seeing country going right and right

[Winetalk.com]

and Janet's tits on TV being the biggest USA problem-
if election were held today-
I'd vore Kerry,
just because he si not Bush

[Winetalk.com]

P.S. Todd, don't glee!

[dantheman]

I concur

[Mike AI]

I am not convinced this is the case.

I am far from happy with Bush, but I still think he is better then Kerry.

[sarettah]

Yeah, I hate when th country goes right and right.....

Especially when they're doing the country two step....

Just keep going right and right...

Makes you want to get up in their face and say, LEFT Dammit, GO LEFT, for once in your little weenie dancing cowboy lifes go to the fucking left !!!!!....

:unsure:

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Feb 26 2004, 10:43 PM
I am not convinced this is the case.

I am far from happy with Bush, but I still think he is better then Kerry.
Mike,
I can only deliver Kerry the state of Florida....
;-=))))

[Winetalk.com]

BTW, MikeAI, Kerry's wife is one of us...
she is worth just $600,000,000.....

;-))))

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Feb 26 2004, 11:24 PM
BTW, MikeAI, Kerry's wife is one of us...
she is worth just $600,000,000.....

;-))))


No she is not one of us. She did not EARN her money.... he got it from marrying well and the guy dying.

[Diamond Jim]

This is why Bush is in serious trouble....he's pushing the traditional conservative base away by being a right-wing nutcase. Despite how people might feel personally about gays getting married, I bet it worries them that such a thing would be important enough to a president to require a limiting of something that should be nobodies business.

It must be in the genes...win over the nation, only to lose it by being a dumbass...

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by Diamond Jim@Feb 27 2004, 12:15 AM
This is why Bush is in serious trouble....he's pushing the traditional conservative base away by being a right-wing nutcase. Despite how people might feel personally about gays getting married, I bet it worries them that such a thing would be important enough to a president to require a limiting of something that should be nobodies business.

It must be in the genes...win over the nation, only to lose it by being a dumbass...


I think you are right with that.

But its not the marriage thign that is causing his problems.

[PornoDoggy]

I've always thought (hoped?) that a LOT of GW's support was very thin.

Assuming Kerry wraps it up on "Super Tuesday", it will be interesting to see if Bush's #s stay down after his opponent is identified.

[Mike AI]

I hate to say it, but I do not feel good about Bush's chances at the time.

However, I will work to change it.

[Hell Puppy]

If Kerry gets elected, at least we'll be spared Hillary in 2008....

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by Hell Puppy@Feb 27 2004, 01:19 AM
If Kerry gets elected, at least we'll be spared Hillary in 2008....


Possitive thinking!!

That is why there are some right wing kooks who are hoping the "Clinton machine" under cuts Kerry.

[RawAlex]

IMH (canadian not important doesn't matter apparently pinko commie)O, what you are seeing from Bush and co right now is NOTHING compared to what you will see once they get a second mandate. I suspect that you will see the whole "faith based" everything come out to haunt us all.

Janet's tit was just a tipping point, finally pushing public opinion far enough over to make it possible for these people to act. The FCC I am a MORON, got in there first, and when everyone else saw no real negative feedback on the issue, they all piled on.

It plays well to a select group of ULTRA conservatives, but it doesn't play well with the Bubba "let's blow some muslims up" group.... they like porn, they want to see Janet's tit, and they think Stern is funny.

JMHO, of course.

Alex

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Feb 27 2004, 01:40 AM
IMH (canadian not important doesn't matter apparently pinko commie)O, what you are seeing from Bush and co right now is NOTHING compared to what you will see once they get a second mandate. I suspect that you will see the whole "faith based" everything come out to haunt us all.

Janet's tit was just a tipping point, finally pushing public opinion far enough over to make it possible for these people to act. The FCC I am a MORON, got in there first, and when everyone else saw no real negative feedback on the issue, they all piled on.

It plays well to a select group of ULTRA conservatives, but it doesn't play well with the Bubba "let's blow some muslims up" group.... they like porn, they want to see Janet's tit, and they think Stern is funny.

JMHO, of course.

Alex


Yep!

Then Bush is going to lead invasion of Canada and France!

:okthumb:

[Carrie]

"But its not the marriage thign that is causing his problems."

Agreed.
He promised smaller gov't and he's gone in there and spent like Imelda Marcos on a shoe spree.
He promised to get jobs back - which has happened - but he's laid down a plan to give jobs to illegal aliens rather than legal citizens.
He's nearly erased the border between the US and Mexico.
He has taken the "amiable negotiator" role a little too far and has yet to veto anything that's been put before him, no matter how fatty it is.
He brought about the creation of the Patriot Act.
He allowed US citizens captured on US soil to sit in a jail without contact with lawyers or family members for a year and a half rather than giving them due process and respecting their rights as citizens.
Don't even get me started on the bullshit he laid out in the State of the Union speech - I sat through most of it with my jaw hanging open wondering if he'd changed the letter after his name to "SSD" (super spending Democrat).

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by Carrie@Feb 27 2004, 01:52 AM
"But its not the marriage thign that is causing his problems."

Agreed.
He promised smaller gov't and he's gone in there and spent like Imelda Marcos on a shoe spree.
He promised to get jobs back - which has happened - but he's laid down a plan to give jobs to illegal aliens rather than legal citizens.
He's nearly erased the border between the US and Mexico.
He has taken the "amiable negotiator" role a little too far and has yet to veto anything that's been put before him, no matter how fatty it is.
He brought about the creation of the Patriot Act.
He allowed US citizens captured on US soil to sit in a jail without contact with lawyers or family members for a year and a half rather than giving them due process and respecting their rights as citizens.
Don't even get me started on the bullshit he laid out in the State of the Union speech - I sat through most of it with my jaw hanging open wondering if he'd changed the letter after his name to "SSD" (super spending Democrat).


Carrie, I cannot find fault with most of these statements!!

[Hell Puppy]

All true...

But unfortunately, the alternative is shaping up to be a democrat who is going to be very weak on protecting the country against additional terrorist attacks.

The U.N. is a joke.

If you think jobs are a problem now, imagine what our economy would do at this point if say a dirty nuke were popped in D.C. Makes me wanna convert my portfolio to all cash just thinking about it...

[Almighty Colin]

Wow. Everyone on Oprano pretty much in agreement on politics.

[[Labret]]

flipfloppers, a year ago your were balls deep on Bush cock.

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by Mike AI+Feb 26 2004, 11:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike AI @ Feb 26 2004, 11:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Serge_Oprano@Feb 26 2004, 11:24 PM
BTW, MikeAI, Kerry's wife is one of us...
she is worth just $600,000,000.....

;-))))


No she is not one of us. She did not EARN her money.... he got it from marrying well and the guy dying.[/b][/quote]
and our wives any different?????

c'mon, Mike
;-))))

based upon the ages of our wives- they outlive us and get the chance to become First Ladies
;-))))

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by Diamond Jim@Feb 27 2004, 12:15 AM
This is why Bush is in serious trouble....he's pushing the traditional conservative base away by being a right-wing nutcase. Despite how people might feel personally about gays getting married, I bet it worries them that such a thing would be important enough to a president to require a limiting of something that should be nobodies business.

It must be in the genes...win over the nation, only to lose it by being a dumbass...
yeap, you nailed it.

If he can drive ME into Democrats hands-
how many more "mid-size" Republicans can he deliver to Kerry?????

I do NOT trust people who claim to have God as their boss....what he proposes as Constitutional Amendment,
will be the FIRST in the history of USA:
LIMITING Civil Rights instead of expanding them!

one line from Dan's Brown book "Digital Fortress" plays in my head:
"Who is gonna oversee the overseers"????

God??? I'd like to hear that from God personally.

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Feb 27 2004, 01:11 AM
I hate to say it, but I do not feel good about Bush's chances at the time.

However, I will work to change it.
ahhhh...political split at Oprano...
let's see who does the better job!
;-))

Kerry for 2004!
;-))))

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by [Labret]@Feb 27 2004, 05:28 AM
flipfloppers, a year ago your were balls deep on Bush cock.
a year ago he was saving the country,
today he is saving his soul.

you are 100%, I am flexable and follow FACTS and not doctrines taught by kooks proffesors with no clue.

