme Court during his election decision. He has protected his friends at Enron and Halliburton against investigation or prosecution. More time and money was spent investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair than has been spent investigating one of the biggest corporate rip- offs in history.

He presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S. history and refused to intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was revealed. He presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history. He changed the U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts. He appointed more convicted criminals to administration than any President in U.S. history. He created the Ministry of Homeland Security, the largest bureaucracy in the history of the United States' government.

He has broken more international treaties than any President in U.S. history. He is the first President in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission. He withdrew the U.S. from the World Court of Law. He refused to allow inspectors access to U.S. "prisoners of war" detainees and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention. He was the first President in history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2004 U.S. election). He set the record for fewest numbers of press conferences of any President since the advent of television. He set the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one-year period. After taking off the entire month of August, He presided over the worst security failure in U.S. history. He garnered the most sympathy for the U.S. after the World Trade Center attacks and less than a year later made the U.S. the most hated country in the world, the largest failure of diplomacy in world history.

He has set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously protest me in public venues (15 million people), shattering the record for protests against any person in the history
of mankind.

He is the first President in U.S. history to order an unprovoked, pre-emptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation. He did so against the will of the United Nations, the majority of U.S. citizens, and the world community. He has cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in duty benefits for active duty troops and their families-in-wartime. In his State of the Union Address, I lied about our reasons for attacking Iraq and then blamed the lies on
our British friends. He is the first President in history to have a majority of Europeans (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security. He is supporting development of a nuclear "Tactical Bunker Buster," a WMD. He has so far failed to fulfill my pledge to bring Osama Bin Laden [sic] to justice. He signed a bill into law to tear up another 5 million acres of land in Alaska for oil. He's continuing my push for nuclear power plants.
------------------------
I really think lowley about him don'y I:)
No, there is nothing else left.

Yes, the rich are condemned not only to pay more taxes than the poor, but they also have to pay proportionally more taxes than the poor. They are being punished for their success, and it is a vile practice. If anything, we need to institute a fair tax (http://www.fairtax.org/) system.

The other problem with these worthless wealthy parasites is that hey unload that tax burden into the prices of the products.
If anything, we need to alter the laws so that the uppermost 30% of the corporations can't suck the lifeblood out of nation with mult-million dollar salaries.
Instead, all money/gifts/favors/incentives paid out to the uppermost 30% needs to be reclassified as a disbursement of profit.
Hell, just drag the wealthy out into the street and gun them down.
They have no value and are undeserving of human rights which is proven by their being wealthy...

I tried to write a long post, but these fucking forums kept it from posting it.
Basically, we need oil. There's oil in the Arctic. And we're not getting it because of caribou.
That's not jsut folly, that's decadence. And at any rate, the caribou in other areas where there's drilling seem to be doing fine. (Caribou population at Prudhoe Bay has increased sixfold since drilling began)

Ouy Yeah I remeber now your money is so much more important than animals and the enviorment. I forgot

*Dectect sarcasm AGAIN

*edit: guess I better go check in Moderation to see if you try to get me forumbanned for not agreeing with you in public again.

Your wish is my command. Your reason for deletion constitutes a flame so enjoy.

There's a world of difference between a dead horse and a feeble horse, and you know it.

It's still animal abuse.

1. The Republicans are in favor for lowering taxes for the rich.

Because the rich PAY more taxes.

A imbalance of taxation of the wealthy vs the less wealthy has led to major problems repeatedly throughout history.

-snip-

Don't forget circumventing existing law regarding phone tap warrants and due process of law.

And he has killed and eaten more babies than any president since FDR. *nod*

P.S.: You should probably review your pronoun usage. :)

P.S.: You should probably review your pronoun usage

Yeah that long thing was mostly copy and pastes of stuff I found to merge so there's probaly tons of that plus grammer errors (grammer not my thing.)

Yeah that long thing was mostly copy and pastes of stuff I found to merge so there's probaly tons of that plus grammer errors (grammer not my thing.)

Was that mispelling of grammar intentional?

If it was, then LOL for the great joke.

Let's start back to arguing when I say thay Dick Cheney should be barred from handling gun

:) :) :) :) :sniper:

Hey Bush, Look at those democarts over there. C

Cthulhu-Mythos;11905548']Hell, just drag the wealthy out into the street and gun them down.
They have no value and are undeserving of human rights which is proven by their being wealthy...
And then we can take their money and be rich! YAY!!

And then we can take their money and be rich! YAY!!

I'll post snipers on the rooftops. :)

One reason why we cant let Republicans or Democrats get control of Congress:

1.) They'll fuck up the country.

2. President Bush (You Know the Guy with an 82 IQ score) will be able to do whatever he wants. Don't get me started on that idiot.


is it really that low? I thought he had at least a 90 IQ. source?

is it really that low? I thought he had at least a 90 IQ. source?

THat is not his actual IQ score. The original poster just doesn't want the fact that Bush got better grades than Kerry at Yale get in the way of his rant.

I'll post snipers on the rooftops. :)

I will just have people take their toys!

THat is now his actual IQ score. The original poster just doesn't want the fact that Bush got better grades than Kerry at Yale get in the way of his rant.

IQ scores mean crap.

The shrubs scores were only mildly better then Kerry.

Sad state of affairs in this country when we are arguing over which mediocre student was better then the other.

THat is now his actual IQ score. The original poster just doesn't want the fact that Bush got better grades than Kerry at Yale get in the way of his rant.

an 82 is pathetic, its borderline retarded. Retarded is 75 I believe. Thats just sad, I now have even less faith in the retard-in-chief.

an 82 is pathetic, its borderline retarded. Retarded is 75 I believe. Thats just sad, I now have even less faith in the retard-in-chief.

I had a typo in my post. I meant to say that is NOT his IQ score.

Bush may not be the greatest public speaker, but he is certainly not a moron.

I had a typo in my post. I meant to say that is NOT his IQ score.

Bush may not be the greatest public speaker, but he is certainly not a moron.

ah, I see. my mistake.

ah, I see. my mistake.

Well technically it was my mistake, but I thank you for taking the blame away from me.:p

Well technically it was my mistake, but I thank you for taking the blame away from me.:p

no prob:p

One reason why we cant let Republicans or Democrats get control of Congress:

1.) They'll fuck up the country.

Agreed... a perfectly well balanced Congress will have each side trying to Fuck up each other and not the country.

This is about as trollish as you can get, I think...

I can't disagree.

Yes, when the rich redistribute everybody else's wealth into their own pockets, it is theft.

Thats a serious acusation. How so?

This is about as trollish as you can get, I think...
Great innit?
I'm making popcorn and sitting back to watch the fun.
Anyone else want popcorn?

-I'd like some thanks-

but anyhows... grom what I've seem the Democrats have won the house hands down already. Cry as much as you want most Americans are just convinced that the Republican Party isn't doing well enough for the US and moreso that Bush is a failure.

Rant..rave..accuse..slander..cry..bitch..explain why I'm a liberal communist (is there even such a thing?)..... it is what it is. Doesn't matter at this point what anyone debates, the Dems won the house. As for the presidency... who knows?

When the Democrats win, Bush will delcare them Traitors to his regime and have them all executed, personally by the Republican members of congress, Just like Saddam Hussien did with the Shi'ite memebers of his parliment. The Reps being the Sunni's. Then the war will begin.:)

When the Democrats win, Bush will delcare them Traitors to his regime and have them all executed, personally by the Republican members of congress, Just like Saddam Hussien did with the Shi'ite memebers of his parliment. The Reps being the Sunni's. Then the war will begin.:)
The war will begin when Nancy Pelosi gets control of speaker and aboslutely nothing happens, because both sides will be big babies. However if Ford got in there, things may not be so bad.

THat is not his actual IQ score. The original poster just doesn't want the fact that Bush got better grades than Kerry at Yale get in the way of his rant.

Bush got Cs and Ds in College and was a cheerleader. Look it up.
His Dada payed Yale to keep him. His IQ is debated it is somewhere between 79 and 95 low anyway but pick your number.

Great innit?
I'm making popcorn and sitting back to watch the fun.
Anyone else want popcorn?

