PDA

View Full Version : Sarah Palin calls North Korea Ally of U.S.



Roger Perry
11-25-2010, 09:29 AM
And this is who you righties want to be the next President of our Country:confused:

Ok, lets hear your spin on this one-----------------

Within days after she announced her intention to run for the President, Sarah Palin (http://www.ibtimes.com/topics/detail/127/sarah-palin/), the former governor of Alaska is caught up with yet another gaffe. This time, referring to North Korea as an "ally" of the United States.

The 2008 Republican vice-presidential candidate had a brief slip of the tongue on the Fox news presenter Glenn Beck's radio show on Wednesday. The presenter asked her on how she would handle the crisis situation in the Korean Peninsula, to which she responded, "Well this is stemming from a, I think, greater problem. When we are all sitting around asking, Oh no what we are going to do. And we are not having a lot of faith that the White House (http://www.ibtimes.com/topics/detail/400/white-house/) is going to come out with a strong enough policy...
"This speaks to a bigger picture here that certainly scares me in terms of our national security policies. But obviously, we've got to stand with our North Korean allies," she said, at which point the presenter had to correct her that it was South Korea (http://www.ibtimes.com/topics/detail/383/south-korea/) that was the ally of U.S.

What scares me the most is if Palin actually get elected. What would she do, start a war with Russia or Iran. Oh, wait she already said she would.

GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn’t we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?
PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help.
http://wonkette.com/402717/sarah-palin-on-possible-war-with-russia-perhaps

Sarah Palin wants the U.S. President to declare war on Iran

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/287261

david gibson
11-25-2010, 09:35 AM
easy slip of the tongue, you know, just like 57 states....

Roger Perry
11-25-2010, 09:47 AM
easy slip of the tongue, you know, just like 57 states....

A slip of the tongue under the right circumstances could get the U.S. involved in another World War. Right now we are trying to get China to help convincel North Korea not to further aggrivate South Korea to keep a war from starting which we would have to get involved in. If the President of the United States said the wrong thing at the wrong time, all hell would break loose. So, I repeat again, is this who you righties want to lead our Country:confused:

sandyg
11-25-2010, 12:41 PM
A slip of the tongue under the right circumstances could get the U.S. involved in another World War. Right now we are trying to get China to help convincel North Korea not to further aggrivate South Korea to keep a war from starting which we would have to get involved in. If the President of the United States said the wrong thing at the wrong time, all hell would break loose. So, I repeat again, is this who you righties want to lead our Country:confused:

This must be why Odumba keeps apologizing and bowing all the time.

YardleyLabs
11-25-2010, 12:54 PM
easy slip of the tongue, you know, just like 57 states....
Strangely enough, I agree with you. Such slips are easy to make. How much more understanding you seem to be now than on the prior occasions when you have cited Obama's "57 stats" comment as further evidence of his incompetence.

E.G.,


...

or presidents who visit 57 states, and think Austrians speak Austrian? yeah, thats a great role model for foreign relations.....

....


...

"Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii" - Barack Hussein Obama

road kill
11-25-2010, 01:05 PM
And this is who you righties want to be the next President of our Country:confused:

Ok, lets hear your spin on this one-----------------

Within days after she announced her intention to run for the President, Sarah Palin (http://www.ibtimes.com/topics/detail/127/sarah-palin/), the former governor of Alaska is caught up with yet another gaffe. This time, referring to North Korea as an "ally" of the United States.

The 2008 Republican vice-presidential candidate had a brief slip of the tongue on the Fox news presenter Glenn Beck's radio show on Wednesday. The presenter asked her on how she would handle the crisis situation in the Korean Peninsula, to which she responded, "Well this is stemming from a, I think, greater problem. When we are all sitting around asking, Oh no what we are going to do. And we are not having a lot of faith that the White House (http://www.ibtimes.com/topics/detail/400/white-house/) is going to come out with a strong enough policy...
"This speaks to a bigger picture here that certainly scares me in terms of our national security policies. But obviously, we've got to stand with our North Korean allies," she said, at which point the presenter had to correct her that it was South Korea (http://www.ibtimes.com/topics/detail/383/south-korea/) that was the ally of U.S.

What scares me the most is if Palin actually get elected. What would she do, start a war with Russia or Iran. Oh, wait she already said she would.

GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn’t we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?
PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help.
http://wonkette.com/402717/sarah-palin-on-possible-war-with-russia-perhaps

Sarah Palin wants the U.S. President to declare war on Iran

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/287261

Funny Rog, you give her no creedence, yet respond to her every move.


RK

Doc E
11-25-2010, 01:13 PM
She has good legs though.



.

dnf777
11-25-2010, 01:13 PM
Could very well be a slip of the tongue. I would have like to hear her correct herself, rather than be corrected.

I think an interesting test for candidates would be to fill in the following two maps:
1) The USA by states
2) a world map, with 10 highlighted nations...5 allies, and 5 foes. Canada, Germany, UK, France, India, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Venezuela, Cuba.

How many do you think Biden could identify? Palin? Bush? Obama? Dana Perrino?

subroc
11-25-2010, 01:59 PM
57 states.....

road kill
11-25-2010, 02:53 PM
Could very well be a slip of the tongue. I would have like to hear her correct herself, rather than be corrected.

I think an interesting test for candidates would be to fill in the following two maps:
1) The USA by states
2) a world map, with 10 highlighted nations...5 allies, and 5 foes. Canada, Germany, UK, France, India, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Venezuela, Cuba.

How many do you think Biden could identify? Palin? Bush? Obama? Dana Perrino?

Do we have 5 anymore??

Oh, yeah, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Saudi Arabia and Hezbellah.:D


RK

BonMallari
11-25-2010, 03:19 PM
Could very well be a slip of the tongue. I would have like to hear her correct herself, rather than be corrected.

I think an interesting test for candidates would be to fill in the following two maps:
1) The USA by states
2) a world map, with 10 highlighted nations...5 allies, and 5 foes. Canada, Germany, UK, France, India, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Venezuela, Cuba.

How many do you think Biden could identify? Palin? Bush? Obama? Dana Perrino?

Dana Perino....put down the eggnog..:p:p

dnf777
11-25-2010, 04:23 PM
Dana Perino....put down the eggnog..:p:p

Hey, she's easy on the eyes.

david gibson
11-25-2010, 09:21 PM
how many righties want her as president? not me. she is a great cheerleader, an asset if used correctly. but thats it

depittydawg
11-26-2010, 02:06 AM
how many righties want her as president? not me. she is a great cheerleader, an asset if used correctly. but thats it

Glad to hear you say that. She is entertaining. I'll give you that.

david gibson
11-26-2010, 08:15 AM
Glad to hear you say that. She is entertaining. I'll give you that.

she will rally support. dems will atack and attack her for that even if she is not running, qnd the people will see through it just like they did for the nov 2 elections and in the end the dems lose for it. thats all they have - its not like they can rest on their laurels or garner support for all of obamas great bipartisa accomplishments.

Buzz
11-26-2010, 09:01 AM
Sarah Palin responds on here facebook page...

http://www.facebook.com/notes/sarah-palin/a-thanksgiving-message-to-all-57-states/463364218434

menmon
11-26-2010, 10:29 AM
Hey, she's easy on the eyes.

She looks like a speckelbelly goose. Down here in Texas we are a little more selective.

dnf777
11-26-2010, 11:29 AM
She looks like a speckelbelly goose. Down here in Texas we are a little more selective.

yeah, my first wife was from Texas. I sent her back.

menmon
11-26-2010, 11:33 AM
yeah, my first wife was from Texas. I sent her back.


I worked with a lot of women from PA when I was in NYC. You grow them good there too!

The Eskimo Bimbo on the other hand is just not pretty. The right must just be looking for some positive attribute, because smart is not one of them. Loud yes...but smart no.

Roger Perry
11-26-2010, 12:24 PM
I worked with a lot of women from PA when I was in NYC. You grow them good there too!

The Eskimo Bimbo on the other hand is just not pretty. The right must just be looking for some positive attribute, because smart is not one of them. Loud yes...but smart no.

http://media.museumofhoaxes.com/sarahpalin_thumb.jpg (http://media.museumofhoaxes.com/sarahpalin_lg.jpg)McCain announced his decision yesterday (Friday) that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin will be his running mate, and already the photoshopped pics of Palin are starting to circulate (http://valleywag.com/5043755/the-hottest-photo-of-alaskas-governor-on-the-internet).

I would have to disagree with that (about her not being good looking) she is still a bimbo.

david gibson
11-26-2010, 12:24 PM
Sarah Palin responds on here facebook page...

http://www.facebook.com/notes/sarah-palin/a-thanksgiving-message-to-all-57-states/463364218434

that is a great response and right on the money. thanks buzz!

ErinsEdge
11-26-2010, 12:39 PM
Sarah can't afford a slip of the tongue like that and the backpedalling is not going to work this time because that sound bite is the kiss of death for those on the fence about her. I agree with Barbara Bush-she should go back to Alaska before she hands Obama a second term. She's good at raising awareness and pleasing a crowd but the Republicans should look for someone else.

That picture is so obviously poorly photoshopped but I'll give her she is attractive-she is a politician and doesn't have to look like a 20 something Dallas cheerleader or Victoria Secret model that obviously so many men base their good looks on, but she still is not presidential material.

david gibson
11-26-2010, 03:33 PM
Sarah can't afford a slip of the tongue like that and the backpedalling is not going to work this time because that sound bite is the kiss of death for those on the fence about her. I agree with Barbara Bush-she should go back to Alaska before she hands Obama a second term. She's good at raising awareness and pleasing a crowd but the Republicans should look for someone else.

That picture is so obviously poorly photoshopped but I'll give her she is attractive-she is a politician and doesn't have to look like a 20 something Dallas cheerleader or Victoria Secret model that obviously so many men base their good looks on, but she still is not presidential material.

i want her to keep doing what she is doing - rallying people. i really dont think she would get throiugh the primary process.

but as it is, she gets a really raw deal from the media and this is proof of that.

Juli H
11-26-2010, 10:38 PM
Hey, she's easy on the eyes.


Strangely enough, I disagree...I think she looks too made up, most of the time..but hey, I'm not your typical 'girly girl'. LOL

you can put the pom poms down now, regards. ;)
Juli

Juli H
11-26-2010, 10:52 PM
i want her to keep doing what she is doing - rallying people. i really dont think she would get throiugh the primary process.

but as it is, she gets a really raw deal from the media and this is proof of that.

I agree,
on both counts.

I was in court (as a juror) not too long ago, and the defense atty (public defender, I am sure) was giving his pre jury selection 'juror' speech..He said 'It is up to you, as the jury, to find the defendent guilty, unless proven otherwise'. Pretty funny and it was hard not to laugh, we all knew what he meant. LOL

Juli

Uncle Bill
11-27-2010, 03:55 PM
I agree,
on both counts.

I was in court (as a juror) not too long ago, and the defense atty (public defender, I am sure) was giving his pre jury selection 'juror' speech..He said 'It is up to you, as the jury, to find the defendent guilty, unless proven otherwise'. Pretty funny and it was hard not to laugh, we all knew what he meant. LOL

Juli


Out of curiosity, Juli, how did the state of Alaska vote to oust a RINO in the primaries, and then write her back in at the general election? Were the voters duped into voting for Miller in the first place? Or were they duped into thinking he would provide the same amount of pork that Markowski does, and stand by Obama like she does?

Whatever happened to the old attitude Alaskans used to exude...rugged indiviualism etc. Has the majority gotten on the dole? Do you see your state sliding towards more liberal/socialistic views by the inhabitants? Has there been a large influx of liberals, like in the state of Montana?

Like I say, just curious.

