Senator's husband cashes in on crisis (http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/21/senate-husbands-firm-cashes-in-on-crisis/)
On the day the new Congress convened this year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation to route $25 billion in taxpayer money to a government agency that had just awarded her husband's real estate firm a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties at compensation rates higher than the industry norms....Senate ethics rules state that members must avoid conflicts of interest as well as "even the appearance of a conflict of interest." Some ethics analysts question whether Mrs. Feinstein ran afoul of the latter provision, creating the appearance that she was rewarding the agency that had just hired her husband's firm.
That loud sucking sound you hear is no longer made by jobs leaving the country, it's the noise made by our opportunistic legislators OF BOTH PARTIES, nourishing themselves at the public teat. :icon_evil:
Quote from: Ma and Pa on April 21, 2009, 12:53:34 PM
That loud sucking sound you hear is no longer made by jobs leaving the country, it's the noise made by our opportunistic legislators OF BOTH PARTIES, nourishing themselves at the public teat. :icon_evil:
I thought it was the sound of the money being sucked out of our pockets and bank accounts.
Quote from: Ma and Pa on April 21, 2009, 12:53:34 PM
That loud sucking sound you hear is no longer made by jobs leaving the country, it's the noise made by our opportunistic legislators OF BOTH PARTIES, nourishing themselves at the public teat. :icon_evil:
;)
Murtha's Defense Earmarks Draw Questions (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/20/eveningnews/main4958071.shtml)
CBS News has learned that this month, Murtha is steering new earmarks toward 10 companies that recently donated to his campaign.
Kick them all OUT and I am NOT kidding! Feinstein's hubby has profited from deals with China the whole time she's been in congress. She ought to be investigated.
Remote Murtha airport lands big bucks from Washington (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/23/murtha.airport/)
JOHNSTOWN, Pennsylvania (CNN) -- Located outside a small Pennsylvania city, John Murtha airport may not see many passengers. But it's seen plenty of arrivals of tax dollars from Washington, most recently economic stimulus funds.
The airport offers three commercial flights. In between the arrivals and departures, airport officials admit there are few faces around the facility.
"When the flights are coming in, there are people. Other than that, it's empty," said Scott Voelker, manager of the John Murtha Johnstown-Cambria County Airport.
But one face is everywhere. Rep. John Murtha, the airport's namesake, is hard to miss.
Considered one of "the kings of pork" on Capitol Hill by taxpayer watchdog groups, the 19th-term Pennsylvania Democrat has piloted almost $200 million from Washington to Murtha airport. Much of the funding has come in the form of legislative earmarks that are attached to bills before Congress.
Pelosi: I didn't know about waterboarding (http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0409/Pelosi_I_didnt_know_about_waterboarding.html)
can you say........"Liar?"... :razz: :rolleyes:
You call this thread Congress sucks but you are concentrating only on democrats as though no republicans have their hands in the cookie jar. It's you who sucks.
Quote from: Exterminator on April 23, 2009, 04:45:42 PM
You call this thread Congress sucks but you are concentrating only on democrats as though no republicans have their hands in the cookie jar. It's you who sucks.
I don't like ANY of them...but, since this is a predominantly lib forum....I feel it is my patriotic duty to point out the LEFT's dirty trash....and I will throw in the right, when and if I see them....it has been very easy as of late, to find the lefties that are peices of turd... :wink: :razz:
hey don't like it, start your own "suck" thread...
This just became my "suck" thread.
YOU SUCK!
Quote from: Exterminator on April 24, 2009, 02:55:11 PM
This just became my "suck" thread.
YOU SUCK!
Your attitude certainly does. :yes:
Quote from: Exterminator on April 24, 2009, 02:55:11 PM
This just became my "suck" thread.
YOU SUCK!
NO...YOU SUCK!
:thubb: :@#%&:
Quote from: me on April 24, 2009, 03:55:55 PM
Your attitude certainly does. :yes:
What have I told you about getting into grown people's conversations?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 24, 2009, 04:11:47 PM
NO...YOU SUCK!
No, you do and you like getting tea-bagged. :biggrin:
Quote from: Exterminator on April 24, 2009, 04:22:12 PM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 24, 2009, 04:11:47 PM
NO...YOU SUCK!
No, you do and you like getting tea-bagged. :biggrin:
It was TEA PARTY...NO tea baggin was involved what so ever.... :no:
Uh huh, sure there wasn't.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 24, 2009, 04:11:47 PM
Quote from: Exterminator on April 24, 2009, 02:55:11 PM
This just became my "suck" thread.
YOU SUCK!
NO...YOU SUCK!
:thubb: :@#%&:
Perhaps in the interest of variety and avoiding repetitive epithets we should haul out the thesaurus and use this slam-fest as an opportunity to expand our vocabularies. As an example I will start:
You both vacuum!!
Quote from: LOsborne on April 24, 2009, 06:55:33 PM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 24, 2009, 04:11:47 PM
Quote from: Exterminator on April 24, 2009, 02:55:11 PM
This just became my "suck" thread.
YOU SUCK!
NO...YOU SUCK!
:thubb: :@#%&:
Perhaps in the interest of variety and avoiding repetitive epithets we should haul out the thesaurus and use this slam-fest as an opportunity to expand our vocabularies. As an example I will start:
You both vacuum!!
That's what's in Ex's head...vacuum.... :biggrin:
Quote from: me on April 24, 2009, 07:11:48 PM
That's what's in Ex's head...vacuum.... :biggrin:
Correct and it's constantly sucking in new information...unlike yours.
(http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm14/mcgonser/vaccume.gif)
Congress Gave Out Over $9.1 Million (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/04/congress-gave-out-over-91-million-in.html) In Bonuses in 2008...
Last year alone, more than 200 House lawmakers, both Republicans and Democrats, awarded bonuses totaling $9.1 million to more than 2,000 staff members, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of office-disbursement forms. The money comes out of taxpayer-funded office budgets, and is surplus cash that would otherwise be forfeited if not spent.
Murtha's Nephew Got Defense Contracts (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/04/AR2009050403743.html?hpid=topnews)
Yet last year, Murtech received $4 million in Pentagon work, all of it without competition, for a variety of warehousing and engineering services. With its long corridor of sparsely occupied offices and an unmanned reception area, Murtech's most striking feature is its owner -- Robert C. Murtha Jr., 49. He is the nephew of Rep. John P. Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who has significant sway over the Defense Department's spending as chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee.
again where is the outrage?.....he needs to resign.... :no: I thought Pelosi and company was going to run a CLEAN congress....this is very corrupt congress...and it seems as no one cares anymore.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 05, 2009, 08:22:34 AM
again where is the outrage?
Same place it was when Dick Cheney's Halliburton and it's subsidiaries KBR and Blackwater were handed all the lucrative Iraq-related contracts in no-bid sweetheart deals. Glad to see you're finally on board, Henry.
Halliburton was the only company large enough to handle the things that were contracted for and Cheney no longer had any ties to the company. I don't believe he or his family profited from the contract being awarded to them. If they did show me proof. By that I don't mean a news report from MSNBC, NBC, or CNN.
Quote from: LOsborne on May 05, 2009, 08:28:36 AM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 05, 2009, 08:22:34 AM
again where is the outrage?
Same place it was when Dick Cheney's Halliburton and it's subsidiaries KBR and Blackwater were handed all the lucrative Iraq-related contracts in no-bid sweetheart deals. Glad to see you're finally on board, Henry.
haliburton was used during Clinton ear also....with no-bid contracts...
i have always been on board.....this is not a manufactured smear.....it is cut and dry.
Quote from: me on May 05, 2009, 08:36:36 AM
Halliburton was the only company large enough to handle the things that were contracted for and Cheney no longer had any ties to the company.
Halliburton was created specifically to fill that role but had stopped growing because once it had all of the contracts for all of the military installations, there was no further market without a war. And since when do stock options not qualify as ties to a company?
QuoteI don't believe he or his family profited from the contract being awarded to them.
Then you're a naive sheep.
QuoteIf they did show me proof. By that I don't mean a news report from MSNBC, NBC, or CNN.
Show us proof they didn't. By that I don't mean a news report from Faux news.
Don't turn that around on me I asked you to show proof.
Quote from: me on May 05, 2009, 09:20:51 AM
Don't turn that around on me I asked you to show proof.
And I asked you to...if you think any of these losers couldn't find his way around anonymous, untraceable, off-shore accounts, you're naive (like that's really a question at this point). Feel free, though, to bend over and continue to take their ass-pounding...hard to say which of you enjoys it most.
Quote from: me on May 05, 2009, 08:36:36 AM
Halliburton was the only company large enough to handle the things that were contracted for and Cheney no longer had any ties to the company. I don't believe he or his family profited from the contract being awarded to them. If they did show me proof. By that I don't mean a news report from MSNBC, NBC, or CNN.