Butter Please:)

Supply-side economics actually works. See the economic boom of the 1980s. In the end, lower taxes = more tax revenue as incomes increase. Just look at a Laffer curve if you disagree with this assessment. Also note the VERY LOW unemployment numbers we have right now. Oh yeah, the Deficit is falling because we are seeing more tax revenues now as a result of the tax cuts. I know you don't know a thing about economics, but believe me supply-side economics works.

Uh? We had a R-E-C-E-S-S-I-O-N in the early AND the late 80's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions
Early was due (in part) to Reagan tax cut
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_1980s_recession
Late to Bush politics

What do YOU know about economics?

Where did you get those numbers? I guess that low IQ is why his transcripts indicate his grades were better than John F'ing Kerry's while at Yale.

Actually was 91, but still under average, and therefore sad for a president
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm

I'm no fan of a bunch of the Republican's spending, but I might add that the proposed spending increases by the Democrats were far more than what the Republicans passed. In other words, our deficits would be over $3 trillion at this point with proposed Democrat spending.

Fact is: Bush put USA in deficit for war and we are not in recession rigth now so we sould'nt have that kind of deficit.

Hydrogen powered cars are NOT going to happen. Hydrogen is one of the most reactive elements and is thus very dangerous. See Hindenberg

Hydrogen is not a solution because it cost more energy to produce then what you get. But safety wise, we have the technology (fuel-cell) to use it.

Comparing it to 1937 Hindenberg was pure intellectual masturbation

Actually was 91, but still under average, and therefore sad for a president
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm
I'm gonna hope that you didn't actually read that and just put up the first link that came up on google.

I'm gonna hope that you didn't actually read that and just put up the first link that came up on google.

Indeed, since it gave him 10 more point than the OP stated I figured it would make him happy. I don't really care about IQ/grade of Dem vs Rep has I see it to be pretty irrevelent.

Looking at the list:

182 .. William J. Clinton (D)
175 .. James E. Carter (D)
174 .. John F. Kennedy (D)
155 .. Richard M. Nixon (R)
147 .. Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
132 .. Harry Truman (D)
126 .. Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
122 .. Dwight D. Eisenhower (R)
121 .. Gerald Ford (R)
105 .. Ronald Reagan (R)
098 .. George HW Bush (R)
091 .. George W. Bush (R)

It seems the ones with Ds next to them are higher on the list. hmmmmmmmmm maybe I'm implying somthing? The world may never know......

Indeed, since it gave him 10 more point than the OP stated I figured it would make him happy. I don't really care about IQ/grade of Dem vs Rep has I see it to be pretty irrevelent.



Looking at the list:

182 .. William J. Clinton (D)
175 .. James E. Carter (D)
174 .. John F. Kennedy (D)
155 .. Richard M. Nixon (R)
147 .. Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
132 .. Harry Truman (D)
126 .. Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
122 .. Dwight D. Eisenhower (R)
121 .. Gerald Ford (R)
105 .. Ronald Reagan (R)
098 .. George HW Bush (R)
091 .. George W. Bush (R)

It seems the ones with Ds next to them are higher on the list. hmmmmmmmmm maybe I'm implying somthing? The world may never know......

You guys are pretty funny. Read the bottom of the webpage with that IQ list. Then get some sleep, its probably past bedtime.

Looking at the list:

182 .. William J. Clinton (D)
175 .. James E. Carter (D)
174 .. John F. Kennedy (D)
155 .. Richard M. Nixon (R)
147 .. Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
132 .. Harry Truman (D)
126 .. Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
122 .. Dwight D. Eisenhower (R)
121 .. Gerald Ford (R)
105 .. Ronald Reagan (R)
098 .. George HW Bush (R)
091 .. George W. Bush (R)

It seems the ones with Ds next to them are higher on the list. hmmmmmmmmm maybe I'm implying somthing? The world may never know......

OMFG man! I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are unfamiliar with Snopes. They dispell rumors and have stated that list to be FALSE

Uh? We had a R-E-C-E-S-S-I-O-N in the early AND the late 80's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions
Early was due (in part) to Reagan tax cut
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_1980s_recession
Late to Bush politics

What do YOU know about economics?
Your source is wiki. That is NOT a good source. Hell you could've written that for all I know. Reagan's moves also led to one of the largest periods of economic growth this country has ever seen.



Actually was 91, but still under average, and therefore sad for a president
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm

See above post on Snopes. I really hope you were joking or didn't actually read it.


Fact is: Bush put USA in deficit for war and we are not in recession rigth now so we sould'nt have that kind of deficit.

What do you know about economics? We would be in a deficit without the war as the total costs of the war are less than the total national debt. The Republicans have been spending like drunken sailors, but they are the lesser of 2 evils. The Democrats are spending like a Jewish woman at Macy's (it's only funny if I say it becaue my Mom is a typical Jewish woman)

[
Hydrogen is not a solution because it cost more energy to produce then what you get. But safety wise, we have the technology (fuel-cell) to use it.

Comparing it to 1937 Hindenberg was pure intellectual masturbation
[/quote]
I don't trust hydrogen in fuel cells. Hydrogen by its very nature is a VERY unstable element. It is very likely to react and therefore explode. There is a reason that while hydrogen is abundant on earth, it is rarely found unbonded.

Bush doesn't make bad decisions because he's stupid. He makes bad decisions because he's an asshole.

I am not american, but I daresay that I think lowering taxes for the rich is a good idea, because wealth redistribution is theft. Taxes should be at a flat rate. And learn how to spell favour.

I have to take issure with this post. Why is it that the young people of the world (either phisically, or mentally, or both) can't get through their heads the idea that a flat tax actually penalizes lower income earners by making them give up proportionatly more money than the wealthy.

Why is it that mere investment is so vastly more rewarded in this day and age, rather than actual work. It's SO worng on too many levels to describe.

HOLY SHIT!

I read the whole thing from Snopes. The fake institute that supposedly did that is based in Scranton, PA.

Dare I say that I know who commissioned this study. I think it might've been our buddies at Dunder Mifflin Paper Corporation.

http://us.tv1.yimg.com/tv.yahoo.com/images/he/photo/tv_pix/nbc/the_office/rainn_wilson/office_pauldrinkwater.jpg

You have to love that picture of Dwight Schrute

I have to take issure with this post. Why is it that the young people of the world (either phisically, or mentally, or both) can't get through their heads the idea that a flat tax actually penalizes lower income earners by making them give up proportionatly more money than the wealthy.

Why is it that mere investment is so vastly more rewarded in this day and age, rather than actual work. It's SO worng on too many levels to describe.

Because when the poor cry theft they don't get CNN coverage.

Bush doesn't make bad decisions because he's stupid. He makes bad decisions because he's an asshole.

Asshole, Idiot, whatever makes you happy.

I have to take issure with this post. Why is it that the young people of the world (either phisically, or mentally, or both) can't get through their heads the idea that a flat tax actually penalizes lower income earners by making them give up proportionatly more money than the wealthy.

Why is it that mere investment is so vastly more rewarded in this day and age, rather than actual work. It's SO worng on too many levels to describe.

By DEFINITION a flat tax does not make anyone give up proportionatly more money. That's exactly what a flat tax IS.

If everyone pays 20% in tax, then they give up the EXACT same proportion, 20 cents on every dollar. By definition a flat tax does not make anyone give a different proportion, the fundamental basis of a flat tax is that this is what it does not do.

Why a flat tax does not work is not that it forces poor people to give a disproportionate amount, but that they can not afford to give a proportionate amount, and have that proportionate amount applied universally be high enough to support the government.

Simply I think that is you make more than a certain amount of money you shoul pay more tax. If you make under a certain amount of money you should pay less tax. That's what is fair.

5 reasons Why we can't let Republicans Keep control of Congress

1. The Republicans are in favor for lowering taxes for the rich.

2. President Bush (You Know the Guy with an 82 IQ score) will be able to do whatever he wants. Don't get me started on that idiot.

3. Republicans have got us into 1.7 trillion dollars of deficit since Bill Clinton got us out of it.

4. Republicans will conitnue the failed "war" agianst terror. And the "weaponds of mass destruction" that magicaly disappeared. Parents, Do you want your sons/daughters fighting in this clearly failed war that bush says republicans plan to countiune 'til 2010.