UB

BonMallari
11-27-2010, 04:19 PM
Out of curiosity, Juli, how did the state of Alaska vote to oust a RINO in the primaries, and then write her back in at the general election? Were the voters duped into voting for Miller in the first place? Or were they duped into thinking he would provide the same amount of pork that Markowski does, and stand by Obama like she does?

Whatever happened to the old attitude Alaskans used to exude...rugged indiviualism etc. Has the majority gotten on the dole? Do you see your state sliding towards more liberal/socialistic views by the inhabitants? Has there been a large influx of liberals, like in the state of Montana?

Like I say, just curious.

UB


cant speak for Montana but I would guess its the same thing that is happening in Idaho where they have gotten an influx of left coast Calif libs with a pocketful of cash and start buying up property in resort places like Cour d Alene,Sun Valley or the Ted Turners that go to Montana and buy huge ranches and along with that start flexing their political influence by donating to local politics...even though the long time residents of the state are conservative the carpetbaggers will eventually infiltrate and become a factor almost overnight

dnf777
11-27-2010, 04:33 PM
cant speak for Montana but I would guess its the same thing that is happening in Idaho where they have gotten an influx of left coast Calif libs with a pocketful of cash and start buying up property in resort places like Cour d Alene,Sun Valley or the Ted Turners that go to Montana and buy huge ranches and along with that start flexing their political influence by donating to local politics...even though the long time residents of the state are conservative the carpetbaggers will eventually infiltrate and become a factor almost overnight


and the problem with that is??? I've been taught here on POTUS that America is about succeeding in a capitalistic society, then you and your money can do what you want.
Anything less is class warfare, and we can't have that.

Juli H
11-27-2010, 06:42 PM
Out of curiosity, Juli, how did the state of Alaska vote to oust a RINO in the primaries, and then write her back in at the general election? Were the voters duped into voting for Miller in the first place? Or were they duped into thinking he would provide the same amount of pork that Markowski does, and stand by Obama like she does?

Whatever happened to the old attitude Alaskans used to exude...rugged indiviualism etc. Has the majority gotten on the dole? Do you see your state sliding towards more liberal/socialistic views by the inhabitants? Has there been a large influx of liberals, like in the state of Montana?

Like I say, just curious.

UB

If you want to know the truth... Murkowski won because of MONEY, Miller lost because of TRUST (or lack thereof) ... Miller made a huge mistake by disregarding the effect of witholding pertinent information which he knew would affect voters negatively. Honestly, he used to be the magistrate here in Tok and I have heard some not so nice stories about him from people who knew/dealt with him personally....Pretty much it boils down to the fact that he is a lawyer, and while he 'says' the right things, from a conservative side, there are many here who knew him personally that didn't/don't buy his 'line'.....Miller essentially shot himself in the foot when he didn't disclose ALL the skeletons in his closet at the very beginning of the race...I had a hard time voting for him, but I did.

On the other hand, you have Murkowski, who has/had the money and backing of many (if not all) Native Alaskan villages, councils, tribal gov't, and big corporations, etc - LOTS of money there...The money she brings to rural alaskans (read 'native villages') is very important to them, as is the pork barrel money she has brought in other ways.... That and she did draw a lot of blue dog dems, I think. I'm talking Dems that didn't know much about McAdams, who was essentially a 'new face' in statewide (vs SE AK) politics. Murkowski swung a good percentage if independents and democrats in her favor... I just couldn't bring myself to vote for her because I think she got a 'shoe in' by her daddy, and that's not the right way to do things. I probably should have voted for the Libertarian. LOL

As the state grows - esp in populated areas, we are seeing more and more dependency on the gov't dole. Unfortunately this means more liberal mindset.

Juli

BonMallari
11-27-2010, 07:08 PM
interesting and informative Juli, thanks for the local insight

dnf777
11-27-2010, 07:59 PM
As the state grows - esp in populated areas, we are seeing more and more dependency on the gov't dole. Unfortunately this means more liberal mindset.

Juli

Or maybe a redefining of the republican mindset....;-)

The poor democrats have traditionally looked to the gov't for handouts.

The wealthy republicans have traditionally looked to the gov't for the same.

Those of us in the middle, pay for both!

Juli H
11-27-2010, 08:38 PM
Or maybe a redefining of the republican mindset....;-)

The poor democrats have traditionally looked to the gov't for handouts.

The wealthy republicans have traditionally looked to the gov't for the same.

Those of us in the middle, pay for both!

well, I don't know about that... I will agree that both dems and republicans seek money. that which rules the world. LOL....Perhaps it is not so much the money asked for, but how it is used?

example - one of the tribal gov'ts up here got some of the O stimulus money - can't recall how much, but a good chunk. Part of the money was to be used to put people to work. So, the 'tribal gov't' contacted the store where I work and said they would pay for the store to hire a new employee (pay her wages) ... the conditions were that the new employee would have work for 2 months and 40 hrs a week - and be paid $15/hr (I make $9.50/hr). After the 2 months was up, the store could keep her on at the 'normal' wage or let her go...Imagine how the rest of us felt, knowing she was making almost 2 times as much as we were...And taking hours that we could have had. As it turns out, in 3 months I have been asked to come in and work for her probably 6-8 times...(she gets sick a lot, I guess.)
Instead of using the money to pay for someone's salary for two months, that money would have been better spent on providing secondary education to someone who would use it to help them become independent of Gov't handouts, IMO.

Juli

dnf777
11-27-2010, 08:44 PM
Julie, here's the answer in a 40 second explanation.
(sorry, couldn't resist...this is one of the best ever)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P79A2izODPs&feature=related

Buzz
11-27-2010, 08:52 PM
Out of curiosity, Juli, how did the state of Alaska vote to oust a RINO in the primaries, and then write her back in at the general election? Were the voters duped into voting for Miller in the first place? Or were they duped into thinking he would provide the same amount of pork that Markowski does, and stand by Obama like she does?

Whatever happened to the old attitude Alaskans used to exude...rugged indiviualism etc. Has the majority gotten on the dole? Do you see your state sliding towards more liberal/socialistic views by the inhabitants? Has there been a large influx of liberals, like in the state of Montana?

Like I say, just curious.

UB


What on earth are you talking about? Alaska ranks #1 in Federal spending per capita.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-03-22-earmarks_N.htm

All that on top of the money that residents receive each year from their share of oil revenues.

They are number 7 in the number of welfare recipients per capita.

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_wel_cas_tot_rec_percap-caseloads-total-recipients-per-capita


Nothing against Alaska. I'm sure the state has it's share of rugged individualists.

I'm still pretty impressed with my Republican state and the Libertarian spirit of her inhabitants. They vote down a medical marijuana law 70 - 30, while voting in a ban on smoking in public places. :rolleyes:

At least we have John Thune and Kristi Noem.

Juli H
11-27-2010, 09:23 PM
What on earth are you talking about? Alaska ranks #1 in Federal spending per capita.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-03-22-earmarks_N.htm

All that on top of the money that residents receive each year from their share of oil revenues.

They are number 7 in the number of welfare recipients per capita.

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_wel_cas_tot_rec_percap-caseloads-total-recipients-per-capita


Nothing against Alaska. I'm sure the state has it's share of rugged individualists.

I'm still pretty impressed with my Republican state and the Libertarian spirit of her inhabitants. They vote down a medical marijuana law 70 - 30, while voting in a ban on smoking in public places. :rolleyes:

At least we have John Thune and Kristi Noem.

Personally, I strongly disagree with the state's dependency on the federal gov't. I think every state needs to have the ability to take care of it's own..Let the federal gov't do it's part and provide funding for what is written in the constitution. That said, maybe Alaska (and other states) COULD be less dependent on the federal gov't, IF the federal gov't didn't have such a tight hold on the BALLS of industry and their ability to develop natural resources (wisely). Alaska has ABUNDANT natural resources. Enough to take care of itself, if it was allowed to....
Also - you have to remember just how much of the state of Alaska is OWNED by the federal gov't...very very little is privately owned (and what is, is locked up by native ownership)......the feds have done a pretty damn good job of locking up the resources.

as for number of AK residents on public assistance - it is PLAIN ASS SCARY...give them housing, give them food, give them money for energy...why get a job? why attempt to improve their situation? why leave? I see the effects of the welfare system EVERY DAY I work at the store. Heck, I know of THREE families who just had or are going to have their 7th or 8th kid...And all three families are on welfare...pretty sure they each get well over 1500/month for food.

I'd sure like to know more about just HOW much federal money is divied up to rural areas (not on the road system).

Juli

dnf777
11-27-2010, 10:49 PM
I think every state needs to have the ability to take care of it's own..Let the federal gov't do it's part and provide funding for what is written in the constitution.
Juli

I get roiled when I see abuses of the system as much as anyone, but do feel there is a place for gov't assistance in limited doses.

What is your interpretation of "promote the general welfare", as written in the Constitution. It also says "provide for the common defense" and conservatives have no problem with multi-hundred-billion dollar defense budgets. Why does the "general welfare" not warrant consideration also?

Tim Thomas
11-28-2010, 02:14 AM
I get roiled when I see abuses of the system as much as anyone, but do feel there is a place for gov't assistance in limited doses.

What is your interpretation of "promote the general welfare", as written in the Constitution. It also says "provide for the common defense" and conservatives have no problem with multi-hundred-billion dollar defense budgets. Why does the "general welfare" not warrant consideration also?

The problem is the never ending "general welfare" for able bodied folks. BTW, what do you consider "limited doses" for able bodied people?

depittydawg
11-28-2010, 02:40 AM
The problem is the never ending "general welfare" for able bodied folks. BTW, what do you consider "limited doses" for able bodied people?

No. The Probllem is the "General Welfare' doled out to Wall Street. It dwarfs the "General Welfare' doled out to people. Unless you consider Social Security "General Welfare'.

dnf777
11-28-2010, 07:22 AM
The problem is the never ending "general welfare" for able bodied folks. BTW, what do you consider "limited doses" for able bodied people?

Someone who loses their job to outsourcing, and uses foodstamps or unemployment benefits WHILE SEEKING ANOTHER JOB, and surrenders those benefits when they get work.

A family who uses housing benefits to get into an AFFORDABLE HOME WHILE LIVING WITHIN THEIR MEANS.

A person using educational benefits to better themselves and position themselves for higher earning potential, and contribute to our society in a meaningful way.

All of the above examples yield a net gain for the country in the end. All we hear about are the abuses however, which jeopardize they system for all.

Its always a risky subject to even mention, but we better start thinking about population control. We made jun of the Chinese for this, but they'll be the ones laughing soon if we don't do something. I've said it before here, I think overpopulation is at the root cause of almost ALL of society's ills. Hell, its getting harder to find good training grounds anymore.

BrianW
11-28-2010, 09:30 AM
cant speak for Montana but I would guess its the same thing that is happening in Idaho where they have gotten an influx of left coast Calif libs with a pocketful of cash and start buying up property in resort places like Cour d Alene,Sun Valley or the Ted Turners that go to Montana and buy huge ranches and along with that start flexing their political influence by donating to local politics...even though the long time residents of the state are conservative the carpetbaggers will eventually infiltrate and become a factor almost overnight

I'd have to disagree with you on this post, Bon.
Though I can't speak for the southern part of the state, up here in the Panhandle around CDA, it's way more conservatives that are escaping the CA liberal nanny state. People are sick of the Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein mindset as well as the Dem legislature that keeps voting to bust the budget and cater to the illegals. They're tired of "the Governator" and judges that ignore the will of The People like on Prop 8. They've seen that change from within is next to impossible, thanks to the entrenched money like Juli suggested and have voted with their feet and checkbooks. We'd probably have a lot more escapees like my sister-in-law and her husband except that the housing & budget crises has put so many underwater and forced them to deplete savings and retirement plans just to try to save what they have now.

