Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » OT: Political IQ Test
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #70090] |
Thu, 04 March 2004 18:22   |
Llama Man 451
Messages: 79
Registered: February 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
umbral- i will say this again.
i am not pimb boy joe. you even admitted this yourself without knowing it in your post before last you saisd i have split personality disorder meaning pimp boy joe and i and jorge the man are the same people. this is nott rue i might add. but it that same post you havea separate section devoted addressing pimp boy joe, but beginning the post about me ( i noticed you changed your nickname for me  ) now why would you do that, if you thought i was the same person as pimp boy joe, wouldnt you still refer to me as retard man 451? 
crimson- you say you made something over 40,000 dollars right, now if the taxes took away twenty five percent exactly that would leave you approximately 30,000 dollars which is definately enough to live comfortably, not to mention the fact that your husband (im assuming) has a good job like you and makes money as well. even if he made only 16,000 dollars that is still 42,000 dollars at the end of the year!!!! you have no reason to complain, you should be happy 14,000 dollars ids going to benefit children (education, poor people) and all sorts of other causes. ii dont think it is the democrats whoare brats but the republicans!!!!
also i noticed you made a minor mistake, you were referring to the two main parties and you said Intellectuals and democrats, you obviously forgot that republicans were on here too and simply just said a truthful synonym for democrats :oops: it would be intellectuals and republicnas no biggie though!
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #70103] |
Thu, 04 March 2004 19:54 |
 |
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
Just something interesting I'm going to point out about paying taxes. It's a two way street here. If you want a high standard of living (with or without the 'extras' like free health care, and other social assistanc programs), it's going to cost money. With the States currently trillions of dollars in debt, I'm assuming it's reasonable to say people want it paid off. With the debt taking away from the GNP, other sources of income need to be sought for infrastructure. Roads, hospitals, the judicial system, The large military allocation (at least for America). It all costs money to maintain, and even more to improve. So the question is: (And yes other things are a factor, but for the purpose of this I'm going to assume the money is being spent wisely)
How much are you willing to pay for a better life?
The less taxes you pay, the less the overall comfort of living (not using standard of living here). On the flip side, the more you pay, the more the higher comfort of living you could have.
Comfort of living, in the way I'm using it is simply how high quality a countries infrastructure is (and the abundance of "extras" if applicable)
I'm also not saying this to say that overly high taxes are a good idea, but rather to point out that a rise in taxes aren't always a bad thing, and a lowering in them a good thing. (Once again, assuming that the funds are infact going to what they should be, in a perfect world)
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #70104] |
Thu, 04 March 2004 20:03 |
 |
Hydra
Messages: 827
Registered: September 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Retard Man IQ-Of-1 |
umbral- i will say this again.
i am not pimb boy joe. you even admitted this yourself without knowing it in your post before last you saisd i have split personality disorder meaning pimp boy joe and i and jorge the man are the same people. this is nott rue i might add. but it that same post you havea separate section devoted addressing pimp boy joe, but beginning the post about me ( i noticed you changed your nickname for me ) now why would you do that, if you thought i was the same person as pimp boy joe, wouldnt you still refer to me as retard man 451?
crimson- you say you made something over 40,000 dollars right, now if the taxes took away twenty five percent exactly that would leave you approximately 30,000 dollars which is definately enough to live comfortably, not to mention the fact that your husband (im assuming) has a good job like you and makes money as well. even if he made only 16,000 dollars that is still 42,000 dollars at the end of the year!!!! you have no reason to complain, you should be happy 14,000 dollars ids going to benefit children (education, poor people) and all sorts of other causes. ii dont think it is the democrats whoare brats but the republicans!!!!
also i noticed you made a minor mistake, you were referring to the two main parties and you said Intellectuals and democrats, you obviously forgot that republicans were on here too and simply just said a truthful synonym for democrats :oops: it would be intellectuals and republicnas no biggie though!
|
I would respond to this post if it actually made sense. It's so full of grammatical errors and mindless gibberish that it means absolutely nothing. The only thing I could make out of that garbage is that you believe in the philosophy, "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need." That's a communist philosophy. You have just proven you are a communist. Who are you to say what is a comfortable salary for Crimson to live with? Who are you to say $40,000 is too much money and that she can live perfectly alright with only $30,000? That's communism to its extreme.
Does Crimson not have bills to pay, or mortgage to pay, or food to buy, or clothes to buy, or medicine to buy? She can pay for a lot more of those necessities with $40,000 than she can with only $30,000.
The government pisses enough of our money away. You actually think the money she pays in taxes goes to poor people? Not to go off on a different tangent here, but why are those people poor in the first place? I'll tell you why--the decisions they have made in the past. Those poor people have no one to blame but themselves for their status in society, and it is not the role of government to just give them money because they will keep doing the things that make them poor.
EDIT: Forgot to mention that Crimson said she made about $60,000 a year. Can you not read, Retard Man IQ-Of-1? :rolleyes:
Walter Keith Koester: September 22, 1962 - March 15, 2005
God be with you, Uncle Wally.
 (<---New(ish) Prayer Group Forums)
 (<---Archived Prayer Group Forums)
[Updated on: Thu, 04 March 2004 20:16] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #70105] |
Thu, 04 March 2004 20:04 |
hareman
Messages: 340
Registered: May 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Actually, CRimson did say they were one and same when she said they both post from teh same IP
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #70107] |
Thu, 04 March 2004 20:20 |
 |
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| hydra1945 |
Bush didn't lose those jobs; Clinton did.
Bush created thousands of jobs; Clinton didn't.
|
Just so you know, Clinton created about 23 million net jobs in his two terms.
And right after Bush becomes president, the economy starts going in to a funk. What do you do? Blame Clinton! AHHH! AHHH! Bush created thousands of jobs? Weeee... Except so far he's lost nearly 3 million net jobs.
| hydra1945 |
Tax cuts do not raise the deficit.
|
Yes they do. The government gets less money. The government takes out more loans from other places. The deficit goes up. Simple as that. And again, Bush's tax cuts look so bad that the money the government doesn't get any more because of his cuts is still in his 2004 budget.
| hydra1945 |
No, as in how they want to raise tax rates to outrageous numbers.
|
Like what? Repealing Bush's short-sighted tax cuts isn't an outrageous raise.
| Crimson |
Basically, Bush is the closest thing we have to this. If taxes are reduced, and the reduction is made permanent, then Congress will be forced to cut budgets on other less successful and unsuccessful programs to make up for the loss of funds.
|
Or, like Bush is doing now, they could just loosen environmental regulations and gut agencies that enforce regulations. Why? Because big people for companies that want to mess with the environment like to accidentally give Bush money so he can make those nasty regulations go away. Right now, the Republican controlled government has brought in LOBBYISTS!!!! to re-write environmental regulations, claiming that they are the "experts".
| hydra1945 |
Unborn fetuses are humans too, you know.
|
In that case, why don't human egg cells count as humans as well? Then, killing a woman would be something like 40,000 counts of murder.
| hareman |
GET A LIFE DO SOMETHING INSTEAD OF TALKING ABOUT
|
No. Now, go away.
| Crimson |
Here's a little proof that CNN is Democratically-biased.
|
Mainstream media is negative. That's just how they work. And you can't say FOX is democratically biased. For one, Rupert Murdoch, a crazy billionaire conservative owns FOX news, which he uses for his own highly evil agenda. Second, the news director is Roger Ailes, another INSANE conservative.
| Crimson |
He's obviously unfit for a discussion between intelluctuals and Democrats.
|
Oh, come now. I know pimp boy whatever is being stupid, but don't go accusing democrats of being not smart.
WHY BUSH IS BAD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT:
First, the deputy secretary of the interior right now is J. Steven Griles. Griles has opened public lands to gas, oil, and mining interests, all while receiving money from his former employees in the gas, oil, and mining industries. His appointment has been a particular boon to a sector of the col mining industry that is not afraid to think big: the sector that removes mountaintops. When you remove the top of a mountain, you get easy access to the resources inside. But, the mountaintop doesn't just vanish. Normally, it goes to a nearby valley. Griles was an executive at United Company, where he oversaw the Dal-Tex mine in West Virginia, which had one of the largest mountaintop removals since Krakatoa. When miners detonate the ridges, they fill in valleys and bury streams with trees, rocks, and 13 species of birds, as well as sending boulders flying in to houses along with creating asthma-causing debris. And then, United Company sets up coal-mining machines that run 24 hours a day right next to homes. For a while, environmental acts like the Clean Water act have made it illegal to dump mountaintops in streams. But now, the Bush administration has re-written the act to allow mining waste to be dumped right into waterways.
Lets look at some other people who probably shouldn't be where they are right now under the Bush administration:
Mark Rey:
Position: Undersecretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and Environment
Currently in charge of: Forests
Previously lobbied for polluters of: Forests.
Bennet W. Raley:
Position: Interior Assistant Secretary for Water and Science
Currently in charge of: Water
Previously lobbied for polluters of: Water
Rebecca Watson:
Position: Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Land and Minerals Management
Currently in charge of: Land that contains minerals
Previously lobbied for polluters of: Land that contains minerals
Carmen Toohey:
Position: Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Interior for Alaska
Currently in charge of: Alaska
Previously lobbied for polluters of: Alaska
Patricia Lynn Scarlett:
Position: Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Policy, Management, and Budget
Currently in charge of: Government regulations
Previously lobbied for poluters of: Everything
Get the drift?