5. Republicans plan to drill for more oil in the last frontier (Alaska) to drop gas prices down. This would ruin the enviorment up there and completly devestate the natrual wonder of Alaska. Bush is of course a large supporter in this idea.What's Happening to Alaska? Click Here to Read (http://www.spannerfilms.net/?lid=169)


1. Republicans are in favor of lowering taxes for the rich yes...Oh and the middle class. And the poor. Kinda like how liberals claim too be for tax burden on the rich, even though under strict conservative tax systems, the rich would pay a flat tax, same as the middle and poorer.

2. President Bush (The guy with the 82 IQ score, which beats you by about 30 points) What has he done completely arbitrarily? Name one thing.

3. The federal defecit...Kind like how Reagan built one up, after doing a hell of alot of ecomonic good. See Fiscal conservatism accumlates a debt, and takes long periods too even out. As for clintons surplus, that was great! So was the crushing unemployment, and middle class tax burden. And i sure loved those failed forign millitary escapades.

4. This war on terror (which um 91% of americans and nearly all of congress apporved of initially) whihch has hmmm. Toppled Sadaam, Toppeled the taliban, and hmmm no more towers in New York have blown up.... Of course the Democrats can do a hell of a lot better. We can withdraw now, and watch the all out hell break out....or we can continue too slander Republicans, while offering no sensible solutions ourselves.

5. That Alaska plan sounds bad. I am completely against it.

What has he done completely arbitrarily? Name one thing.

signing statements, wiretapping justification based on executive power to start. Oh, sorry, you only asked for one.


4. This war on terror (which um 91% of americans and nearly all of congress apporved of initially) whihch has hmmm. Toppled Sadaam, Toppeled the taliban, and hmmm no more towers in New York have blown up.... Of course the Democrats can do a hell of a lot better.

1) Saddam was not linked to 9/11 or any terrorist activities directed against the united states

2) the head of the terrorist organization that DID carry out 9/11 is still out there

3) if your main justification for republican leadership is "no more towers in New York have blown up" and then question whether the democrats can do better I ask you one question. How many towers in New York blew up during the Clinton administration?

1. Republicans are in favor of lowering taxes for the rich yes...Oh and the middle class. And the poor. Kinda like how liberals claim too be for tax burden on the rich, even though under strict conservative tax systems, the rich would pay a flat tax, same as the middle and poorer.

2. President Bush (The guy with the 82 IQ score, which beats you by about 30 points) What has he done completely arbitrarily? Name one thing.

3. The federal defecit...Kind like how Reagan built one up, after doing a hell of alot of ecomonic good. See Fiscal conservatism accumlates a debt, and takes long periods too even out. As for clintons surplus, that was great! So was the crushing unemployment, and middle class tax burden. And i sure loved those failed forign millitary escapades.

4. This war on terror (which um 91% of americans and nearly all of congress apporved of initially) whihch has hmmm. Toppled Sadaam, Toppeled the taliban, and hmmm no more towers in New York have blown up.... Of course the Democrats can do a hell of a lot better. We can withdraw now, and watch the all out hell break out....or we can continue too slander Republicans, while offering no sensible solutions ourselves.

5. That Alaska plan sounds bad. I am completely against it.

1. Actually they say the tax should be less the higher your income is so you can afford to donate more:p . I hate to say it, but if we are going to get out of the defit Republicans got us into we need tax.

2. Well at least you apparently admit that is his IQ. And that stupid come back.

3. Oh Yeah because our economy is so good now.:p

4. 91% initially. When we were too busy being enraged about 9/11. Also I agree about invading Afganistan but, it was none of our buisness in Iraq. It was a soverign nation.

5. We agree on this.

It looks like this thread will soon be obslete.... 'Tis but one final day until the battle for Congress begins.... May the deserving victorious congressmen come out from the ashes of harsh campaigning and advertising without too much harm done to their ego and at least meet once in their careers...

It looks like this thread will soon be obslete.... 'Tis but one final day until the battle for Congress begins.... May the deserving victorious congressmen come out from the ashes of harsh campaigning and advertising without too much harm done to their ego and at least meet once in their careers...

Agreed! Even those who don't like him must agree John Kerry was right when at his defeatment speech said

All parties must unite and act as one whole country not two different ones

Let the Polls tally, and let us countiune to debate until the votes come in :cool:

1. Actually they say the tax should be less the higher your income is so you can afford to donate more:p . I hate to say it, but if we are going to get out of the defit Republicans got us into we need tax.
No, the Republicans aren't even actively pushing a flat tax. It will still be a progressive tax, just not as unfair as it is now. Today's tax system penalizes people for smart decisions. That just discourages economic growth if you and your business are punished for it.

2. Well at least you apparently admit that is his IQ. And that stupid come back.
Why don't you read the previous page? Your bullshit IQ source is a false e-mail sent by someone who has no life and loves making up institutions.

3. Oh Yeah because our economy is so good now.:p
Actually it is. Our unemployment is at 4.4%. We are actually going to have economic trouble if it drops below 4%. Should that happen, we will no longer be able to sustain growth. The Dow is over 12,000 and companies are reaping in profits. If I were you, I'd think about setting up a Schwab or E-trade account right now.

4. 91% initially. When we were too busy being enraged about 9/11. Also I agree about invading Afganistan but, it was none of our buisness in Iraq. It was a soverign nation. Say what you want about Iraq. They may not have had a part in 9/11, but they have a long history of supporting terrorism. Remember, its a war on terrorism, not a war on Al Qaeda.

5. We agree on this.Tell me your energy plan. The only plan I've seen from the Democrats is do nothing since every form of energy is harmful or ruins Chapequiddick Teddy's view from Martha's Vineyard. Well its either that or shut down every industry and commit economic suicide. It doesn't matter to them, they'll just blame it on Bush.

2. President Bush (You Know the Guy with an 82 IQ score) will be able to do whatever he wants. Don't get me started on that idiot.

UMM...regardless of who you're parents are It's impossible to get to the highest seat of power in the world with an IQ of a drool monkey. The man went to Yale and graduated among the top in his class (compare his grades to that of John Kerry...remarkable similarities) He's a genuis at working a room, but i'll agree he's a dumbfuck when it comes to public speaking.


Republicans plan to drill for more oil in the last frontier (Alaska) to drop gas prices down. This would ruin the enviorment up there and completly devestate the natrual wonder of Alaska. Bush is of course a large supporter in this idea.What's Happening to Alaska? Click Here to Read (http://www.spannerfilms.net/?lid=169)

Umm. remind me, how many people take reguar vacations to East boofoo of northern Alaska. Who's really going to miss something that only a hand full of people (most of whom are dead) have seen. And its not like they're drilling the entire state full of holes, if you'd look at a map of proposed drill sites you'd realized that its extremely localized and that drilling would only destroy small amounts of land. The vast majority of the beautiful scenery would be left completely unscathed.

2. President Bush (You Know the Guy with an 82 IQ score) will be able to do whatever he wants. Don't get me started on that idiot.

He is not stupid or else he would not be President of the United States. He is not a good president nor can he speak well but he does get a few things correct from time to time.


Without weighing in on the intelligence or unintelligence of George Bush, this is a fallacious argument. He was made president by an election, which is-- at its most basic-- a popularity contest. There was no requisite intelligence testing in order to qualify, and those who voted for him did so (based on the exit polling) based on his "moral values," not his perceived intelligence. The fact that he was elected does not mean that he isn't stupid-- it is entirely possible that by conventional standards he is "stupid" (I'm not saying that he is or isn't) but that would not necessarily preclude him from winning a popularity contest.

I am not american, but I daresay that I think lowering taxes for the rich is a good idea, because wealth redistribution is theft. Taxes should be at a flat rate. And learn how to spell favour.

{whispers} Um, actually that's how they spell it in the US... Somewhere along the line they started dropping "u"s from "ou"s and now there's "American english" (such as it were). Most of us in Canada still use English english, though. At least I think most of us still do :-P

Yes, when the rich redistribute everybody else's wealth into their own pockets, it is theft.