Yes, we do have our share of libs in the exodus that have tried to turn this into NW CA but most of them only stay about 2-3 years and then leave, mostly when a bad winter comes. ;) Most of us moved up because Idaho is Idaho and want to keep it that way, not to change it to the cesspool that we just struggled out of. Look at the last election, the voters turned out one of the most conservative Dems in the House, elected just 2 years ago. And he even ran on how much he opposed the O/P/R agenda.

BrianW
11-28-2010, 10:28 AM
What is your interpretation of "promote the general welfare", as written in the Constitution. ...Why does the "general welfare" not warrant consideration also?

I'd say part of it would be something like the Federal Interstate Highway System. That was originally designed and implemented as a "high dollar defense project" to move manpower & materials, but has had a wide ranging effect, mostly positive imo, on "the general welfare" of the people. The Feds coordinated the efforts, put up the majority of the money which came primarily from the users in fuel taxes and created ongoing jobs for maintenance & improvements.

Another example would be an effective border control program.

Imo, those "multi hundred billion dollar defense projects" do benefit "the general welfare" but it's an indirect effect rather than a "direct deposit". One of the GW problems is often lack of competition, which drives innovation.
Spinoffs of defense projects have delivered countless benefits to the GW, ones that likely would have developed eventually but were given a kick in the pants by needing to beat the other guy.

Basically my view is that you can't be as concerned about your 'welfare" , ie "the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity." until AFTER you're "free from the risk of loss". . And imo, that's a primary reason they were put in the Constitution in the order they were.
"in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"

Juli H
11-28-2010, 12:17 PM
I get roiled when I see abuses of the system as much as anyone, but do feel there is a place for gov't assistance in limited doses.

What is your interpretation of "promote the general welfare", as written in the Constitution. It also says "provide for the common defense" and conservatives have no problem with multi-hundred-billion dollar defense budgets. Why does the "general welfare" not warrant consideration also?

promote the general welfare...Obviously the founding fathers realized the importance of having citizens who look at the future of their lives with hope and ambition - and that the gov't under which those people reside does not stand in their way as they try to do so....People who are willing to invest in the betterment of their lives will, in some way shape or form, improve the overall 'state of the union'.


In my opinion - this means:
Encouraging people to change their situation, if they so desire...through education, first.... IMO, a vast majority of people who rely almost solely on gov't handouts simply aren't willing or don't know how to make the tough choices, in order to improve their lives (ie, don't spend money on things that are not necessities)..

If someone doesn't want to find work, let's not presume they can't (work)and support them for the rest of their life (ie, it might not be in the best interest of a child to give them ice cream for dinner, simply because they won't eat their spaghetti). There has to be a cut off, at some point and time.

I have absolutely NO problem with people using food stamps or other gov't assistance programs, for SHORT periods of time...The only exception I can see here is for people that are absolutely unable to work - in these instances the care and support of these people should first (if possible) come from family, then church/charity, then state, then fed gov't.

Also - promoting the general welfare of the people means (to me) promoting the (wise) development of the country's natural resources. And to develop and maintain infrastructure. And promote and fund more education..not necessarily college education - but ANY type of education which will allow someone to get a job, get a better job, or start a business.

Is it best for 'my' general welfare, that I have to give part of my earnings (little as they are, LOL) to those who are unwilling to work or find better work? Is it better for businesses? is it better for the people who have come to depend on welfare as a means to make ends meet?... Promote the General Welfare does NOT translate to 'Spread the Wealth'. IMO.



One of my favorite movies of all time is 'The Pursuit of Happiness'..awesome movie ....

Juli

dnf777
11-28-2010, 01:16 PM
Is it best for 'my' general welfare, that I have to give part of my earnings (little as they are, LOL) to those who are unwilling to work or find better work? Is it better for businesses? is it better for the people who have come to depend on welfare as a means to make ends meet?... Promote the General Welfare does NOT translate to 'Spread the Wealth'. IMO.
Juli

My opinion too, I agree. Wealth should not be spread to the poor, NOR should middle class be burdened with more taxes so the wealthiest don't have to pay their fair share.

I am ok with programs that help the disabled, the retarded or unfit to work, and people temporarily down on their luck, while they seek work. My problem with the republicans is that they have no tolerance for any of the above. They have tried, and continue to this day, to dismantle social security and medicare. Sometimes blatantly, other times more subversive, such as Bush's ill-fated attempt to privatize it. Can you imagine the mess we'd be in if everyone was allowed to invest in the market just prior to 2008? I'm young and can recover, but what about someone who was 63 and has a worn out body from working all their life? They'd be SOL.

Uncle Bill
11-28-2010, 01:24 PM
Your post along with Brian's, Juli, make for great understanding of the constitutional meaning of 'welfare'. But to the left, welfare means handouts...total care by taking from the providers and giving to the 'manipulators' of the system. They seldom see the wrong in extending the 'unemployment' checks beyond what the original intent was for extensions.

None of those in the DNF mold seem to understand the ONLY reason to keep paying for illegitimate babies of unwed mothers, crack babies, etc., is to provide voters FOR this corrupt system of "welfare". The libs lump the meaning of that term into what the have-nots understand it to be, and the Democrats are quick to exploit it. For a vote, they are happy to keep their constituancy uneducated and dependant on them for their welfare payments.

Even in our state of Sodak, to which Buzz offered up his phony accolades, we have a "kept" society like that in Alaska. While getting millions of dollars over the years, and now having the profits of very lucrative gambling casinos, they still have their hands out for more 'welfare'. It's what they've been 'educated' to do. Not much different than the generations of welfarists in New Orleans.

As we have seen in the state of California, where now the tail is wagging the dog, the legal 'anchor-babies' of past generations, along with the multitudes from the Woodstock generation, have become the majority. It's difficult for me to ever see that state becoming anything but a lost cause. I believe that Atlas has shrugged off that area, and probably the entire left coast. As I have always believed, elections are seldom about the people getting what they wanted, but most assuredly, they get what they deserve.

UB

Uncle Bill
11-28-2010, 01:32 PM
My opinion too, I agree. Wealth should not be spread to the poor, NOR should middle class be burdened with more taxes so the wealthiest don't have to pay their fair share.

I am ok with programs that help the disabled, the retarded or unfit to work, and people temporarily down on their luck, while they seek work. My problem with the republicans is that they have no tolerance for any of the above. They have tried, and continue to this day, to dismantle social security and medicare. Sometimes blatantly, other times more subversive, such as Bush's ill-fated attempt to privatize it. Can you imagine the mess we'd be in if everyone was allowed to invest in the market just prior to 2008? I'm young and can recover, but what about someone who was 63 and has a worn out body from working all their life? They'd be SOL.

PLEASE DON'T DISCUSS WHAT YOU ARE INCAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING. YOU ARE LIKE ALL THE OTHER LIBERAL/SOCIALISTS THAT PUT YOUR MOUTH INTO GEAR BEFORE WHAT YOU HAVE OF A MIND HAS ANY KNOWLEDGE OF.

But then, as I've mentioned to you previously, if you keep silent, we'll only THINK you are ignorant. But when you open your mouth, you remove all doubt.

That last line of your "observation" of what Bush proposed is so stupidly ignorant, and preposterously asinine, it defys acknowledgement.

UB

david gibson
11-28-2010, 01:38 PM
PLEASE DON'T DISCUSS WHAT YOU ARE INCAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING. YOU ARE LIKE ALL THE OTHER LIBERAL/SOCIALISTS THAT PUT YOUR MOUTH INTO GEAR BEFORE WHAT YOU HAVE OF A MIND HAS ANY KNOWLEDGE OF.

But then, as I've mentioned to you previously, if you keep silent, we'll only THINK you are ignorant. But when you open your mouth, you remove all doubt.
That last line of your "observation" of what Bush proposed is so stupidly ignorant, and preposterously asinine, it defys acknowledgement.

UB

oh we have known this a while Unca Bill, but it is always fun to rehash it. thanks for the sunday chuckle!

depittydawg
11-28-2010, 02:55 PM
PLEASE DON'T DISCUSS WHAT YOU ARE INCAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING. YOU ARE LIKE ALL THE OTHER LIBERAL/SOCIALISTS THAT PUT YOUR MOUTH INTO GEAR BEFORE WHAT YOU HAVE OF A MIND HAS ANY KNOWLEDGE OF.

But then, as I've mentioned to you previously, if you keep silent, we'll only THINK you are ignorant. But when you open your mouth, you remove all doubt.

That last line of your "observation" of what Bush proposed is so stupidly ignorant, and preposterously asinine, it defys acknowledgement.

UB

Now that's intelligent. Nice job.

Gerry Clinchy
11-28-2010, 04:20 PM
Can you imagine the mess we'd be in if everyone was allowed to invest in the market just prior to 2008?

Or they might have invested in gold :-))

I'm young and can recover, but what about someone who was 63 and has a worn out body from working all their life? They'd be SOL.

I would imagine that any privatization of SS would require that funds be allocated a certain %-age to low-risk investments so that long-term results would be more predictable. At least that would make logical sense, and there is no guarantee that our legislators would be logical or sensible given their track record.

For example, I rolled over a pension lump sum into an IRA with a reputable insurance company. The return was guaranteed at no less than 4%/year. It could go up if interest rates went up (not sure what the index is). I was disappointed as the interest rates decreased over time (started this in 1992) ... but I'm pretty happy now knowing that 4% is guaranteed.

Retirement savings have to be viewed with long-term in mind ... and no financial planner would ever advise placing an entire portfolio in higher-risk vehicles.

The one good thing about privatization of SS is that the govt could not have raided the fund to balance their bad budgets. Getting everyone's retirement funds out of the legislators' hands is not such a bad idea if done right.

One might also try to think about how it would have fueled investment if all that $ had been even partly allocated to private enterprise ... and the jobs it might have created.

dnf777
11-28-2010, 04:55 PM
None of those in the DNF mold seem to understand the ONLY reason to keep paying for illegitimate babies of unwed mothers, crack babies, etc., is to provide voters FOR this corrupt system of "welfare".
UB

Gee. Is that why I say all women on pubic assistance should have to have norplant or depo shots when they pick up their check?

Google the above terms....its obvious you have no idea what they mean...or else you just like assigning your prejudices onto others to fit your idea of the world.

dnf777
11-28-2010, 04:56 PM
oh we have known this a while Unca Bill, but it is always fun to rehash it. thanks for the sunday chuckle!

There goes your ilk stealing lines again. Can't come up with anything original? Well, at least its not parroting Beck or Hannity this time.

You two have a nice day in your world.

david gibson
11-28-2010, 05:02 PM
There goes your ilk stealing lines again. Can't come up with anything original? Well, at least its not parroting Beck or Hannity this time.

You two have a nice day in your world.

what????? you really need to mellow out. care to show me where i parrot beck and hannity? i dont even watch or listen their shows. we have far better local conservative radio shows on in their time slots.

nice try though - well, not really. it was as predictable as always.:rolleyes:

Juli H
11-28-2010, 08:46 PM
Gee. Is that why I say all women on pubic assistance should have to have norplant or depo shots when they pick up their check?


what about men? does it not take TWO to have a kid?:cool:

Juli

david gibson
11-28-2010, 08:54 PM
what about men? does it not take TWO to have a kid?:cool:

Juli

thank you, i was hoping one of the ladies here would catch that.

and in the same post he actually said "...or else you just like assigning your prejudices onto others to fit your idea of the world."

that is really very ironically comical and sad at once.