Lets look at pig production:
20 years ago, the hogs in this county were raised by family farmers. Today, three companies produce 60 percent of all the hogs in America. They produce these hogs in factory farms called CAFOs: Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. These places generate a lot of, erhm, poop. One hog produces ten times as much feces as a human being. One CAFOs is home to about 850,000 hogs. That's as much sewage as New York. New York has 14 water treatment plants, whereas CAFOs have none. In order to dispose of hog waste, family farmers used it as fertilizer to grow more crops. However, New York's sewage is a little too much to grow anything on. So CAFOs operators take over vaste tracts of land which they turn into feces lagoons. Line a huge area with plastic, and dump untreated feces into it. That's gotta smell, right? Well, pilots can smell a CAFOs from a height of 3 thousand feet. And once a CAFOs is started up, real estate [homes] in the area drop dramatically in the area of prices. Drink a glass of orange juice near a CAFOs and it tastes like sewage. The stink gets even worse from the practice of spraying some of the hog feces in to the air and on to lush bermuda grass. While CAFOs operators say this is good for the grass, the grass becomes so toxic that anything that eats it dies. Most of this sprayed feces seeps into groundwater, those sort of places. In 1995, a spill from one of these CAFOs killed a billion fish in the Neuse river in North Carolina. Every year since, dead fish wash up on the shores by the tens of millions. These fish are falling prey to pfiesteria piscida, a recently unknown dinoflagellate that is deadly to fish, because it kills them in very nasty ways that I won't go in to here. Also, fishermen and bridge keepers get unsightly sores from this organism, so they have to wear long pants when they go on a date, although it would be pretty hard to get a date because of lethargy, headaches, and cognitive impairment so sever you can't remember your name or dial a phone number. All of these are caused by pfiesteria piscida. Big company hog farms have put the small farmer out of business. Twenty years ago there were 27,500 small hog farmers in North Carolina. Today there are none. However, these factory farms have ratcheted down the cost of meat for consumers. As long as you don't factor in the feces. Bobby Kennedy jr., President of the Waterkeeper Alliance, says if the waste were disposed of legally, CAFOs couldn't keep up with small farmers.
| Bobby Kennedy, Jr. |
They cannot produce hogs, or pork chops, or bacon more efficiently than a family farm without breaking the law. They aren't about the free market, because they can't compete without commiting criminal acts every single day. Their whole system is built on being able to disable or capture government agencies. They're not in favor of responsibility, or democracy, or private property. It's just about privatizing the air, water, all the things that the public's supposed to own. They are trying to take them away from us, privatize them, and liquidate them for cash. That's the only coherent philosophy they have. That's it.
|
Just so you know, the Clinton administration did do stuff about this. Towards the end of his administration, the EPA issued stringent new CAFO regulations regarding waste disposal and took up suits against several offenders.
Then comes Bush.
His appointees gutted the regulations. Eric Schaeffer, head of enforcement for the EPA, resigned in disgust when told to drop the agencie's cases against offending conglomerates. The administration cut a deal giving immunity to factory farm air polluters, and Republican allies in Congress defeated a proposal by Paul Wellstone to bar hog producers from also owning slaughterhouses.
hareman, please take your negativity somewhere else. You too, pimp boy joe/jorge the man. I'm all for ending cursing in this thread. Just seems kind of silly to me.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #70164] |
Fri, 05 March 2004 12:00 |
 |
Crimson
Messages: 7428
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi |
| hydra1945 |
Bush didn't lose those jobs; Clinton did.
Bush created thousands of jobs; Clinton didn't.
|
Just so you know, Clinton created about 23 million net jobs in his two terms.
And right after Bush becomes president, the economy starts going in to a funk. What do you do? Blame Clinton! AHHH! AHHH! Bush created thousands of jobs? Weeee... Except so far he's lost nearly 3 million net jobs.
|
Do I need to reference you to my post about this already? I showed you a chart of the NASDAQ, a very important market indicator, which clearly shows that the stock market started falling well before Bush took office. If you try to keep saying it over and over, it won't change the truth.
| Quote: |
| hydra1945 |
Tax cuts do not raise the deficit.
|
Yes they do. The government gets less money. The government takes out more loans from other places. The deficit goes up. Simple as that. And again, Bush's tax cuts look so bad that the money the government doesn't get any more because of his cuts is still in his 2004 budget.
|
The Federal Government is granted 17 functions by the Constitution. To perform those duties requires about $750 million per year. You can't make this problem go away by throwing more money at it, you have to spend the money better!
| Quote: |
| hydra1945 |
No, as in how they want to raise tax rates to outrageous numbers.
|
Like what? Repealing Bush's short-sighted tax cuts isn't an outrageous raise.
|
If it's not an outrageous raise, then why bother? If it's not so much money, then why not let me keep it?
| Quote: |
| Crimson |
Basically, Bush is the closest thing we have to this. If taxes are reduced, and the reduction is made permanent, then Congress will be forced to cut budgets on other less successful and unsuccessful programs to make up for the loss of funds.
|
...blah blah environmental stuff...
|
I still don't understand how you can claim corruption in the Bush administration while being completely blind to the corruption in the Clinton administration.
| Quote: |
| Crimson |
Here's a little proof that CNN is Democratically-biased.
|
Mainstream media is negative. That's just how they work. And you can't say FOX is democratically biased. For one, Rupert Murdoch, a crazy billionaire conservative owns FOX news, which he uses for his own highly evil agenda. Second, the news director is Roger Ailes, another INSANE conservative.
|
I never said that Fox is completely unbiased. It was just an example of partisan influence in the media.
| Llama Man 451 |
crimson- you say you made something over 40,000 dollars right, now if the taxes took away twenty five percent exactly
|
On my 2003 Federal return, My adjusted gross income was $36,000. I was able to write off business expenses (since I'm self-employed in the eyes of the government since I'm a contractor, I can write off my home office) and the interest I paid on the mortgage on my house, plus my vehicle license tax, and real estate taxes. That left me with about $24,000 left to be taxed. Of that, I ended up giving $4500 to the federal government for 2003.
| Quote: |
that would leave you approximately 30,000 dollars which is definately enough to live comfortably,
|
$32,000, but close. But who are you to say how much I need to live comfortably? Do you know how much the cost of living is in Phoenix, AZ? Do you know how much I have to pay in gas to get to work? How big my house is? What car I drive?
| Quote: |
not to mention the fact that your husband (im assuming) has a good job like you and makes money as well.
|
I'm not married.
| Quote: |
even if he made only 16,000 dollars that is still 42,000 dollars at the end of the year!!!! you have no reason to complain,
|
I'm not complaining that I don't have enough money to live off of. I'm complaining that they are wasting what I do give them.
| Quote: |
you should be happy 14,000 dollars ids going to benefit children (education, poor people) and all sorts of other causes. ii dont think it is the democrats whoare brats but the republicans!!!!
|
Who are you to say I should give up my money? Did those welfare mothers learn my profession and go to my job every day and do the work? No. Just because I wasn't stupid and used protection and don't have a kid that I can't afford to burden me, why should I have to pay for someone who decided "oh condoms are uncomfortable so I will take my chances even though I'm 17 and my mom still supports me"?
We are NOT a communist society!! If you need to pay the bills, then get your ass out there and get a job! Communism doesn't work on a large scale. If I am smarter and make more money, then I should get to live more comfortably.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #70192] |
Fri, 05 March 2004 16:30 |
Llama Man 451
Messages: 79
Registered: February 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
firstly hydra- if you said you wouldnt respond to my post, why did you/TM
also, communism isnt a bad idea, it jjust requires something impossible- a perfect society.
wanna know how i have the right to tell you how comfortably you live, well i cannot do that, but it is common sense which you claim to have but obviously dont. my family makes LESS than you and we live much more than comfortably, even though my parents are republicans. also, maybe if you made wise choices about the car your drive your car point is worthless. if you want to save money dont buy a friggin ferrari it is simple!!!
you are not neccessarily smarter than the people on welfare ya know... in fact i bet a lot of them are actually smarter than YOU. unfortunately neither of us can prove/disprove this but it is probably the truth. any and all money you spend is your decision.
i am not a communist, i simply care about other people, whereas none of you republicans do.
"You all stare but you'll never see/ There's someting inside me" - Corey Taylor
Life is strange when you must lock your door in fear of your cat
Sometimes when I'm all alone I stare at my goldfish, and think about how much I hate fishticks, then I realize that I don't have a goldfish.
There is a fair chance that at this moment I am being hunted by a demonic monkey from Central America. Please don't tell him I've been here. Please. I don't know what he wants.
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #70198] |
Fri, 05 March 2004 17:05 |
 |
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Quote: |
also, communism isnt a bad idea, it jjust requires something impossible- a perfect society.
|
Well, that's one thing you have right...communism is not possibleon a large scale, given human nature- the transitional government has always refused to relinquish control. How did that one go? "Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others?"
It is interesting to note, however, that communism DOES work on a very small scale- if you want an example, look at the Kibbutz(spelling?) communities in Israel...those are just about as successful as communism has ever been(even though they still fall under the national government).