If you had brains which can analyze instead of memorizing,
this would be obvious to you.

But you are not equipped with critical thinking.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by [Labret]@Feb 27 2004, 05:28 AM
flipfloppers, a year ago your were balls deep on Bush cock.
I might change my mind 100x. Consistency is a trap.

[[Labret]]

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Feb 27 2004, 02:49 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Feb 27 2004, 02:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--[Labret]@Feb 27 2004, 05:28 AM
flipfloppers, a year ago your were balls deep on Bush cock.
a year ago he was saving the country,
today he is saving his soul.

you are 100%, I am flexable and follow FACTS and not doctrines taught by kooks proffesors with no clue.

If you had brains which can analyze instead of memorizing,
this would be obvious to you.

But you are not equipped with critical thinking.[/b][/quote]

It takes critical thinking skills to realize evangelical christians should not run the country?

Seems pretty common sense to me, but then again I am not Serge.



Last edited by [Labret] at Feb 27 2004, 02:59 AM

[KC]

My biggest fear of Bush being re-elected is that he'll take the leash off of that jackass Ashcroft.

Have you guys seen http://www.dearmary.com/ ?

Why are you asking people to write to Mary Cheney?

President Bush and far-right extremists want to add anti-gay language to the US Constitution. As the openly lesbian daughter of Vice President Cheney, Mary Cheney is uniquely situated to help her community in this dire hour. She already has a history of publicly working on gay rights issues, from her time as a paid gay liaison for Coors and serving on the board of the Republican Unity Coalition (a gay Republican group devoted to stamping out anti-gay prejudice in the Republican Party). Now that Mary's father has said he would support adding anti-gay prejudice to the US Constitution, we believe Mary has a unique opportunity here to do the right thing and make a difference.

It's great... I donated a couple bucks just out of spite for the Religious Right!!

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by [Labret]+Feb 27 2004, 05:58 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE ([Labret] @ Feb 27 2004, 05:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Serge_Oprano@Feb 27 2004, 02:49 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--[Labret]@Feb 27 2004, 05:28 AM
flipfloppers, a year ago your were balls deep on Bush cock.
a year ago he was saving the country,
today he is saving his soul.

you are 100%, I am flexable and follow FACTS and not doctrines taught by kooks proffesors with no clue.

If you had brains which can analyze instead of memorizing,
this would be obvious to you.

But you are not equipped with critical thinking.

It takes critical thinking skills to realize evangelical christians should not run the country?

Seems pretty common sense to me, but then again I am not Serge.[/b][/quote]
yes, you are NOT Serge.....you need to mature and polish your brain a LOT before you have a chance to get _anywhere_ near....


as for evangelicals running the country:
go learn from history:
at certain points of time that what it takes for the good of the nation.

Stalin, who was MUCH worse than Evelangical chrisitian,
was good for Russia in late 20-early 30th, he BUILD Russia from scratch

Hitler was good for Germany in early years, he brought Germany back from ruins, and he was MUCH worse than evalengical christian

even Popes were good for Italy in 12-14th centuries, as they UNITED Italy from feuding barons into a country.

am I asking you too much? this task would require LOTS of analysis,
student and "my young apprentice"
;-))))

[[Labret]]

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Feb 27 2004, 03:15 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Feb 27 2004, 03:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -[Labret]@Feb 27 2004, 05:58 AM
Originally posted by -Serge_Oprano@Feb 27 2004, 02:49 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--[Labret]@Feb 27 2004, 05:28 AM
flipfloppers, a year ago your were balls deep on Bush cock.
a year ago he was saving the country,
today he is saving his soul.

you are 100%, I am flexable and follow FACTS and not doctrines taught by kooks proffesors with no clue.

If you had brains which can analyze instead of memorizing,
this would be obvious to you.

But you are not equipped with critical thinking.

It takes critical thinking skills to realize evangelical christians should not run the country?

Seems pretty common sense to me, but then again I am not Serge.
yes, you are NOT Serge.....you need to mature and polish your brain a LOT before you have a chance to get _anywhere_ near....


as for evangelicals running the country:
go learn from history:
at certain points of time that what it takes for the good of the nation.

Stalin, who was MUCH worse than Evelangical chrisitian,
was good for Russia in late 20-early 30th, he BUILD Russia from scratch

Hitler was good for Germany in early years, he brought Germany back from ruins, and he was MUCH worse than evalengical christian

even Popes were good for Italy in 12-14th centuries, as they UNITED Italy from feuding barons into a country.

am I asking you too much? this task would require LOTS of analysis,
student and "my young apprentice"
;-))))[/b][/quote]

And look how Russia, Germany, and Roman Catholicism ended up.

Someone should put you out of your misery.


at certain points of time that what it takes for the good of the nation.


Ask those who fell victim to those regimes you outlined if it was for the good of the "nation".

Take your ginko Spooge.

[Almighty Colin]

The two major political parties in the US both have their share of positive and negatives. For me, it's about getting the right balance of them over time. I'd like to operate my business without fear of governmental interference and I'd like to pay less taxes so I can reinvest more of that money, purchase more goods, hire more employees and so on. I'd like a mostly libertarian atmosphere for both businesses and individuals. I'd like some social nets but not too many.

Right now, I'd like to see Kerry with a Republican majority congress



Last edited by Colin at Feb 27 2004, 06:34 AM

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by [Labret]@Feb 27 2004, 06:25 AM


And look how Russia, Germany, and Roman Catholicism ended up.

Someone should put you out of your misery.


at certain points of time that what it takes for the good of the nation.


Ask those who fell victim to those regimes you outlined if it was for the good of the "nation".

Take your ginko Spooge.
sure, let's take a look...
1) Russia - nuclear superpower who can inahilate the Earth if releases it's nuclear arsenal...
how many more countries in the world can boast that?

2) Germany - second richest country on Earth after USA
(see yesterday's poll) measured by number of billionairs

3) Catholicism:
World leading religion with assets enough to build paradise on Earth if they chose to.

I LOVE when my opponents just beat themselves into the pulp
;-))

have any more examples to prove MY point?????


Ask those who fell victim to those regimes you outlined if it was for the good of the "nation".

Take your ginko Spooge.



..and should I weap for a poor Brittish soldiers who perished during the American Revolution?????

[[Labret]]

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Feb 27 2004, 03:33 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Feb 27 2004, 03:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--[Labret]@Feb 27 2004, 06:25 AM


And look how Russia, Germany, and Roman Catholicism ended up.

Someone should put you out of your misery.


at certain points of time that what it takes for the good of the nation.


Ask those who fell victim to those regimes you outlined if it was for the good of the "nation".

Take your ginko Spooge.
sure, let's take a look...
1) Russia - nuclear superpower who can inahilate the Earth if releases it's nuclear arsenal...
how many more countries in the world can boast that?

2) Germany - second richest country on Earth after USA
(see yesterday's poll) measured by number of billionairs

3) Catholicism:
World leading religion with assets enough to build paradise on Earth if they chose to.

I LOVE when my opponents just beat themselves into the pulp
;-))

have any more examples to prove MY point?????


Ask those who fell victim to those regimes you outlined if it was for the good of the "nation".

Take your ginko Spooge.



..and should I weap for a poor Brittish soldiers who perished during the American Revolution?????[/b][/quote]

You are like arguing with a college freshman.

I could just sit here and list off a long list of how Russia is now a third world shithole, Germany only succeeds now due to Allied reconstruction, and how the Catholic church is in the process of dying in western nations, reduced to a third world faith of pedophile priests and false xtian doctrine.

But that would be stating the obvious.


I LOVE when my opponents just beat themselves into the pulp


Opponent? You are my intellectual inferior, I do not even view you as a challenge. The only thing that comes to mind when I think of Serge is "overrated".



Last edited by [Labret] at Feb 27 2004, 03:40 AM

[spazlabz]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Feb 26 2004, 10:40 PM
Janet's tit was just a tipping point,
:yowsa: :yowsa: heh heh :yowsa: :yowsa:
maybe you didnt intend that pun but it was funny none the less


spaz

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by [Labret]@Feb 27 2004, 06:40 AM


You are like arguing with a college freshman.