Msnbc= Moronic sublevel news broadcasting co.
nbc= Nincompoop broadcasting co.
cnn= communist News network
You are so right about Haliburton: There are jobs that only a few can do or have the experience and equipment to do. Like during the fires in Kuwait, There was few companies that could put them out, or at least knew how. It gets pretty specific in some of the Oil Companies jobs. I will validate this with being an old oilie and in this field for over 30 years.
Quote from: mcgonser on May 05, 2009, 10:29:07 AM
I will validate this with being an old oilie and in this field for over 30 years.
And yet another bullshit claim to fame. Your only accomplishment in life was becoming a great-grandmother before 50.
Quote from: Exterminator on May 05, 2009, 10:44:42 AM
Quote from: mcgonser on May 05, 2009, 10:29:07 AM
I will validate this with being an old oilie and in this field for over 30 years.
And yet another bullshit claim to fame. Your only accomplishment in life was becoming a great-grandmother before 50.
You need to get new material EX: You already accused me of being white trash in other threads. Can't handle the truth can you??????????????????????????
Quote from: mcgonser on May 05, 2009, 10:46:41 AM
You need to get new material EX: You already accused me of being white trash in other threads. Can't handle the truth can you?
Sounds like it's
you who has a problem with the truth.
Snappy come back Ex; WOW
I wouldn't expect someone with an IQ of 50 to get it.
Quote from: mcgonser on May 05, 2009, 10:29:07 AM
Msnbc= Moronic sublevel news broadcasting co.
nbc= Nincompoop broadcasting co.
cnn= communist News network
:biggrin: :yes:
Quote from: Exterminator on May 05, 2009, 11:22:59 AM
I wouldn't expect someone with an IQ of 50 to get it.
Ah Ex: cheer up, you will get better some day. You shouldn't talk about yourself that way. Have a little confidence.
Quote from: mcgonser on May 05, 2009, 02:20:25 PM
Quote from: Exterminator on May 05, 2009, 11:22:59 AM
I wouldn't expect someone with an IQ of 50 to get it.
Ah Ex: cheer up, you will get better some day. You shouldn't talk about yourself that way. Have a little confidence.
Thank you for illustrating my point.
Your welcome
Quote from: me on May 05, 2009, 08:36:36 AM
Halliburton was the only company large enough to handle the things that were contracted for...
Halliburton was the only company able to provide tainted food and water?
http://www.deadissue.com/archives/2005/09/21/halliburton-serves-expired-food-and-tainted-water-to-soldiers/
In case this story isn't personal enough for some of you, here's the link to the federal lawsuit filed on behalf of the 152nd Infantry out of Jasper, where the soldiers are still dealing with illness caused by KBR's water.
http://www.indy.com/posts/indiana-guard-soldiers-sue-over-toxic-exposure
Now that "only company big enough" rationale is pure horsespit. When a job is too big for one company, the answer is to contract with more than one. This solution has the additional benefit of keeping everybody honest. When more than one company are submitting invoices, a wide variance in material costs is more apparent, and it's harder for NINE MILLION DOLLARS to just walk off.
(I don't know where it went. Did any of you see it leave?)
Quote from: mcgonser on May 05, 2009, 10:29:07 AM
You are so right about Haliburton: There are jobs that only a few can do or have the experience and equipment to do. Like during the fires in Kuwait...
That wasn't Halliburton. That was Red Adair. Last I heard his company was still in business.
Quote from: mcgonser on May 05, 2009, 04:36:40 PM
Your welcome
* you're
(tell us again how well educated you are...)
CIA Says Pelosi Was Briefed on Use of 'Enhanced Interrogations' (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/05/cia_says_pelosi_was_briefed_on.html)...
Intelligence officials released documents this evening saying that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was briefed in September 2002 about the use of harsh interrogation tactics against al-Qaeda prisoners, seemingly contradicting her repeated statements over the past 18 months that she was never told that these techniques were actually being used....
can you say...."LIAR".... :yes:
All I can say is...............when the Bush tax cuts went into effect in 2003, the economys growth rate was best it had been all through 1980s and 1990s....unemployement was hovering aroung 4.9%........then congress CHANGED in 2006 and NOW the growth rate is -2.4% and unemployement is 8.9%.....
I'm just sayin.... :o :no:..CONGRESS SUCKS!!!
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 08, 2009, 08:14:07 AM
can you say...."LIAR".... :yes:
Duh!!!!! She's a politician. Isn't that the job of a politician?
Quote from: Bo D on May 08, 2009, 08:57:10 AM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 08, 2009, 08:14:07 AM
can you say...."LIAR".... :yes:
Duh!!!!! She's a politician. Isn't that the job of a politician?
and THAT is what the TEA Parties are ALL about....it is TIME to get rid of ALL of those who are LIARS and are MISspending our TAX $$$ DOLLARS....
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 08, 2009, 08:58:10 AM
Quote from: Bo D on May 08, 2009, 08:57:10 AM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 08, 2009, 08:14:07 AM
can you say...."LIAR".... :yes:
Duh!!!!! She's a politician. Isn't that the job of a politician?
and THAT is what the TEA Parties are ALL about....it is TIME to get rid of ALL of those who are LIARS and are MISspending our TAX $$$ DOLLARS....
Oh crap, Henry. You sure must love tea to be talking about those silly little parties. Do y'all serve crumpets or scones with your tea?
If we get rid of all the liars, there would be nobody left. And guess what we would replace them with!
Yep! That's right! More liars!
Quote from: Bo D on May 08, 2009, 09:02:48 AM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 08, 2009, 08:58:10 AM
Quote from: Bo D on May 08, 2009, 08:57:10 AM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 08, 2009, 08:14:07 AM
can you say...."LIAR".... :yes:
Duh!!!!! She's a politician. Isn't that the job of a politician?
and THAT is what the TEA Parties are ALL about....it is TIME to get rid of ALL of those who are LIARS and are Misspending our TAX $$$ DOLLARS....
Oh crap, Henry. You sure must love tea to be talking about those silly little parties. Do y'all serve crumpets or scones with your tea?
If we get rid of all the liars, there would be nobody left. And guess what we would replace them with!
Yep! That's right! More liars!
so just roll over huh?.....well, let me tell you pal.....the people of this COUNTRY are getting fed up....you can ridicule these ... little parties .... all you want.....you are going to see more and more of them.....I went to one..and was extremely proud to have been there.
Despite what you are being lead to believe by the BIASED media.....they are NOT a bunch of white raciest rednecks...they are people of all ages and race there.....there was guys with suits, guys in military uniforms, your docker crowd, ..... and it was NOT a Obama BASH party....it was a WASHINGTON DC BASH party....
I agree that finding an honest politician is harder than finding a needle in a haystack...but, I think they have finally went too far...and many people out there are getting TIRED of it...
(http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm14/mcgonser/AmericanEagle.gif)
Not the politicians but the all the people of the USA
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 08, 2009, 09:36:09 AM
Quote from: Bo D on May 08, 2009, 09:02:48 AM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 08, 2009, 08:58:10 AM
Quote from: Bo D on May 08, 2009, 08:57:10 AM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 08, 2009, 08:14:07 AM
can you say...."LIAR".... :yes:
Duh!!!!! She's a politician. Isn't that the job of a politician?
and THAT is what the TEA Parties are ALL about....it is TIME to get rid of ALL of those who are LIARS and are Misspending our TAX $$$ DOLLARS....
Oh crap, Henry. You sure must love tea to be talking about those silly little parties. Do y'all serve crumpets or scones with your tea?
If we get rid of all the liars, there would be nobody left. And guess what we would replace them with!
Yep! That's right! More liars!
so just roll over huh?.....well, let me tell you pal.....the people of this COUNTRY are getting fed up....you can ridicule these ... little parties .... all you want.....you are going to see more and more of them.....I went to one..and was extremely proud to have been there.
Despite what you are being lead to believe by the BIASED media.....they are NOT a bunch of white raciest rednecks...they are people of all ages and race there.....there was guys with suits, guys in military uniforms, your docker crowd, ..... and it was NOT a Obama BASH party....it was a WASHINGTON DC BASH party....
I agree that finding an honest politician is harder than finding a needle in a haystack...but, I think they have finally went too far...and many people out there are getting TIRED of it...
Like us old hippies held our "parties" attended by the millions on the Mall in DC in the 60's during the Vietnam war? There were a lot of non-hippies there just as fed up with government as we were.
Do you really think being fed up with government is a new phenomenon?
And don't pull the racist, redneck card with me, fella!
And don't call me "pal" in that tone of voice .... please?
:biggrin:
Quote from: Bo D on May 08, 2009, 09:54:46 AM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 08, 2009, 09:36:09 AM
Quote from: Bo D on May 08, 2009, 09:02:48 AM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 08, 2009, 08:58:10 AM
Quote from: Bo D on May 08, 2009, 08:57:10 AM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 08, 2009, 08:14:07 AM
can you say...."LIAR".... :yes:
Duh!!!!! She's a politician. Isn't that the job of a politician?
and THAT is what the TEA Parties are ALL about....it is TIME to get rid of ALL of those who are LIARS and are Misspending our TAX $$$ DOLLARS....