Dman
11-28-2010, 09:29 PM
I'm young
UB,

I agree with everything you have said, however I think you missed the real issue with dnf777.

dnf777
11-28-2010, 10:54 PM
what about men? does it not take TWO to have a kid?:cool:

Juli

No Julie. Two men cannot have a baby no matter how hard they try. Just ask Gibson or Dman. It takes a man and a woman.

Didn't you ever read Judy Blume when you were little?

Juli H
11-28-2010, 11:02 PM
No Julie. Two men cannot have a baby no matter how hard they try. Just ask Gibson or Dman. It takes a man and a woman.

Didn't you ever read Judy Blume when you were little?

ahhahahaha ~ you at least have a sense of humor.
but no answer to the question? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. :)

dnf777
11-28-2010, 11:14 PM
I did answer, but deleted it.
Here's what I said. If you can come up with a reversible or temporary way to ensure male sterility, I'm all ears. As of 2010, long acting estrogens are by far and away the most reliable and effective methods of birth control in a non-motivated population. (that is reversible)

I don't disagree with your goose/gander comment. Just no practical solution for a gender-neutral fix as of now.

ppro
11-29-2010, 01:37 AM
Dnf and others of his ilk make me wonder what is the richest peoples fair share. This seems to constantly change. Please if you come up with this fair share amount let us know because obviously they are not paying it now. I thought that they paid a higher percentage and made more than all of us middle class people so I think they actually pay more than me now. I do not see that as being fair as it is. Fair to me means equal because they are no better or no worse than the rest of us. If they are better at making money good for them. I really do not like this fair share stuff because if there is such a thing we would have been doing this and we would not have to change the fair share amount that someone would need to pay .

cotts135
11-29-2010, 05:41 AM
PLEASE DON'T DISCUSS WHAT YOU ARE INCAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING. YOU ARE LIKE ALL THE OTHER LIBERAL/SOCIALISTS THAT PUT YOUR MOUTH INTO GEAR BEFORE WHAT YOU HAVE OF A MIND HAS ANY KNOWLEDGE OF.


UB[/QUOTE]

The Grand and all powerful Oz has spoken!!!!!!!!!! ............. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain..... lmao:razz:

david gibson
11-29-2010, 07:21 AM
:rolleyes:
No Julie. Two men cannot have a baby no matter how hard they try. Just ask Gibson or Dman. It takes a man and a woman.

Didn't you ever read Judy Blume when you were little?

there you go digging in the gutter again.

so again, you place all the responsibility on the woman. no responsibility for the "baby daddies" that cant keep it zipped or be a man and ensure safe sex when he cant afford to pay for a child. when that happens, he is rarely the one left holding the burden or responsibility to raise that kid, and often skips out completely. way way often. so you blame the woman for a useless irresponsible man. i guess birds of a feather defend their own.....

you are one piece of work.

dnf777
11-29-2010, 02:40 PM
Dnf and others of his ilk make me wonder what is the richest peoples fair share. This seems to constantly change. Please if you come up with this fair share amount let us know because obviously they are not paying it now. I thought that they paid a higher percentage and made more than all of us middle class people so I think they actually pay more than me now. I do not see that as being fair as it is. Fair to me means equal because they are no better or no worse than the rest of us. If they are better at making money good for them. I really do not like this fair share stuff because if there is such a thing we would have been doing this and we would not have to change the fair share amount that someone would need to pay .

Warren Buffett paid 14% federal income tax, and told the interviewer to look around, the money I get to keep ain't tricklin' down!

I think a flat rate for everyone, with no loopholes would be fair, for those living above the poverty level.

Is approximately one third of fortune 500 companies not paying any federal tax, while selling their products in this country fair to you? They outsource jobs, leaving a larger tax burden on those of us who still have one, while dodging paying any through corporate loopholes. Is that "fair"?

dnf777
11-29-2010, 02:45 PM
:rolleyes:

there you go digging in the gutter again.

so again, you place all the responsibility on the woman. no responsibility for the "baby daddies" that cant keep it zipped or be a man and ensure safe sex when he cant afford to pay for a child. when that happens, he is rarely the one left holding the burden or responsibility to raise that kid, and often skips out completely. way way often. so you blame the woman for a useless irresponsible man. i guess birds of a feather defend their own.....

you are one piece of work.

And you're a piece of something else! I never, ever, ever released men from their responsibility, and to say I did is a typical DG lie. So is saying I blame the woman. Many of those unwanted pregnancies are probably results of rape...how is THAT the woman's fault? Yet YOUR ilk wants to force them to have babies by outlawing abortions even in the case of rape, while avoiding a PRACTICAL solution of available birth control as earlier mentioned. Hey, go invent an implantable prophylactic for men, and I 'm all ears.

road kill
11-29-2010, 02:58 PM
And you're a piece of something else! I never, ever, ever released men from their responsibility, and to say I did is a typical DG lie. So is saying I blame the woman. Many of those unwanted pregnancies are probably results of rape...how is THAT the woman's fault? Yet YOUR ilk wants to force them to have babies by outlawing abortions even in the case of rape, while avoiding a PRACTICAL solution of available birth control as earlier mentioned. Hey, go invent an implantable prophylactic for men, and I 'm all ears.

You know this how???

RK

dnf777
11-29-2010, 03:08 PM
You know this how???

RK

just a hunch. Do you disagree that rape is prevalent in our society? Especially the welfare sector? Inner city? How 'bout prostitutes that get pregnant?

And if you think you have a solution to end prostitution......I can't WAIT to hear it. Many of these victoms and purveyors are receiving welfare. If they had the opportunity, or the mandate to be on reliable BC, wouldn't we prevent a lot of unwanted pregnancies? Again, I'm speaking from a practical point of view, not ideologic, so there are some who just won't understand, and I'm not referring to you.

Hew
11-29-2010, 04:11 PM
You know this how???

RK
Haven't you heard? 1% is the new "many."



In 2000, cases of rape or incest accounted for 1% of abortions.[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#cite_note-25)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States

23 seconds is all that took. 23.

road kill
11-29-2010, 04:13 PM
just a hunch. Do you disagree that rape is prevalent in our society? Especially the welfare sector? Inner city? How 'bout prostitutes that get pregnant?

And if you think you have a solution to end prostitution......I can't WAIT to hear it. Many of these victoms and purveyors are receiving welfare. If they had the opportunity, or the mandate to be on reliable BC, wouldn't we prevent a lot of unwanted pregnancies? Again, I'm speaking from a practical point of view, not ideologic, so there are some who just won't understand, and I'm not referring to you.
I'm afraid (or grateful) we live in different worlds.
I have no direct contact with people who live like that.


RK

dnf777
11-29-2010, 04:53 PM
Haven't you heard? 1% is the new "many."


23 seconds is all that took. 23.

Not talking about just abortions. The discussion was on welfare recipients having more babies. Sorry, you missed the whole point.

RK,
I suspect we live in similar type worlds, rural America. I have the privelage of covering the emergency room here, as well as my previous experiences in inner city Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and El Paso. Since by your own admission you have no contact with this type of thing, take my word, rape does occur in America. It may only account for 1% of abortions, but how many is that? And then, more germaine to the discussion, how many unwanted babies are brought into this world, many to be raised by the streets? So I ask yet again, wouldn't birth control be preferred to unwanted babies and/or abortions? I don't expect an answer, so don't worry.

Roger Perry
11-29-2010, 04:57 PM
Not talking about just abortions. The discussion was on welfare recipients having more babies. Sorry, you missed the whole point.

RK,
I suspect we live in similar type worlds, rural America. I have the privelage of covering the emergency room here, as well as my previous experiences in inner city Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and El Paso. Since by your own admission you have no contact with this type of thing, take my word, rape does occur in America. It may only account for 1% of abortions, but how many is that? And then, more germaine to the discussion, how many unwanted babies are brought into this world, many to be raised by the streets? So I ask yet again, wouldn't birth control be preferred to unwanted babies and/or abortions? I don't expect an answer, so don't worry.

And you did not even mention the number of babies brought into this world that are addicted to drugs like heroine and crack cocaine or meth.

dnf777
11-29-2010, 05:10 PM
And you did not even mention the number of babies brought into this world that are addicted to drugs like heroine and crack cocaine or meth.

Trying to get a point across takes patience, Rog.
You see how much it took to get this far! Baby steps...baby steps. ;-)

ppro
11-29-2010, 05:29 PM
I like the flat tax rate idea. I now have very little confidence in Warren Buffet as a presidential advisor. What scruples. According to various websites {Tax Foundation, National Taxpayer Union, And others } not sure of their affiliations, it seems that the upper 10% pay the majority of taxes. Is this wrong? Why does the President seem to have top officials and advisors around him that seem to not pay their share of taxes but insist on making the rich pay theirs. Flat rate, no loopholes, and everything could be calculated from a more accurate tax income. Just wishing.

Cody Covey
11-29-2010, 05:54 PM
My opinion too, I agree. Wealth should not be spread to the poor, NOR should middle class be burdened with more taxes so the wealthiest don't have to pay their fair share.

I am ok with programs that help the disabled, the retarded or unfit to work, and people temporarily down on their luck, while they seek work. My problem with the republicans is that they have no tolerance for any of the above. They have tried, and continue to this day, to dismantle social security and medicare. Sometimes blatantly, other times more subversive, such as Bush's ill-fated attempt to privatize it. Can you imagine the mess we'd be in if everyone was allowed to invest in the market just prior to 2008? I'm young and can recover, but what about someone who was 63 and has a worn out body from working all their life? They'd be SOL.I haven't followed this whole thread but saw this and it got me thinking. I wonder how many of the "middle class" actually pay any taxes at all. And what is the wealthiest's fair share? Since the "wealthy" pay somewhere around 90% of the taxes I can't really see how you can say they don't pay their fair share

dnf777
11-29-2010, 06:09 PM
I haven't followed this whole thread but saw this and it got me thinking. I wonder how many of the "middle class" actually pay any taxes at all. And what is the wealthiest's fair share? Since the "wealthy" pay somewhere around 90% of the taxes I can't really see how you can say they don't pay their fair share

When I pay 36%, and Warren Buffett pays 14%, I'd say he's not paying his fair share. Actually, HE said that, not me.

I don't have the stats, but all my middle class neighbors pay tax. I bet most RTFers here pay taxes. The middle class supports the handouts for the poor, and the tax breaks for the rich.

david gibson
11-29-2010, 06:11 PM
And you're a piece of something else! I never, ever, ever released men from their responsibility, and to say I did is a typical DG lie. So is saying I blame the woman. Many of those unwanted pregnancies are probably results of rape...how is THAT the woman's fault? Yet YOUR ilk wants to force them to have babies by outlawing abortions even in the case of rape, while avoiding a PRACTICAL solution of available birth control as earlier mentioned. Hey, go invent an implantable prophylactic for men, and I 'm all ears.

did you not see Hews post? 1% baby. nice try. not.

i love seeing you blow a gasket! now, first of all, i am not pro life, but do not want govt. involved in a womans decision. 2nd, please show me in the posts above where you placed equal blame on men. you didnt ever. quote:

"Gee. Is that why I say all women on pubic assistance should have to have norplant or depo shots when they pick up their check? "

now please show me where you place any responsibility on the male half.

so i still call you a piece of work. call me a liar but you cant prove where i lied, and i show otherwise.

mellow dude, you just cant admit where you are wrong or at least quietly bow out.

dnf777
11-29-2010, 07:14 PM
did you not see Hews post? 1% baby. nice try. not.

i love seeing you blow a gasket! now, first of all, i am not pro life, but do not want govt. involved in a womans decision. 2nd, please show me in the posts above where you placed equal blame on men. you didnt ever. quote:

"Gee. Is that why I say all women on pubic assistance should have to have norplant or depo shots when they pick up their check? "

now please show me where you place any responsibility on the male half.

so i still call you a piece of work. call me a liar but you cant prove where i lied, and i show otherwise.

mellow dude, you just cant admit where you are wrong or at least quietly bow out.