Yeah, and the battle lines often come down to the difference between seeing wealth as something just spontaneously generated by the wealthy, and seeing wealth as the spoils of exploiting the un-wealthy. Those who oppose higher taxes for the rich bemoan "stealing from the rich," but never seem to consider that modern economics is-- frankly-- pretty ruthless and cutthroat, and the throats that most often tend to get cut are those of the poor. Wal-Mart makes reams of money by exploiting the most 'economical' (read: cheapest) supply avenues possible-- avenues that are so cheap because they exploit cheap labour. Person A says "that's clever, Wal-Mart earned that money so it's entitled to it" while Person B says "selling goods produced by people who don't make enough for their work to buy the very products they're making is tantamount to slavery, and is evil, and the producers therefore deserve to get back-- in the form of tax-funded social spending-- some of the spoils that have been made on their backs." Maybe a valuable thought-exercise for those who endorse the no-holds-barred liberal economy (and "liberal economics" are, in fact, the kind that eschew progressive taxation and government social spending because they see the economy as liberal or "liberated" from government intervention) would be to extrapolate to the extremes... Under such a system the rich tend to get richer and the poor tend to get poorer. Well projected X number of generations into the future, you reach a point where-- barring the altruism of the rich (and I wouldn't put money on that)-- the poor are too poor to survive, or to get to work, and the means of production either turns to automation or literal slave labour, and the rich are left with no one to peddle their wares to except the only other people who can afford anything: other rich people. If you oppose requiring the wealthy to give something back to the society upon which they make their fortunes, ask yourself if you *actually* prefer the alternative. If you're rich yourself (or expect to be so) you probably don't care, but if you're one of those in the middle column who could go either way (and for some reason have been sold on the idea that the rich *deserve* their own planes and several mansions and fleets of cars while the poor deserve to starve to death because they can't miraculously work their way out of the slums they're born into) you may want to consider the world you would rather live in if some misfortune left you unable to support yourself.

Tell me your energy plan. The only plan I've seen from the Democrats is do nothing since every form of energy is harmful or ruins Chapequiddick Teddy's view from Martha's Vineyard. Well its either that or shut down every industry and commit economic suicide. It doesn't matter to them, they'll just blame it on Bush.

I would love to. First, in order to get less dependant on oil we need to start with the oil (or coal depending on location) that heats your home. Renewable resources are the key. There are animals in the tundra and native tribes that live there.

"Soerry Tribe your going to have to move because were going to drill oil on you kitchen."

What happened to civil rights?

So a anway airpower os growing and hopefully we need a slow transaction to air and hydropower. Air is better just because you don't need a huge river to power it. Paying farmers in the southwestern states to put these windwills on their farmland (they don't take up much room). I'm not agianst oil pernamentaly but it WILL be gone sceintists say it is 50% gone already. So se should start now.

Asshole, Idiot, whatever makes you happy.

It's a matter of intention. :)

Yeah, and the battle lines often come down to the difference between seeing wealth as something just spontaneously generated by the wealthy, and seeing wealth as the spoils of exploiting the un-wealthy. Those who oppose higher taxes for the rich bemoan "stealing from the rich," but never seem to consider that modern economics is-- frankly-- pretty ruthless and cutthroat, and the throats that most often tend to get cut are those of the poor. Wal-Mart makes reams of money by exploiting the most 'economical' (read: cheapest) supply avenues possible-- avenues that are so cheap because they exploit cheap labour. Person A says "that's clever, Wal-Mart earned that money so it's entitled to it" while Person B says "selling goods produced by people who don't make enough for their work to buy the very products they're making is tantamount to slavery, and is evil, and the producers therefore deserve to get back-- in the form of tax-funded social spending-- some of the spoils that have been made on their backs." Maybe a valuable thought-exercise for those who endorse the no-holds-barred liberal economy (and "liberal economics" are, in fact, the kind that eschew progressive taxation and government social spending because they see the economy as liberal or "liberated" from government intervention) would be to extrapolate to the extremes... Under such a system the rich tend to get richer and the poor tend to get poorer. Well projected X number of generations into the future, you reach a point where-- barring the altruism of the rich (and I wouldn't put money on that)-- the poor are too poor to survive, or to get to work, and the means of production either turns to automation or literal slave labour, and the rich are left with no one to peddle their wares to except the only other people who can afford anything: other rich people. If you oppose requiring the wealthy to give something back to the society upon which they make their fortunes, ask yourself if you *actually* prefer the alternative. If you're rich yourself (or expect to be so) you probably don't care, but if you're one of those in the middle column who could go either way (and for some reason have been sold on the idea that the rich *deserve* their own planes and several mansions and fleets of cars while the poor deserve to starve to death because they can't miraculously work their way out of the slums they're born into) you may want to consider the world you would rather live in if some misfortune left you unable to support yourself.

I agree. Of course I don;t like Wal-Mart for importing forign goods instead of the American goods they used to use. Of course that gets me satrted on how Tariffs should be raised BIG TIME becuase companys like Honda sell their cars here for pratically nothing then th money goes overseas back to japan or whever which really HURTS our economy.

It's a matter of intention. :)

I think bush is stupid and I think his IQ is very low I also think he is a terribele public speaker. But that is my opinion.

I agree. Of course I don;t like Wal-Mart for importing forign goods instead of the American goods they used to use. Of course that gets me satrted on how Tariffs should be raised BIG TIME becuase companys like Honda sell their cars here for pratically nothing then th money goes overseas back to japan or whever which really HURTS our economy.

Tariffs are no answer, they only prolong the economic inefficiencies that cause the problems.

They are in Controll both houses and the exectutive branch.



Thats a good enough reason. We need a representative Democracy...not rule by decree.

Bipartisan is a good thing.

Bipartisan is a good thing.

Nonpartisan would be even better. Or at least multipartisan (by which I mean more than two parties).

This is about as trollish as you can get, I think...

Yep what a troll! I do not want to cross his bridge. Yikes.

I would love to. First, in order to get less dependant on oil we need to start with the oil (or coal depending on location) that heats your home. Renewable resources are the key. There are animals in the tundra and native tribes that live there.

"Soerry Tribe your going to have to move because were going to drill oil on you kitchen."

What happened to civil rights?
You are aware that the Eskimo tribes are VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF THE DRILLING.

As for the Caribou, ANWR drilling affects a very small area and the Caribou have actually seen an increase in their herds where past drilling has occurred.

So a anway airpower os growing and hopefully we need a slow transaction to air and hydropower. Air is better just because you don't need a huge river to power it. Paying farmers in the southwestern states to put these windwills on their farmland (they don't take up much room). I'm not agianst oil pernamentaly but it WILL be gone sceintists say it is 50% gone already. So se should start now.[/quote]
Oil isn't as gone as people believe. There are trillions of untouched barrels of oil shale. The US alone has over a trillion. There are also great oil reserves in the Gulf of Mexico that we haven't touched.

Wind power is too sporadic and expensive. We need something real. If you want a clean source of electricity, we need more nuclear power plants. Now back to your first point. What do we do if we don't have natural gas to heat our homes? Electric heating still requires fossil fuels from your local power plant.

Simply I think that is you make more than a certain amount of money you shoul pay more tax. If you make under a certain amount of money you should pay less tax. That's what is fair.


Well, that is what happens with a flat tax. The rich pay more, and the poor pay less. Now, if you mean paying different percentages in taxes, no it is not fair. It may be mercifull to the poor, but it is not fair. Just because you use a word the way many people do, does not mean you are using it correctly.

I agree. Of course I don;t like Wal-Mart for importing forign goods instead of the American goods they used to use. Of course that gets me satrted on how Tariffs should be raised BIG TIME becuase companys like Honda sell their cars here for pratically nothing then th money goes overseas back to japan or whever which really HURTS our economy.

We need to import our goods because Americans demand far more than we can produce. Unemployment is at an extremely low 4.4%. If we imposed tariffs, we would be unable to produce enough to meet demand leading to shortages of consumer goods and higher prices. (see inflation)

Wal Mart is a great thing for America. They provide cheap goods that Americans need. They allow us to have more disposable income to use on other goods. As a college student, I wouldn't be able to live without Wal Mart.

Be honest here, I bet even you shop at Wal Mart. Most of the liberals who bash it shop there because inside they secretly admit they love the low prices.