Oh crap, Henry. You sure must love tea to be talking about those silly little parties. Do y'all serve crumpets or scones with your tea?
If we get rid of all the liars, there would be nobody left. And guess what we would replace them with!
Yep! That's right! More liars!
so just roll over huh?.....well, let me tell you pal.....the people of this COUNTRY are getting fed up....you can ridicule these ... little parties .... all you want.....you are going to see more and more of them.....I went to one..and was extremely proud to have been there.
Despite what you are being lead to believe by the BIASED media.....they are NOT a bunch of white raciest rednecks...they are people of all ages and race there.....there was guys with suits, guys in military uniforms, your docker crowd, ..... and it was NOT a Obama BASH party....it was a WASHINGTON DC BASH party....
I agree that finding an honest politician is harder than finding a needle in a haystack...but, I think they have finally went too far...and many people out there are getting TIRED of it...
Like us old hippies held our "parties" attended by the millions on the Mall in DC in the 60's during the Vietnam war? There were a lot of non-hippies there just as fed up with government as we were.
Do you really think being fed up with government is a new phenomenon?
And don't pull the racist, redneck card with me, fella!
And don't call me "pal" in that tone of voice .... please?
:biggrin:
Pal....kind of rolls of my lips ( i mean my fingers ) when I get fired up....(Not mad...just fired up)...I'm not saying YOU are raciest but that is the jest from the ANTI-TEA party people...that it is just a bunch of white trash....and that honestly is NOT who is attending these...and it IS a quite the phenomenon for the average blue collar, hard working family men and women, to finally STOP what they are doing...and attend such an event....imo
Besides, Henry ... what self-respecting redneck has ever even heard of crumpets or scones?
And like is mentioned, please don't think that you are the first ever to get fired up over what our government is doing.
Bubba!
Quote from: Bo D on May 08, 2009, 10:11:53 AM
Besides, Henry ... what self-respecting redneck has ever even heard of crumpets or scones?
And like is mentioned, please don't think that you are the first ever to get fired up over what our government is doing.
Bubba!
Well LISTEN TO ME MISTER!!... :razz:
I never SAID that this was the first group ever to get fired up over what our government is doing....it is just the most recent and maybe one of the largest before it is all said and done... :wink:
BUDDY!
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 08, 2009, 10:20:25 AM
Quote from: Bo D on May 08, 2009, 10:11:53 AM
Besides, Henry ... what self-respecting redneck has ever even heard of crumpets or scones?
And like is mentioned, please don't think that you are the first ever to get fired up over what our government is doing.
Bubba!
Well LISTEN TO ME MISTER!!... :razz:
I never SAID that this was the first group ever to get fired up over what our government is doing....it is just the most recent and maybe one of the largest before it is all said and done... :wink:
BUDDY!
Did anybody ever tell you how cute you are when you get mad? :smitten:
:wink:
Quote from: Bo D on May 08, 2009, 10:26:38 AM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 08, 2009, 10:20:25 AM
Quote from: Bo D on May 08, 2009, 10:11:53 AM
Besides, Henry ... what self-respecting redneck has ever even heard of crumpets or scones?
And like is mentioned, please don't think that you are the first ever to get fired up over what our government is doing.
Bubba!
Well LISTEN TO ME MISTER!!... :razz:
I never SAID that this was the first group ever to get fired up over what our government is doing....it is just the most recent and maybe one of the largest before it is all said and done... :wink:
BUDDY!
Did anybody ever tell you how cute you are when you get mad? :smitten:
:wink:
your just sayin that.... :-[ :yes: :redface:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 08, 2009, 09:36:09 AM
Despite what you are being lead to believe by the BIASED media.....they are NOT a bunch of white raciest rednecks...they are people of all ages and race there...
Really? How many blacks were in that crowd? Don't lie...I was working right across the street and was there to see it for a lot longer than you were.
Quote..there was guys with suits, guys in military uniforms, your docker crowd, ..... and it was NOT a Obama BASH party....it was a WASHINGTON DC BASH party....
Bullshit...the signs were clearly aimed squarely at the Obama administration.
QuoteI agree that finding an honest politician is harder than finding a needle in a haystack...but, I think they have finally went too far...and many people out there are getting TIRED of it...
Sort of like finding an honest forum poster; huh?
You lost; get over it.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 08, 2009, 09:36:09 AM
your docker crowd, .....
Whoa!!!! I missed that first time around. Thanks to EX for separating it out.
I take back what I said. I HAVE NO USE FOR THE DOCKER CROWD.
(dang yuppies!)
Quote from: Bo D on May 08, 2009, 11:03:18 AM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 08, 2009, 09:36:09 AM
your docker crowd, .....
Whoa!!!! I missed that first time around. Thanks to EX for separating it out.
I take back what I said. I HAVE NO USE FOR THE DOCKER CROWD.
(dang yuppies!)
They weren't there...it was pretty much a NASCAR crowd despite what Henry might claim.
Quote from: Bo D on May 08, 2009, 11:03:18 AM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 08, 2009, 09:36:09 AM
your docker crowd, .....
Whoa!!!! I missed that first time around. Thanks to EX for separating it out.
I take back what I said. I HAVE NO USE FOR THE DOCKER CROWD.
(dang yuppies!)
Hey, these are NOT yuppies....these are guys that work hard for a living....has a family, pay their taxes, coaches Little League, and keeps the economy going....not the old dudes with gray pony tails and square sun-glasses....at least THAT is what "I" mean by the Docker Crowd...
Quote from: Exterminator on May 08, 2009, 11:07:10 AM
Quote from: Bo D on May 08, 2009, 11:03:18 AM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 08, 2009, 09:36:09 AM
your docker crowd, .....
Whoa!!!! I missed that first time around. Thanks to EX for separating it out.
I take back what I said. I HAVE NO USE FOR THE DOCKER CROWD.
(dang yuppies!)
They weren't there...it was pretty much a NASCAR crowd despite what Henry might claim.
you are SO full of shit!!....you may have picked up on a few radical punks, and didn't get past that....but, I WAS there..and I KNOW many who went....and they are EXACTLY how I discribed it.....you just can't stand the fact, that REAL people out there are not happy with YOUR congress.....and THAT is a FACT (sorry Bo...but it IS a FACT ;) ).....Ex simply watched CNN's coverage of the toothless morons that HAPPENED to be there.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 08, 2009, 11:15:07 AM
you are SO full of shit!!....you may have picked up on a few radical punks, and didn't get past that....but, I WAS there..and I KNOW many who went....and they are EXACTLY how I discribed it.....you just can't stand the fact, that REAL people out there are not happy with YOUR congress.....and THAT is a FACT (sorry Bo...but it IS a FACT ;) ).....Ex simply watched CNN's coverage of the toothless morons that HAPPENED to be there.
I was right across the street from it the entire time; you're a fucking liar.
Quote from: Exterminator on May 08, 2009, 11:16:54 AM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 08, 2009, 11:15:07 AM
you are SO full of shit!!....you may have picked up on a few radical punks, and didn't get past that....but, I WAS there..and I KNOW many who went....and they are EXACTLY how I discribed it.....you just can't stand the fact, that REAL people out there are not happy with YOUR congress.....and THAT is a FACT (sorry Bo...but it IS a FACT ;) ).....Ex simply watched CNN's coverage of the toothless morons that HAPPENED to be there.
I was right across the street from it the entire time; you're a fucking liar.
THEN you need FUCKING GLASSES then asswipe!!!
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 08, 2009, 11:19:45 AM
Quote from: Exterminator on May 08, 2009, 11:16:54 AM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 08, 2009, 11:15:07 AM
you are SO full of shit!!....you may have picked up on a few radical punks, and didn't get past that....but, I WAS there..and I KNOW many who went....and they are EXACTLY how I discribed it.....you just can't stand the fact, that REAL people out there are not happy with YOUR congress.....and THAT is a FACT (sorry Bo...but it IS a FACT ;) ).....Ex simply watched CNN's coverage of the toothless morons that HAPPENED to be there.
I was right across the street from it the entire time; you're a fucking liar.
THEN you need FUCKING GLASSES then asswipe!!!
Nope, sorry, douche. Once again you've been exposed as a liar. The most diverse thing about that crowd was how many teeth they were missing or what color they were. Those of us
working downtown made fun of you.
Quote from: Exterminator on May 08, 2009, 11:29:42 AM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 08, 2009, 11:19:45 AM
Quote from: Exterminator on May 08, 2009, 11:16:54 AM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 08, 2009, 11:15:07 AM
you are SO full of shit!!....you may have picked up on a few radical punks, and didn't get past that....but, I WAS there..and I KNOW many who went....and they are EXACTLY how I discribed it.....you just can't stand the fact, that REAL people out there are not happy with YOUR congress.....and THAT is a FACT (sorry Bo...but it IS a FACT ;) ).....Ex simply watched CNN's coverage of the toothless morons that HAPPENED to be there.