Don't take this personally, but you're too _______ to have an intelligent conversation with.

I just saw an episode of "All in the Family" where Gloria was yelling at Mike why SHE has to be responsible for birth control and take the pill. He yelled back at her, "Because it doesn't work if I take it!!"

Now do you understand, Meat-head?

I like see you have your little conniption fits as well.

Gaskets intact regards.....

david gibson
11-29-2010, 08:05 PM
Don't take this personally, but you're too _______ to have an intelligent conversation with.

I just saw an episode of "All in the Family" where Gloria was yelling at Mike why SHE has to be responsible for birth control and take the pill. He yelled back at her, "Because it doesn't work if I take it!!"

Now do you understand, Meat-head?

I like see you have your little conniption fits as well.

Gaskets intact regards.....

lets see, 5 posts in a row where you call names, none for me. so who's having conniption fits??
and no, i DONT understand. so you say its ONLY the womans responsibility to use birth control? the funny thing is thats exactly what the AIF episode is mocking, but you missed it. you see, the humor in shows like that was between the lines, not always the verbatim script. nevermind - too deep for one with such engraced ideals. . the pill has side effects - improved over the years yes, but they are there none theless. so no matter what - make her do it! sorry dude, but the attitude you back is the same as "the meathead". nice try again, not.

last i heard a condom doesnt have a single side effect, except the extremely loose fit on men like you maybe ;-)

you are too boring to debate anymore, same old junk. you've lost it, if people dont crawl in the gutter with you you are lost. shaking my head is disbelief.

dnf777
11-29-2010, 08:14 PM
lets see, 5 posts in a row where you call names, none for me. so who's having conniption fits??

and no, i DONT understand. so you say its ONLY the womans responsibility to use birth control? the funny thing is thats exactly what the AIF episode is mocking, but you missed it. the pill has side effects - improved over the years yes, but they are there none theless. so no matter what - make her do it! sorry dude, but the attitude you back is the same as "the meathead". nice try again, not.

last i heard a condom doesnt have a single side effect, except the extremely loose fit on men like you maybe ;-)

you are too boring to debate anymore, same old junk. you've lost it, if people dont crawl in the gutter with you you are lost. shaking my head is disbelief.

OK, Einstein. YOU try to figure out how to get all those men out there to wear condoms! While you're at it, try getting them to mow their grass, get a job, be better fathers, and go to Church on Sunday.

Sounds silly, doesn't it? Guess what? THATS THE PROBLEM. You can't just sit in your ivory tower and come up with esoteric solutions, or profess your ideologies, and expect the masses to fall in line with you. You have to live in the REAL WORLD. (well, you've proven that you don't, but that's your problem, and it won't solve the unwanted pregnancy issues in this country)

So in the mean time, scientists try to come up with convenient, practical methods of BC.

By the way, can you spend the time to show me where the last 5 posts here called you names?

I called you "Einstein" this time, and "meat-head" last time. I admit, I'm not being very consistent. :rolleyes:

david gibson
11-29-2010, 08:32 PM
OK, Einstein. YOU try to figure out how to get all those men out there to wear condoms! While you're at it, try getting them to mow their grass, get a job, be better fathers, and go to Church on Sunday. Sounds silly, doesn't it? Guess what? THATS THE PROBLEM. You can't just sit in your ivory tower and come up with esoteric solutions, or profess your ideologies, and expect the masses to fall in line with you. You have to live in the REAL WORLD. (well, you've proven that you don't, but that's your problem, and it won't solve the unwanted pregnancy issues in this country)

So in the mean time, scientists try to come up with convenient, practical methods of BC.

By the way, can you spend the time to show me where the last 5 posts here called you names?

I called you "Einstein" this time, and "meat-head" last time. I admit, I'm not being very consistent. :rolleyes:

last comment then i give up.

ahem. OK, doogie howser. [B] YOU try to figure out how to get all those women out there to take birth control! While you're at it, try getting them to make their men stick around after the baby is born, mow their grass, get a job, be better fathers, and go to Church on Sunday.

after all, its the womans fault, right?

and you are a doctor?

dnf777
11-29-2010, 08:40 PM
last comment then i give up.

ahem. OK, doogie howser. [B] YOU try to figure out how to get all those women out there to take birth control! While you're at it, try getting them to make their men stick around after the baby is born, mow their grass, get a job, be better fathers, and go to Church on Sunday.

after all, its the womans fault, right?

and you are a doctor?

You a doogie Howser fan? Somehow, I'm not surprised.

Anyway, if you read the original comments, the women would need to pick up their checks at the health clinic, after receiving their depo injection. Real simple.

Ever hear of supervised INH clinics? Its how we made sure TB patients were compliant with their long course of INH therapy. Ever hear of methadone clinics? Its how we make sure recovering heroin addicts adhere to their program. (personally I'm against methadone programs, but that's a whole 'nother discussion)

And please get off your little kick of accusations of blaming women. If that little tactic is all you got in this debate, maybe you should give up. Its showing your weakness.

BTW, I think its cute how you whine and cry about me calling you names, and scold me, but then turn right around and call me names! I find it flattering. But please, don't confuse me with your Doogie fantasies!

david gibson
11-29-2010, 09:35 PM
You a doogie Howser fan? Somehow, I'm not surprised.

Anyway, if you read the original comments, the women would need to pick up their checks at the health clinic, after receiving their depo injection. Real simple.

Ever hear of supervised INH clinics? Its how we made sure TB patients were compliant with their long course of INH therapy. Ever hear of methadone clinics? Its how we make sure recovering heroin addicts adhere to their program. (personally I'm against methadone programs, but that's a whole 'nother discussion)

And please get off your little kick of accusations of blaming women. If that little tactic is all you got in this debate, maybe you should give up. Its showing your weakness.

BTW, I think its cute how you whine and cry about me calling you names, and scold me, but then turn right around and call me names! I find it flattering. But please, don't confuse me with your Doogie fantasies!

you win!!!!!

JDogger
11-29-2010, 10:26 PM
you win!!!!!

Well played, dnf777!! I was going to comment, but dg conceded.

He'll reply here in a minute, I'm sure...just wait...he'll make another sniveling reply.


"last i heard a condom doesnt have a single side effect, except the extremely loose fit on men like you maybe ", dg

You see folks, dg thinks it's OK for him to insult, but when he is insulted, we cross the line.

The literal translation of pendejo is 'jerk', but it is also 'prick'. When I apologized to him for calling him 'pendejo', and instead called him 'pendejito', it was the diminutive I implied. Much the same as his implication to dnf777 quoted above. dg doesn't play the game well, but maybe that's why he is such a big target.

Jess sayin....


JD

david gibson
11-29-2010, 11:38 PM
Well played, dnf777!! I was going to comment, but dg conceded.

JD

hard to decide which of you is better - dnf throws out a mixture of insults and name calling and has several trifectas to his credit, but zero style and usually goes off on tangents claiming he said or didnt say things he really didnt or did say. yeah, its so bad its impossible to explain. i just give up and let him think he won. whereas you at least stay on the subject but just throw out only one name here and there - but you do it in spanish and i am not sure if you think its cool (maybe so), think no one will know what you mean (pt. deduction), or really think you are impressing us with your bilingual skills (even bigger pt. deduction).

roger and dippity could learn so much from you two, why dont you encourage them more???:confused:

JDogger
11-30-2010, 12:08 AM
"stoepkakker"

Hey man, I gots google too, my ownself.

I like the South African "stoepkakker." It means "stupid little dog that sits on the porch and barks at everything." ...

JD

dnf777
11-30-2010, 06:15 AM
"stoepkakker"

Hey man, I gots google too, my ownself.

I like the South African "stoepkakker." It means "stupid little dog that sits on the porch and barks at everything." ...

JD

I do find him amusing on a sophomoric level!

'Its not nice to call people names, dummy'
'I know you are, but what am I?'

This is very reminiscent of my grade school days...maybe that's the appeal?

In any case, he lives in an idealistic world, with lots of pontifications, but very little in the way of practical solutions.

Loose fittin' regards.....

ps...thanks DG....that was the BEST EVER on POTUS! Not only did I spew coffee, buy my wife did also. Her comment was only if the women in YOUR life knew what they were missing!! :D:D This is fun!

ppro
11-30-2010, 06:49 AM
sorry dnf i neeeeed to here this methadone clinic tyrade.

dnf777
11-30-2010, 09:34 AM
sorry dnf i neeeeed to here this methadone clinic tyrade.

Its like using beer to get off of whiskey. All I'm gonna say. ;-)

ppro
11-30-2010, 10:43 AM
It seems you know nothing or very little on this subject. What a pity. Had the potential for so much opinion and no facts again.I wondered if you had some sort of past experiences that had prompted you to make your original statement.

dnf777
11-30-2010, 10:58 AM
It seems you know nothing or very little on this subject. What a pity. Had the potential for so much opinion and no facts again.I wondered if you had some sort of past experiences that had prompted you to make your original statement.

Just about 150 past experiences, but don't care to share them. It sounds like you already have an opinion anyway, so there's no need.

I will say however, if you look at our heroin addiction programs, and several European programs, they have much higher success rates with lower reciticivism. Seems like we do know nothing or very little.

david gibson
11-30-2010, 11:01 AM
all he knows is to blame the woman for every unwanted pregnancy.....

dnf777
11-30-2010, 11:31 AM
all he knows is to blame the woman for every unwanted pregnancy.....

Nice bait. But I ain't takin' it.

If you want to say something intelligent, I'll discuss with you....but I'm not holding my breath.

ppro
11-30-2010, 11:33 AM
What a crock. I read these comments and it is laughable. About 150 experiences. At least i have a good idea where you pulled that number out.I will just as someone stated earlier that this is just opinion even though we tend to give opinion as though it were a fact.Yes I do have an opinion and I think most any program can,has, and will help some people.No program is the answer and as a medical professional you should know that there is no absolutes and always exceptions. I do have some experience with a few clinics but the people there were more of the pain med{opiates} variety than heroin. Some were helped some were not some were there for a different fix. But for the most there was some accountability, some monitoring, and some network for those that tried.The ability for these people to get "legal drugs" by Dr. shopping is a big problem and this program gave some structure to the court appointed "patients".The drug testing and methadone replacement made some of these more productive towards society as opposed to being jailed.I have no statistics but I do have "experiences".

Cody Covey
11-30-2010, 02:51 PM
When I pay 36%, and Warren Buffett pays 14%, I'd say he's not paying his fair share. Actually, HE said that, not me.

I don't have the stats, but all my middle class neighbors pay tax. I bet most RTFers here pay taxes. The middle class supports the handouts for the poor, and the tax breaks for the rich.

36% of 200,000 or 14% of millions. what about most of the middle class that makes 40,000 at year? They get most of the taxes they pay in back, If they pay any at all. I don't have kids and I still barely pay any taxes at all, (although being recently married should help haha) The average wage for my area (rural agricultural area) is under 30,000 a year. Do you think ANY of those people actually pay taxes? You're right the big mean business man should pair THEIR share to.

Uncle Bill
11-30-2010, 03:59 PM
36% of 200,000 or 14% of millions.

OOPS...NOW YOU DID IT. Don't EVER throw a curve of math or logic at these ignoramuses that are attempting to make a point. Just let them wade in their swill, since you can't teach the brain dead to comprehend what they are incapable of understanding.


what about most of the middle class that makes 40,000 at year?