I could just sit here and list off a long list of how Russia is now a third world shithole, Germany only succeeds now due to Allied reconstruction, and how the Catholic church is in the process of dying in western nations, reduced to a third world faith of pedophile priests and false xtian doctrine.

But that would be stating the obvious.


I LOVE when my opponents just beat themselves into the pulp


Opponent? You are my intellectual inferior, I do not even view you as a challenge. The only thing that comes to mind when I think of Serge is "overrated".
I AM arguing with a college student,
glad you stated the obvious
;-)))


yes, Russia is a 3rd country shithole which STILL can inahilate Detroit with Labret in it.
go figure....

if Germany succeeded due to Allied Reconstruction,
do you see Iraq succeeding? your own logic says YES, therefore you are a supporter of the Bush's efforts, even though you publically stated you were not...at least I KNOW where I am,
and don't need labrets to spell it for me
;-)))))


every mutt with no pedegree beleives they are superior to purebreds...
get over it, boy, your bark is stronger than your bite...like every self respecting MUTT would know.

[[Labret]]

When did this myth of Serge as world class pisser start?

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by [Labret]@Feb 27 2004, 06:47 AM
When did this myth of Serge as world class pisser start?
my piss built my nest egg:
http://citibank.com
it ain't the myth
;-))

what exactly your pissing skills brought you?
(besides better education you are getting for free at Oprano)

[Winetalk.com]

P.S.
and if you think for a moment I let you off the hook to skip your falling logic and total lack of understanding of global politics, history, society development and switch attention to personal attacks-
you are mistaken,
I won't let it hapopen,
I enjoy you misery and illogisms way too much!
;-)))

[Torone]

Originally posted by sarettah@Feb 26 2004, 10:11 PM
Yeah, I hate when th country goes right and right.....

Especially when they're doing the country two step....

Just keep going right and right...

Makes you want to get up in their face and say, LEFT Dammit, GO LEFT, for once in your little weenie dancing cowboy lifes go to the fucking left !!!!!....

:unsure:
The country went left for 40 years; and look where it got us. The rest of the world is still going left...let THEM do it! America SHOULD be different!

BTW, before you rag on Bush and us Conservatives too much, take a look at the unemployment rate, inflation, taxes, etc. in the country you love so much and yet refuse to move to. While you're at it, check out the price of airfare (one-way)...I'm sure they'd love for someone, ANYONE, to go the other way. Why the hell, if this country is so damned bad, do so many people want to get here so badly; and why don't all the ones who spend so much time bitching want to leave?

[Torone]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Feb 27 2004, 12:06 AM
I've always thought (hoped?) that a LOT of GW's support was very thin.

Assuming Kerry wraps it up on "Super Tuesday", it will be interesting to see if Bush's #s stay down after his opponent is identified.
Kerry and his ilk have had all this time to do nothing but attack with no reprisals. He has the media behind him; but has anyone ever asked him any hard questions?

BTW, about the UN...watch Haiti.

[Winetalk.com]

Torone,
here is MY list of "wrongs":

1) The present powers claim GOD to be their boss,
thus eliminating ANYT responcibility before the people.
This is NOT an American way of
"By the people, for the people"

2) every time the pendalum swings to the extreme, it destroys the balance we all enjoy so much

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by Torone+Feb 27 2004, 08:36 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Torone @ Feb 27 2004, 08:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--PornoDoggy@Feb 27 2004, 12:06 AM
I've always thought (hoped?) that a LOT of GW's support was very thin.

Assuming Kerry wraps it up on "Super Tuesday", it will be interesting to see if Bush's #s stay down after his opponent is identified.
Kerry and his ilk have had all this time to do nothing but attack with no reprisals. He has the media behind him; but has anyone ever asked him any hard questions?

BTW, about the UN...watch Haiti.[/b][/quote]
I never heard him, never read/watched media about him,
and the ONLY reason I'd vote for him today is..
because he isn't Bush

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Torone@Feb 27 2004, 08:30 AM
Why the hell, if this country is so damned bad, do so many people want to get here so badly; and why don't all the ones who spend so much time bitching want to leave?
Who said the country was bad?

[Hooper]

Originally posted by Colin@Feb 27 2004, 06:32 AM
Right now, I'd like to see Kerry with a Republican majority congress
Might result in an incredibly ineffective presidency, republicans dont like to work *with* democratic presidents.

And as far as terror attacks go... i mean simply as a #'s game here... we've had what.. ONE TERROR ATTACK IN THE HISTORY OF THE COUNTRY???? and this is grounds to devote the entire government to god?

MORE PEOPLE DIE FROM THE COMMON COLD THAN FROM TERRORISM EACH YEAR.

Fighting terrorism isnt about saving people or protecting people, it's about uniting people against a "bad guy". The very same reason that the middle eastern dictators are able to actually get a following is because they scream "those dirty americans!".

Nothing unites people like fear and hate. Kinda sad.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Hooper@Feb 27 2004, 09:15 AM
Might result in an incredibly ineffective presidency, republicans dont like to work *with* democratic presidents.
Exactly what I am hoping for. Status quo.

[Torone]

Liberal Idiots! You didn't read my posts properly.

Why, if this country is so bad, are you still here? Canada to the north, Mexico to the south...you HAVE choices. In fact, if the people from those countries keep moving here, you can have it pretty much to yourself in either place.

BTW, why DO you think they leave there to come here? Could it be for the very much lower tax rates, the economic opportunities, etc. which the Socialist Democommies want to do away with in favor of the mediocrity of Socialism/Communism?

Here's a little to think about:

Kerry has no core belief except the belief that (after 50 years of being there) the Democommies BELONG in power. He has advanced no plan except to bring this country into line with the Socialist community and put our defense into the incapable hands of the UN. He wants a 70% tax rate and confiscation of all income over a preset amount. The man is a COMMUNIST who is simply labeling himself a Democrat. Research the traitor, and discover what he is besides a gigolo...

[Winetalk.com]

you called me...Liberal?????????

I'd turn in my grave if I was dead....stop working on it,
heart attack is NOT how I plan on going
;-))))

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by Torone@Feb 27 2004, 10:57 AM


Here's a little to think about:

Kerry has no core belief except the belief that (after 50 years of being there) the Democommies BELONG in power. He has advanced no plan except to bring this country into line with the Socialist community and put our defense into the incapable hands of the UN. He wants a 70% tax rate and confiscation of all income over a preset amount. The man is a COMMUNIST who is simply labeling himself a Democrat. Research the traitor, and discover what he is besides a gigolo...
after thinking about it,
I have only one question:
have you made your own research and can back it all up with FACTS,
or you singing the tune you heard from another ignoramus on the radio?

Flynt can't back up with facts the "abortion story"
(or he wouldn't be shooting blanks NOW and waited for the time when it matters)
and neither can your "preacher" back up the gigollo story.

now YOU think about it......

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Torone@Feb 27 2004, 10:57 AM
Kerry has no core belief except the belief that (after 50 years of being there) the Democommies BELONG in power.
Look at the people on this board who normally sit somewhere in the middle politically. They are not pro-Kerry. They are anti-social conservatism.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Feb 27 2004, 06:15 AM
even Popes were good for Italy in 12-14th centuries, as they UNITED Italy from feuding barons into a country.
The ghost of Giuseppe Garibaldi will get you on your next trip to Italy for that claim ...

[Mike AI]

I am far from flip-flopping. I will still support Bush. I will donate money and will vote for him. However his reelection chances are not looking too good right now.

He has done some things that I do not like - Carrie listed them above. I am not concerned about the God thing like Serge, it does not bother me at all.

My #1 issue is National Security, fighting Islamic Terrorism - this is something that will continue probably for my lifetime. I do not trust most Democrats to do the right thing. Turning our problems over to the UN will just make them worse.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Colin+Feb 27 2004, 08:44 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Feb 27 2004, 08:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Torone@Feb 27 2004, 08:30 AM
Why the hell, if this country is so damned bad, do so many people want to get here so badly; and why don't all the ones who spend so much time bitching want to leave?
Who said the country was bad?[/b][/quote]
Wazzamatta ... don't they teach logic at Yale.

If you don't agree with Torone's vision of America, you think the country is bad.