I was right across the street from it the entire time; you're a fucking liar.
THEN you need FUCKING GLASSES then asswipe!!!
Those of us working downtown made fun of you.
what the three or four of you that was NOT in the Rally?...
Quote from: Exterminator on May 08, 2009, 11:16:54 AM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 08, 2009, 11:15:07 AM
you are SO full of shit!!....you may have picked up on a few radical punks, and didn't get past that....but, I WAS there..and I KNOW many who went....and they are EXACTLY how I discribed it.....you just can't stand the fact, that REAL people out there are not happy with YOUR congress.....and THAT is a FACT (sorry Bo...but it IS a FACT ;) ).....Ex simply watched CNN's coverage of the toothless morons that HAPPENED to be there.
I was right across the street from it the entire time; you're a fucking liar.
You were across the street from only one gathering not all of them in all of the states and cities that held them therefore you cannot speak for the entire gathering.
Quote from: me on May 08, 2009, 11:54:38 AM
Quote from: Exterminator on May 08, 2009, 11:16:54 AM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 08, 2009, 11:15:07 AM
you are SO full of shit!!....you may have picked up on a few radical punks, and didn't get past that....but, I WAS there..and I KNOW many who went....and they are EXACTLY how I discribed it.....you just can't stand the fact, that REAL people out there are not happy with YOUR congress.....and THAT is a FACT (sorry Bo...but it IS a FACT ;) ).....Ex simply watched CNN's coverage of the toothless morons that HAPPENED to be there.
I was right across the street from it the entire time; you're a fucking liar.
You were across the street from only one gathering not all of them in all of the states and cities that held them therefore you cannot speak for the entire gathering.
He can't speak for the one he says he saw.....because HE is wrong.
I'm sure he say a few morons there...but the VAST majority of them was EXACTLY as I decribed....PERIOD
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 08, 2009, 11:31:07 AM
Quote from: Exterminator on May 08, 2009, 11:29:42 AM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 08, 2009, 11:19:45 AM
Quote from: Exterminator on May 08, 2009, 11:16:54 AM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 08, 2009, 11:15:07 AM
you are SO full of shit!!....you may have picked up on a few radical punks, and didn't get past that....but, I WAS there..and I KNOW many who went....and they are EXACTLY how I discribed it.....you just can't stand the fact, that REAL people out there are not happy with YOUR congress.....and THAT is a FACT (sorry Bo...but it IS a FACT ;) ).....Ex simply watched CNN's coverage of the toothless morons that HAPPENED to be there.
I was right across the street from it the entire time; you're a fucking liar.
THEN you need FUCKING GLASSES then asswipe!!!
Those of us working downtown made fun of you.
what the three or four of you that was NOT in the Rally?...
Yeah, or the 900 of us...there were more people in our building than were in your tea-bagging party. :biggrin:
Quote from: me on May 08, 2009, 11:54:38 AM
You were across the street from only one gathering not all of them in all of the states and cities that held them therefore you cannot speak for the entire gathering.
Yeah, well, that's the one Henry and I are talking about so stay out of grown people's conversations.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 08, 2009, 11:15:07 AM....Ex simply watched CNN's coverage of the toothless morons that HAPPENED to be there.
That's what I did. Because I had to
WORK that day.
Here in Evansville (E'ville, the Devil's Playground) the tea-people hung out at the post office, blocking the entrances. That was the last day to file taxes, remember? They were a low-class pain in the butt!
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 08, 2009, 12:03:21 PM
He can't speak for the one he says he saw.....because HE is wrong.
I'm sure he say a few morons there...but the VAST majority of them was EXACTLY as I decribed....PERIOD
Bullshit! I'm sure that to the individuals in the flock, all of the sheep look different from one another.
Quote from: Exterminator on May 08, 2009, 12:05:08 PM
Quote from: me on May 08, 2009, 11:54:38 AM
You were across the street from only one gathering not all of them in all of the states and cities that held them therefore you cannot speak for the entire gathering.
Yeah, well, that's the one Henry and I are talking about so stay out of grown people's conversations.
Hey Henry.....Ex is finally including you in the grown up category and it's in print so he can't back out of it......... :biggrin:
LO, it was the same out here. I even made a comment that they should learn how to protest safely from those who have been doing it for years. To claim that this whole "tea-bagging" thing isn't sour grapes is disingenious because if they really cared they would have clued in years ago.
Oh and Henry, this wasn't the largest protest. You just didn't notice because it wasn't staged by "real" people. :rolleyes: The difference is when they did it the right-wing conservatives labeled them "anti-American".
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on May 08, 2009, 12:35:31 PM
Oh and Henry, this wasn't the largest protest. You just didn't notice because it wasn't staged by "real" people. :rolleyes: The difference is when they did it the right-wing conservatives labeled them "anti-American".
Sandy...I never SAID it was the largest protest..............but, I think it is going to GET real big, very soon.
and this should not be a left vs. right issue....it is simply for anybody TIRED of Washington spending the living crap out of our TAX DOLLARS....and before you guys jump on me....I have always said BUSH was one of the BIGGEST spending Presidents ever....and that goes for the Republican Controlled Congress back then....
I honestly am sick of ALL of them...repubs and dems....who has went to washington to SPEND, SPEND, SPEND....in astronomical proportions.
It has GOT to stop!!...and the people are starting to revolt.
Pelosi: I Was Told Interrogation Methods Were Lawful
The House speaker's statement came after CIA records showed Pelosi was briefed in September 2002 on the interrogation methods and appeared to contradict her claim last month that she was never told that waterboarding or other enhanced interrogation techniques were being used.
FOXNews.com
Friday, May 08, 2009
powered by BaynoteHouse Speaker Nancy Pelosi insisted Friday that she was briefed only once about the "enhanced" interrogation techniques being used on terrorism suspects and that she was assured by lawyers with the CIA and the Department of Justice that the methods were legal.
Pelosi issued a statement after CIA records released this week showed that Pelosi was briefed in September 2002 on the interrogation methods. The briefings memo appeared to contradict the speaker's claims that she was never told that waterboarding or other enhanced interrogation methods were being used.
"We were not -- I repeat -- were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used," Pelosi said on April 23.
The emphasis seems to be on "were used," even though she conceded in a statement released Friday that she was told they would be used.
"As I said in my statement of December 9, 2007: 'I was briefed on interrogation techniques the (Bush) administration was considering using in the future. The administration advised that legal counsel for both the CIA and the Department of Justice had concluded that the techniques were legal,'" she said.
But even that statement is at odds with the official record of the briefings recorded in the CIA memo dated to Sept. 4, 2002. That memo says Pelosi received a "briefing on EITs (enhanced interrogation techniques), including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background on authorities and a description of particular EITs that had been employed."
Pelosi noted that the media had reported this week that CIA Director Leon Panetta wrote in a cover letter accompanying the briefings memo that "the descriptions provided by the CIA may not be accurate."
Pelosi is fighting back against accusations that she and other Democrats are being motivated by politics in their attempt to establish an independent commission to investigate officials and lawyers involved with the Bush-era interrogation programs.
Pelosi is just one of 65 lawmakers who received 40 briefings dealing with the subject. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., for instance, was repeatedly briefed, as was Rep. Jane Harman, D-Valif., who took over Pelosi's spot on the House Intelligence Committee.
In addition, from the beginning of the program in 2002 until it became public in the fall of 2006, the House held 13 votes to authorize intelligence funding at which time no one objected or demanded changes to any intelligence programs.
The briefings took place in the months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. At the time, the CIA was getting actionable intelligence that helped disrupt several terrorist plots.
Lawmakers apparently didn't want to stop that. But when it became public, Pelosi and others shifted gears and started criticizing a program they had known about for years, claimed GOP strategist Brad Blakeman.
"Either the speaker has a veracity problem or an incompetence problem and it could be both," Blakeman told FOX News. "The fact of the matter is she was briefed and she was hoping that the top secret nature of these briefings would shield her from this information coming out."
Blakeman added that he trusts the notes made at the briefings more than Pelosi's memory.
Justice Department officials are not likely to recommend criminal charges against the three Bush administration lawyers who the wrote the memos approving the interrogation methods, but two could face disciplinary action from their state bar associations.
Liar, liar--pants on fire
All this tea bagging.....as much as I hate to agree....we lost, get over it.
Isn't one of the biggest reason's why our forfathers decided we should have elections every so many years....so that if someone/some-group got into office that was really whacked.....the people would have the right to VOTE them out before too much damage could be done.
Elections are how to get things changed.
Trying to tear other people and ideas down is not how to get elected anymore. It just pisses the people off that believed in them to begin with. You've got to offer a better 'product'. Right now their ain't one.