5 reasons Why we can't let Republicans Keep control of Congress

1. The Republicans are in favor for lowering taxes for the rich.

2. President Bush (You Know the Guy with an 82 IQ score) will be able to do whatever he wants. Don't get me started on that idiot.

3. Republicans have got us into 1.7 trillion dollars of deficit since Bill Clinton got us out of it.

4. Republicans will conitnue the failed "war" agianst terror. And the "weaponds of mass destruction" that magicaly disappeared. Parents, Do you want your sons/daughters fighting in this clearly failed war that bush says republicans plan to countiune 'til 2010.

5. Republicans plan to drill for more oil in the last frontier (Alaska) to drop gas prices down. This would ruin the enviorment up there and completly devestate the natrual wonder of Alaska. Bush is of course a large supporter in this idea.What's Happening to Alaska? Click Here to Read (http://www.spannerfilms.net/?lid=169)



Check out the spelling in this missive.

Does that give any of you pause as to the "intellect" behind this "cut&paste" screed?

Have a great day folks..! :)

Be honest here, I bet even you shop at Wal Mart. Most of the liberals who bash it shop there because inside they secretly admit they love the low prices.

I don't secretly admit anything; I loathe consumer culture, and I make a point of shopping elsewhere, even given that I'll sometimes pay a premium in order to do so. Your assertions are predicated by assumption - the sort of assumption that you tend to indulge in with no small amount of frequency, IDF - that you, sir are always right - and not just in terms of your politics, either.

I have been on the premises of one (1) Wal-Mart in all my years, and I did not purchase one single item. I was, frankly, appalled by the implicit and explicit appeals to low-brow tastes and to the lowest common denominator. Enjoy your precious geegaws, trinkets and baubles; may you derive no end of comfort from them. And may you derive still further enjoyment in knowing you acquired them for such a small cost.

Everybody may have their price, sir - but mine is evidently much higher than yours.

I don't secretly admit anything; I loathe consumer culture, and I make a point of shopping elsewhere, even given that I'll sometimes pay a premium in order to do so. Your assertions are predicated by assumption - the sort of assumption that you tend to indulge in with no small amount of frequency, IDF - that you, sir are always right - and not just in terms of your politics, either.
I'm pretty sure most liberals shop at Wal Mart. If 50% of the population were to boycott Wal Mart, they wouldn't be able to turn a profit. Besides, I was not making any statement towards you. I was making it towards the thread starter. You may be such a communist you refuse to shop there, but most liberals aren't that extreme.

I have been on the premises of one (1) Wal-Mart in all my years, and I did not purchase one single item. I was, frankly, appalled by the implicit and explicit appeals to low-brow tastes and to the lowest common denominator. Enjoy your precious geegaws, trinkets and baubles; may you derive no end of comfort from them. And may you derive still further enjoyment in knowing you acquired them for such a small cost.
If you want to pay higher prices, that is your right. Just don't complain when you have less disposable income than myself.

Everybody may have their price, sir - but mine is evidently much higher than yours.
You are so funny when you try to flamebait.:D

You are so funny when you try to flamebait.

You are of course entitled to your interpretation of my posts on NSG; that you habitually elect to perceive yourself as the center of all, and further to presume that your own thoroughly-biased, prejudicial - nay, parochial outlook is automatically validated by the vagaries of your precious consumerist society is of scant little interest to anyone other than yourself, let alone your fellow bargain-hunting braggadocios.

You may be such a communist you refuse to shop there, but most liberals aren't that extreme.

You say "communist" like it's a bad thing...

Don't give a damn. America cannot win until the last faction of freedom-lovers, the Libertarians, take power. I hope I live to see the day.

I think bush is stupid and I think his IQ is very low I also think he is a terribele public speaker. But that is my opinion.

Well said. You've gotten my attention. :p

You say "communist" like it's a bad thing...

Mostly because it is...there is no greater example of human tragedy than the failed experiment that was and is communism. Not even slavery--arguably the most evil of institutions--can hold that claim..notably because slavery is a strong aspect of communism.

Don't even start with the "but that's Stalinism; communism has never been practiced blah, blah, blah, I'm a kid of priviledge who knows nothing of the hardships of the world, but I have a Che Guevera poster and that makes me informed" bullshit that I've heard far too often. It's tired. Let it go.

Yes, when the rich redistribute everybody else's wealth into their own pockets, it is theft.

Yeah- I know some evil rich people. They always did their best and worked hard and were successful.
Then the scumbags actually have the nerve to HIRE people and give them health insurance, days off and bonuses.

And to top it off- the yactually buy GOODS and SERVICES from other people- One actually pays over $25,000.00 a year in property/school tax.

And then-they donate money to charities.

Pure,self-serving evil.


:p

Mostly because it is...there is no greater example of human tragedy than the failed experiment that was and is communism. Not even slavery--arguably the most evil of institutions--can hold that claim..notably because slavery is a strong aspect of communism.

Don't even start with the "but that's Stalinism; communism has never been practiced blah, blah, blah, I'm a kid of priviledge who knows nothing of the hardships of the world, but I have a Che Guevera poster and that makes me informed" bullshit that I've heard far too often. It's tired. Let it go.


Brace yourself, mate- You just waded into BullshitBay and its high tide. You're about to hear stuff thats gonna give you a headache.

Mostly because it is...there is no greater example of human tragedy that the failed experiment that was and is communism. Not even slavery--arguably the most evil of institutions--can hold that claim..notably because slavery is a strong aspect of communism.In your opinon.
Don't even start with the "but that's Stalinism; communism has never been practiced blah, blah, blahI didn't.
I'm a kid of priviledge who knows nothing of the hardships of the worldI'm not.
but I have a Che Guevera poster and that makes me informed" bullshit that I've heard far too often. Are you having a bad day, or something?
It's tired.And you're being unneccesarily vindictive, tiresome and - tiring. Truly, a match made in Heaven. Or NSG, anyway.
Let it go.I never had it to begin with.

Yeah- I know some evil rich people. They always did their best and worked hard and were successful.
Then the scumbags actually have the nerve to HIRE people and give them health insurance, days off and bonuses.

And to top it off- the yactually buy GOODS and SERVICES from other people- One actually pays over $25,000.00 a year in property/school tax.

And then-they donate money to charities.

Pure,self-serving evil.


:p

Damn those rich people for showing us that it is possible to be successful.

Yeah- I know some evil rich people. They always did their best and worked hard and were successful.
Then the scumbags actually have the nerve to HIRE people and give them health insurance, days off and bonuses.

And to top it off- the yactually buy GOODS and SERVICES from other people- One actually pays over $25,000.00 a year in property/school tax.

And then-they donate money to charities.

Pure,self-serving evil.


:p

Colour me disinterested in your baiting.

Colour me disinterested in your baiting.

*shakes up a can of spraypaint* Will purple do? :D

Mostly because it is...there is no greater example of human tragedy than the failed experiment that was and is communism. Not even slavery--arguably the most evil of institutions--can hold that claim..notably because slavery is a strong aspect of communism.

Don't even start with the "but that's Stalinism; communism has never been practiced blah, blah, blah, I'm a kid of priviledge who knows nothing of the hardships of the world, but I have a Che Guevera poster and that makes me informed" bullshit that I've heard far too often. It's tired. Let it go.

Well, I'm no huge fan of communism myself, but I'm fairly sure you're being overly harsh to the system itself. It's a wonderful utopian ideal in theory, that could never really work in reality (As has been shown), although I find its ideals of equality quite noble, really, even if rather naive.

As to the actual political system itself being applied to various nationstates, I'm afraid it is true to say that 'true' or 'pure' communism has never been put into practice - and probably never will. Communist Russia was never really Communist, especially under Stalin; the closest it got was in 1917 after the Kerensky government fell and before Lenin started his purges. Stalinism was in no way Communism - it was basically State Capitalism, a system nowhere near Communism; Stalin just liked to use the idea of Communism to give the population a belief - he never got near even a vague attempt at the real economic system of Communism/Marxism. As for the other countries, the same is really true - a theory that is quite likely unworkable in reality is taken and bent to totalitarian purposes - China and the like.