I would never want to live under communism- under a communist philosophy, everyone deserves the same conditions, rewards, etc, regardless of what they give back to society. If you do more work than the next guy, you should have every right to capitalize on your success. You should not be bogged down by his misfortune; if you decide to help him out that's your own business. No one should tell you that another person deserves better than you unless their poverty is a direct result of your success.
| Quote: |
you are not neccessarily smarter than the people on welfare ya know... in fact i bet a lot of them are actually smarter than YOU. unfortunately neither of us can prove/disprove this but it is probably the truth. any and all money you spend is your decision.
|
I know that isn't directed at me, but I'm just gonna cut in and answer it anyway- there are many people who are very smart and live in poor households; I know a few. There are stupid people who live in rich households; I know a few of those too. What connection is there between intelligence and one's financial situation anyway? I don't recall anyone ever taking a poll to find out if rich people were smarter- even a person who is not the brightest bulb on the tree can be willing to work hard and get rich. On the other side of the coin, there are plenty of people who are very intelligent, but just plain lazy.
There are plenty of good people on welfare, who are just there until they can secure a new job and get back on their feet again. However, there are also plenty of people who are on welfare because they do not have the motivation to work, and are essentially freeloaders clinging onto the taxpayers' wallets like leeches. A successful citizen should not have to pay the bills for someone who does not even try to pay their own- and I stress again that many people on welfare do want to change their situation, and are willing to work to change their status. But there are many, many people who get welfare for no other reason besides that they simply do not want to work.
| Quote: |
i am not a communist, i simply care about other people, whereas none of you republicans do.
|
That has to be the single most arrogant statement you've made yet. That says to me that your opinion falls under the "well I'm this and you're that so I'm superior NYEH!" category, which essentially means you've run out of arguments and are instead attacking the morality of people you have never, and probably will never meet. That's hypocritical; by making such a high-and-mighty statement about people you do not know you have proven yourself to be just as prejudiced and cold as you claim your opponents are.
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #70243] |
Sat, 06 March 2004 03:48 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7428
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
I don't drive a Ferarri, but if I did, and could afford it, why shouldn't I? And when did I say I wanted to save money? Short answer is, I don't... I spend my paychecks as fast as I get them. Not just on me... anyone who is around me when I have money gets free meals and stuff all the time. I am very generous with my money when I know I'm giving my friends or family a nice meal or a pedicure and making them happy.
You still live with your parents... wait until you have to support yourself. My dad kicked my ass out of the house two weeks after I turned 18 and expressly forbid me ever moving back there. I'm responsible for me. No one else is. That's how I was raised.
When I said "smarter" I didn't necessarily mean in the IQ sense of the word (though mine was measured well over 150 by some psychiatrist when I was about 4 and had taught myself to read at 2)... I mean logic, street smart, common sense... I knew that I wasn't ready to raise a child, I wasn't married, therefore I used protection and consequently didn't get pregnant. I also finished high school and didn't wimp out early. I also taught myself my current profession as a web applications developer. So I would think I deserve every penny I make.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #70318] |
Sat, 06 March 2004 15:36 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Crimson |
Do I need to reference you to my post about this already? I showed you a chart of the NASDAQ, a very important market indicator, whichclearly shows that the stock market started falling well before Bush took office. If you try to keep saying it over and over, it won't change the truth.
|
What it clearly shows is that the stock market was acting like a normal stock market. It's basically an impossibility to make the market go straight up without ups and downs for several years in a row. As the market was going up under Clinton near the middle of his term, it wasn't going straight up. It was taking ups and downs, but was obviously rising. But OBVIOUSLY when it took a hop down this time, Clinton was OBVIOUSLY crashing the market. And you want to know why th market's going up bit by bit now? Because Bush wants to privatize social security and have people put all their retirement money in the stock market. After accepting donations from traders, because they make a ton of money if S.S. is invested in the market.
[quote="Crimson"]The Federal Government is granted 17 functions by the Constitution. To perform those duties requires about $750 million per year. You can't make this problem go away by throwing more money at it, you have to spend the money better!
[quote]
You meant 750 billion, right? Well, if you want to cut spending, lets not have a 500 billion dollar war. A war that was in no way justified by the intelligence agencies. Last night on C-SPAN, Ed Kennedy was owning up on Bush for his reasons on invading Iraq. The Ed Kennedy all Republicans call "Kerry's Chief Campaign Surrogate Kennedy" to make it sound like something shady is going on. [Hint: Nothing shady is going on.]
| "Crimson" |
If it's not an outrageous raise, then why bother? If it's not so much money, then why not let me keep it?
|
It's not an outrageous raise because the government was already getting that money. What Bush does is make stupid decisions, and when someone starts to get on him, give everyone a big tax cut so everybody can be happy. And the government lost a lot of money from Bush's tax cuts. Like, 2.4 trillion or something. And AGAIN, Bush's tax cuts look SO bad that the money the government doesn't get from those taxes any more is still included in his 2004 budget.
| Crimson |
I still don't understand how you can claim corruption in the Bush administration while being completely blind to the corruption in the Clinton administration.
|
What corruption in the Clinton administration? Monica Lewinsky was pretty much it. Oh, wait, you're reffering to all that crap on your little poster that has nothing behind it. Oh, but there's so much of it that everything must be true! It's impossible that republicans distorted and lied to make Clinton look bad, and then got FOX to hype up a ton of the investigations!
| Crimson |
I never said that Fox is completely unbiased. It was just an example of partisan influence in the media.
|
Well, here's how it's going down right now: The mainstream media is mostly crap when it comes to politics. A lot of the time, some one will hit on the story and it will be ALL OVER the news for months. It doesn't matter if it's true or not. Right now, the media is railing on Bush. In the 2000 election, which Gore actually won, except for the biased supreme court, the media was railing on Gore because he said he "invented the internet". Well, actually he was just taking credit for a program he championed and funded. He saw the value of ARPANET and stood behind it. And took credit for it. It's what government people do.
| Crimson |
I'm not complaining that I don't have enough money to live off of. I'm complaining that they are wasting what I do give them.
|
Like the War in Iraq. The media likes to call this the War on Terror, but it's not, really. Terrorism is a tactic. You can't attack a tactic. You attack people using a tactic. Like the Taliban. Like not Saddam.
| Crimson |
had taught myself to read at 2
|
Damn!
--
I thought it was real pretty how no one even touched on the environmental stuff except for Crimson going Blah Blah Environmental Stuff... when in fact the environment is GOD DAMN important. It's where we live. Once the environment goes, so do we. And we can't really habitate another planet yet. Earth is what we have. And Bush and his piss-ass company friends who want to ruin the environment for their own personal gain...are still being supported by so many people who want to look away.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #70330] |
Sat, 06 March 2004 18:05 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7428
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi |
What it clearly shows is that the stock market was acting like a normal stock market. It's basically an impossibility to make the market go straight up without ups and downs for several years in a row. As the market was going up under Clinton near the middle of his term, it wasn't going straight up. It was taking ups and downs, but was obviously rising. But OBVIOUSLY when it took a hop down this time, Clinton was OBVIOUSLY crashing the market. And you want to know why th market's going up bit by bit now? Because Bush wants to privatize social security and have people put all their retirement money in the stock market. After accepting donations from traders, because they make a ton of money if S.S. is invested in the market.
|
The fact that you actually believe what you are saying astounds me. All the time you hear about the "dot com bubble" popping. The "dot com bubble" cleary popped in March of 2000. Once the NASDAQ saw 5000, that was pretty much the end of it.
So now traders are bribing President Bush to make the market go up?? IF ONLY it were that simple! I guess you forgot that the market affects everyone, and bribe or no bribes, Bush would not only HAVE to do what he can to make it rise, but also WANT to make it rise! But no... he needs a bribe to do that. :rolleyes: What you are saying makes no damn sense. None at all.
Why are you so against privatizing Social Security? Do you think the government is doing a great job managing the money we give them? They essentially have a monopoly on those funds. If it's privatized, we win. The companies we decide to invest our retirement money with will have to compete for it. When businesses compete, we win. Right now, they can take our SS and piss it away (which they do) and it's really a giant Ponzi scheme. Privatizing SS makes sure that everyone gets their share, plus they can make more money on the market.
| Quote: |
| Crimson |
The Federal Government is granted 17 functions by the Constitution. To perform those duties requires about $750 million per year. You can't make this problem go away by throwing more money at it, you have to spend the money better!
|
You meant 750 billion, right?
|
Yes, I did, sorry.
| Quote: |
Well, if you want to cut spending, lets not have a 500 billion dollar war. A war that was in no way justified by the intelligence agencies. Last night on C-SPAN, Ed Kennedy was owning up on Bush for his reasons on invading Iraq. The Ed Kennedy all Republicans call "Kerry's Chief Campaign Surrogate Kennedy" to make it sound like something shady is going on. [Hint: Nothing shady is going on.]
|
Defending the US is one of the 17 functions that the Constitution grants the federal government. Regardless of your opinion about whether we should have gone to war. Therefore your argument here is moot.
| Quote: |
It's not an outrageous raise because the government was already getting that money.
|
And would you feel that way if it were your money being taxed? HONESTLY?
| Quote: |
What Bush does is make stupid decisions, and when someone starts to get on him, give everyone a big tax cut so everybody can be happy. And the government lost a lot of money from Bush's tax cuts. Like, 2.4 trillion or something. And AGAIN, Bush's tax cuts look SO bad that the money the government doesn't get from those taxes any more is still included in his 2004 budget.
|
http://www.nber.org/feldstein/wj032800.html
Where do you get $2.4 trillion?? The only figures I could find were around $600 billion over the next 10 years. But, as the following article displays, the so-called "cost" of a tax cut shouldn't enter into this, because that figure does not take into account changes in taxpayer activity. Using that figure means that you honestly believe that if I get, let's say, $2000 less per year tax liability, that I'm just going to put that money under my mattress. Literally. And not just me. Everyone will put their extra money under their mattresses (and put Sealy out of business j/k).
http://www.techcentralstation.com/012703C.html
Well, you're wrong. That extra money doesn't go into a mattress. It goes to the stock market. It goes into people's retirement accounts (heck, $2000 is just about an entire allowed IRA contribution for a year)... goes into the cash registers at department stores, electronics stores, grocery stores. If I grab a new DVD player off the shelf, someone had to design that DVD player. Someone had to build that DVD player. Someone had to sell the DVD player to the store. Someone had to drive the truck to bring the DVD player to the store. Someone had to put it on the shelf. Someone had to ring up my purchase. I had to pay sales tax on that purchase.