Republicans basing their hopes on things getting worse so they can blame the dems is an incredibly bad strategy. Not to mention unpatriotic.
The thing is Dannyboy, they don't have to hope. Things are already decidely sliding waaaay downhill. It scares me how much damage Obama can do in 4 years. From this horrible budget to setting loose terrorists on our soil, he is a catastrophe.
Quote from: DannyBoy on May 08, 2009, 11:07:05 PM
Republicans basing their hopes on things getting worse so they can blame the dems is an incredibly bad strategy. Not to mention unpatriotic.
There is NOTHING unpatriotic about NOT wanting Government to get bigger and bigger at the taxpayers expense....there is NOTHING unpartriotic about NOT wanting this country to become MORE socialist....NOTHING
Nancy Pelosi is a lying weasel....shame on anybody who supports her.....she made promises to make this a better government and she LIED....she is a shamefull piece of crap...and she should be impeached...SHE KNEW all about waterboarding being used...she was briefed about it!! ...and anybody who has the gall to defend her are just as weasely.....also, there is talk about Attorney General Holder admitting he was aware of Clinton-era renditions of torture....the democrats and the media are pathetic.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 11, 2009, 12:34:38 PM
Nancy Pelosi is a lying weasel....shame on anybody who supports her.....she made promises to make this a better government and she LIED....she is a shamefull piece of crap...and she should be impeached...SHE KNEW all about waterboarding being used...she was briefed about it!! ...and anybody who has the gall to defend her are just as weasely.....also, there is talk about Attorney General Holder admitting he was aware of Clinton-era renditions of torture....the democrats and the media are pathetic.
Actually, you're pretty pathetic.
Quote from: Exterminator on May 11, 2009, 12:37:58 PM
Actually, you're pretty pathetic.
what amazes me Ex...you are obviously and intelligent man....but you are so blindly fooled by what is going on it is ridicules...you remind me of a good friend of mine, who is liberal....I admire him as a friend, but he is so WRONG about almost everything he believes.
Just think, she is 2nd in line for the presidencey! If I was President Obama andVP Biden, I would be watching my back. There is no shame in her ambition.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 11, 2009, 12:41:50 PM
what amazes me Ex...you are obviously and intelligent man....but you are so blindly fooled by what is going on it is ridicules...you remind me of a good friend of mine, who is liberal....I admire him as a friend, but he is so WRONG about almost everything he believes.
Yeah, because you with no education have such supreior insight; right? You people are freakin' delusional. :rolleyes:
Quote from: mcgonser on May 11, 2009, 12:47:05 PM
Just think, she is 2nd in line for the presidencey! If I was President Obama andVP Biden, I would be watching my back. There is no shame in her ambition.
Jealous?
Nope! Just wary
Quote from: mcgonser on May 11, 2009, 12:52:27 PM
Nope! Just wary
Well, you should be; she accomplished a lot more with her life than you did with yours.
Quote from: Exterminator on May 11, 2009, 01:05:28 PM
Well, you should be; she accomplished a lot more with her life than you did with yours.
Since when is being a weasel and a liar an accomplishment to brag about?
Quote from: me on May 11, 2009, 03:05:48 PM
Since when is being a weasel and a liar an accomplishment to brag about?
It isn't so don't.
Quote from: Exterminator on May 11, 2009, 03:23:21 PM
It isn't so don't.
Then Pelosi has nothing to brag about for sure.
Quote from: me on May 11, 2009, 03:27:27 PM
Then Pelosi has nothing to brag about for sure.
Oh, I dunno. National name recognition. Guaranteed income for life (even if she loses a re-election bid she can do the consulting and lecture circuit.) Let's not forget the tell-all book she'll write in about fifteen years. I think she has some claim on braggin' rights. You didn't define what she would brag about,
me. I'm fairly certain she doesn't spend a lot of time worrying about how she is regarded in fly-over country.
Now, about that revolution ...
Ok let me rephrase that....She has nothing to be particularly proud of in the way of being a good person. I know, that's my opinion but that's just the way I see it.
Quote from: LOsborne on May 11, 2009, 07:09:03 PM
Now, about that revolution ...
It will not be televised. (http://www.gilscottheron.com/lyrevol.html) :biggrin:
Pelosi says the CIA lied to her.............Panetta says that the CIA did not lie..and she knew....
I think it is time for the lady speaker to be removed... :yes:
I second that motion Henry!
I think god should be removed.
He/she created this mess.
Wanna blame someone -- might as well go to the top.
Actually God Gave us a perfect world, we screwed it up. The blame is with mankind not God.
Sarcasm -- might as well blame a non-existent being.
The blame game.
Quote from: mcgonser on May 15, 2009, 07:08:28 PM
Actually God Gave us a perfect world, we screwed it up. The blame is with mankind not God.
The ability to be screwed up is an imperfection; wanna try again?
Ex, I hope your not saying that christians are perfect. They have all the imperfections that non christians have. I always liked the saying: Not perfect just forgiven: Being a christian does not make you in any way perfect or better than anyone else. We are all human.
Quote from: mcgonser on May 18, 2009, 09:40:48 AM
Ex, I hope your not saying that christians are perfect. They have all the imperfections that non christians have. I always liked the saying: Not perfect just forgiven: Being a christian does not make you in any way perfect or better than anyone else. We are all human.
No, what I am saying is that if, as you claim, God created a perfect world, it would not be able to be screwed up by humans because that is, in and of itself, an imperfection. A 'perfect' world, by definition, would always be perfect.
NOW, congress has the bright idea of Paid Vacation Act (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22794.html) ... to make paid vacation time a requirement under federal law!.....congress SUCKS!! folks.............NOW, they want to continue to instruct the entreprenuers of this Country HOW to run their business..... :no: AMAZING!!! :no:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 21, 2009, 12:39:37 PM
NOW, congress has the bright idea of Paid Vacation Act (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22794.html) ... to make paid vacation time a requirement under federal law!.....congress SUCKS!! folks.............NOW, they want to continue to instruct the entreprenuers of this Country HOW to run their business..... :no: AMAZING!!! :no:
Now Henry don't bring that stuff up the cover sheets that Rumsfeld sent his briefings in are much more important. :wink:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 21, 2009, 12:39:37 PM
NOW, they want to continue to instruct the entreprenuers of this Country HOW to run their business..... :no: AMAZING!!! :no:
You don't nor will you ever have a dog in that fight so don't worry about it.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 21, 2009, 12:39:37 PM.............NOW, they want to continue to instruct the entreprenuers of this Country HOW to run their business..... :no: AMAZING!!! :no:
Really! The nerve of them! While we're at it, let's repeal all those silly 19th century labor laws, especially those totally unnecessary child labor laws!
A job is good for a toddler!
Quote from: me on May 21, 2009, 12:42:42 PM
Now Henry don't bring that stuff up the cover sheets that Rumsfeld sent his briefings in are much more important. :wink:
I see you also have nothing of value to add to this conversation so instead of saying nothing, you drag another thread that you claim has no merit into this one...nice form! :rolleyes:
Quote from: Bo D on May 21, 2009, 12:58:57 PM
Really! The nerve of them! While we're at it, let's repeal all those silly 19th century labor laws, especially those totally unnecessary child labor laws!
A job is good for a toddler!
Hell, yeah and OSHA can suck it!
Quote from: Exterminator on May 21, 2009, 12:57:57 PM
You don't nor will you ever have a dog in that fight so don't worry about it.
I may have several dogs in this fight....douche bag!! (just to use one of YOUR fine responses)...I have FIVE fantastic young people that I brought into this world, with BIG dreams.....I don't need some dumbass in washington, trying to instill their stupid ass garbage, into the BRILLIANT entrepreneurs that MADE this country.....I also have a BOSS, who is a BRILLIANT entrepreneur, who has done a nice job, WITHOUT somebody telling him HOW to run HIS business....
Ex you really are a wonder!!!...
Bo, how many company's out there, who have over a 100 employees, who do NOT already have decent benefits?...THIS is just ANOTHER democrat, trying to sound like a GREAT person, who has NEVER been an entrepreneur, but acts as if they know what they are talking about....I DISPISE this CONGRESS!!!....they SUCK!!! AND SUCK BAD!!! :rant: :rant:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 21, 2009, 01:11:35 PM
I may have several dogs in this fight....douche bag!! (just to use one of YOUR fine responses)...I have FIVE fantastic young people that I brought into this world, with BIG dreams....
There's a scary thought.
QuoteI don't need some dumbass in washington, trying to instill their stupid ass garbage, into the BRILLIANT entrepreneurs that MADE this country.
We could say the same about this forum.
QuoteI also have a BOSS, who is a BRILLIANT entrepreneur, who has done a nice job, WITHOUT somebody telling him HOW to run HIS business.
You're right; screw those electrical codes anyway!
Ex you really are a wonder!!!...
QuoteTHIS is just ANOTHER democrat, trying to sound like a GREAT person, who has NEVER been an entrepreneur, but acts as if they know what they are talking about.