Part of the problem is that the system has never been developed in stabilised, first-world countries, where there is a system that could support it. The countries it has been tried in have been far too backwards socially and economically to support the ideal, thus leaving the door open for the system to be corrupted into a totalitarian state.

Colour me disinterested in your baiting.

I wasnt "baiting" and you shouldnt be concerned. I was only speaking to any smug psuedo-intellectuals that are victims of our terrible opporotunity here.

Well, I'm no huge fan of communism myself, but I'm fairly sure you're being overly harsh to the system itself. It's a wonderful utopian ideal in theory, that could never really work in reality (As has been shown), although I find its ideals of equality quite noble, really, even if rather naive.

As to the actual political system itself being applied to various nationstates, I'm afraid it is true to say that 'true' or 'pure' communism has never been put into practice - and probably never will. Communist Russia was never really Communist, especially under Stalin; the closest it got was in 1917 after the Kerensky government fell and before Lenin started his purges. Stalinism was in no way Communism - it was basically State Capitalism, a system nowhere near Communism; Stalin just liked to use the idea of Communism to give the population a belief - he never got near even a vague attempt at the real economic system of Communism/Marxism. As for the other countries, the same is really true - a theory that is quite likely unworkable in reality is taken and bent to totalitarian purposes - China and the like.

Part of the problem is that the system has never been developed in stabilised, first-world countries, where there is a system that could support it. The countries it has been tried in have been far too backwards socially and economically to support the ideal, thus leaving the door open for the system to be corrupted into a totalitarian state.

The real problem is that they tried it with humans.

There would be a better chance of it working if they tried it with chimps.

Funny that BUsh had better grades during college than Kerry had.

5. Republicans plan to drill for more oil in the last frontier (Alaska) to drop gas prices down. This would ruin the enviorment up there and completly devestate the natrual wonder of Alaska. Bush is of course a large supporter in this idea.What's Happening to Alaska? Click Here to Read (http://www.spannerfilms.net/?lid=169)

Even if we did, for some really dumb reason, let Bush go ahead and drill for oil in Alaska, the gas we would get would last about 6 months at our current gas consumption rate. Then comes the bill for restoring America's only tundra preserve.

One reason not to let the Taxocrats back in power....They will increas taxes on all.....

i am far from rich and the tax cut greatly help me......:p

I wasnt "baiting" and you shouldnt be concerned.
Then you shouldn't have bothered quoting me, then - should you?

I was only speaking to any smug psuedo-intellectuals that are victims of our terrible opporotunity here.

Come again? That made no sense.

Hmmmm, Divided government.

I like, I like.

You are of course entitled to your interpretation of my posts on NSG; that you habitually elect to perceive yourself as the center of all, and further to presume that your own thoroughly-biased, prejudicial - nay, parochial outlook is automatically validated by the vagaries of your precious consumerist society is of scant little interest to anyone other than yourself, let alone your fellow bargain-hunting braggadocios.

Haha. Woooow.

-You spent over thirty minutes writing that response.
-You were using online thesauruses. (Because you lack one in your personal library.)
-You couldnt help but smirk at your cunning as you submitted it.
-Yes I have a hidden camera in your house.

FYI- people who lack the understanding to comprehend economics- talk just like you do (minus the thesaurus babble to compensate for their lack of economic knowledge). People who lack the drive and initiative to become wealthy also talk like you. Take everyones money away and divide it all again equally, in 10 years the rich would be rich again because they have the drive and are willing to work to earn it. You on the other hand- would be exactly where you are right now- pissed at the world because you have no career or understanding of business/economics.

Keep hitting up the lottery my friend- its the only way you will ever have a chance to get into money.

Haha. Woooow.

-You spent over thirty minutes writing that response.
No, I spent about half a minute on that post, when I had the chance to respond, which was about a half an hour later. It's called working full-time and using one's breaks to participate on NSG.
-You were using online thesauruses. (Because you lack one in your personal library.)
No, I don't use thesaurii at all.
-You couldnt help but smirk at your cunning as you submitted it.
Not exactly batting a thousand today, are you? Again, you are wrong.
-Yes I have a hidden camera in your house.
Then perhaps you can tell me how my lovebirds are doing. I miss them while I'm here at work.
FYI- people who lack the understanding to comprehend economics- talk just like you do (minus the thesaurus babble to compensate for their lack of economic knowledge). People who lack the drive and initiative to become wealthy also talk like you. Take everyones money away and divide it all again equally, in 10 years the rich would be rich again because they have the drive and are willing to work to earn it. You on the other hand- would be exactly where you are right now- pissed at the world because you have no career or understanding of business/economics.
You are relying rather heavily upon supposition, which in this case, has not stood you in good stead, for this is exactly the manner in which I speak - that you erroneously choose to deem my verbiage to be somehow trumped-up, or to imply my having used online thesaurii when writing my post matters not one whit; it merely serves to underscore your prejudices, or perhaps your own weakness where writing style is concerned. Keep it up, sir; I don't believe that last inch of heel has passed your tonsils as of yet.

As for the rest, I am quite happily employed - with a position of no small responsibility and a handsome pay package with full benefits - in the private sector. I am considered an asset to my company, and through my best creative endeavours this year, have so far generated over $30 million in sales for this company. So I'd like very much, at this point, to underscore the extent to which you have allowed your personal prejudices and thoroughgoing bias to undermine your own credibility. It's nothing to do with me; you're the one with egg all over your face. Kudos, sir.
Keep hitting up the lottery my friend- its the only way you will ever have a chance to get into money.
I am not at all ashamed to admit that I play the lotteries on a semi-regular basis. It's not the only way I will ever have a chance to get into money, but it sure beats going to work every day.

And now, it's my lunch hour. I'll bid you adieu. If there's anything else you'd care to make a fool of yourself over, knock yourself out - I'll be around to check the threads later today, or tomorrow.

Hope you all like taxes, because your going to get them.....

Considering a nice big chunk of the debt is from a war the demoncrats don't support....I think you're talking out your ass.

A war the democrats dont support.. but voted for! And a war they will allow to continue dispite their repudiations! So he wasnt' really talking out of his ass at all

Hope you all like taxes, because your going to get them.....

Most people pay taxes anyway, no? :p

Most people pay taxes anyway, no? :p

Yup most people do pay taxes, but the Taxocrats (Dems) love to increase them, so they can give more out in entitelments. Higher taxes are NOT good for theecconomy at all, the bring about a slowdown, higher unemployment as well as higher prices on goods and services, thus inflation moves up....So in the end not only are your taxes higher, the price of things you use/buy go up companies do not expand, they lay off workers and on and on..It is a proven fact lower taxes are good for ecconomic growth, higher taxes are not...:eek:

You are relying rather heavily upon supposition, which in this case, has not stood you in good stead, for this is exactly the manner in which I speak - that you erroneously choose to deem my verbiage to be somehow trumped-up, or to imply my having used online thesaurii when writing my post matters not one whit; it merely serves to underscore your prejudices, or perhaps your own weakness where writing style is concerned.

Wow. That was one hell of a long sentence. Stop feeling so sour my suppositions pinned you so well. I cant help that.

As for the rest, I am quite happily employed - with a position of no small responsibility and a handsome pay package with full benefits - in the private sector. I am considered an asset to my company, and through my best creative endeavours this year, have so far generated over $30 million in sales for this company.

I find that hard to believe. Not that Im questioning your ability to sell (Although anyone with your choice of verbiage is probably just going to get a blank stare and a "what the hell is he trying to compensate for?" gaze...) but that anyone as ignornant as you are about business economics could so willingly build a business to such success. But lets assume for a moment it was a truth and that the $30m in sales was solely your responsibility- no one else was involved...

That still has nothing to do with the rich getting taxed unfairly. Im talking about people who have a networth of $30m- not people like you who help give other people a networth of $30m. I dont care if you dont mind living what you feel is a hypocrisy at your desk job, that has no bearing on the rich getting unfairly untaxed.

Im sorry I dont care how much you try to compensate for your lack of economic knowledge with 'grandiose verbiage of a stupendously substantial amount' but anyone who feels like a person who works harder and is more driven should be penalized when after many years of hard work they achieve success... truly has NO UNDERSTANDING of economics.

You keep making your boss $30m a year my friend, I could always use a fellow like you in my organizations. Give me a call sometime.