Just a FWIW here, 40 grand IS poverty level. Middle class doesn't even start until 70,000 - 90,000...except when Little-Dick Gephardt was in office, and then the "wealthy" began at 75 grand.



I will again post the ultimate illustration of how the lefties see 'fairness', but fail to recognize how they are chopping off their noses to spite their face. As long as they can't comprehend this little anecdote, how will they understand that extending the Bush tax cuts are not an increase of 'payments' to the wealthy?

UB

duckheads
11-30-2010, 05:11 PM
At this point I think it is fair to call them the Obama tax increases since that is really what will happen.

No matter how you independants spin the numbers the top one percent pay over forty, get that forty percent of federal taxes. Someone has to be a total dumb azz to believe they are not paying their share. I do not understand how liberals believe it is fair to punish people for being successful by making them pay higher taxes. If I made millions you bet your azz I would look for any way possible to reduce my tax burden. I do now and I don't make shite. Do our resident independants pay as high of taxes as possible or do they look for every way possible to reduce their tax burden? Redistribution of wealth does not work.

I think Benjamin Franklin said it best when he said "I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."

dnf777
11-30-2010, 05:14 PM
36% of 200,000 or 14% of millions. what about most of the middle class that makes 40,000 at year? They get most of the taxes they pay in back, If they pay any at all. I don't have kids and I still barely pay any taxes at all, (although being recently married should help haha) The average wage for my area (rural agricultural area) is under 30,000 a year. Do you think ANY of those people actually pay taxes? You're right the big mean business man should pair THEIR share to.

When you say "millions" I assume you mean an income of at least 2 million. Care to guess what percentage of Americans make 2 million and over?

And 30,000 for a family income is not middle class anymore.

Rework your numbers with some real statistics, then see where the chips fall.

Uncle Bill will probably conveniently neglect those factors in his unwavering support the the wealthiest Americans, while sticking it to the working class.

Uncle Bill
11-30-2010, 05:49 PM
When you say "millions" I assume you mean an income of at least 2 million. Care to guess what percentage of Americans make 2 million and over?

And 30,000 for a family income is not middle class anymore.

Rework your numbers with some real statistics, then see where the chips fall.

Uncle Bill will probably conveniently neglect those factors in his unwavering support the the wealthiest Americans, while sticking it to the working class.


That's me alright. But hey!!! By pigeon-holing me, I now get a free-shot at reciprocating eh?

http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?t=63294

Based on your biases and intellectualism, I'd say you are either #4 or #5 in the above illustration. You might have qualified to be #10, but I doubt you'd have the onions to become intellegent enough to make that kind of money...you are too busy putting down that form of achievement. But I suspect you are happy, since I doubt you even recognize how small a person you have really made yourself into.

UB

dnf777
11-30-2010, 06:37 PM
That's me alright. But hey!!! By pigeon-holing me, I now get a free-shot at reciprocating eh?

http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?t=63294

Based on your biases and intellectualism, I'd say you are either #4 or #5 in the above illustration. You might have qualified to be #10, but I doubt you'd have the onions to become intellegent enough to make that kind of money...you are too busy putting down that form of achievement. But I suspect you are happy, since I doubt you even recognize how small a person you have really made yourself into.

UB

Sorry, I don't read your re-posted tripe.
Here's a quarter.....


And as usual, you are wrong on all your assumptions. You guys are great. You create your own realities where everyone fits into your prejudices, and by ignoring facts and reason, you stay comfortably in your cocoons. In a way I admire you....and in a bigger way, I pity you.

david gibson
11-30-2010, 06:46 PM
Sorry, I don't read your re-posted tripe.
Here's a quarter.....


And as usual, you are wrong on all your assumptions. You guys are great. You create your own realities where everyone fits into your prejudices, and by ignoring facts and reason, you stay comfortably in your cocoons. In a way I admire you....and in a bigger way, I pity you.

isnt this world great? thats exactly how we feel about you - word for word, well - maybe a few more words when it comes to you but who's counting. we all have our own unique perspective. the difference is we can accept that you have a right to a different opinion, but you libs cant reciprocate.

therein lies the issue......sigh......

Juli H
11-30-2010, 06:53 PM
I would think you all could eventually just agree to disagree....criminy.:cool: seriously, what good does it do.:confused:

I think Joe had a great statement in his recent 'Iraq war/Bush' post.... maybe you all should make it your sig lines.


Joe S. - As a matter of human nature we discount those things that do not agree with our thought process and enhance those that do, even if they are small.

Cody Covey
11-30-2010, 07:46 PM
When you say "millions" I assume you mean an income of at least 2 million. Care to guess what percentage of Americans make 2 million and over?

And 30,000 for a family income is not middle class anymore.

Rework your numbers with some real statistics, then see where the chips fall.

Uncle Bill will probably conveniently neglect those factors in his unwavering support the the wealthiest Americans, while sticking it to the working class.

I thought we were speaking about you compared with Warren Buffet. I don't know either of your salaries but i would bet i was close. I also never said 30,000 was middle class, I said that the average income for the county i live in is less than 30,000. The average income in America i was wrong about it is 49,000 I was off by 9,000. Poverty is dependent family size but a family of 8 poverty level is 37,000. Sociologists William Thompson and Joseph Hickey estimate an income range of roughly $35,000 to $75,000 for the lower middle class and $100,000 or more for the upper middle class (from wiki) This is for household income. Again I'm curious how many pay taxes that make at or below the median income for America? I can tell you I'm pretty close ot the average income and will probably pay maybe a couple hundred bucks.

If anything I don't pay my fair share not the other way around.

dnf777
11-30-2010, 07:50 PM
If anything I don't pay my fair share not the other way around.

If it will make you feel any better, I'll do my part and let you pay my taxes this year. ;)


Just kidding. I think we misunderstood each other's point.

JDogger
11-30-2010, 09:29 PM
Just kidding. I think we misunderstood each other's point.

Maybe now, we draw close to the internet experience we most have.

The look in the the eye. The wink. The tongue in cheek. They do not convey well in this medium. Emoticons help, but they do not supplant face-to-face communication. How often do we see the post, "I would hunt with you, even if I disagree with you. (Marvin excepted, of course):p

JD

depittydawg
11-30-2010, 10:38 PM
At this point I think it is fair to call them the Obama tax increases since that is really what will happen.

No matter how you independants spin the numbers the top one percent pay over forty, get that forty percent of federal taxes. Someone has to be a total dumb azz to believe they are not paying their share. I do not understand how liberals believe it is fair to punish people for being successful by making them pay higher taxes. If I made millions you bet your azz I would look for any way possible to reduce my tax burden. I do now and I don't make shite. Do our resident independants pay as high of taxes as possible or do they look for every way possible to reduce their tax burden? Redistribution of wealth does not work.

I think Benjamin Franklin said it best when he said "I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."

This pretty much says all you need to know about what has happened in the US economically over the last 30 years.

able 6: Distribution of income in the United States, 1982-2006

Income
Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent
1982 12.8% 39.1% 48.1%
1988 16.6% 38.9% 44.5%
1991 15.7% 40.7% 43.7%
1994 14.4% 40.8% 44.9%
1997 16.6% 39.6% 43.8%
2000 20.0% 38.7% 41.4%
2003 17.0% 40.8% 42.2%
2006 21.3% 40.1% 38.6%

From Wolff (2010).

Top 1% has risen sharply, as the bottom 80% (which is likely everyone on this board) has declined significantly. And BTW, the Bush tax cuts were put in during a lame duck session of congress. They were never meant to be permanent. There is only one fact you need to consider. Taxes WILL rise in America. It is inevitable because of the drunken sailors we've sent to the White House and congress over the last 12 years. Either the middle class will pay more, or the top will pay more. You make your own choice. And those who want to say they don't pay taxes because they earn 40k or less... What planet do you live on? Right off the bat you lose 7% for SS. Then you give up probably 28% for fed tax (prior to deductions) and depending on what state and city you live in, you get taxed again just about everytime money enters or leaves your hand.

He is a link I found with lots of data to digest. Bottom line is it all says the same. The top 1% of Americans are getting away with highway robbery. And to top it off, they've now got a tight grip on both political parties!

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Now go ahead and rip into it and tell again how us middle class suckers are so fortunate that America has more billionaires than we can count.

ppro
12-01-2010, 08:13 AM
Wow where to start.I am assuming you are trying to justify redistribution of wealth through taxation on the premise that taxes have to go up.The only thing I guess I can agree with is that the total dollars that are going to be collected as taxes would probably go up because our dollar continues to not be worth what it use to and we will need to have more to get the same level of government care. How about we lower the amount of government care.There are 2 sides to the equation, revenue and expenditures.The thought that taxes are absolutely increasing does not have to be but I know history has told us different many times.I think once we start looking at others to pay the lion share of taxes we head down a slippery slope.When I say this I am talking of the richer paying a greater percentage not a greater total tax amount.If we had 1 rate for all to pay we would be "fair'.The rich would pay more and the poor would pay less.Notice I said that the poor would pay less and not said the poor would not pay anything.I think part of the lower income group's responsibility is to help pull this train. For a vast group of people they contribute nothing and ask for much and I can't help but think that this is a major source of our problems as they have no pride in themselves as being worthy contributors. This is not meant to be mean spirited, but I think what we do now is. We tell this group that they are not good enough to help and that the real contributors will do the job.If you ever want to take the soul out of people that is a great way to do it.I would like to be treated as an equal.I know if the tax rate were to be set the same for all I would not pay the same dollar amount as others but I would be equal.I would not have the same amount of stuff as others but I would be equal. I don"t need to look across the fence with envy or anger at what others have.As long as people achieve success without breaking our laws I congratulate them.We are created equal as far as our rights go. We are not created equal on our abilities.There is always going to be others that get more but I want to be treated as an equal.

Uncle Bill
12-01-2010, 11:15 AM
Wow where to start.I am assuming you are trying to justify redistribution of wealth through taxation on the premise that taxes have to go up.The only thing I guess I can agree with is that the total dollars that are going to be collected as taxes would probably go up because our dollar continues to not be worth what it use to and we will need to have more to get the same level of government care. How about we lower the amount of government care.There are 2 sides to the equation, revenue and expenditures.The thought that taxes are absolutely increasing does not have to be but I know history has told us different many times.I think once we start looking at others to pay the lion share of taxes we head down a slippery slope.When I say this I am talking of the richer paying a greater percentage not a greater total tax amount.If we had 1 rate for all to pay we would be "fair'.The rich would pay more and the poor would pay less.Notice I said that the poor would pay less and not said the poor would not pay anything.I think part of the lower income group's responsibility is to help pull this train. For a vast group of people they contribute nothing and ask for much and I can't help but think that this is a major source of our problems as they have no pride in themselves as being worthy contributors. This is not meant to be mean spirited, but I think what we do now is. We tell this group that they are not good enough to help and that the real contributors will do the job.If you ever want to take the soul out of people that is a great way to do it.I would like to be treated as an equal.I know if the tax rate were to be set the same for all I would not pay the same dollar amount as others but I would be equal.I would not have the same amount of stuff as others but I would be equal. I don"t need to look across the fence with envy or anger at what others have.As long as people achieve success without breaking our laws I congratulate them.We are created equal as far as our rights go. We are not created equal on our abilities.There is always going to be others that get more but I want to be treated as an equal.


You cannot expect an Oregon socialist to understand what you've just written. Dippity Do Dah is so guilt ridden, he could never see it any way but 'giving' to the poor from the rich. That small illustration I posted about class envy is only reading material for his group, with the last line of the message holding the info we need to understand.

He won't understand when Atlas has shrugged, like #10 in the anecdote, and will start hammering at the bar owner for his 'fair' share. Nothing in that story will relate to him. He only sees producers as greed-mongers, like Bernie Madoff, who, compared to the US government, was a piker. That too, will not be understandable for a socialist.