Last edited by PornoDoggy at Feb 27 2004, 12:39 PM

[JR]

Originally posted by [Labret]@Feb 27 2004, 02:28 AM
flipfloppers, a year ago your were balls deep on Bush cock.
making more educated decisions as more information becomes available is hardly "flip flopping". as you learn, you adapt and change and modify your views accordingly... otherwise, whats the point of learning?... education is everywhere... not just in college and it's more than just a crazy scheme to allow yourself to make the claim that your brighter than everyone though you have significantly less life experience to back that up.

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Feb 27 2004, 12:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Feb 27 2004, 12:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Serge_Oprano@Feb 27 2004, 06:15 AM
even Popes were good for Italy in 12-14th centuries, as they UNITED Italy from feuding barons into a country.
The ghost of Giuseppe Garibaldi will get you on your next trip to Italy for that claim ...[/b][/quote]
Popes preceeded him....they got t"too much consolidation" as far as he was concerned
;-)))

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Feb 27 2004, 12:36 PM


My #1 issue is National Security, fighting Islamic Terrorism - this is something that will continue probably for my lifetime. I do not trust most Democrats to do the right thing. Turning our problems over to the UN will just make them worse.
yeah!
Stalin made it his life time prophecy to fight the enemy which was no longer their...
fighting with Trotskists 20 years after Trotsky's death killing his own people in the name of this struggle...


"Who will oversee the Overseers"?, Mike?

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by JR+Feb 27 2004, 12:48 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JR @ Feb 27 2004, 12:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--[Labret]@Feb 27 2004, 02:28 AM
flipfloppers, a year ago your were balls deep on Bush cock.
making more educated decisions as more information becomes available is hardly "flip flopping". as you learn, you adapt and change and modify your views accordingly... otherwise, whats the point of learning?... education is everywhere... not just in college and it's more than just a crazy scheme to allow yourself to make the claim that your brighter than everyone though you have significantly less life experience to back that up.[/b][/quote]
Labret ONLY learn and changes his point of views AFTER the picture Han's Burger "associate" at his door step delivered to him.
Before that, his FIRM belief was that stealing beastiality content from Hans WAS OK...

He DOES learn, even if he affraid to admit it
;-))))

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Feb 27 2004, 12:38 PM
Wazzamatta ... don't they teach logic at Yale.
I spent that semester at Rudy's drinking Samuel Adams and Guinness.

[Sharpie]

I have been a republician my whole life, as probably most business people are..... but, Bush just scares me. I have trouble remembering that he IS a republician. He seems to be on a mission like he has special insight from God. That is dangerous.... He forgets that we are his boss. I certainly would not vote for him, but I am not sold on Kerry either. Wish we had better choices! At this point in time - I would vote for Gore hahahaha...

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Feb 27 2004, 12:57 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Feb 27 2004, 12:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -JR@Feb 27 2004, 12:48 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--[Labret]@Feb 27 2004, 02:28 AM
flipfloppers, a year ago your were balls deep on Bush cock.
making more educated decisions as more information becomes available is hardly "flip flopping". as you learn, you adapt and change and modify your views accordingly... otherwise, whats the point of learning?... education is everywhere... not just in college and it's more than just a crazy scheme to allow yourself to make the claim that your brighter than everyone though you have significantly less life experience to back that up.
Labret ONLY learn and changes his point of views AFTER the picture Han's Burger "associate" at his door step delivered to him.
Before that, his FIRM belief was that stealing beastiality content from Hans WAS OK...

He DOES learn, even if he affraid to admit it
;-))))[/b][/quote]


Serge, you do tend to switch back and forth on issues....

Terrorism has been an on going war since the mid 1980s, after 9-11 we decided to fight it like a war rather then criminal acts.

Just like I doubt you would ask the Israelis to give in, I hope you are not asking the US to give in.

The Stalin reference carries NO weight at all.

[spazlabz]

Originally posted by Sharpie@Feb 27 2004, 10:16 AM
I have been a republician my whole life, as probably most business people are..... but, Bush just scares me. I have trouble remembering that he IS a republician. He seems to be on a mission like he has special insight from God. That is dangerous.... He forgets that we are his boss. I certainly would not vote for him, but I am not sold on Kerry either. Wish we had better choices! At this point in time - I would vote for Gore hahahaha...
I would agree with this post all the way up to the Gore part LOL
but this is almost exactly how I feel about this topic


spaz

[JR]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Feb 27 2004, 10:26 AM

Serge, you do tend to switch back and forth on issues....

his stance is the most consistent of anyone here.

"more page views"

:lol:

[PornoDoggy]

Well, Mike, I will agree with you that comparing Bush to Stalin is more than a stretch than even I would go (antikee-rist will suffice). I'm not convinced that Serge is actually doing that ... but what Stalin was good at doing is trumping up charges against his enemies to justify his action.

And about those WMDs that the Iraqis were ready to deploy in 45 minutes, or the urnanium that they were trying to buy ...

Not everyone shares your, ahem, sophisticated and superior understanding of real politic. There are an awful lot of people out there who are really pissed off at the abscense of beef in that sammich.

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Feb 27 2004, 01:26 PM



Serge, you do tend to switch back and forth on issues....


let me remind you that when MY President was charged with exactly THE SAME thing during the last elections,
his answer was:
"Yes, I do, it's called LEARNING"
;-))

If you have a problem with me LEARNING from OUR President-
than you DO have a problem
;-)))))

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Feb 27 2004, 01:26 PM


The Stalin reference carries NO weight at all.
PD read the reference correctly-
you did NOT....

[Vick]

Please See New Signature

:P

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by JR+Feb 27 2004, 01:44 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JR @ Feb 27 2004, 01:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Mike AI@Feb 27 2004, 10:26 AM

Serge, you do tend to switch back and forth on issues....

his stance is the most consistent of anyone here.

"more page views"

:lol:[/b][/quote]
page views my ass!

I am about to vote Democrats the second time in my life (never in Presidential Elections, though)
it's a PERSONAL DRAMA and all you can think of is business???

c'mon!

I'll generate more pageviews and uniques if I post on Pimpboard link:
Janet shows her tit AGAIN!
and point to Oprano..

wanna bet???
;-)))

[Buff]

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Feb 27 2004, 01:05 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Feb 27 2004, 01:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -JR@Feb 27 2004, 01:44 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Mike AI@Feb 27 2004, 10:26 AM

Serge, you do tend to switch back and forth on issues....

his stance is the most consistent of anyone here.

"more page views"

:lol:
page views my ass!

I am about to vote Democrats the second time in my life (never in Presidential Elections, though)
it's a PERSONAL DRAMA and all you can think of is business???

c'mon!

I'll generate more pageviews and uniques if I post on Pimpboard link:
Janet shows her tit AGAIN!
and point to Oprano..

wanna bet???
;-)))[/b][/quote]
Any rich person who votes democrat is a masochist.

[JR]

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Feb 27 2004, 11:05 AM

page views my ass!

I am about to vote Democrats the second time in my life (never in Presidential Elections, though)
it's a PERSONAL DRAMA and all you can think of is business???

c'mon!
you're right. sorry for not being sensitive to your feelings in these trying times. my bad.

:)

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by Buff+Feb 27 2004, 02:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Buff @ Feb 27 2004, 02:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Serge_Oprano@Feb 27 2004, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by -JR@Feb 27 2004, 01:44 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Mike AI@Feb 27 2004, 10:26 AM

Serge, you do tend to switch back and forth on issues....

his stance is the most consistent of anyone here.

"more page views"

:lol:
page views my ass!

I am about to vote Democrats the second time in my life (never in Presidential Elections, though)
it's a PERSONAL DRAMA and all you can think of is business???

c'mon!

I'll generate more pageviews and uniques if I post on Pimpboard link:
Janet shows her tit AGAIN!
and point to Oprano..

wanna bet???
;-)))
Any rich person who votes democrat is a masochist.[/b][/quote]
Buff,
you never paid 5,000,000 liras for a pack of cigarettes...


who is putting seeds of hyperinflation TODAY,
Republicans or Democrats?

[Mike AI]

Serge, I understand Bush has dropped the ball. But there is no way Kerry would be any better.

Lesser of 2 morons again?

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Feb 27 2004, 02:13 PM
Serge, I understand Bush has dropped the ball. But there is no way Kerry would be any better.