Oh and best of luck with the lottery.

Yup most people do pay taxes, but the Taxocrats (Dems) love to increase them, so they can give more out in entitelments. Higher taxes are NOT good for theecconomy at all, the bring about a slowdown, higher unemployment as well as higher prices on goods and services, thus inflation moves up....So in the end not only are your taxes higher, the price of things you use/buy go up companies do not expand, they lay off workers and on and on..It is a proven fact lower taxes are good for ecconomic growth, higher taxes are not...:eek:

Democrats HAVE to raise taxes to pay of the national deficit ole' Bush got us into 1.3 trillion. How do you suggest we pay that back? Sell Vacum Cleaners?

Wow. That was one hell of a long sentence. Stop feeling so sour my suppositions pinned you so well. I cant help that.

I'm not feeling at all sour; once again your suppositions have let you down and made you look the fool. And I can't help that.

I find that hard to believe. Not that Im questioning your ability to sell (Although anyone with your choice of verbiage is probably just going to get a blank stare and a "what the hell is he trying to compensate for?" gaze...) but that anyone as ignornant as you are about business economics could so willingly build a business to such success. But lets assume for a moment it was a truth and that the $30m in sales was solely your responsibility- no one else was involved....

By all means, question my ability to sell - as I am not in sales. You betray your own bias through your assumptions, for I did not lay claim to being in sales. If you'd take the time to properly read the posts you dismiss, you'd've noted that I wrote, "I am considered an asset to my company, and through my best creative endeavours this year, have so far generated over $30 million in sales for this company". I produce content for online rich media. Without a production team - you know, people who actually do something - there'd be nothing to sell.

That still has nothing to do with the rich getting taxed unfairly. Im talking about people who have a networth of $30m- not people like you who help give other people a networth of $30m. I dont care if you dont mind living what you feel is a hypocrisy at your desk job, that has no bearing on the rich getting unfairly untaxed.

I play the game by the rules laid down by others, whose motivations are, in my opinion, crass and venal. That doesn't mean I enjoy playing by those rules - but it doesn't preclude me from profiting from them, either. Hypocrite? Maybe - but that's the hand I've been dealt from a loaded deck.

Im sorry I dont care how much you try to compensate for your lack of economic knowledge with 'grandiose verbiage of a stupendously substantial amount' but anyone who feels like a person who works harder and is more driven should be penalized when after many years of hard work they achieve success... truly has NO UNDERSTANDING of economics.

And I couldn't give a tinkers' damn about your grandiose economic knowledge. Nor do I particularly care for your open derision of those who possess and make use of vocabularies that exceed your preconceived notions. I am unmoved and unpersuaded by your comportment here today, sir.

You keep making your boss $30m a year my friend, I could always use a fellow like you in my organizations. Give me a call sometime.

I'm afraid I'd be of little use to your organization; I actually make a product - I'd never stoop so low as to chase after nickels and dimes, myself. I leave that sort of thing to the plebs in the Sales Department.

Oh and best of luck with the lottery.

Gee, thanks.


Oh - and do yourself a favour? Stop saying 'wow' when you're clearly unimpressed? It diminishes the impact of the word.

Democrats HAVE to raise taxes to pay of the national deficit ole' Bush got us into 1.3 trillion. How do you suggest we pay that back? Sell Vacum Cleaners?
Cut spending

Oh, and by the way - it didn't take me 26 minutes to write my reply, just in case you're planning to slag me some more, Mythador.

Meh.

It's all just bait anyway. I don't know why I bother.

...People who lack the drive and initiative to become wealthy also talk like you. Take everyones money away and divide it all again equally, in 10 years the rich would be rich again because they have the drive and are willing to work to earn it...

Some of them would be rich again, but the majority would not. It's dumb to treat all rick people as a homogenous whole. I've seen rich people who are intelligent, movitated and hard working. I've also seen rich people born with silver spoons in their mouth who act as if they are entitled to everything regardless of the effort they have not expended.

I think the intelligent, movitated and hard working ones are capable of taking care of themselves and being successful in any society. As for the others, why do you think they would become intelligent, movitated and hard working if you took all their money away?

I play the game by the rules laid down by others, whose motivations are, in my opinion, crass and venal. That doesn't mean I enjoy playing by those rules - but it doesn't preclude me from profiting from them, either. Hypocrite? Maybe - but that's the hand I've been dealt from a loaded deck.

As I said before- as long as your happy living your hypocrisy thats not my problem.

I am unmoved and unpersuaded by your comportment here today, sir.

Lucky for me I wasnt in it to move or persuade you huh? I dont care what you do (dont do) with your life. I was just pointing out that you display a lot of ignornance to preach against something and then apparently (at a very small level) follow it. The point remains the same- you have no understanding of true economics. Your views on the tax system prove this time and time again. I notice you unartfully dodged that part of my rebuttal.

I'm afraid I'd be of little use to your organization; I actually make a product - I'd never stoop so low as to chase after nickels and dimes, myself. I leave that sort of thing to the plebs in the Sales Department.

I said organizationS. (Plural not singular.) If you dont want on board, thats your on choice. Based on your current life decisions, you are more than happy to live to be the hypocritical white collar worker. You work everyday but because you lack the drive (or the competence) to go any farther than you already are, all you can do is bitch about those who can do what you cant. Once again- whatever makes you happy.

Oh - and do yourself a favour? Stop saying 'wow' when you're clearly unimpressed? It diminishes the impact of the word.

Haha. WOW. In the true essence of the word. You have the least amount of room of anyone in this entire thread to talk about diminishing the impact of words. You babble on and on attempting to compensate your lack of understanding with verbiage most dont understand. I know you have a lot to compensate for, but stop wasting it on me. I dont think the hypocrite has any room to preach to me about diminishing the impact of a word.

Your lucky numbers for tonight are:

7 23 14 45 93 0 3 7

Have fun with that.

Before I get started on this, I'd like first of all to apologize to the thread originator, The Holy Ekaj Monarchy, for this prolonged if intermittent hijacking. If my dear fellow scribe Mythador could finds grounds for it, I'd happily see him author a new thread more in keeping with this dubious sidebar exchange. I don't say I'd seek to participate in it, but I'd happily see him do it nonetheless. Maybe you could call it, 'Certain people don't value the same things I do!' and append one of these :mad: smilies to the thread title. Your move.

*clears throat, sips water*

Here goes.

As I said before- as long as your happy living your hypocrisy thats not my problem.

That I should have to be constrained to living and working under your preferred conventions is not just my problem, sir.

Lucky for me I wasnt in it to move or persuade you huh? I dont care what you do (dont do) with your life. I was just pointing out that you display a lot of ignornance to preach against something and then apparently (at a very small level) follow it. The point remains the same- you have no understanding of true economics. Your views on the tax system prove this time and time again. I notice you unartfully dodged that part of my rebuttal.

Well, consider it pointed out then and cease your unending harangue - by all means. At the very least I know how to spell 'ignorance', while your posts this day clearly demonstrate that you don't. Enrich your word power, sir.

I said organizationS. (Plural not singular.) If you dont want on board, thats your on choice. Based on your current life decisions, you are more than happy to live to be the hypocritical white collar worker. You work everyday but because you lack the drive (or the competence) to go any farther than you already are, all you can do is bitch about those who can do what you cant. Once again- whatever makes you happy.

I should think it rather plain that, going by your presumptive assessment of my career path, happiness would be anathema to circumstance. See here: I just do what I do (i.e. consistently be highly creative) and am consequently rewarded for my efforts.

By focusing those efforts on one (1) organization, I am maximizing growth - in quality - for one (1) organization. Why would I want to dilute my focus and deliver a substandard finished product - especially if said substandard product is to be delivered in quantity? It occurs to me now that you suffer from a far more serious misapprehension than at first I might have thought.

So, I find happiness in the fruits of my labour.

"Ahhhh," says crafty Mythador. "The Fruits Of My Labour. Surely Dobbs speaks of wages earned - what fruit is there, other than the fruit of Profit?"