On the most basic level of speaking, if people have more money, they will buy more stuff. To say otherwise is ignorant.
Also, project tax liabilities change our behavior in other ways. Here's a real-life example:
My aunt is a nurse. She's actually is the charge nurse / clinical team lead on her floor. She makes about $35 an hour. If she worked 40 hours per week, it would put her into a higher tax bracket. So instead, she works about 30 hours a week and stays in the lower bracket. And as a result, she makes just about the same amount of money as a 40 hour week, but gets more time away from work. So she makes less money and works less hours because of the tax laws. And she's in a profession where they are desperate for workers.
| Quote: |
| Crimson |
I still don't understand how you can claim corruption in the Bush administration while being completely blind to the corruption in the Clinton administration.
|
What corruption in the Clinton administration? Monica Lewinsky was pretty much it. Oh, wait, you're reffering to all that crap on your little poster that has nothing behind it. Oh, but there's so much of it that everything must be true! It's impossible that republicans distorted and lied to make Clinton look bad, and then got FOX to hype up a ton of the investigations!
|
Yes, all the accusations of corruption in the Clinton administration are obviously just lies, while in the Bush administration they are true. You are completely blind and exceptionally ignorant to make that claim. Never mind that Clinton was disbarred and fined thousands of dollars. He was a good man. :rolleyes:
Do you really, truly, honestly believe that if Clinton was that close to so many shady dealings that he didn't have anything to do with ANY of them? Personally, I believe that there are even more of these dealings going on that we will never even know about. And I really like how you shrug off the Monica Lewinsky thing. Yeah, let's just shrug off our President lying to the entire world on national television and then being proved wrong. It's OK that he cheated on his wife. It's OK that he blatantly lied. You sure don't see President Bush getting "serviced" in his office, cheating on his wife. He's a good man who stands by his values.
Sorry, but this just makes you a huge hypocrite.
| Quote: |
| Crimson |
I never said that Fox is completely unbiased. It was just an example of partisan influence in the media.
|
Well, here's how it's going down right now: The mainstream media is mostly crap when it comes to politics.
|
I agree.
| Quote: |
A lot of the time, some one will hit on the story and it will be ALL OVER the news for months. It doesn't matter if it's true or not. Right now, the media is railing on Bush.
|
Yes, because they want to influence you to believe what they believe. Unfortunately, you are.
| Quote: |
In the 2000 election, which Gore actually won, except for the biased supreme court,
|
We'd need another year to argue that point.
| Quote: |
the media was railing on Gore because he said he "invented the internet". Well, actually he was just taking credit for a program he championed and funded. He saw the value of ARPANET and stood behind it. And took credit for it. It's what government people do.
|
I think Gore is dumb for making that claim, too. But since we both agree that the media is "mostly crap" when it comes to politics, I don't need to say anything more.
| Quote: |
| Crimson |
I'm not complaining that I don't have enough money to live off of. I'm complaining that they are wasting what I do give them.
|
Like the War in Iraq. The media likes to call this the War on Terror, but it's not, really. Terrorism is a tactic. You can't attack a tactic. You attack people using a tactic. Like the Taliban. Like not Saddam.
|
Saddam was found with $750,000 in American money. What's a lonely old dictator doing with that much American money if he's not funding terrorists?
| Quote: |
I thought it was real pretty how no one even touched on the environmental stuff except for Crimson going Blah Blah Environmental Stuff... when in fact the environment is GOD DAMN important. It's where we live. Once the environment goes, so do we. And we can't really habitate another planet yet. Earth is what we have. And Bush and his piss-ass company friends who want to ruin the environment for their own personal gain...are still being supported by so many people who want to look away.
|
Before you say that, read the link below on the fallacies in science.
http://www.junkscience.com/news/prma.html
Not everything that the media tells you about the environment is true. If you can agree on that about politics, you have to agree on it for the environment, too.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #70340] |
Sat, 06 March 2004 19:23 |
Llama Man 451
Messages: 79
Registered: February 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
um crimson- you were saying how awful it is clinton lied to EVERYONE about the whole lewinski thing on national tv.... guess what bush does whenever he makes a speech???
and bush has been proven wrong once again bringing up the WMD's. also, he lied about his tax cuts, you want ot talk actual scandals, george bush'ss dad (the other pres) was largely involved in some drug smuggling operation or something....
wanna know why the lewinski thing isnt a big deal??? it doesnt matter in politics at all!!!! george bush being a friggin retard does!!!!! his IQ is 91 for crying out loud!!!!!
dont even say that he got better SAT scores than gore because bush was a member of the skulls and bones which is a secret fraternity which easily could have "helped him out" a little bit.
also in the constitution it says everyone is garunteed the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.... how do you expect people on welfare to do this if they have to work so much just to get the BARE BARE minimum for their family??? crimson, you being a "constitutionalist" youd have thought you would know that.
also as far as i am concerned saddam was not any threat at all to us, it was osama we should have gone after, not saddam. we had NO intelligence that saddam was funding attacks or planning them in any way.... as for the american money thing i dont know that is a little suspicious, but you cant just say he is funding terror just because he is a cranky old dictator (even though it is a perfectly reasonable assumption)
with all that aside, i am very happy saddam has been captured but am still furious of the hypocracy about this whole war thing. he says we are getting money from the tax cuts when we are losing billions of dollars because of this stupid war!!!! iraq is a third world country, africa is a third world continent, why arent we helping them??? face it, bush is not a good man in the slightest, he is a callow, deceiving, rat bastard who will do anything to help out his buddies in the big corporations.
which may be why he is "raising the stock market" where do you think people put there money???? the big corporations on the stock market DUH! maybe that is why they would bribe bush so more people will back them on the stock.
i will say this now. i am not a frequent follower of the stock market but i know some key things about it.
i know this is random but you peeps should really check out the comic johnny the homicidal maniac IT IS HILARIOUS!!!! 
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #70366] |
Sat, 06 March 2004 23:29 |
|
Hydra
Messages: 827
Registered: September 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi |
You meant 750 billion, right? Well, if you want to cut spending, lets not have a 500 billion dollar war. A war that was in no way justified by the intelligence agencies. Last night on C-SPAN, Ed Kennedy was owning up on Bush for his reasons on invading Iraq. The Ed Kennedy all Republicans call "Kerry's Chief Campaign Surrogate Kennedy" to make it sound like something shady is going on. [Hint: Nothing shady is going on.]
|
Where in the hell did you see that the Iraq war would cost $500 billion? Last time I checked it was barely at $100 billion. Besides, this has nothing to do with the fact that spending for failed social programs like welfare and medicare is out of control and will make this country go bankrupt in a matter of decades. No matter how much the war on Iraq could cost, there is no way in hell it could possible cost more than social security or welfare.
Wars end. Excess spending on social programs can continue on forever.
The bankruptcy of this country will not be a result of a war; it will be the result of excess spending on failed social programs! Get that through your head!
| SuperFlyingEngi |
It's not an outrageous raise because the government was already getting that money.
|
Money that was given back to the people through a major tax cut. It will be a raise because those rates are not currently that high.
| SuperFlyingEngi |
What Bush does is make stupid decisions, and when someone starts to get on him, give everyone a big tax cut so everybody can be happy. And the government lost a lot of money from Bush's tax cuts. Like, 2.4 trillion or something.
|
$2.4 trillion was the size of the federal budget, numbnuts.
| SuperFlyingEngi |
And AGAIN, Bush's tax cuts look SO bad that the money the government doesn't get from those taxes any more is still included in his 2004 budget.
|
That's true. The biggest mistake the Republicans have made is spending money "like a drunken sailor" (in the words of Sen. John McCain).
| SuperFlyingEngi |
What corruption in the Clinton administration? Monica Lewinsky was pretty much it. Oh, wait, you're reffering to all that crap on your little poster that has nothing behind it. Oh, but there's so much of it that everything must be true! It's impossible that republicans distorted and lied to make Clinton look bad, and then got FOX to hype up a ton of the investigations!
|
You must've forgotten about the Whitewater scandal, "Troopergate," his pardoning of 140 convicts on his last day of office, including Carlos Vignali (convicted on cocaine trafficking, Marc Rich (a fugitive of tax evasion), Susan McDougal (a Whitewater witness who spent 18 months in prison for contempt of court for refusing to cooperate with special prosecutor Kenneth Starr), Henry Cisneros and Patty Hearst, and sexual harassment accusations from Paula Jones. Do I need to go on?
| SuperFlyingEngi |
Well, here's how it's going down right now: The mainstream media is mostly crap when it comes to politics. A lot of the time, some one will hit on the story and it will be ALL OVER the news for months. It doesn't matter if it's true or not. Right now, the media is railing on Bush.
|
Holy crap. Did you just say something intelligent for once? Holy shit, hell must've frozen over.
| SuperFlyingEngi |
In the 2000 election, which Gore actually won, except for the biased supreme court,
|
Oh no! You blew it! You were doing so well, too  .