Isn't that what you are doing?
Quote...I DISPISE this CONGRESS!!!....they SUCK!!! AND SUCK BAD!!! :rant: :rant:
There's that good Christian value again...hate...if you could spell it.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 21, 2009, 01:11:35 PM
Bo, how many company's out there, who have over a 100 employees, who do NOT already have decent benefits?...
More than you and I together could count!
My neighbor's nephew's wife's ex-boyfriend works for a company that only gives on day paid vacation after ten years. :biggrin:
Seriously, though, I have to compete for IT work with local companies who hire H1B people and don't give them ANY benefits, AT ALL!
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 21, 2009, 01:11:35 PM
... how many company's out there, who have over a 100 employees, who do NOT already have decent benefits?
What planet do you live on, Henry? The number of companies offering health insurance is steadily shrinking, and those that do are asking employees to pay more of the premium every year.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008974774_webbenefits02.html
Matching 401(k) funds are vanishing (even if you weren't employed by Enron.)
Wages have been frozen in many industries, and those employers that are giving raises do not give enough to keep up with the cost of living.
Furthermore, the only reason the unemployment rate is hovering around 10% is that many people have accepted part time jobs. Sometimes two part time jobs. But part time jobs offer NO benefits.
So let me see, these companies are struggling to stay solvent yet congress wants them to put out more money still.....Can you say company goes out of business because they can't afford the extra costs being cast upon them and everybody loses? Look what the unions have done for the auto industry.
Quote from: me on May 21, 2009, 08:04:48 PM
So let me see, these companies are struggling to stay solvent yet congress wants them to put out more money still.....Can you say company goes out of business because they can't afford the extra costs being cast upon them and everybody loses? Look what the unions have done for the auto industry.
Are you seriously implying that the problems with Enron, AIG and the like were caused because they were struggling to stay
solvent?
Quote from: LOsborne on May 22, 2009, 07:45:17 AM
Are you seriously implying that the problems with Enron, AIG and the like were caused because they were struggling to stay solvent?
What do they have to do with anything?
Quote from: LOsborne on May 21, 2009, 07:31:58 PM
What planet do you live on, Henry? The number of companies offering health insurance is steadily shrinking, and those that do are asking employees to pay more of the premium every year.
Actually, I was more referring to vacation time....I realize that health insurance IS shrinking or employees are paying more...But, I know of several jobs, as long as it is FULL time, the ALL offer vacation time, ususally AFTER one-year of service.....and, I most certainly do NOT think THIS is a LAW that should be forced into the small business world...they are struggling as it is, let alone making LAWS to further burden them...people do not HAVE to take every job that comes along, if vacation time is THAT important....if it came down to it and I NEEDED a job, I would NOT turn it down because I may not get a VACATION.
is there a law mandating vacation time?
Quote from: Gryphon on May 22, 2009, 09:26:10 AM
is there a law mandating vacation time?
None that I can find. But this is a very interesting piece ....
June 18, 2007
What Vacation Days?
Despite being one of the richest nations, America denies its workers mandated paid vacations and sick days
Nearly one-fourth of American workers have no paid vacation or holidays, according to a recent study from the D.C.-based Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), and nearly half of all private sector workers have no paid sick days. But if Eckart were living in any other industrialized country, she would be legally guaranteed at least two weeks paid vacation and—in 136 countries—from seven to more than 30 paid sick days. The United States is the only rich country that does not mandate paid vacations and paid sick days, and Americans who are afforded such benefits enjoy far less time off than workers in other wealthy nations.
Americans now work more every year, on average, than workers in any other industrialized country (except for a virtual tie with New Zealand). With women working longer hours each year, the average annual work time for a married couple is growing steadily, and family time—including the crucial bonding experience of vacations—has suffered. Full-time workers in much of Europe typically take seven to eight weeks of vacation and holidays each year—that's double the American average for full-time workers. Overall, the average private sector worker in the United States gets about nine paid vacation days and six paid holidays each year. Low-paid, part-time or small-business workers typically get far fewer, sometimes none. The same holds for paid sick leave: 72 percent of the highest-paid quarter of private sector workers get paid sick days compared to only 21 percent of workers in the lowest-paid quarter.
According to Harvard economist Alberto Alesina, Europeans are happier, and have less stress and insecurity, which is good for health and longevity. Studies in the United States, for example, indicate that taking vacations cuts in half the risk of heart attacks for men.
Longer, mandated vacations haven't undercut the competitiveness of other rich countries, and there's evidence that they increase labor productivity.http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3233/what_vacation_days/ (http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3233/what_vacation_days/)
Obviously published by a union...and I wonder what they have to gain.... :rolleyes:
I realize that not everyone gets paid vacations but for the government to mandate it is wrong. They are getting into private enterprise and have no business there.
Quote from: me on May 22, 2009, 09:52:39 AM
Obviously published by a union...and I wonder what they have to gain.... :rolleyes:
I realize that not everyone gets paid vacations but for the government to mandate it is wrong. They are getting into private enterprise and have no business there.
Well, we know it wasn't published by an oil company.
And I repeat ....
Really! The nerve of them! While we're at it, let's repeal all those silly 19th century labor laws, especially those totally unnecessary child labor laws!
A job is good for a toddler!
Quote from: me on May 22, 2009, 09:52:39 AM
Obviously published by a union...
Why not show us which parts of the article are false?
Quote from: Gryphon on May 22, 2009, 09:26:10 AM
is there a law mandating vacation time?
It is being introduced NOW, I posted it a few posts ago, it is called the Paid Vacation Act, I attached a link to it.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 21, 2009, 12:39:37 PM
NOW, congress has the bright idea of Paid Vacation Act (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22794.html) ... to make paid vacation time a requirement under federal law!.....congress SUCKS!! folks.............NOW, they want to continue to instruct the entreprenuers of this Country HOW to run their business..... :no: AMAZING!!! :no:
thanks Henry, I guess I didnt scroll up far enough.
We agree its unnecessary. I really doubt there are any companies with over 100 employees that dont provide that (or didnt before the current "crunch")
"France currently requires employers to provide 30 days of paid leave. "
Im movin to France.
;D
But, wow, Im a little surprised that its a requirement in so many other countries.
Quote from: Gryphon on May 22, 2009, 10:14:23 AM
"France currently requires employers to provide 30 days of paid leave. "
Im movin to France.
;D
But, wow, Im a little surprised that its a requirement in so many other countries.
because those other countries are predomintaly ...socialist...and THAT is the difference....I am proud of the United States, and I have NO desire to try to be like some of the OTHER countries....the basic concept of free enterprise and our Constitution makes us the Greatest in the World....in my opinion...
Quote from: me on May 22, 2009, 08:50:12 AM
What do they have to do with anything?
(http://keithgrossman.com/typing.gif)
You said "these companies are struggling to stay solvent yet congress wants them to put out more money still." These are two of the most well-known recently failed companies. We can talk about Bank of America or Wells Fargo/WaMu if you prefer. The point is their insolvency was not caused by the "generous" benefits they provided to their employees, but by the unmitigated greed of the board of directors and the shareholders. These companies were cutting benefits even as they stuffed the Christmas stockings of the already-wealthy with cash.
I'm losing patience. If that isn't what you were talking about, what
were you talking about???
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 22, 2009, 09:24:34 AM
Actually, I was more referring to vacation time....
Vacation time? That's nickel and dime stuff. In fact, the new thrust (among caring companies) is to allow employees to sell back vacation time, and thereby bank a week or two of extra pay. After all, you can't eat a vacation, or trade it to a hospital for treatment.
Quote from: Gryphon on May 22, 2009, 09:26:10 AM
is there a law mandating vacation time?
No. There is also no law mandating sick leave or holiday pay. There
is a law requiring companies to pay time and a half for all hours worked over forty in one pay period. Hence the sudden popularity of employing more part-timers.
Quote from: LOsborne on May 22, 2009, 06:52:41 PM
(http://keithgrossman.com/typing.gif)
You said "these companies are struggling to stay solvent yet congress wants them to put out more money still." These are two of the most well-known recently failed companies. We can talk about Bank of America or Wells Fargo/WaMu if you prefer. The point is their insolvency was not caused by the "generous" benefits they provided to their employees, but by the unmitigated greed of the board of directors and the shareholders. These companies were cutting benefits even as they stuffed the Christmas stockings of the already-wealthy with cash.
I'm losing patience. If that isn't what you were talking about, what were you talking about???
Did it ever occur to you I might not be referring to those companies since they, in all likely hood, already give paid vacations?
Quote from: me on May 22, 2009, 08:15:56 PM
Did it ever occur to you I might not be referring to those companies since they, in all likely hood, already give paid vacations?
No it didn't, since we weren't talking about vacations at the time, but about health insurance, retirement plans, and raises. Henry didn't raise the point about vacations until the post
after the one of yours I quoted.