Lesser of 2 morons again?
I don't know which one is lesser...and this is why my soul is in turmoil.

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by JR+Feb 27 2004, 02:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JR @ Feb 27 2004, 02:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Serge_Oprano@Feb 27 2004, 11:05 AM

page views my ass!

I am about to vote Democrats the second time in my life (never in Presidential Elections, though)
it's a PERSONAL DRAMA and all you can think of is business???

c'mon!
you're right. sorry for not being sensitive to your feelings in these trying times. my bad.

:)[/b][/quote]
I beleive the sincerety of your post right after I beleive in the "Last Passions of Christ"
;-)))

[JR]

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Feb 27 2004, 11:16 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Feb 27 2004, 11:16 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -JR@Feb 27 2004, 02:11 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Serge_Oprano@Feb 27 2004, 11:05 AM

page views my ass!

I am about to vote Democrats the second time in my life (never in Presidential Elections, though)
it's a PERSONAL DRAMA and all you can think of is business???

c'mon!
you're right. sorry for not being sensitive to your feelings in these trying times. my bad.

:)
I beleive the sincerety of your post right after I beleive in the "Last Passions of Christ"
;-)))[/b][/quote]
I think Bush is Jesus.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Feb 27 2004, 02:13 PM
Serge, I understand Bush has dropped the ball. But there is no way Kerry would be any better.

Lesser of 2 morons again?
I just want to bounce back toward the middle for a few years.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by JR@Feb 27 2004, 02:20 PM
I think Bush is Jesus.
That makes Bush Sr. God.

What would Jeb do?

[Buff]

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Feb 27 2004, 01:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Feb 27 2004, 01:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Buff@Feb 27 2004, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by -Serge_Oprano@Feb 27 2004, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by -JR@Feb 27 2004, 01:44 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Mike AI@Feb 27 2004, 10:26 AM

Serge, you do tend to switch back and forth on issues....

his stance is the most consistent of anyone here.

"more page views"

:lol:
page views my ass!

I am about to vote Democrats the second time in my life (never in Presidential Elections, though)
it's a PERSONAL DRAMA and all you can think of is business???

c'mon!

I'll generate more pageviews and uniques if I post on Pimpboard link:
Janet shows her tit AGAIN!
and point to Oprano..

wanna bet???
;-)))
Any rich person who votes democrat is a masochist.
Buff,
you never paid 5,000,000 liras for a pack of cigarettes...


who is putting seeds of hyperinflation TODAY,
Republicans or Democrats?[/b][/quote]
Well, I see it as a choice:

1) Hyperinflation, but lower taxation

2) Medium inflation, but hypertaxation.

That's why I vote Libertarian.

[JR]

Originally posted by Colin+Feb 27 2004, 11:28 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Feb 27 2004, 11:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--JR@Feb 27 2004, 02:20 PM
I think Bush is Jesus.
That makes Bush Sr. God.

What would Jeb do?[/b][/quote]
You have never heard of Gods lessor known son "Jeb"? Jeb is Hebrew for "that guy with the junky daughter"

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by Buff@Feb 27 2004, 02:29 PM

Well, I see it as a choice:

1) Hyperinflation, but lower taxation

2) Medium inflation, but hypertaxation.

That's why I vote Libertarian.
when you pay 1,500,000 for a pack of cigarettes, do you really care what tax bracket you are in?

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Buff@Feb 27 2004, 02:29 PM
That's why I vote Libertarian.
What's the mathematical term for "wasted vote"? Fuck that, what's the psychological term?

[Buff]

Originally posted by Colin+Feb 27 2004, 01:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Feb 27 2004, 01:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Buff@Feb 27 2004, 02:29 PM
That's why I vote Libertarian.
What's the mathematical term for "wasted vote"? Fuck that, what's the psychological term?[/b][/quote]
Voting for Republicans or Democrats is worse than "wasting" my vote. It is an enabling vote, a positive reenforcement for them and their evil policies. I would rather make a wasted protest vote of affirmation of liberty than affirm the evil policies and lying bastards in those other parties.

You vote for them and you're telling them "I support you." That's not the message I want them to get. I want them to get this message: "I would rather make an effort to piss my vote away than give it to you, you worthless shitbag. I'm not even going to sit at home and not vote -- that's how much I loathe you."

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Buff+Feb 27 2004, 02:57 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Buff @ Feb 27 2004, 02:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Colin@Feb 27 2004, 01:42 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Buff@Feb 27 2004, 02:29 PM
That's why I vote Libertarian.
What's the mathematical term for "wasted vote"? Fuck that, what's the psychological term?
Voting for Republicans or Democrats is worse than "wasting" my vote. It is an enabling vote, a positive reenforcement for them and their evil policies. I would rather make a wasted protest vote of affirmation of liberty than affirm the evil policies and lying bastards in those other parties.

You vote for them and you're telling them "I support you." That's not the message I want them to get. I want them to get this message: "I would rather make an effort to piss my vote away than give it to you, you worthless shitbag. I'm not even going to sit at home and not vote -- that's how much I loathe you."[/b][/quote]
That's why I don't vote. Sorta.

[Buff]

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Feb 27 2004, 01:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Feb 27 2004, 01:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Buff@Feb 27 2004, 02:29 PM

Well, I see it as a choice:

1) Hyperinflation, but lower taxation

2) Medium inflation, but hypertaxation.

That's why I vote Libertarian.
when you pay 1,500,000 for a pack of cigarettes, do you really care what tax bracket you are in?[/b][/quote]
Sure. It still comes down to how hard you're working per unit of purchasing power. It's up to you, but as a rich person under the Democrats, you're working a lot harder per unit than you would be under the Republicans.

[Buff]

Originally posted by Colin+Feb 27 2004, 01:58 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Feb 27 2004, 01:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Buff@Feb 27 2004, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by -Colin@Feb 27 2004, 01:42 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Buff@Feb 27 2004, 02:29 PM
That's why I vote Libertarian.
What's the mathematical term for "wasted vote"? Fuck that, what's the psychological term?
Voting for Republicans or Democrats is worse than "wasting" my vote. It is an enabling vote, a positive reenforcement for them and their evil policies. I would rather make a wasted protest vote of affirmation of liberty than affirm the evil policies and lying bastards in those other parties.

You vote for them and you're telling them "I support you." That's not the message I want them to get. I want them to get this message: "I would rather make an effort to piss my vote away than give it to you, you worthless shitbag. I'm not even going to sit at home and not vote -- that's how much I loathe you."
That's why I don't vote. Sorta.[/b][/quote]
I like my way better. Besides, it might eventually do some good if the libertarians ever get enough publicity.

[Vick]

Please remember if you vote you don't have a right to complain

Either your idiot gets elected which means you have no right to complain or

your idiot didn't get elected which is even worse, you didn't work hard enough and you should be ashamed and you really have no right to complain

Don't vote so you have your right to complain

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Buff+Feb 27 2004, 02:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Buff @ Feb 27 2004, 02:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Serge_Oprano@Feb 27 2004, 01:34 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Buff@Feb 27 2004, 02:29 PM

Well, I see it as a choice:

1) Hyperinflation, but lower taxation

2) Medium inflation, but hypertaxation.

That's why I vote Libertarian.
when you pay 1,500,000 for a pack of cigarettes, do you really care what tax bracket you are in?
Sure. It still comes down to how hard you're working per unit of purchasing power. It's up to you, but as a rich person under the Democrats, you're working a lot harder per unit than you would be under the Republicans.[/b][/quote]
Hmmmm ... the deficit is how much right now? And how much of that is due to the tax suspensions?

So it boils down to tax and spend, or don't tax and spend anyway.

Given a choice, I'd rather have Serge and Mike pay now, instead of shoving the bill off on my Grandson.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Vick@Feb 27 2004, 03:01 PM
Don't vote so you have your right to complain
I'm pretty ok with things as they are.

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by Buff+Feb 27 2004, 02:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Buff @ Feb 27 2004, 02:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Serge_Oprano@Feb 27 2004, 01:34 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Buff@Feb 27 2004, 02:29 PM

Well, I see it as a choice:

1) Hyperinflation, but lower taxation

2) Medium inflation, but hypertaxation.