Biased Supreme Court decision. Give me a break :rolleyes:.
| SuperFlyingEngi |
the media was railing on Gore because he said he "invented the internet". Well, actually he was just taking credit for a program he championed and funded. He saw the value of ARPANET and stood behind it. And took credit for it. It's what government people do.
|
And I funded and championed the invention of the automobile :rolleyes:.
| SuperFlyingEngi |
Like the War in Iraq. The media likes to call this the War on Terror, but it's not, really. Terrorism is a tactic. You can't attack a tactic. You attack people using a tactic. Like the Taliban. Like not Saddam.
|
And this is relevant...how?
| SuperFlyingEngi |
I thought it was real pretty how no one even touched on the environmental stuff except for Crimson going Blah Blah Environmental Stuff... when in fact the environment is GOD DAMN important. It's where we live. Once the environment goes, so do we. And we can't really habitate another planet yet. Earth is what we have. And Bush and his piss-ass company friends who want to ruin the environment for their own personal gain...are still being supported by so many people who want to look away.
|
Bush isn't ruining the environment for his own personal gain. Stop talking out of your ass.
Here, you want someone to respond to that environmental crap you posted earlier? Here it is.
| SuperFlyingEngi |
WHY BUSH IS BAD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT:
First, the deputy secretary of the interior right now is J. Steven Griles. Griles has opened public lands to gas, oil, and mining interests, all while receiving money from his former employees in the gas, oil, and mining industries. His appointment has been a particular boon to a sector of the col mining industry that is not afraid to think big: the sector that removes mountaintops. When you remove the top of a mountain, you get easy access to the resources inside. But, the mountaintop doesn't just vanish. Normally, it goes to a nearby valley. Griles was an executive at United Company, where he oversaw the Dal-Tex mine in West Virginia, which had one of the largest mountaintop removals since Krakatoa. When miners detonate the ridges, they fill in valleys and bury streams with trees, rocks, and 13 species of birds, as well as sending boulders flying in to houses along with creating asthma-causing debris. And then, United Company sets up coal-mining machines that run 24 hours a day right next to homes. For a while, environmental acts like the Clean Water act have made it illegal to dump mountaintops in streams. But now, the Bush administration has re-written the act to allow mining waste to be dumped right into waterways.
|
Did you just pull all of this from your ass, or do you have something to back this up?
| SuperFlyingEngi |
Lets look at some other people who probably shouldn't be where they are right now under the Bush administration:
Mark Rey:
Position: Undersecretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and Environment
Currently in charge of: Forests
Previously lobbied for polluters of: Forests.
|
http://www.usda.gov/agencies/gallery/rey.htm
Would you tell me who these polluters of forests this guy lobbied for are, please?
| SuperFlyingEngi |
Bennet W. Raley:
Position: Interior Assistant Secretary for Water and Science
Currently in charge of: Water
Previously lobbied for polluters of: Water
|
http://www.doi.gov/bio/raleybio.html
Would you tell me who these polluters of water this guy lobbied for are, please?
| SuperFlyingEngi |
Rebecca Watson:
Position: Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Land and Minerals Management
Currently in charge of: Land that contains minerals
Previously lobbied for polluters of: Land that contains minerals
|
This is geting old...
http://www.doi.gov/bio/watsbio.html
Would you tell me who these polluters of land that contains minerals this lady lobbied for are, please?
| SuperFlyingEngi |
Carmen Toohey:
Position: Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Interior for Alaska
Currently in charge of: Alaska
Previously lobbied for polluters of: Alaska
|
This is getting REALLY OLD...
Who are these so-called polluters of Alaska Mrs. Toohey lobbied for?
| SuperFlyingEngi |
Patricia Lynn Scarlett:
Position: Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Policy, Management, and Budget
Currently in charge of: Government regulations
Previously lobbied for poluters of: Everything
|
You have said nothing that doesn't make me believe you just crapped all this out this morning and posted it whenever you felt like it. Some evidence would be nice.
As for the rest of your post, I refer you to the article on junkscience.com Crimson posted.
| Retard Man IQ-Of-1 |
um crimson- you were saying how awful it is clinton lied to EVERYONE about the whole lewinski thing on national tv.... guess what bush does whenever he makes a speech???
|
Okay, Retard Man IQ-Of-1, you really have to cut out the mindless crap that you randomly think of and post that means absolutely nothing. They're always full of simple errors my eight-year-old cousin could correct and don't mean shit.
| Retard Man IQ-Of-1 |
and bush has been proven wrong once again bringing up the WMD's. also, he lied about his tax cuts, you want ot talk actual scandals, george bush'ss dad (the other pres) was largely involved in some drug smuggling operation or something....
|
:rolleyes:
This doesn't even merit a response.
| Retard Man IQ-Of-1 |
wanna know why the lewinski thing isnt a big deal??? it doesnt matter in politics at all!!!! george bush being a friggin retard does!!!!! his IQ is 91 for crying out loud!!!!!
|
So committing perjury means absolutely nothing, but having a low IQ does?
:rolleyes:
How the hell do you know George Bush's IQ, anyway? Did Al Franken tell you George Bush was legally retarded?
| Retard Man IQ-Of-1 |
dont even say that he got better SAT scores than gore because bush was a member of the skulls and bones which is a secret fraternity which easily could have "helped him out" a little bit.
|
Stop talking, okay? Just stop. You're digging yourself a hole that you won't be able to climb out of.
| Retard Man IQ-Of-1 |
also in the constitution it says everyone is garunteed the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.... how do you expect people on welfare to do this if they have to work so much just to get the BARE BARE minimum for their family??? crimson, you being a "constitutionalist" youd have thought you would know that.
|
That's the Declaration of Independence, asshole.
People on welfare should not have a family they cannot support, nor should they even be on welfare in the first place. Look to yourself or your fellow men for help in financial situations, not the government.
| Retard Man IQ-Of-1 |
also as far as i am concerned saddam was not any threat at all to us, it was osama we should have gone after, not saddam. we had NO intelligence that saddam was funding attacks or planning them in any way.... as for the american money thing i dont know that is a little suspicious, but you cant just say he is funding terror just because he is a cranky old dictator (even though it is a perfectly reasonable assumption)
|
Thank you Al Gore :rolleyes:.
Iraq harbored terrorists. Iraq had a terrorist training camp located in northern Iraq. That training camp had a 7?7 jet (forgot the exact model of the airplane) used for training terrorists to hijack an airliner. Saddam Hussein let all of this happen. He knew all about it. He was definitely a threat.
| Retard Man IQ-Of-1 |
with all that aside, i am very happy saddam has been captured but am still furious of the hypocracy about this whole war thing. he says we are getting money from the tax cuts when we are losing billions of dollars because of this stupid war!!!! iraq is a third world country, africa is a third world continent, why arent we helping them??? face it, bush is not a good man in the slightest, he is a callow, deceiving, rat bastard who will do anything to help out his buddies in the big corporations.
|
Bullshit you're happy! How the hell do you get rid of a brutal dictator that refuses to reason? You take him out militarily.
Face it, you are a retard who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
In response to the rest of your post, you don't know jack shit about the stock market.
Holy fucking shit, was that long!
Walter Keith Koester: September 22, 1962 - March 15, 2005
God be with you, Uncle Wally.
(<---New(ish) Prayer Group Forums)
(<---Archived Prayer Group Forums)
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #70377] |
Sun, 07 March 2004 02:36 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7428
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
I agree. He doesn't know a damned thing about the stock market. Just remember that I worked at Charles Schwab for 3 years and I spoke to traders all day, every day. Do NOT take me on in this area unless your experience outweighs mine. Sorry, but that has to be said.
Llama Man, you are nothing but a conspiracy theorist who eats everything CNN feeds him. You really don't belong in this argument because your intellect is far inferior to anyone else who posts in here. (Not counting your split personalities of course)
| Quote: |
also in the constitution it says everyone is garunteed the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.... how do you expect people on welfare to do this if they have to work so much just to get the BARE BARE minimum for their family??? crimson, you being a "constitutionalist" youd have thought you would know that.
|
First off, it wasn't the Constitution that said this.
Second, tell me where this isn't being fulfilled.
Life: These people are alive.
Liberty: They are free. Freedom of speech, etc... people who are poor do not lose any liberties granted to them by the Bill of Rights.