I do however, applaud your attempts at educating the ignorant.

UB

Cody Covey
12-01-2010, 11:34 AM
Maybe now, we draw close to the internet experience we most have.

The look in the the eye. The wink. The tongue in cheek. They do not convey well in this medium. Emoticons help, but they do not supplant face-to-face communication. How often do we see the post, "I would hunt with you, even if I disagree with you. (Marvin excepted, of course):p

JD

Are you saying I need to make a trip to Pennsylvania and New Mexico? :)

david gibson
12-01-2010, 11:49 AM
Are you saying I need to make a trip to Pennsylvania and New Mexico? :)

yeah, really. jdogger has never said he would hunt with me...:(

road kill
12-01-2010, 11:51 AM
yeah, really. jdogger has never said he would hunt with me...:(

Do you hunt?:D


RK

david gibson
12-01-2010, 11:54 AM
Do you hunt?:D


RK

havent yet this year, but the 2nd half of the split is coming. where i hunt thats always way better than the first half.

ducknwork
12-01-2010, 12:40 PM
havent yet this year, but the 2nd half of the split is coming. where i hunt thats always way better than the first half.

You can't kill em from the couch...:cool:

david gibson
12-01-2010, 12:58 PM
You can't kill em from the couch...:cool:

yeah, like thats it. a little thing called work gets in the way. i cant afford the high dollar leases nearby, and dont like doing the hunting co-op and being in a duck blind with strangers. i have my secret secluded virtually unhunted public land stash but it takes some effort to get there, cant just go hunt in the morning and be home by noon like we could here when i was a kid.

i had many a "dental appointment" in grade school on overcast low-ceiling mornings.....;)

Roger Perry
12-01-2010, 12:59 PM
When I pay 36%, and Warren Buffett pays 14%, I'd say he's not paying his fair share. Actually, HE said that, not me.

I don't have the stats, but all my middle class neighbors pay tax. I bet most RTFers here pay taxes. The middle class supports the handouts for the poor, and the tax breaks for the rich.

Warren Buffet also said the rich should pay higher taxes. Right now tax cuts for the rich does not make for more jobs created. If you think tax cuts for the rich create jobs then why has unemployment so the last 4 years when the tax cuts have been in place?

Billionaire Warren Buffett (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Warren%20Buffett&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1&partialfields=-wnnis:NOAVSYND&lr=-lang_ja) said that rich people should pay more in taxes and that Bush-era tax cuts for top earners should be allowed to expire at the end of December.
“If anything, taxes for the lower and middle class and maybe even the upper middle class should even probably be cut further,” Buffett said in an interview with ABC’s “This Week With Christiane Amanpour” that is scheduled to air on Nov. 28. “But I think that people at the high end -- people like myself -- should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we’ve ever had it.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-21/warren-buffett-tells-abc-rich-people-should-pay-more-in-taxes.html

david gibson
12-01-2010, 01:14 PM
Warren Buffet also said the rich should pay higher taxes. Right now tax cuts for the rich does not make for more jobs created. If you think tax cuts for the rich create jobs then why has unemployment so the last 4 years when the tax cuts have been in place?

Billionaire Warren Buffett (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Warren%20Buffett&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1&partialfields=-wnnis:NOAVSYND&lr=-lang_ja) said that rich people should pay more in taxes and that Bush-era tax cuts for top earners should be allowed to expire at the end of December.
“If anything, taxes for the lower and middle class and maybe even the upper middle class should even probably be cut further,” Buffett said in an interview with ABC’s “This Week With Christiane Amanpour” that is scheduled to air on Nov. 28. “But I think that people at the high end -- people like myself -- should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we’ve ever had it.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-21/warren-buffett-tells-abc-rich-people-should-pay-more-in-taxes.html

and nobody is stopping him or anyone else from writing a check. has he done so voluntarily? doubt it. he is speaking for himself and hasnt put his money where his mouth is so its irrelevant.

Roger Perry
12-01-2010, 01:37 PM
and nobody is stopping him or anyone else from writing a check. has he done so voluntarily? doubt it. he is speaking for himself and hasnt put his money where his mouth is so its irrelevant.

So David, show me where tax cuts for the rich have increased employment or decreased unemployment which now stands over 9% nation wide in the last 4 years which is the republican base for continuing with the Bush tax cuts for the rich.

dnf777
12-01-2010, 01:55 PM
and nobody is stopping him or anyone else from writing a check. has he done so voluntarily? doubt it. he is speaking for himself and hasnt put his money where his mouth is so its irrelevant.

Warren Buffet gives more in philanthropic charity in one year than you will earn in 100 of of your lifetimes. Not everyone is so generous. And given the choice, wouldn't you rather direct where your charitable dollars go, than the budget committee of congress? Although, with Boehner now in charge of the House, I'm sure our debts will all be paid, and the money will be wisely spent. :rolleyes:

david gibson
12-01-2010, 02:46 PM
So David, show me where tax cuts for the rich have increased employment or decreased unemployment which now stands over 9% nation wide in the last 4 years which is the republican base for continuing with the Bush tax cuts for the rich.

not the point. the point is if he thinks the rich should pay more, then he should lead by example.

Roger Perry
12-01-2010, 03:49 PM
not the point. the point is if he thinks the rich should pay more, then he should lead by example.

The real point is the republicans keep saying that if the Bush tax cuts for the rich are extended it will produce more jobs. All I am asking is why that did not work during the last 4 years when the tax cuts were in place. The republicans just blocked extending unemployment benefits for millions of Americans with millions more whose unemployment benefits will be running out in December, January and February.

dnf777
12-01-2010, 04:10 PM
The real point is the republicans keep saying that if the Bush tax cuts for the rich are extended it will produce more jobs. All I am asking is why that did not work during the last 4 years when the tax cuts were in place. The republicans just blocked extending unemployment benefits for millions of Americans with millions more whose unemployment benefits will be running out in December, January and February.

Yes, and Mitch McConnel just vowed to be a total obstructionist until they get their way. There's bipartisanship for ya!

We also have senate republicans blocking a repeal of DADT, despite the Pentagon study and Bush's SecDef appointee saying it should be repealed.

Amazing. And people wanted to put them back in charge?????

ducknwork
12-01-2010, 04:31 PM
The real point is the republicans keep saying that if the Bush tax cuts for the rich are extended it will produce more jobs. All I am asking is why that did not work during the last 4 years when the tax cuts were in place. The republicans just blocked extending unemployment benefits for millions of Americans with millions more whose unemployment benefits will be running out in December, January and February.

We don't know how many more or less jobs would have been produced if the tax cuts weren't in place. Kinda like Obama's count on jobs 'saved'. Both are very difficult (or impossible) to prove. However, it does make sense that if the person that pays the payroll has more money in their pocket, they can pay more employees.

But since you don't think the same way, please tell me how you think raising taxes will create jobs.

Uncle Bill
12-01-2010, 05:44 PM
Yes, and Mitch McConnel just vowed to be a total obstructionist until they get their way. There's bipartisanship for ya!

We also have senate republicans blocking a repeal of DADT, despite the Pentagon study and Bush's SecDef appointee saying it should be repealed.

Amazing. And people wanted to put them back in charge?????


Absolutely NOT! We wanted to continue down the road of real 'bipartisanship' you basket cases love to cry about...like what Pelosi, Reed, and Obama have been exhibiting the past two years. How sycophantically sappy can you become?

UB

Uncle Bill
12-01-2010, 05:48 PM
But since you don't think the same way, please tell me how you think raising taxes will create jobs.




WOW...you are asking a lot from a Port St. Lucie resident. He hasn't gotten beyond the hanging chad stage, and you want him to deal with creating jobs? Wouldn't you have to be sure he can hold one first?

Nice try, but I believe you have taxed him beyond his 'thought' scale.:rolleyes:


UB

dnf777
12-01-2010, 06:01 PM
Absolutely NOT! We wanted to continue down the road of real 'bipartisanship' you basket cases love to cry about...like what Pelosi, Reed, and Obama have been exhibiting the past two years. How sycophantically sappy can you become?

UB

Obama has visited the republicans on capitol hill more than any president. He invited them to the oval office, which they "had other plans". The health care bill has over 100 republican amendments. Despite all that, he extended an olive branch to them yesterday, to which they replied with snotty scoldings.
Now McConnell has outright vowed to be an obstructionist. (like that's news)

The republicans have raised partisanship to new levels.

depittydawg
12-01-2010, 09:20 PM
The republicans have raised partisanship to new levels.

They certainly have. They have basically put the breaks on effective government in the US. One can only guess at what makes these guys tick. Anybody have any ideas of what the real agenda of this cabal is?

ducknwork
12-02-2010, 06:20 AM
But since you don't think the same way, please tell me how you think raising taxes will create jobs.

Just wanted to make sure this was on the new page...

ppro
12-02-2010, 08:09 AM
So let me get this straight. The great Warren Buffet when faced with an excess of riches from the tax cuts from George Bush sees he has the chance to give millions to the government to further show his commitment to pay higher taxes he chooses instead the charity route.Why? Only guessing but maybe he really thinks charity is the better way of helping people and not letting "the government" squander this money also. I guess I could be wrong but I think that would make Warren Buffet wrong also.

david gibson
12-02-2010, 08:16 AM
They certainly have. They have basically put the breaks on effective government in the US. One can only guess at what makes these guys tick. Anybody have any ideas of what the real agenda of this cabal is?

oh i do i do!!!! its to render this idiotic mistake we have in the white house ineffective so the will of the american people will be answered and we can oust this Half Muslim Apologist from the oval office! after all, we all know the only reason he got elected was because a bunch of useless idiots got out and voted. you do remember cousin Pookie, dont you????


how did i do???

Blackstone
12-02-2010, 03:30 PM
The plan, of course, is to make the current administration, and Democrats in general, look as inept and ineffective as possible so Republicans win the White House in 2012. There is little, if any, regard for the actual “will” or welfare of the American public. It’s all about politics and what is best for them politically. No matter how bad things get for the average American while government is rendered ineffective, McConnell and his boys will be doing just fine.

dnf777
12-02-2010, 03:38 PM
So let me get this straight. The great Warren Buffet when faced with an excess of riches from the tax cuts from George Bush sees he has the chance to give millions to the government to further show his commitment to pay higher taxes he chooses instead the charity route.Why? Only guessing but maybe he really thinks charity is the better way of helping people and not letting "the government" squander this money also. I guess I could be wrong but I think that would make Warren Buffet wrong also.

Your logic is severely flawed.
If you've ever given to charity, you'll know that you like to determine where your money is directed! To suggest that his giving of millions to charity somehow invalidates his views on taxation are ludicrous. Come on, you can do better than that!

Anothe piece of flawed logic is the democrats lumping together "the richest Americans" as all those making over 250k. That line was drawn under Reagan, when 250k went a whole lot further than it does now. A family of 4 living in NYC making 250 ain't rich by any means! Why have we failed to adjust for inflation, like we do for everything else??

Blackstone
12-02-2010, 03:56 PM
The real point is the republicans keep saying that if the Bush tax cuts for the rich are extended it will produce more jobs. All I am asking is why that did not work during the last 4 years when the tax cuts were in place. The republicans just blocked extending unemployment benefits for millions of Americans with millions more whose unemployment benefits will be running out in December, January and February.

I believe the tax cuts did produce more jobs. It's just that most of them were created oversea in China or in Mexico.

Cody Covey
12-02-2010, 04:40 PM
I believe the tax cuts did produce more jobs. It's just that most of them were created oversea in China or in Mexico.