That's why I vote Libertarian.
when you pay 1,500,000 for a pack of cigarettes, do you really care what tax bracket you are in?
Sure. It still comes down to how hard you're working per unit of purchasing power. It's up to you, but as a rich person under the Democrats, you're working a lot harder per unit than you would be under the Republicans.[/b][/quote]
you are wrong....
"Rich folks" don't have to work,
they do not rely on earning power, thus making their tax brackets LESS relevant than their eroding buying power...
;-)))

try arguing this point
;-)))

[Buff]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Feb 27 2004, 02:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Feb 27 2004, 02:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Buff@Feb 27 2004, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by -Serge_Oprano@Feb 27 2004, 01:34 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Buff@Feb 27 2004, 02:29 PM

Well, I see it as a choice:

1) Hyperinflation, but lower taxation

2) Medium inflation, but hypertaxation.

That's why I vote Libertarian.
when you pay 1,500,000 for a pack of cigarettes, do you really care what tax bracket you are in?
Sure. It still comes down to how hard you're working per unit of purchasing power. It's up to you, but as a rich person under the Democrats, you're working a lot harder per unit than you would be under the Republicans.
Hmmmm ... the deficit is how much right now? And how much of that is due to the tax suspensions?

So it boils down to tax and spend, or don't tax and spend anyway.

Given a choice, I'd rather have Serge and Mike pay now, instead of shoving the bill off on my Grandson.[/b][/quote]
PD: a deficit is caused when spending is greater than income. See that? Two variables in the equation. Spending and income. I think it's fair to say that government's income is as more now than it was 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 15 years ago, 20 years ago, etc. In other words, our taxes have been going up since government came into being. So the problem lies in the fact that spending has been going up even more. If we have to balance the budget, I think it's fair to say that it should be done by lowering spending, not raising taxes.

So instead of tax and spend or borrow and spend, how about we try not to spend so much?

[PornoDoggy]

A little more about the so-called fiscal responsibility of the Republicans - they refused to allow the government to negotiate price discounts for medication purchased under the new Medicare prescription bill.

Oh, I know, you're not a Republican. You're just a fellow traveller. Torone can explain the term ... :)

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Feb 27 2004, 03:04 PM

Given a choice, I'd rather have Serge and Mike pay now, instead of shoving the bill off on my Grandson.
I don't think you can make Serge pay shit....at least while I am alive
;-))

My income today is smaller than yours,
I am the last person on this board to worry about INCOME TAXES
;-))))

not on my $1000 a months salary!
;-))))

[Buff]

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Feb 27 2004, 02:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Feb 27 2004, 02:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Buff@Feb 27 2004, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by -Serge_Oprano@Feb 27 2004, 01:34 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Buff@Feb 27 2004, 02:29 PM

Well, I see it as a choice:

1) Hyperinflation, but lower taxation

2) Medium inflation, but hypertaxation.

That's why I vote Libertarian.
when you pay 1,500,000 for a pack of cigarettes, do you really care what tax bracket you are in?
Sure. It still comes down to how hard you're working per unit of purchasing power. It's up to you, but as a rich person under the Democrats, you're working a lot harder per unit than you would be under the Republicans.
you are wrong....
"Rich folks" don't have to work,
they do not rely on earning power, thus making their tax brackets LESS relevant than their eroding buying power...
;-)))

try arguing this point
;-)))[/b][/quote]
Ha!

Rich folks work the hardest. They take more risks and put in more hours than everyone else. Sure, some inherited their fortunes and some had buddies in politics who helped them scam taxpayers, but by and large the wealthy in this country had a vision and outworked everyone else toward that end.

I know you know this, but we have some people around here who think the rich tripped over a bag of gold coins....

[Buff]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Feb 27 2004, 02:08 PM
A little more about the so-called fiscal responsibility of the Republicans - they refused to allow the government to negotiate price discounts for medication purchased under the new Medicare prescription bill.

Oh, I know, you're not a Republican. You're just a fellow traveller. Torone can explain the term ... :)
PD, my voting record:

1992: Andre Marrou (L)
1996: Harry Browne (L)
2000: Harry Browne (L)

[Diamond Jim]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Feb 27 2004, 03:04 PM
Given a choice, I'd rather have Serge and Mike pay now, instead of shoving the bill off on my Grandson.
Easily said when YOU don't pay any significant taxes anyway...

I wonder how many people would change their party affiliation when they have seven figures to worry about...

(Note that I don't even have four figures...)

[JR]

today is a funny message board day. :)

[SykkBoy]

Originally posted by Buff+Feb 27 2004, 03:13 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Buff @ Feb 27 2004, 03:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--PornoDoggy@Feb 27 2004, 02:08 PM
A little more about the so-called fiscal responsibility of the Republicans - they refused to allow the government to negotiate price discounts for medication purchased under the new Medicare prescription bill.

Oh, I know, you're not a Republican. You're just a fellow traveller. Torone can explain the term ... :)
PD, my voting record:

1992: Andre Marrou (L)
1996: Harry Browne (L)
2000: Harry Browne (L)[/b][/quote]
holy shit! Buff and I have the same voting record!

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Feb 27 2004, 03:04 PM
Hmmmm ... the deficit is how much right now? And how much of that is due to the tax suspensions?

So it boils down to tax and spend, or don't tax and spend anyway.

Given a choice, I'd rather have Serge and Mike pay now, instead of shoving the bill off on my Grandson.
I see it as we traded some debt for some peace of mind. How bad would the US economy have been last year without tax cuts and increased government spending? I think it would have been painful and a lot more people would have been out of work.

Since debt/GDP ratio has been higher in the recent past (and much higher during WW II), I think we have plenty of breathing room.

On a percentage basis, these are not record deficits. Not even close. 30%+ during WW II. They were actually higher (by 33%) in 1983 than today. When your economy is $11 trillion (!) and your economic policy is to spend to get out of recessions you're going to record deficits on a strict dollar by dollar comparison all the time.

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by SykkBoy+Feb 27 2004, 03:23 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (SykkBoy @ Feb 27 2004, 03:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Buff@Feb 27 2004, 03:13 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--PornoDoggy@Feb 27 2004, 02:08 PM
A little more about the so-called fiscal responsibility of the Republicans - they refused to allow the government to negotiate price discounts for medication purchased under the new Medicare prescription bill.

Oh, I know, you're not a Republican. You're just a fellow traveller. Torone can explain the term ... :)
PD, my voting record:

1992: Andre Marrou (L)
1996: Harry Browne (L)
2000: Harry Browne (L)
holy shit! Buff and I have the same voting record![/b][/quote]
but he has a bigger cock!
;-)))

[TheEnforcer]

It was funny listening to Rush Limbaugh on the radio today because he was ranting about how the liberals wanted to regulate the airwaves now after the janet Jackson thing. I mean excuse me, you guys go on for years about how the liberals are at fault for all of this and now it's them who are driving this push to regulate cable and satelitte as well as broadcast networks?

That anyone would take him seriously about that is scary beyond belief.

[TheEnforcer]

BTW- I am not a Kerry fan by any stretch of the imagination. My hope is that Edwards wins enougn primaries that kerry will be unable to get enough delegates to outright claim the nomination and they end up having a battle at the convention. I hope he could just outright overtake him but that is not likely to happen. Should Kerry gain the nomination I will vote third party or for Edwards as a write-in candidate.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by TheEnforcer@Feb 27 2004, 03:27 PM
That anyone would take him seriously about that is scary beyond belief.
You missed Torone's posts? ;-)

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by TheEnforcer@Feb 27 2004, 03:30 PM
BTW- I am not a Kerry fan by any stretch of the imagination. My hope is that Edwards wins enougn primaries that kerry will be unable to get enough delegates to outright claim the nomination and they end up having a battle at the convention. I hope he could just outright overtake him but that is not likely to happen. Should Kerry gain the nomination I will vote third party or for Edwards as a write-in candidate.
It's a real dog of an election year. Most people agree with that.

[JR]

100 people who think their scumbag is the more righteous scumbag.