Pursuit of Happiness: Since when was money equal to happiness? There are people who can't pay their bills who are still happy, and there are people who are rich who are not happy. And we don't even guarantee happiness, we just guarantee the right to pursue it.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #70457] |
Sun, 07 March 2004 17:58 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Crimson |
The fact that you actually believe what you are saying astounds me. All the time you hear about the "dot com bubble" popping. The "dot com bubble" cleary popped in March of 2000. Once the NASDAQ saw 5000, that was pretty much the end of it.
|
Oh no, here we go with the "Blame Clinton for the bad stuff, take away credit for the good stuff" ...stuff.
| Crimson |
Why are you so against privatizing Social Security?
|
Because Bush gives money back to people and makes it so they can't let the government hold on to it, then stupid people lose their retirement on bad investments and go on welfare, which you so radically hate.
| Crimson |
If it's privatized, we win.
|
"We" as in "Not stupid and/or unlucky people".
| Crimson |
Privatizing SS makes sure that everyone gets their share, plus they can make more money on the market.
|
Not everyone wins on the market. Keeping SS with the government keeps homeless people off of the street.
| Crimson |
Right now, they can take our SS and piss it away (which they do) and it's really a giant Ponzi scheme.
|
Actually, now the government takes what you put in for Social Security and uses that money to pay for the social security of the people who get it now. It's going to be a HUGE problem when the baby boomers go into retirement and social security goes Up Up Up.
| Crimson |
Defending the US is one of the 17 functions that the Constitution grants the federal government. Regardless of your opinion about whether we should have gone to war. Therefore your argument here is moot.
|
Oh, I meant to type 50 billion instead of 500, but no one really knows how much it costs because ITS NOT INCLUDED IN BUSH'S 2004 BUDGET!
| Crimson |
And would you feel that way if it were your money being taxed? HONESTLY?
|
If it's necessary to keep the country running well, than yes. HONESTLY.
---
Let's talk about the government only needing 750 billion a year to run. You know what the government spends per year on the military? About 450 billion dollars. How much per year does the government spend on the national debt? Well, the whole debt service gets about 383 billion a year, and about 95% of that goes towwards paying interest on the national debt. So far that's over 800 billion dollars. And you want to cut taxes? That's pretty much one of the last things that we should do.
--
| Crimson |
The only figures I could find were around $600 billion over the next 10 years.
|
And that's a good thing? See above.
| Crimson |
Well, you're wrong. That extra money doesn't go into a mattress. It goes to the stock market. It goes into people's retirement accounts (heck, $2000 is just about an entire allowed IRA contribution for a year)... goes into the cash registers at department stores, electronics stores, grocery stores. If I grab a new DVD player off the shelf, someone had to design that DVD player. Someone had to build that DVD player. Someone had to sell the DVD player to the store. Someone had to drive the truck to bring the DVD player to the store. Someone had to put it on the shelf. Someone had to ring up my purchase. I had to pay sales tax on that purchase.
|
So everyone buying some entertainment item is better than using the money to pay off the national debt? 7 trillion dollars doesn't just vanish.
| Crimson |
]On the most basic level of speaking, if people have more money, they will buy more stuff. To say otherwise is ignorant.
|
Guess who buys the most stuff with money? The poor. But god damn, we better not give THOSE losers any money!
| Crimson |
Do you really, truly, honestly believe that if Clinton was that close to so many shady dealings that he didn't have anything to do with ANY of them?
|
Ooh, like how he was soooo close to Whitewater? Read the part where I talked about your poster in full, probably 14 or so pages back.
| Crimson |
Yeah, let's just shrug off our President lying to the entire world on national television and then being proved wrong.
|
I think the Clinton/Lewinsky thing was really bad. But what's worse: Lying to the American people about personal affairs, or lying to the American people about going to war and the environment? Take a minute on that one.
| Crimson |
Yes, because they want to influence you to believe what they believe. Unfortunately, you are.
|
Yes, I too see how incredibly obvious it is that I get EVERYTHING from the media. However, one way to make the media more truthful is cross-reference stories. If there are too many holes, you can tell something's up. But again, I don't learn everything from the media.
| Crimson |
I think Gore is dumb for making that claim, too.
|
I don't think he was dumb for making that claim. If anything, he was dumb for saying something the right could distort into something that makes people think he's a lying monster.
| Crimson |
Saddam was found with $750,000 in American money. What's a lonely old dictator doing with that much American money if he's not funding terrorists?
|
What the crap? Maybe he was using that money to buy things like food or stuff. But since he was being hunted by the armed forces, it's obvious the first thing on his mind was to give money to terrorists from down in a hole.
| Crimson |
Before you say that, read the link below on the fallacies in science.
|
That means you shouldn't always believe unfounded science.
Oops, dinner calls. I'm going to come back in an hour or so and edit this post. Please pardon the discomfort.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #70474] |
Sun, 07 March 2004 20:07 |
Llama Man 451
Messages: 79
Registered: February 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
hydra- you know whats really getting old???? you saying "ehhh im a stuck up asshole sixteen year old, did you pull that out of your ass retard man iq of 1?? ehhh... its unfortunate i contribute less than that freak retard man who has .... ehhh.... eh...... you pull that out of your ass.... you crapped that out didnt you..... ehhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!" honestly your starting to make me angry. in response t oyour post about your eight year old cousin.
Fi9rstly, he is unfortunat to have such an asshole for a cousin.
Secondly, since you are so determined that i have split personalities, maybe i am your cousin..... 
I AM SORRY ABOUT THE STOCK MARKET LIKE I SAID I AM NOT WELL LEARNED IN THAT FIELD, BUT I TRIED MY BEST. I AM OPENLY ADMITTING WHEN IT COMES TO THAT TOPIC CRIMSON IS MUCH MUCH MUCH SMARTER.
:oops: :oops:
well, now that i have fed your egos i will .... give it laxitives.... in a manner of speaking.... or at least thing i am
why do they call it the war on iraq when we are trying to liberate it, i thought saddam was what we were trying to fix not the whole damn country
also, saying that we would have wasted the money that we already wasted on the war is stupid. it might be true for all i know but even if we did "waste it" it would help a lot more people for a lot longer of a time. im not saying welfare taxes are the greates thing in the world (actually ift might seem like it but there goes the split personality again her huh! ((that was laughing)) )
i understand where you are coming from about people having welfare as a career basically, maybe that is wy clinton prettty much got rid of it during his term.
as for the drug smugging thing (im not sure if that was it, but it was something equally scandalous, i will try to find a link or reference)
i would like to reiterate this (even though it is futile because i basically made fun of myself using this) but i am not schizophrenic and i do not have split personality disorder. you say i have the same IP but have you checked any of the other IPs i bet they are all different.
i hate to say this, but i am sorry if i offend you horribly. im also sorry i am not that good at typing. but please just because i think or express myself differently than you other guys doesnt mean i am totally worthless, say what you want, but as long as i know that you are respecting my opinion and beliefs i will feel a little bit better about myself.
i would be very grateful for the above, and i will TRY to tone down my posts.
"You all stare but you'll never see/ There's someting inside me" - Corey Taylor
Life is strange when you must lock your door in fear of your cat
Sometimes when I'm all alone I stare at my goldfish, and think about how much I hate fishticks, then I realize that I don't have a goldfish.
There is a fair chance that at this moment I am being hunted by a demonic monkey from Central America. Please don't tell him I've been here. Please. I don't know what he wants.
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #70490] |
Sun, 07 March 2004 22:38 |
|
Hydra
Messages: 827
Registered: September 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi |
Oh no, here we go with the "Blame Clinton for the bad stuff, take away credit for the good stuff" ...stuff.
|
Tell me what good Clinton is responsible for. Not what good happened during his term, but what he is directly responsible for. You say the economy grew because of him. What economic policy did Clinton implement and how did that make the economy grow?
If Clinton did all good and no bad during his term, then why did the economy go into recession five months after his term ended?
| SuperFlyingEngi |
Because Bush gives money back to people and makes it so they can't let the government hold on to it, then stupid people lose their retirement on bad investments and go on welfare, which you so radically hate.
|
That's why they're called stupid people, because a smart person would put a portion of that money in a savings fund in the bank where it can safely gain interest, and/or invest another portion of that money in USTBs.
| SuperFlyingEngi |
"We" as in "Not stupid and/or unlucky people".
|
"We win" as in businesses would have to compete with each other and offer cheaper and better services.
If you lose all of your money because of a stupid decision you made, I should not have to pay for it.
| SuperFlyingEngi |
Not everyone wins on the market. Keeping SS with the government keeps homeless people off of the street.
|
Keeping SS with the government keeps the budget deficit high.
| SuperFlyingEngi |
Actually, now the government takes what you put in for Social Security and uses that money to pay for the social security of the people who get it now. It's going to be a HUGE problem when the baby boomers go into retirement and social security goes Up Up Up.
|
Which means Social Security is really just an income redistribution method used by the government to plunder from the successful and give to the lazy.
Give me one good reason why you should not have to pay for your own needs with your own money.
| SuperFlyingEngi |
Oh, I meant to type 50 billion instead of 500, but no one really knows how much it costs because ITS NOT INCLUDED IN BUSH'S 2004 BUDGET!
|
You're mad about a $50 billion war, which is necessary for our country's self-defense, when over $400 billion will be spent on medicare, which is just an elaborate and expensive vote-buying scheme to buy the votes of geriatrics, over the next few years?