But if you were not referring to these companies, which companies that do not offer paid vacations were you referring to? Name me one, which employs more than 100 workers, that does not already offer paid vacations?
Quote from: me on May 22, 2009, 09:52:39 AM
Obviously published by a union...
Which union is that
me?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_These_Times#History
I'm starting to believe Ex. You just make it up as you go along, don't you?
Henry's post:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 21, 2009, 12:39:37 PM
NOW, congress has the bright idea of Paid Vacation Act (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22794.html) ... to make paid vacation time a requirement under federal law!.....congress SUCKS!! folks.............NOW, they want to continue to instruct the entreprenuers of this Country HOW to run their business..... :no: AMAZING!!! :no:
My post:
Quote from: me on May 21, 2009, 08:04:48 PM
So let me see, these companies are struggling to stay solvent yet congress wants them to put out more money still.....Can you say company goes out of business because they can't afford the extra costs being cast upon them and everybody loses? Look what the unions have done for the auto industry.
If you will notice Henry's post was well before mine.
If most companies with more than 100 employees are already giving some form or paid vacation why does the government even need to intervene? One more step towards socialism.... :rolleyes:
Quote from: LOsborne on May 22, 2009, 09:12:06 PM
Which union is that me?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_These_Times#History
I'm starting to believe Ex. You just make it up as you go along, don't you?
All of them. They started out as a good thing yes but have gotten greedy and only care about themselves and are not really helping the worker IMO. They use bully tactics if a company don't want to unionize and the bottom line is they want the money period. They could actually give a shit less about the workers.
Quote from: me on May 22, 2009, 09:16:01 PM
Henry's post:
My post: If you will notice Henry's post was well before mine.
I apologize
me. Since the conversation had moved to include the much more costly benefits of insurance, retirement, and cost of living raises, I thought that is what you were referring to. I should realize that not everyone reads posts at the same time and in the same order as I do. I hope you can forgive me for being snotty.
Quote from: me on May 22, 2009, 09:24:14 PM
All of them. They started out as a good thing yes but have gotten greedy and only care about themselves and are not really helping the worker IMO. They use bully tactics if a company don't want to unionize and the bottom line is they want the money period. They could actually give a shit less about the workers.
I tend to agree with you about union tactics in most cases, but I was asking which union published the article in
In These Times.
Quote from: LOsborne on May 23, 2009, 08:50:47 AM
I apologize me. Since the conversation had moved to include the much more costly benefits of insurance, retirement, and cost of living raises, I thought that is what you were referring to. I should realize that not everyone reads posts at the same time and in the same order as I do. I hope you can forgive me for being snotty.
No problem, I'm easy and it's not as if I never make a mistake myself. :smile:
Thank you. :-*
Barney Frank, in his normal prime fashion... (http://www.breitbart.tv/html/359043.html)
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 11, 2009, 12:37:43 PM
Barney Frank, in his normal prime fashion... (http://www.breitbart.tv/html/359043.html)
He sure don't like to answer questions does he? I think we're talking major dweeb here.... :yes:
Boxer, the U.S. Senator, Chides Brigadier General for Calling Her 'Ma'am'
(http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/18/sen-boxer-chides-brigadier-general-calling-maam/)
The feisty California lawmaker reminds an Army brigadier general of her title after he has the apparent gall to call her "ma'am." ...
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 18, 2009, 12:18:02 PM
Boxer, the U.S. Senator, Chides Brigadier General for Calling Her 'Ma'am'
(http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/18/sen-boxer-chides-brigadier-general-calling-maam/)
The feisty California lawmaker reminds an Army brigadier general of her title after he has the apparent gall to call her "ma'am." ...
Talk about attitude..... :rolleyes:
Rep. Brian Baird (D., Wash.) took a four-day trip to the Galápagos Islands with his wife, four other lawmakers and their family members. The lawmakers spent $22,000 on meals and hotels...
Sen. Daniel Inouye (D., Hawaii) led a group of a half-dozen senators and their spouses on a four-day trip to France for the biennial Paris Air Show. An itinerary for the event shows that lawmakers flew on the Air Force's version of the Boeing 737, which costs $5,700 an hour to operate. They stayed at the Intercontinental Paris Le Grand Hotel, which advertises rooms from $460 a night...
Rep. Bud Cramer (R., Ala.) spent two weeks in Europe on government business. Reports show that Mr. Cramer spent $5,700 on hotels, meals and incidentals. Mr. Cramer wasn't running for re-election and left office just two months later...
Congress SUCKS!!!... (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124650399438184235.html) :rant:
I was worried you might not get a Republican in there.
Quote from: pariann on July 02, 2009, 08:48:08 AM
I was worried you might not get a Republican in there.
Hey, they ALL suck.....some just more than others..but they ALL suck....I am so SICK and TIRED of our money being misused and trashed.
Politics. ick.
HH posted:
"Sen. Daniel Inouye (D., Hawaii) led a group of a half-dozen senators and their spouses on a four-day trip to France for the biennial Paris Air Show. An itinerary for the event shows that lawmakers flew on the Air Force's version of the Boeing 737, which costs $5,700 an hour to operate. They stayed at the Intercontinental Paris Le Grand Hotel, which advertises rooms from $460 a night..."
Not that it has anything to do w/anything Henry, but did you know he is the recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor?
Govt to suspend 'cash for clunkers'... (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99P2U9G1&show_article=1)...$96 million dollar has already been spent.....
this was maybe the stupidest program that gov has ever done...... :no:
House democrats (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99OUTF03&show_article=1) have declined to subpoena available records that might reveal whether other members of congress got discounted VIP mortgages from subprime lender Countrywide Financial Corps'....
:rant:
A cowboy named Bud was overseeing his herd in a remote mountainous pasture
in California
when suddenly a brand-new BMW advanced toward him out of a cloud of dust.
The driver, a young man in a Brioni suit, Gucci shoes, RayBan sunglasses
and YSL tie, leaned out the window and asked the cowboy, "If I tell you
exactly how many cows and calves you have in your herd, Will you give me
a calf?"
Bud looks at the man, obviously a yuppie, then looks at his peacefully
grazing herd and calmly answers, "Sure, Why not?
The yuppie parks his car, whips out his Dell notebook computer, connects
it to his Cingular RAZR V3 cell phone, and surfs to a NASA page on the
Internet, where he calls up a GPS satellite to get an exact fix on his
location which he then feeds to another NASA satellite that scans the !
area in an ultra-high-resolution photo.
The young man then opens the digital photo in Adobe Photoshop and exports
it to an image processing facility in Hamburg , Germany ..
Within seconds, he receives an email on his Palm Pilot that the image has
been processed and the data stored. He then accesses an MS-SQL database
through an ODBC connected Excel spreadsheet with email on his Blackberry
and, after a few minutes, receives a response.
Finally, he prints out a full-color, 150-page report on his hi-tech,
miniaturized HP LaserJet printer, turns to the cowboy and says, "You have
exactly 1,586 cows and calves."
"That's right. Well, I guess you can take one of my calves," says Bud.
He watches the young man select one of the animals and looks on with
amusement as the young man stuffs it into the trunk of his car.
Then Bud says to the young man, "Hey, if I can tell you exactly what your
business is, will you give me back my calf?"
The young man thinks about it for a second and then says, "Okay, why not?"
"You're a Congressman for the U.S. Government", says Bud.
"Wow! That's correct," says the yuppie, "but how did you guess that?"
"No guessing required." answered the cowboy. "You showed up here even
though nobody called you; you want to get paid for an answer I already
knew, to a question I never asked. You used millions of dollars worth of
equipment trying to show me how much smarter than me you are; and you
don't know a thing about how working people make a living - or about
cows, for that matter. This is a herd of sheep. ..
Now give me back my dog
;D
:biggrin:
Excellent, Kimmi.
:biggrin:
I thought you guys would enjoy that! :razz:
Quote from: Exterminator on April 23, 2009, 04:45:42 PM
You call this thread Congress sucks but you are concentrating only on democrats as though no republicans have their hands in the cookie jar. It's you who sucks.
Our two party system is a ruse as they are one party with two wings. They all suck. It's funny, the right accuses the left of wanting to shove socialized medicine down people's throats, but it is the right that wants socialized medicine in their actions on schiavo, abortion, et al. Crazy. The only difference in the two is one side acts socialistic, the other are fascists.
Quote from: dan foster on August 02, 2009, 10:25:10 AM
Our two party system is a ruse as they are one party with two wings. They all suck. It's funny, the right accuses the left of wanting to shove socialized medicine down people's throats, but it is the right that wants socialized medicine in their actions on schiavo, abortion, et al. Crazy. The only difference in the two is one side acts socialistic, the other are fascists.