Last edited by JR at Feb 27 2004, 12:36 PM

[TheEnforcer]

Originally posted by Hooper+Feb 27 2004, 09:15 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Hooper @ Feb 27 2004, 09:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Colin@Feb 27 2004, 06:32 AM
Right now, I'd like to see Kerry with a Republican majority congress

And as far as terror attacks go... i mean simply as a #'s game here... we've had what.. ONE TERROR ATTACK IN THE HISTORY OF THE COUNTRY???? and this is grounds to devote the entire government to god?

[/b][/quote]
I'm not a big defender of Bush by any stretch but to say we have had only one terrorist attack on US soil is untrue.

[TheEnforcer]

Originally posted by Colin+Feb 27 2004, 03:33 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Feb 27 2004, 03:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--TheEnforcer@Feb 27 2004, 03:27 PM
That anyone would take him seriously about that is scary beyond belief.
You missed Torone's posts? ;-)[/b][/quote]
Sigh... must you remind me that there are people who do!! :P

[Carrie]

I've voted Democrat for President one time - Clinton's first term.
I was in a very liberal college and doing work on the side counseling drug/alcohol/abuse addicts.
I summarily watched Clinton destroy our defense, lay thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of people off work in the defense industry, and saw my Dad get laid off from his job for simply LOOKING around to see if there was anything better. (Lockheed Martin doesn't like hearing rumors that you're thinking about leaving.)

Thanks to Clinton's cuts, Dad got laid off 3 times in a year and a half and had to move to another state in between.

Now he, Mom, and Hubby are all working for the same defense contractor who just laid off 40 people two weeks ago and the work just isn't there... they're struggling to keep enough work to keep the people that they have.

Vote for Kerry?
Fuck no.

At this time about the *only* thing I can be sure of with Bush is that he won't cut defense even more... everything else he's turned into such an overspending socialist on I can't even believe he's Republican.

I don't know what the hell I'm going to do come November. There truly is no one for *me* to vote for.

[PornoDoggy]

In six of the 8 years that Bill Clinton was President, the Republicans were in control of both houses of Congress - and they are the ones who approved the budget that included the defense cuts.

Remember the "peace dividend"?

[RawAlex]

The worst part about the whole system is that the current government can spend like drunken sailors AND lower taxes, for a while. Usually about 4 or 5 years. The problem is that the bill comes due sooner or later, and everyone ends up paying.

Deficit spending is deficit spending. If they don't take you now, they will have to tax you PLUS interest later to pay for it all. It is sort of like not having deductions on a paycheck all year - at the end of the year, you end up paying an assload of tax. You felt good all year with that extra cash in your pocket (that you probably spent) but in the end, you have to tighten your belt to the max to pay your taxes.

With the 4 / 8 year presidential cycle, it is easy to set budget problems to blow up after you are gone. Both sides do it.

Buff, "tax and spend liberal" is as approproate a term as "Bush is a ficsal conservative". Don't let preconceived notions block your ability to see the actual numbers for the last 10 years. You would see a trend that would surprise you. Would you like to be taxed $1 now, or $1.10 next week?

Alex

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Feb 27 2004, 05:13 PM
Don't let preconceived notions block your ability to see the actual numbers for the last 10 years. You would see a trend that would surprise you.
10 years?

US DEBT
09/30/1994 $4.692 T
12/31/2003 $7.001 T

GDP
3rd Q 1994. 7.115 T
4th Q 2003. 11.252 T

DEBT/GDP

1994 65.9%
2003 62.3%

Lower. Surprised? Most people are. They discount how fast the US economy is growing. $11 trillion boggles the mind.

[Carrie]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Feb 27 2004, 04:51 PM
In six of the 8 years that Bill Clinton was President, the Republicans were in control of both houses of Congress - and they are the ones who approved the budget that included the defense cuts.

Remember the "peace dividend"?
I realize that, but I also realize that Clinton was a vetoing and executive ordering madman - so basically nothing got passed unless it fit *his* agenda and would have to get reworked and reworked until it did.

Bush is the other extreme - put it on his desk and he'll sign it. I think if a bill included the terms that his daughters would become Congressional whores to be passed around each week to a new Senator/Representative, he'd still sign it. We can't dare look like we're not working with both sides here.

Sigh. Where's the person in the middle? Someone who will work with both sides but won't run over Congress with his personal vision nor bend over and take it up the ass just to look conciliatory?

[aeon]

contrary to certain individual's deluded self-image - no one individually, or collectively here will change shit.

porn peddlers have such a great influence over the people at large...if that's the case larry flynt would actually be governer...sucks to realize yer vote means nothing more than a welfare mom. :salute:



Last edited by aeon at Feb 27 2004, 03:25 PM

[Carrie]

" contrary to certain individual's deluded self-image - no one individually, or collectively here will change shit."
You must not have paid much attention during the last Presidential election.

"sucks to realize yer vote means nothing more than a welfare mom."
A welfare mom's vote, you mean. :awinky:
And it shouldn't - each vote counts the same.

Larry Flynt for President? HAHAHAHA
Only in the dreams of uneducated misled GFYers... thank god.

[aeon]

Originally posted by Carrie@Feb 27 2004, 03:45 PM
" contrary to certain individual's deluded self-image - no one individually, or collectively here will change shit."
You must not have paid much attention during the last Presidential election.

"sucks to realize yer vote means nothing more than a welfare mom."
A welfare mom's vote, you mean. :awinky:
And it shouldn't - each vote counts the same.

Larry Flynt for President? HAHAHAHA
Only in the dreams of uneducated misled GFYers... thank god.
my spelling sucks - sue me - I don't rely on message boards to the point I'll take the time needed to check for spelling or grammatical errors - that's just idiotic - anyone that anal is just fucked & probably part of the reason bill gates created spell check...once I got out of the high school teacher slavery mentality - I realized...spelling means shit - it's presenting a position that counts...

;)

best of luck -
aeon

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by aeon@Feb 27 2004, 06:53 PM
spelling means shit - it's presenting a position that counts...

;)

best of luck -
aeon
You are correct.

Because you are right, you should learn to spell.

Piss up a rope with your mouth open -
PD



Last edited by PornoDoggy at Feb 27 2004, 09:15 PM

[Carrie]

Originally posted by aeon+Feb 27 2004, 06:53 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (aeon @ Feb 27 2004, 06:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Carrie@Feb 27 2004, 03:45 PM
" contrary to certain individual's deluded self-image - no one individually, or collectively here will change shit."
You must not have paid much attention during the last Presidential election.

"sucks to realize yer vote means nothing more than a welfare mom."
A welfare mom's vote, you mean. :awinky:
And it shouldn't - each vote counts the same.

Larry Flynt for President? HAHAHAHA
Only in the dreams of uneducated misled GFYers... thank god.
my spelling sucks - sue me - I don't rely on message boards to the point I'll take the time needed to check for spelling or grammatical errors - that's just idiotic - anyone that anal is just fucked & probably part of the reason bill gates created spell check...once I got out of the high school teacher slavery mentality - I realized...spelling means shit - it's presenting a position that counts...

;)

best of luck -
aeon[/b][/quote]
Part of presenting a position is looking educated enough to back it up.
Presentation is, after all, everything.

[RawAlex]

Colin:

End 1999 Debt: 5.656T
End 2003 debt: 7.001T (your number)

End 1999 GDP: 9.268T
End 2003 GDP: 11.252T

Increase in debt: 1.345T
increase in GDP: 1.984T

Ratio of debt increase to GDP increase (1999-2003):
67.7%

Go the other way:

1994 debt: 4.692T
1999 debt: 5.656T

199 GDP: 7.115T
End 1999 GDP: 9.268T

Increase in debt: .964T
Increase in GDP: 2.153T

Ratio of debt increase to GDP increase (1994 to 1999): 44.7%

The numbers speak clearly for themselves. that is where the "look over the last 10 years" tells a whole story.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Feb 28 2004, 03:02 AM
The numbers speak clearly for themselves. that is where the "look over the last 10 years" tells a whole story.
The only thing that is clear is that four years is not ten years. ;-)

Yes, in the last 10 years debt as a percentage of GDP decreased and then increased and ended lower than where it started. What you're really saying though is "look over the last 4 years" which is not much of a trend at all. If you want to look at four years, it is up. If you want to look at ten years, it is down a little.

I guess you could say look over the last 20 years and then you would see a clear trend up. Or you could say, compare to 1946 and then you would see it is now much lower.