You need to get your priorities straight.
| SuperFlyingEngi |
If it's necessary to keep the country running well, than yes. HONESTLY.
|
Too bad it's not running well.
| SuperFlyingEngi |
Let's talk about the government only needing 750 billion a year to run. You know what the government spends per year on the military? About 450 billion dollars. How much per year does the government spend on the national debt? Well, the whole debt service gets about 383 billion a year, and about 95% of that goes towwards paying interest on the national debt. So far that's over 800 billion dollars. And you want to cut taxes? That's pretty much one of the last things that we should do.
|
$750 billion would be all that is needed if the government was reduced to its constitutionally mandated size. As of now, the government is exponentially larger than what our forefathers had previously planned for the size to actually be. Granted, some services require more money now than was required when the Constitution was written (we need to spend billions of dollars on our kick-ass military to make sure it stays the best in the world), but programs like welfare and medicare did not even cross the minds of our forefathers.
| SuperFlyingEngi |
And that's a good thing? See above.
|
Yes, it is, because that money is going to be put back into the economy. That money would be given to the people to spend and invest which would make the economy grow bigger.
Tax cuts=larger economy.
| SuperFlyingEngi |
So everyone buying some entertainment item is better than using the money to pay off the national debt? 7 trillion dollars doesn't just vanish.
|
Everyone buying an increased amount of goods and services is good for the economy. If the government would stop spending so much damn money, there wouldn't be such a huge national debt.
So the national debt is $7 trillion now? :rolleyes:
I'd like to see where you pulled that statistic from.
| SuperFlyingEngi |
Guess who buys the most stuff with money? The poor. But god damn, we better not give THOSE losers any money!
|
This may be true in your own little world, but in reality, rich people buy the most stuff with money because they actually have money.
Poor people are poor because they keep doing the things that make them poor. You are where you are in life as a result of your own decisions. If you have made bad decisions before in your life, you should look to yourself or your fellow man for help! NOT THE GOVERNMENT!!!! The role of government is to protect the rights of its citizens, not give a free handout to anyone who doesn't want to work! There are plenty of private organizations and charities that would gladly help you if you are in a bad position in your life. Do not look to the government for help unless one of your rights has been infringed.
| SuperFlyingEngi |
Ooh, like how he was soooo close to Whitewater? Read the part where I talked about your poster in full, probably 14 or so pages back.
|
Clinton is guilty as sin and you know it. Just how desperate he was during the Lewinsky investigation should be enough to get anyone to believe he was guilty! He tried to explain the meaning of the word "is" for cryin' out loud!!! How can you defend a man who gets desperate enough to debate the meaning of the word "is?" :rolleyes:
| SuperFlyingEngi |
I think the Clinton/Lewinsky thing was really bad. But what's worse: Lying to the American people about personal affairs, or lying to the American people about going to war and the environment? Take a minute on that one.
|
Well, since one lie was under oath in a court of law, which is a felony, and the other "lie" is only a personal conviction you have with no evidence to prove those lies to be lies, which really isn't a lie at all, then I would have to say the first lie is worse simply because the second "lie" is not a lie at all.
| SuperFlyingEngi |
Yes, I too see how incredibly obvious it is that I get EVERYTHING from the media. However, one way to make the media more truthful is cross-reference stories. If there are too many holes, you can tell something's up. But again, I don't learn everything from the media.
|
That's good that you don't get all of your news from one source since there is no such thing as a purely objective news source.
| SuperFlyingEngi |
I don't think he was dumb for making that claim. If anything, he was dumb for saying something the right could distort into something that makes people think he's a lying monster.
|
The "something" that the "right" distorted was the claim that he invented the internet.
So you just said Al Gore was dumb for making that claim.
| SuperFlyingEngi |
What the crap? Maybe he was using that money to buy things like food or stuff. But since he was being hunted by the armed forces, it's obvious the first thing on his mind was to give money to terrorists from down in a hole.
|
:rolleyes:
He was going to use $750,000 to buy food, riiiiiiiiight.
It never occured to you that a terrorist group was planning to meet Saddam to pick up the cash while he was in hiding?
| SuperFlyingEngi |
That means you shouldn't always believe unfounded science.
|
It also means that a single study doesn't necessarily mean anything until more and more studies and experiments are conducted to support the findings of that study.
| Retard Man IQ-Of-1 |
hydra- you know whats really getting old???? you saying "ehhh im a stuck up asshole sixteen year old, did you pull that out of your ass retard man iq of 1?? ehhh... its unfortunate i contribute less than that freak retard man who has .... ehhh.... eh...... you pull that out of your ass.... you crapped that out didnt you..... ehhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!" honestly your starting to make me angry. in response t oyour post about your eight year old cousin.
Fi9rstly, he is unfortunat to have such an asshole for a cousin.
Secondly, since you are so determined that i have split personalities, maybe i am your cousin.....
|
I haven't accused you of having split personalities. I accused you of having multiple accounts simply for the purpose of spamming under those accounts so this one doesn't get deleted.
Your "response," if you can even call it that, to my post about my eight-year-old cousin is just plain stupid. It shows you completely missed the point of what I said and you have no ability whatsoever to pick up on simple sarcasm.
| Retard Man IQ-Of-1 |
why do they call it the war on iraq when we are trying to liberate it, i thought saddam was what we were trying to fix not the whole damn country
|
Who the hell cares? It's completely irrelevant to what we are arguing here.
| Retard Man IQ-Of-1 |
also, saying that we would have wasted the money that we already wasted on the war is stupid. it might be true for all i know but even if we did "waste it" it would help a lot more people for a lot longer of a time.
|
Your inability at forming a cohesive sentence using basic grammar skills astounds me.
Someone tell me what the hell this guy is trying to say.
| Retard Man IQ-Of-1 |
im not saying welfare taxes are the greates thing in the world (actually ift might seem like it but there goes the split personality again her huh! ((that was laughing)) )
i understand where you are coming from about people having welfare as a career basically, maybe that is wy clinton prettty much got rid of it during his term.
|
:rolleyes:
Are you seriously that uninformed? Clinton proposed major spending increases on welfare, one of the reasons why it costs so damn much right now.
Clinton did anything BUT get rid of welfare.
| Retard Man IQ-Of-1 |
as for the drug smugging thing (im not sure if that was it, but it was something equally scandalous, i will try to find a link or reference)
|
| Retard Man IQ-Of-1 |
i hate to say this, but i am sorry if i offend you horribly. im also sorry i am not that good at typing. but please just because i think or express myself differently than you other guys doesnt mean i am totally worthless, say what you want, but as long as i know that you are respecting my opinion and beliefs i will feel a little bit better about myself.
|
There's an easy way to fix the typing thing. It's called proofreading. Before you make a post, proofread it first and make sure it makes sense. We don't mind that you have an opinion different from ours, it's that you don't take the time to read your own posts before posting them to make sure they make sense. The reason why I call you retarded is because you make posts that look like they were written by a monkey hitting random keys because he liked the color of the keyboard. None of your posts ever have a single thought that is clearly expressed; you always smash a bunch of random thoughts together in the form of one long, run-on sentence. You rarely, if ever, use punctuation of any kind, so we cannot even begin to understand your post because it just does not make any sense.
Walter Keith Koester: September 22, 1962 - March 15, 2005
God be with you, Uncle Wally.
(<---New(ish) Prayer Group Forums)
(<---Archived Prayer Group Forums)
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #70502] |
Mon, 08 March 2004 01:24 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7428
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
And why would Saddam buy food with American money. Surely Iraqi food is bought with Iraqi money. :rolleyes: I didn't know they used American dollars in Iraq.
I seriously doubt that many companies, if any, would allow you to throw your SS money on tech stocks and high-risk mutual funds. I know if I were in charge, I'd restrict the types of investments one can make. Safe investments like treasury bills, low-risk diversified mutual funds (diversified between US and foreign markets, too). Something that gets moderate gains with minimal risk.
And before you disagree that SS is a Ponzi scheme, I invite you to look at the definition of a Ponzi scheme:
Pon·zi scheme ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pnz)
n.
An investment swindle in which high profits are promised from fictitious sources and early investors are paid off with funds raised from later ones.
The problem is, the workers (us) are supposed to get back what we put in. But, there's overhead for all the workers who deal with SS and keep the books. But you're supposed to get back what you put in. So in order to make sure you get that money, they take money from those who are currently working to pay you, expecting to pay those people back with money from future generations of workers. That's exactly what a Ponzi scheme is, and we need to break out of it before SS's own debt becomes too large.
---
| hydra |
So the national debt is $7 trillion now?
I'd like to see where you pulled that statistic from.
|
Unfortunately, this is the right figure.
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm
Current Amount
03/04/2004 $7,099,563,768,330.73
---
Other than that, I agree with your rebuttal, hydra. 
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #70588] |
Mon, 08 March 2004 14:12 |
Llama Man 451
Messages: 79
Registered: February 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Hydra-
Yes, the forefathers may not have inteded for medicare and social security to happen. Bu your arguement about the gov't becoming larger is jusp plain old dumb. What do you think the department of Homeland Security is? It was just something created to take jobs away from the FBI.