What other fruit, indeed? Satisfaction, for one. Fulfillment of the creative urge. Total personal and professional control, and a ready-made outlet for my foremost passions. A wide allowance made for idiosyncracies not extended beyond the department level. The deferential treatment shown by those in positions of authority, as well as from the colleagues who tap the depth of my experience and expertise. The opportunity to rise to challenges and to surmount them. There's my fruit for you.

I can't say that what I do makes the world a better place - though it could be argued I make it more convenient. I can't even say I particularly care for the product we make, though oddly enough I do care, passionately - about its' execution, its' appearance and its' appeal. Similarly, I can't say I have any love for those who profit mightily from my work - but having been a 'starving artist' at one time, I can accept this trade-off. I didn't make your system, Mythador - I was born into it. I live within it. I contribute to it. I am rewarded by it.

That doesn't mean I like it. And that doesn't mean I should have to, either - nor is it then incumbent on me to interest or involve myself in what seems to be of great consequence to you, sir - that being economics, apparently. Though where economics entered into this mutual exchange is somewhat of a puzzler, at least from these quarters. You're upset with me, though - because I'm not an economist, or somesuch. Well, get as upset as you like, I'm not going to allow myself to be goaded into any further discussion with you on this thread. I can't think as to how there could be anything gained by prolonging this dialogue further - and though I could ask to simply not respond I do suspect that given the enthusiastic nature of your posts, that that would be tantamount to waving the proverbial red cape at the bull in this case.

I'll leave it to you to terminate this witless repartée in your own way.

Haha. WOW. In the true essence of the word. You have the least amount of room of anyone in this entire thread to talk about diminishing the impact of words. You babble on and on attempting to compensate your lack of understanding with verbiage most dont understand. I know you have a lot to compensate for, but stop wasting it on me. I dont think the hypocrite has any room to preach to me about diminishing the impact of a word.

Yeah, well let's call it a day now, yes? No doubt you have a power-breakfast to attend sometime before dawn, or other people to impress or oppress, so it's goodnight, all and good day to you on the morrow.

Your lucky numbers for tonight are:

*snips meaningless drivel*



You must be just the very devil himself at your staff parties, dear. My, my - I do believe I am literally beside myself with laughter.

Ha, ha. Ha.


Ha. Ha ha.


See? Told you.

Total writing time: 09:08 Total formatting time: 02:01 Total time elapsed: 11:09 Current time in Togo: 2:52 AM

One reason not to let the Taxocrats back in power....They will increas taxes on all.....Hope you all like taxes, because your going to get them.....
Man, you're really got to work harder on your responses. You're really not a very good troll. ( ... but you're in the right forum to learn ... )

Cut spending
Yup, on the military!! :p

So far, the US has spent $300 Billion to get Saddam found guilty of having fellow Iraqis killed. No connection with 9/11, no connection to any American deaths, and no connection to your war on terror.

Heavy price to pay?

Yup, on the military!! :p

I agree. While I believe in a strong national defense, I do not believe in having a military so huge and pervasive that it allows us to police the world. IMO, defense spending should be reduced to a minimum, so that we are strong enough to protect the nation, but not strong enough to go about waging unnecessary wars.

Good morning Dobbsworld!

You know- somewhere deep down in my soul- I have this feeling that you could be the only communist friend I could ever have. You have to admit- we would make great table talk over some lavish dinner party...

You talk about being born into the system, living in it (at some level sucessfully), getting fulfillment and satisfaction from it and yet still loathing it- I guess Im just missing something.

My point remains the same however- how can you lawfully penalize a person who has worked harder to make a better living and has made the most of the economy and the hands that life dealt them? Gentleman A works a lowend desk job his entire life- and never has the drive or comittment to follow through with any of his many life long dreams so he continues to prod on day by day dreaming about what "could have been" and being pissed. Gentleman B on the other hand starts in the same low end job and takes his drive to suceed and backs it with the commitment to follow his dreams. After many years of hard labor, finds himself rewarded with large sums of money. Why should the government penalize him by adding more taxes for his success? Doesnt this discourage entrepreneurship and kill the drive people may have to build a better economy? (The economic system you claim to hate but also love to live in...)

I found you a sweet t-shirt...

http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/shirtsquare-lousy.jpg

Good morning Dobbsworld!

You know- somewhere deep down in my soul- I have this feeling that you could be the only communist friend I could ever have. You have to admit- we would make great table talk over some lavish dinner party...

You talk about being born into the system, living in it (at some level sucessfully), getting fulfillment and satisfaction from it and yet still loathing it- I guess Im just missing something.

My point remains the same however- how can you lawfully penalize a person who has worked harder to make a better living and has made the most of the economy and the hands that life dealt them? Gentleman A works a lowend desk job his entire life- and never has the drive or comittment to follow through with any of his many life long dreams so he continues to prod on day by day dreaming about what "could have been" and being pissed. Gentleman B on the other hand starts in the same low end job and takes his drive to suceed and backs it with the commitment to follow his dreams. After many years of hard labor, finds himself rewarded with large sums of money. Why should the government penalize him by adding more taxes for his success? Doesnt this discourage entrepreneurship and kill the drive people may have to build a better economy? (The economic system you claim to hate but also love to live in...)

I found you a sweet t-shirt...

http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/shirtsquare-lousy.jpg

This ought to be fun. :p

*bakes batch of popcorn, pulls up lawn chair*

Sorry about your popcorn C--K, but I thought I'd gone to exceedingly great lengths last night to underscore my abiding disinterest in extending this ongoing thread hijack any further. Mythador, if you'd like to pursue this further, might I suggest you take my posted advice and originate a new thread, more in keeping with your particular area of interest.

Let me make myself abundantly clear - I am not planning to revisit this thread. You've been given your opportunity, Mythador; in the interests of fair play and forum harmony, I suggest you take advantage of it. Continuing to respond here will amount to time and effort wasted at your end.

And now - good day to you, sir.

*cough*Yeah once again he refuses to focus on the key issue*cough*

Hey I dont care if you run away with your tail between your legs about the issue. I mentioned taxes almost a half dozen times since I started responding to this post and you have yet to combat those issues once.

I dont play by your rules. You play by mine. If you dont want to play- run away.

Oh and I will have some of that popcorn CK even if Dobbs wont...

*cough*Yeah once again he refuses to focus on the key issue*cough*

Hey I dont care if you run away with your tail between your legs about the issue. I mentioned taxes almost a half dozen times since I started responding to this post and you have yet to combat those issues once.

I dont play by your rules. You play by mine. If you dont want to play- run away.

Why dont you just start a new thread? Taxes are an interesting area for discussion, and Im sure derailing extensively draws the mods anyway.

Yup, on the military!! :p

So far, the US has spent $300 Billion to get Saddam found guilty of having fellow Iraqis killed. No connection with 9/11, no connection to any American deaths, and no connection to your war on terror.

Heavy price to pay?

It is a high price to pay. Some estimates say that one out of every two dollars going into the government ends up wasted, and the Department of Defense is part of the government. Its probably best to just cut it in all places and force some more efficient spending.

Good morning Dobbsworld!

......Gentleman B on the other hand starts in the same low end job and takes his drive to suceed and backs it with the commitment to follow his dreams. After many years of hard labor, finds himself rewarded with large sums of money. Why should the government penalize him by adding more taxes for his success? Doesnt this discourage entrepreneurship and kill the drive people may have to build a better economy?

That's awsome, man. You know what i'd really like, though? Examples.

Because, as far as i can see, Gentleman B doesn't exist. A myth. (We are talking about "Huge sums of money", right?)

As far as i can see, individuals have little more of a chance to "climb" through the ranks than they did in a formally stratified society. We all like to think skill, talent, a strong will, are all the necessary qualities to be successful.

They are, indeed, necessary. But not nearly enough. What else is there? Luck. "Huge amounts" of it. A series of random events going your way. Ain't life a bitch?
After all, all human beings have the same potential. If that's so, is it even rational to assume that they would simple choose not to use it?
No. Most human beings don't explore their full potential because they lack the random events that give someone the conditions to do so.

That said, why is it unfair that the rich pay more taxes than the poor? We're taxing luck. You've had too much of it, so why not distribute it a bit? You're not going to starve in a forseeable future, so why not contribute to those who are actually starving?

But i digress. My point is, yes, higher taxes for the rich, i consider them to be fair. Or Just, if you prefer.