You could also compare to the other large economies of the world (say the G7 countries) and you would find that the US debt/GDP ratio is pretty much the same as that of France and Germany and much less than that of Italy or Japan. The US debt ratio is not remarkable in any way compared to the G7 average. In fact it is completely average. What is remarkable in comparison is not the US debt but the size of the US economy.

[RawAlex]

Colin, that isn't the point. Look at 10 years. 6 years of only 44% ratio, and the last 4 years of 67% ratio. It doesn't matter if the GDP is growing if the debt is growing almost as fast. That is something that in the long run can cripple an economy (see Italy, Japan). It is even more significant that this is happening during economic growth... the GDP growth for those two time frames are similar, but the debt increases are VERY different.

If 4 years is a short time to judge things, then 2 quarters ain't nothing important!

Alex

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Feb 28 2004, 12:56 PM
Colin, that isn't the point. Look at 10 years. 6 years of only 44% ratio, and the last 4 years of 67% ratio. It doesn't matter if the GDP is growing if the debt is growing almost as fast. That is something that in the long run can cripple an economy (see Italy, Japan). It is even more significant that this is happening during economic growth... the GDP growth for those two time frames are similar, but the debt increases are VERY different.

If 4 years is a short time to judge things, then 2 quarters ain't nothing important!

Alex
There's no evidence whatsoever that a constant debt/GDP ratio of around 60% is harmful to an economy. You have it backwards anyway. There has been solid economic growth partly because of deficit spending not in spite of it. Look at the history of the US economy in the 20th century (it's the one I am mostly familiar with) and there are plenty of examples. The strongest growth the US experienced this century occured during World War II. The US economy grew a whopping 22% in one year in 1943 at the same time as a massive surge in US debt nearly doubling the total debt in one year. Debt up 88%. in one year! Economy roars to life. Surprising? No, Expected. Meanwhile, attempts to balance the budget during slow times have done nothing but harm the economy. Look at the balanced budget attempts throughout the depression. They were obsessed with balancing the budget. What happened? Spend less money, GDP shrinks. You attempt to balance the budget and spend less so less money went into the economy and this shrinks the economy further. Repeat that a few times and you have 1929-1932. Start deficit spending and BOOM! Immediate economic recovery.

What do we have to show for our recent deficit spending? Well, the economy has taken off. GDP is up more in the last six months than any other period during the last 20 years. The US cut taxes and spent lots of money and now it's economy roars to life. Amazing, huh? No, Simple.

Whether you want to look at 10 years, 20 years, 30 years or 40 years what you will see if that the US economy has grown at a very strong clip. There's not even a record to compare it to. The US economy is 10x larger than the 5th largest economy. No one has found a better way.



Last edited by Colin at Feb 28 2004, 03:55 PM

[Almighty Colin]

How can you argue with history? The worst recessions in US history all occured prior to World War II.

1819 depression. Began immediately after a 5 year long 29% reduction in the debt.

1837 depression. Began immediately after a 14 year long 99.7% reduction in the debt.

1857 depression. Began immediately after a 6 year long 59% reduction in the debt.

1873 depression. Began immediately after a 7 year long 27% reduction in the debt.

1893 depression. Began immediately after a 14 year long 57% reduction in the debt.

1929 depression. The US debt was reduced 36 % from 1920-1930.

What has happened since? No sustained periods of debt reduction whatsoever and no "depressions".

The highest deficits in US history occured during World War II. This was also the period of greatest growth.



Last edited by Colin at Feb 28 2004, 04:11 PM

[RawAlex]

Colin, the discussion isn't about what causes a recession, there are many things not related to deficit reduction that cause recessions, you know it, I know it. Not the issue.

The question is simple:
With a democrat in the whitehouse, the economy expanded more than twice as fast as the debt.

With a republican in the whitehouse, that number has changed dramatically, even during an almost exact dollar for dollar increase in the GDP. The GDP is only growing 1/3 faster than the debt.

Just one of those things. I won't keep going back and forth, I just see it as a little weird, thats all.

Alex

[Hell Puppy]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Feb 28 2004, 05:52 PM
Colin, the discussion isn't about what causes a recession, there are many things not related to deficit reduction that cause recessions, you know it, I know it. Not the issue.

The question is simple:
With a democrat in the whitehouse, the economy expanded more than twice as fast as the debt.

With a republican in the whitehouse, that number has changed dramatically, even during an almost exact dollar for dollar increase in the GDP. The GDP is only growing 1/3 faster than the debt.

Just one of those things. I won't keep going back and forth, I just see it as a little weird, thats all.

Alex
I dont think either President can accept much blame or credit for the overall growth.

A chimp could've been in office during the Clinton years, and he would've enjoyed the same explosive growth of the economy due primarily to technology. The most intelligent move Clinton made during that time was the move he didn't make. He made the decision to NOT do anything to inhibit growth of the internet including NOT taxing ecommerce to the chagrin of most of the rest of the democratic party.

The dot bomb exploded in March of 2000, that was still on Bill's watch. By the time George W. inherited it in January 2001, the economy was already a mess. And again, I dont care who was in office on 9/11/2001, the economy was dealt a knockout blow.

But if you're going to give President's credit...or blame....it's worth pointing out that the current economic upturn started at the same time George W. cut taxes...

[benc]

I agree with that. I could never understand logically, why people would want to return to the clinton economy. One which completely collapsed.

[Winetalk.com]

you think it collapsed because of Clinton???

I don't think he has ANYTHING to do with it's rise or it's demise
(well, demise part I am not so sure, as it was his DOJ idea to go after Microsoft)

[benc]

I don't think it was all his fault, but that economy under him was one people want to go back to.

I think one of his main faults as far as the economy was sweeping problems under the rug to create a fantasyland where there was no problems in the world and people can sit back and merrily buy overvalued techstocks.

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by benc@Feb 29 2004, 08:21 AM
I don't think it was all his fault, but that economy under him was one people want to go back to.

I think one of his main faults as far as the economy was sweeping problems under the rug to create a fantasyland where there was no problems in the world and people can sit back and merrily buy overvalued techstocks.
the ONLY way to get back to THAT Economy is
NEW TECHNOLOGOCAL/Biological/etc
REVOLUTION,
like railroads were,
automobiles were,
computers were
internet was....

EVERY BOOM in US Economy was acompanied by invention

[Almighty Colin]

Collapsed? 8 solid years under Clinton and the worst that happened was a very minor recession after he left office. Increasing the size of the economy by 50% and only having it drop 1% or so in the recession after is phenomenal - not a collapse. He also had the good sense to reduce the deficit as the economy grew. Something which George Bush hasn't planned to do. If we're going to deficit spend during slow times we should have the sense to reduce it during good times. That is the idea anyway. Borrow now to smooth out the down economic periods and pay it back during good times.

And if you're talking about the stock market people were, in Greenspan's words, "Irrationally exuberant". Not Clinton's fault.

[RawAlex]

Colin, on this we agree, I don't see that the Bush way of doing things has any "recovery" to get the debt back in line in the future, rather a continued increase in the size of government, the number of agencies, department heads, and such... You can only buy a good economy for a while before the problems start again. Please see Japan for more on what happens after a bubble bursts, interest rates drop to nothing, and the government no longer has any leverage with which to work on the economy.

I am starting to wonder if the VERY right wing policies and ideas are not being played to try to get Bush to average back to the middle, considering his fiscal policies (not in theory, but in practice) see to lean to the big government extreme left view of the world.

Alex

[eatapeach]

Originally posted by Torone@Feb 27 2004, 05:30 AM
Why the hell, if this country is so damned bad, do so many people want to get here so badly?
my first guess is so they won't be in a country on some list to be invaded and occupied by the US military?

and as for your statement "bush and us conservatives" you might want to spend a moment reading carrie's post about what bush has accomplished and ask yourself if any of those policies could be considered 'conservative'.

anyone that is truly conservative nowadays is more likely to consider themselves a libertarian or a constitutionalist. the republicans and the democrats are just the far right and the right wings of the big corporation party.

when the government and the corporations were partners in the past the history books called this 'fascism'. since the US media is owned by the big corporations now they use euphemisms like "democracy" or "capitalism" to describe the current state of things, but anyone with the slightest historical knowledge knows the real deal.