Also, tax cuts may better the economy if you spend the money that is actually a good point. But if you think about it in the long run, tax cuts are definately NOT good for the economy. BEcause the government loses soooo much money from these cuts they cannot supply basic needs for everyone else (social security, welfare, medicare.) This in turn destroys any system of medicare or social security because the government would either
A) Have to take back the tax cuts (which would make a lot of people angry.)
B) Have to repeal all the programs (which would make even more people angry.)
Basically, in the long run, tax cuts will come back to bite the American people in the ass.
Also, you said if you do not have money you should look to your fellow man . . . so is the government not considered your fellow man?
Another thing about tax cuts, notice Bush is doing another one, conviniently right before the next election and right after this whole AWOL business. Could it be he is trying to take attention away from this? Bill Clinton did the same thing concerning Monica Lewinski, you may say which is entirely true, but at the same time that affair affected the American people in no way (unless you count all of the SNL skits which were pretty damn funny)!
Basically, what I have been trying to say is that short sightedly tax cuts are great and may appear to be hlping the country out a whole bunch, but in the long term they are nothing but scandalous tricks which will come back to bite us in the ass. Hard.
"You all stare but you'll never see/ There's someting inside me" - Corey Taylor
Life is strange when you must lock your door in fear of your cat
Sometimes when I'm all alone I stare at my goldfish, and think about how much I hate fishticks, then I realize that I don't have a goldfish.
There is a fair chance that at this moment I am being hunted by a demonic monkey from Central America. Please don't tell him I've been here. Please. I don't know what he wants.
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #70613] |
Mon, 08 March 2004 16:28 |
Llama Man 451
Messages: 79
Registered: February 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Oh, Superflyingengl, about you saying that the poor people but the most stuff, I am not completely sure that is right . . . I may be wrong. 2% of the world's population owns something like 90% of the world's assets.
Not that I am trying to prove you wrong or anything but you know . . . just a little tid bit of information.
Hee hee hee, your post was funny, keep it up.
"You all stare but you'll never see/ There's someting inside me" - Corey Taylor
Life is strange when you must lock your door in fear of your cat
Sometimes when I'm all alone I stare at my goldfish, and think about how much I hate fishticks, then I realize that I don't have a goldfish.
There is a fair chance that at this moment I am being hunted by a demonic monkey from Central America. Please don't tell him I've been here. Please. I don't know what he wants.
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #70653] |
Mon, 08 March 2004 18:00 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
First off, sorry about the abscence, but my cable got knocked out by a storm after dinner so I couldn't post another reply.
Now, lets look at some Bush lies: http://www.house.gov/appropriations_democrats/caughtonfilm.htm
- - - -
On Medicare: Most every Republican says that Medicare is a success, even people like Mr. Sapphire.
| hareman |
Are you guys federally subsidized to use the quote button?
|
Yes.
| Crimson |
And why would Saddam buy food with American money. Surely Iraqi food is bought with Iraqi money.
|
I was using food as a generic term. Who knows what he was doing with that money. I'm not in to the psychology of people. But here comes everyone "Terrorist Terrorist!"
Why privatizing Social Security is bad:
Well, first, with all those retirement investments going in to the stock market, that's a load of trades, right? The Bush administration will pick someone like Payne Weber to do those trades, instantly making several people multi-billionaires. So, these people will get everyone to invest their money in McDonalds or something, inflating the stock's price far higher than it's worth. Then, over the weekend, the stock comes crashing down, and a couple people take everyone's retirement.
| hydra1945 |
Tell me what good Clinton is responsible for. Not what good happened during his term, but what he is directly responsible for. You say the economy grew because of him. What economic policy did Clinton implement and how did that make the economy grow?
|
You want me to name what Clinton did? Do you know what you're talking about? You think these posts right now are big? You can just keep right on coming with your random stuff about how the spontaneous 23 million jobs created under Clinton were the product of Reagan's tax cuts or whatever. Or how, out of the blue, while Clinton was in office, it was obvious that the Republicans were causing violent crime to drop vastly instead of the president.
| hydra1945 |
why did the economy go into recession five months after his term ended?
|
Because Bush is bad. Duh.
| hydra1945 |
Keeping SS with the government keeps the budget deficit high.
|
So does spending more money on the military than the entire rest of the world combined.
| hydra1945 |
Which means Social Security is really just an income redistribution method used by the government to plunder from the successful and give to the lazy.
|
So elderly people are naturally lazy because they have reached their retirement age and put money into social security the whole time?
| hydra1945 |
You're mad about a $50 billion war, which is necessary for our country's self-defense, when over $400 billion will be spent on medicare, which is just an elaborate and expensive vote-buying scheme to buy the votes of geriatrics, over the next few years?
|
Again, even Republicans like Mr. Sapphire think medicare is one of the most succesful programs in the U.S. Besides, unlike wars, the purpose of medicare is not killing people. It's saving people.
| hydra1945 |
Too bad it's not running well.
|
And you have a solution? Besides give me my money and go away?
| hydra1945 |
$750 billion would be all that is needed if the government was reduced to its constitutionally mandated size. As of now, the government is exponentially larger than what our forefathers had previously planned for the size to actually be. Granted, some services require more money now than was required when the Constitution was written (we need to spend billions of dollars on our kick-ass military to make sure it stays the best in the world), but programs like welfare and medicare did not even cross the minds of our forefathers.
|
You mean hundreds of billions of dollars to support our military.
So because about 300 years ago the founding fathers didn't think of medicare and welfare means it's a crappy program now? What in the world are you talking about?
| hydra1945 |
Tax cuts=larger economy.
|
You wish. That's called supply-side economics. Created by rich people so they can have more money. The standard comeback for supply-side economics is that during our country when the rich have been taxed less, the economy has been at it's best. What was the marginal tax rate for the top 1% during the Eisenhour administration? 88%.
| hydra1945 |
This may be true in your own little world, but in reality, rich people buy the most stuff with money because they actually have money.
|
Ehrm...if you mean by buying things you mean putting it in the bank....
--
Here's a little something I have to say about welfare:
There's a homeless guy out on the street. he needs a cheeseburger or he's going to die. Pretty much everyone in this situation would buy the man a cheeseburger. But then we get to whether the government should provide that cheeseburger.
Here's another:
You're on a bridge, and someone below you is drowning. You happen to be carrying a rope with you. Do you throw the rope down to him, or not throw the rope because it would get your nice rope all wet?
Before Reagan, there used to be warm places homeless people could go to on a particular cold night. Then Reagan came, and stopped the funding. Months later, he was proud to say that there were far fewer homeless on the streets than there used to be because they had toughed up and got a job. What had actually happened? They died. Also, when my dad used to commute in New York, he passed through Penn station, an open place where people can come and go as they pleased. Before Reagan, there were a few beggers down there. But during his administration, you'd literally be stepping over these people who weren't even bothering to beg, they were just down there to be in a warm place. Also, Reagan cut funding to crazy houses in New York, so all these people who needed medical treatment were suddenly let loose in the streets. It saved New York a load of money, but greatly increased the number of homeless. Until they died, of course.
--
| hydra1945 |
Clinton is guilty as sin and you know it.
|
Wrong.
| hydra1945 |
Just how desperate he was during the Lewinsky investigation should be enough to get anyone to believe he was guilty! He tried to explain the meaning of the word "is" for cryin' out loud!!! How can you defend a man who gets desperate enough to debate the meaning of the word "is?"
|
Ok, let's talk about desperate. How about the Bush administration being desperate to prove that he wasn't AWOL so far that they are releasing dental records. Dental records normally just get released when people die. They released dental records for cryin' out loud!!! How can you defend a man desperate enough to release dental records?
| hydra1945 |
and the other "lie" is only a personal conviction you have with no evidence to prove those lies to be lies, which really isn't a lie at all, then I would have to say the first lie is worse simply because the second "lie" is not a lie at all.
|
Cruise around http://www.bushwatch.com and see what you find. And don't give me crap about it being biased. Nowadays, anything that is anti-bush is biased.
| hydra1945 |
The "something" that the "right" distorted was the claim that he invented the internet.
So you just said Al Gore was dumb for making that claim.
|
You really missed out on what i said. First off, I was being sarcastic. I as pointing out how Republcans used a fairly legitimate claim and distorted it to make Gore look bad.
| hydra1945 |
It never occured to you that a terrorist group was planning to meet Saddam to pick up the cash while he was in hiding?
|
Where'd you pull that one from? Out of your ass?
| hydra1945 |
It also means that a single study doesn't necessarily mean anything until more and more studies and experiments are conducted to support the findings of that study.
|
Yeah, all science is crap. The only thing we can have faith in is UFOs and government cover-ups.
| hydra1945 |
So the national debt is $7 trillion now?
I'd like to see where you pulled that statistic from.
|
You don't know much, do you?
NOTE: I am editing this post several times because the quotes aren't working right.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #70665] |
Mon, 08 March 2004 18:45 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
WTF? I have no idea what is going on with my posts. Every time I edit something, a new post is formed. Crimson, could you please delete the top two renditions of my post? The third one is the final form, although I have no idea what is happening.
Anyway, sorry about that.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu May 23 10:53:01 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 1.38852 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
.