Tax cuts often send jobs overseas....

david gibson
12-02-2010, 05:14 PM
The plan, of course, is to make the current administration, and Democrats in general, look as inept and ineffective as possible so Republicans win the White House in 2012. There is little, if any, regard for the actual “will” or welfare of the American public. It’s all about politics and what is best for them politically. No matter how bad things get for the average American while government is rendered ineffective, McConnell and his boys will be doing just fine.

oh please. the democrats are doing a fine job making themselves look as inept and ineffective as possible, they dont need any republican help - but it sure is fun to watch when the get it!

ppro
12-02-2010, 06:46 PM
Spin how you will. Warren Buffet can give all his money to the government. He can according to him give as little as 14 %.He chooses to give the least to the government as he can without breaking the law I guess. Logically one of the greatest money managers of all time chooses to give the least he must to the entity that is least likely to accomplish something positive with it. He chooses to spend his money like he sees fit and it just looks like giving more to the government is not high on his priority list.

dnf777
12-02-2010, 06:54 PM
Spin how you will. Warren Buffet can give all his money to the government. He can according to him give as little as 14 %.He chooses to give the least to the government as he can without breaking the law I guess. Logically one of the greatest money managers of all time chooses to give the least he must to the entity that is least likely to accomplish something positive with it. He chooses to spend his money like he sees fit and it just looks like giving more to the government is not high on his priority list.


What country are you from? In America, that's the way it is!
Got a problem with that?

ppro
12-02-2010, 07:00 PM
No ignorant, But thanks for what country am I from line. I like it just like Warren Buffet is doing it now. More charity less taxes to the government .You are the one who wants to change it. I am all for the way he spends his money. Just quit taking mine and spending it foolishly.I give enough and think he gives enough.Cut the spending and don'T tax anyone any more.

dnf777
12-02-2010, 07:09 PM
No ignorant, But thanks for what country am I from line. I like it just like Warren Buffet is doing it now. More charity less taxes to the government .You are the one who wants to change it. I am all for the way he spends his money. Just quit taking mine and spending it foolishly.I give enough and think he gives enough.Cut the spending and don'T tax anyone any more.

Hey, I don't want to pay taxes anymore than you do. I also don't like living in debt, either personally or as an American citizen. Maybe we shouldn't have started a trillion dollar war for no good reason, with NO WAY to pay for it? Doesn't that grab you the wrong way? Just borrow and spend, borrow and spend.

david gibson
12-02-2010, 08:25 PM
Hey, I don't want to pay taxes anymore than you do. I also don't like living in debt, either personally or as an American citizen. Maybe we shouldn't have started a trillion dollar war for no good reason, with NO WAY to pay for it? Doesn't that grab you the wrong way? Just borrow and spend, borrow and spend.

or waste trillions on something called "stimulus"?

how well is that working out??? LOL

shovel ready my ass regards

dnf777
12-02-2010, 09:00 PM
or waste trillions on something called "stimulus"?

how well is that working out??? LOL

shovel ready my ass regards

GM is alive and well. Repaid their debt and went public again.
The banks are solvent, albiet a little tight with their money.

Compare that to two years ago, and I'd say 'yes' it worked. In fact, there's only a few banks and insurance companies that haven't paid back their stimulus money, and they are the very ones you want to extend tax cuts to. kinda funny. No wonder you keep a shovel nearby.

Cody Covey
12-03-2010, 12:53 AM
GM is alive and well. Repaid their debt and went public again.
The banks are solvent, albiet a little tight with their money.

Compare that to two years ago, and I'd say 'yes' it worked. In fact, there's only a few banks and insurance companies that haven't paid back their stimulus money, and they are the very ones you want to extend tax cuts to. kinda funny. No wonder you keep a shovel nearby.

GM paid back all their debt?

dnf777
12-03-2010, 05:50 AM
GM paid back all their debt?

GM has "repaid our government loan, in full, with interest, five years ahead of the original schedule."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/27/ed-whitacre/ceo-says-gm-has-repaid-government-loans-full/

Franco
12-03-2010, 07:35 AM
That politico article is nothing more than spin hoping to mislead the uneducated public.

Tax Payers still own 60% of the turkey known as GM in the from of stock. That stock is mostly likely to go down before it could possibly go up.

Buyers are not exactly coveting GM stock.

david gibson
12-03-2010, 09:23 AM
and who funds the banks that supported GM?

dnf777
12-03-2010, 10:39 AM
That politico article is nothing more than spin hoping to mislead the uneducated public.

Tax Payers still own 60% of the turkey known as GM in the from of stock. That stock is mostly likely to go down before it could possibly go up.

Buyers are not exactly coveting GM stock.

Maybe that's spin in the opposite direction, but in any case, there's 200,000 Americans with good jobs, who would be on unemployment right now otherwise. If you check, I think they had a pretty impressive IPO also. We'll have to wait and see when the page turns...

ducknwork
12-03-2010, 11:52 AM
please tell me how you think raising taxes will create jobs.


Just wanted to make sure this was on the new page...

Why won't anyone answer this question?:confused::confused::(

Blackstone
12-03-2010, 11:54 AM
oh please. the democrats are doing a fine job making themselves look as inept and ineffective as possible, they dont need any republican help - but it sure is fun to watch when the get it!

If you are correct about the ineptitude of the current administration, and I don’t believe you are, does that somehow justify the creation of gridlock that all but guarantees nothing meaningful will be accomplished in this country for the next 2 years? With all the problems we are currently facing in this country (high unemployment and an economy that is just barely moving along) is this the correct action to take for the good of the country?

You can see it starting already. Republicans have decided to hold the extension of unemployment benefits hostage and block them unless they can get all the Bush era tax cuts renewed. So, in effect, they are willing to let the 10% of the population that is unemployed suffer in order to ensure tax breaks for the wealthiest 2%. I’m not in favor of anyone paying higher taxes, but I wouldn’t deny help to those that need it most just to make sure I avoided paying them.

I’m afraid this is just the beginning. I think you will see a lot more of this political partisanship over the next 2 years that will not benefit the majority of Americans.

dnf777
12-03-2010, 11:57 AM
Why won't anyone answer this question?:confused::confused::(

Now that you've expanded to "anyone", I'll give it a shot.

Mebbe because nobody thinks raising taxes will create jobs. Nor did cutting them. Maybe job growth or decline depends more on trade laws, costs of manufacturing, and regulations (or lack thereof) across borders?? Maybe?

Restoring taxes to the Clinton era will increase revenues to help pay for our spending as we go, rather than continue to accelerate the national debt growth through deficit spending. Of course, every tax penny collected, should be met with spending cuts, until we achieve, as the Clinton administration and congress did, a balanced budget. (NB: our economy was BOOMING under the clinton-era tax schedule.....whether because of it, or in spite of it...or nothing to do with it!)

Happy now? ;-)

dnf777
12-03-2010, 11:59 AM
does that somehow justify the creation of gridlock that all but guarantees nothing meaningful will be accomplished in this country for the next 2 years?


I’m afraid this is just the beginning. I think you will see a lot more of this political partisanship over the next 2 years that will not benefit the majority of Americans.


Yes it does. If your sole mission is to make the current administration look bad. You would push your own grandmother down cement steps if it helped you regain power in the next election cycle.

I am also very afraid. Our deficit is accelerating, and any efforts to curtail and correct that trend MUST be met with bipartisanship efforts. I don't see that happening when the senate and house leaders have outright vowed for gridlock unless they get their way.

ducknwork
12-03-2010, 12:01 PM
Happy now? ;-)

No, not right now...I was a whole lot happier a couple hours ago when I was still killing ducks instead of being at work. Thanks for asking.

dnf777
12-03-2010, 12:07 PM
No, not right now...I was a whole lot happier a couple hours ago when I was still killing ducks instead of being at work. Thanks for asking.

LMAO...

That's a real come-downer!

Cody Covey
12-03-2010, 12:17 PM
Yes it does. If your sole mission is to make the current administration look bad. You would push your own grandmother down cement steps if it helped you regain power in the next election cycle.

I am also very afraid. Our deficit is accelerating, and any efforts to curtail and correct that trend MUST be met with bipartisanship efforts. I don't see that happening when the senate and house leaders have outright vowed for gridlock unless they get their way.It had nothing to do with it and if anything it was in spite of it. The .com EXPLODED in the 90's during Clintons reign and there was basically nothing that could've stopped it except its own saturation of the market which happened and we had the bubble burst. The internet was taking off at a huge rate and costs were coming WAY down on prices of IT equipment. To say well Clinton had higher taxes and it worked is quite a bit different than raising taxes during a reccession with 10% unemployment.

I'm confused how any of you think anyone should be allowed to stay on unemployment for over 2 years...

Cody Covey
12-03-2010, 12:19 PM
If you are correct about the ineptitude of the current administration, and I don’t believe you are, does that somehow justify the creation of gridlock that all but guarantees nothing meaningful will be accomplished in this country for the next 2 years? With all the problems we are currently facing in this country (high unemployment and an economy that is just barely moving along) is this the correct action to take for the good of the country?

You can see it starting already. Republicans have decided to hold the extension of unemployment benefits hostage and block them unless they can get all the Bush era tax cuts renewed. So, in effect, they are willing to let the 10% of the population that is unemployed suffer in order to ensure tax breaks for the wealthiest 2%. I’m not in favor of anyone paying higher taxes, but I wouldn’t deny help to those that need it most just to make sure I avoided paying them.

I’m afraid this is just the beginning. I think you will see a lot more of this political partisanship over the next 2 years that will not benefit the majority of Americans.

So with the huge majority in the house that the republicans have no will the democrats be the obstructionist party now? How else could gridlock occur?

dnf777
12-03-2010, 12:23 PM
So with the huge majority in the house that the republicans have no will the democrats be the obstructionist party now? How else could gridlock occur?

Both sides have their agendas. It will require compromise to accomplish anything. When one side unilaterally states they have no intention of compromising, nor even allowing debate to occur unless they get their way....that is one side causing gridlock.

For the neocons who may not be familiar with that word:

Compromise:

–noun
1.
a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.
2.
the result of such a settlement.
3.
something intermediate between different things: The split-level is a compromise between a ranch house and a multistoried house.
4.
an endangering, esp. of reputation; exposure to danger, suspicion, etc.: a compromise of one's integrity.

Blackstone
12-03-2010, 01:01 PM
So with the huge majority in the house that the republicans have no will the democrats be the obstructionist party now? How else could gridlock occur?

I think my example speaks for itself. Republicans have already shown they are willing to block anything this administration tried to do unless they get their way. That is obstructionism. Now, the Democrats may prove to be obstructionists on things the Republicans want to do. We will have to wait to see if that happens. But, for now, the Republicans have proven themselves.

Roger Perry
12-03-2010, 01:20 PM
No, not right now...I was a whole lot happier a couple hours ago when I was still killing ducks instead of being at work. Thanks for asking.

Bet the ducks wern't happy;)

Roger Perry
12-03-2010, 02:29 PM
Why won't anyone answer this question?Originally Posted by ducknwork http://new.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://new.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=711317#post711317)
please tell me how you think raising taxes will create jobs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ducknwork http://new.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://new.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=711566#post711566)
Just wanted to make sure this was on the new page...

Why won't anyone answer this question?:confused:

It may or may not create new jobs but it sure would help to pay down the National Debt.;)

ducknwork
12-03-2010, 03:16 PM
Bet the ducks wern't happy;)

Probably not, but I'm not sure really. I can't hear them complaining.;):cool:

winewinn
12-05-2010, 12:41 AM
Sarah Palin responds on here facebook page...

facebook.com/notes/sarah-palin/a-thanksgiving-message-to-all-57-states/463364218434

Ah ha ha... love it.