Dan I agree with you on this...they BOTH DO suck....there are a handful of decent ones on BOTH sides, but the by far, dramatically SUCK....On Schiavo, I completely understood the STATE's action to NOT intervene...IN MOST cases....but in this one in particular, there was enough speculative, evidence to investigate the husbands motives...the bottom line though, I agreed with the State and there should have been NO intervention. If falls back unto a Christian value, when a father GIVES away his daughter in the hands of matrimony, he gave up his rights of her, to her Husband.....I think parents should take this part of life more serious than they now do.
All the Schiavo case showed was the willingness of a group of assholes to go to great lengths in using their religion as a justification to stick their noses into other people's business.
Quote from: Locutus on August 02, 2009, 06:39:55 PM
All the Schiavo case showed was the willingness of a group of assholes to go to great lengths in using their religion as a justification to stick their noses into other people's business.
...in a good old fascist way.
Quote from: Locutus on August 02, 2009, 06:39:55 PM
All the Schiavo case showed was the willingness of a group of assholes to go to great lengths in using their religion as a justification to stick their noses into other people's business.
in most situations i would agree, but this case had some other ramifications to it....i think there was a greedy husband with blood on his fingers....but, it is water under the bridge....btw, there was plenty of assholes on the other side of this issue also.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 02, 2009, 06:25:13 PM
....but in this one in particular, there was enough speculative, evidence to investigate the husbands motives...
Oh, bullshit...this is just more of the same crap you constantly parrot from Rush Limbaugh, et. al. The woman's brain was jello...she was dead.
Quote from: Exterminator on August 03, 2009, 08:26:09 AM
Oh, bullshit...this is just more of the same crap you constantly parrot from Rush Limbaugh, et. al. The woman's brain was jello...she was dead.
you have a manufactured answer for this one....you fell for the typical liberal view on this...despite there was a $800,000 trust fund that here husband, conveniently would receive AFTER her death....and there were 40 medical affidavits that was submitted to the court, which supported that she was not in a PVS....she was NOT dying, she had NO terminal disease or condition....she had no all rehab or therapy since 1992, because her husband had it stopped....the court SHOULD, in this case, stepped in and gave her an opportunity at more therapy, instead of STARVING her to death.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 03, 2009, 09:08:06 AM
you have a manufactured answer for this one....you fell for the typical liberal view on this...despite there was a $800,000 trust fund that here husband, conveniently would receive AFTER her death....and there were 40 medical affidavits that was submitted to the court, which supported that she was not in a PVS....she was NOT dying, she had NO terminal disease or condition....she had no all rehab or therapy since 1992, because her husband had it stopped....the court SHOULD, in this case, stepped in and gave her an opportunity at more therapy, instead of STARVING her to death.
She was
dead, you freakin' moron! (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8225637/)
Quote from: Exterminator on August 03, 2009, 10:15:56 AM
She was dead, you freakin' moron! (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8225637/)
Neurologists (http://www.medpagetoday.com/tbindex.cfm?tbid=789) disagree you ignorant slut...
:spooked:
Hi pari... :)
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 03, 2009, 10:52:41 AM
Neurologists (http://www.medpagetoday.com/tbindex.cfm?tbid=789) disagree you ignorant slut...
And they were wrong, you ignorant redneck; the autopsy conclusively proved that her brain couldn't have any sort of function anymore because it wasn't f@cking there. To continue to argue this point when all of the facts are known only proves what has already been well established...that your thought processes are more about your uninformed, knee-jerk reactions than about fact and/or logic.
Quote from: Exterminator on August 03, 2009, 10:15:56 AM
She was dead, you freakin' moron!
I can't believe that this subject is still up for debate even after the autopsy was performed. A picture is worth a thousand words.
(http://i28.tinypic.com/5fnimb.png)
The woman was for all intents and purposes dead. The only people who still to this day contest that are the religious nuts. Another example of my other thread. God sucks and his followers suck even more.
And the fact that Congress attempted to intervene in a gross display of government overreach by the Republican dominated Congress shows that Congress sucks too! :mad:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 03, 2009, 09:08:06 AM
you have a manufactured answer for this one....you fell for the typical liberal view on this...despite there was a $800,000 trust fund that here husband, conveniently would receive AFTER her death
And all it takes is a bit of research to debunk this BS.
Quote
On March 11, 2005, media tycoon Robert Herring (who believes that stem cell research could have cured Schiavo's condition) offered $1 million to Michael Schiavo if he agreed to cede his guardianship to his wife's parents. He made the offer via Gloria Allred.[77] The offer was rejected; George Felos, attorney for Michael Schiavo, described it as offensive, adding that Michael had rejected other monetary offers, including one of $10 million.
Michael Schiavo clearly was
not acting out of greed.
There WAS and IS plenty of evidence supporting that he was a 'scum'....
it doesn't mean a hill of beans now....and I agree, that the State should NOT be able to stick it's nose into personal business, such as this....but, there WAS evidence and affidavits with reasons to believe that there was something foul going on.....
I didn't believe or trush anything this guy had to say.
Have I already mentioned today that you can't fix stupid?
Quote from: Exterminator on August 03, 2009, 02:31:25 PM
Have I already mentioned today that you can't fix stupid?
Apparently not. What I also find interesting about this is that most of those who opine so obnoxiously on this subject have never even read the autopsy report. Personally, I read the
entire thing start to finish.
Quote from: Locutus on August 03, 2009, 03:28:34 PM
Apparently not. What I also find interesting about this is that most of those who opine so obnoxiously on this subject have never even read the autopsy report. Personally, I read the entire thing start to finish.
Much in the same way that most who opine so obnoxiously on the subject of the bible and insist so vehemently on its veracity have never read it either.
Bingo! :biggrin:
Here's a link to the full autopsy report for anyone who feels so inclined.
Schiavo Autopsy Report (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0615051terri1.html)
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 03, 2009, 02:08:07 PM
There WAS and IS plenty of evidence supporting that he was a 'scum'....
Well, let's see some, Henry, since you persist in spreading this unflattering opinion of the man. Give us a source. First you will have to define "scum," of course. I'm curious what led you to this conclusion, since the monetary motive you originally offered has been quite thoroughly debunked.
Quote from: Exterminator on August 03, 2009, 02:31:25 PM
Have I already mentioned today that you can't fix stupid?
And yet we keep trying.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 02, 2009, 08:04:36 PM
in most situations i would agree, but this case had some other ramifications to it....i think there was a greedy husband with blood on his fingers....but, it is water under the bridge....btw, there was plenty of assholes on the other side of this issue also.
which you believed to be true, again from the same assholes that intervened. You just never learn, do you? Are you teachable, at all?
Quote from: dan foster on August 03, 2009, 07:51:46 PM
You just never learn, do you? Are you teachable, at all?
I'm guessing that these are rhetorical questions?
Quote from: Exterminator on August 04, 2009, 08:53:47 AM
I'm guessing that these are rhetorical questions?
sure. :smile:
Actually this read more like the summery of the autopsy than the full report. The few autopsies I have read were a little different. Maybe it is just it was written in a different state and they require different stats and forms? I think she was in a vegetative state. I hate feeding tubes. Once they are in it is extremely difficult to get them removed in some states and sometimes when the decision to put them in the family isn't given enough enformation or is too stressed to think right.
Quote from: Anne on August 04, 2009, 09:44:37 AM
Actually this read more like the summery of the autopsy than the full report. The few autopsies I have read were a little different. Maybe it is just it was written in a different state and they require different stats and forms? I think she was in a vegetative state. I hate feeding tubes. Once they are in it is extremely difficult to get them removed in some states and sometimes when the decision to put them in the family isn't given enough enformation or is too stressed to think right.
If you don't have the right to die, what rights do you have. I think Carlin said it best; "when rights can be taken away, they're privileges". We don't have any rights in the US.
Quote from: dan foster on August 04, 2009, 10:01:38 PM
If you don't have the right to die, what rights do you have. I think Carlin said it best; "when rights can be taken away, they're privileges". We don't have any rights in the US.
I dont believe I said she had no right to die, but we can all lose our right to die due to medical treatment and the wishes of our next of kin. People who are not able to communicate their wishes are at the mercy of the medical community, their next of kin and the legal system.
Quote from: Anne on August 04, 2009, 11:32:55 PM
I dont believe I said she had no right to die...
No, of course you didn't say that. But in effect, president Bush tried to get Congress to say it. But it seems his conviction could waver on the issue. He did nothing to stop Texas Children's Hospital from removing the breathing tube of Sun Hudson the same year, despite the mother's frantic pleas for help.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151448,00.html
It's enough to make ya think Bush and company had a much more passionate belief in the profit margin than in the sanctity of life.
Quote from: LOsborne on August 05, 2009, 07:44:19 AM
No, of course you didn't say that. But in effect, president Bush tried to get Congress to say it. But it seems his conviction could waver on the issue. He did nothing to stop Texas Children's Hospital from removing the breathing tube of Sun Hudson the same year, despite the mother's frantic pleas for help.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151448,00.html
It's enough to make ya think Bush and company had a much more passionate belief in the profit margin than in the sanctity of life.
Just as with any good republican, for bush the corp bottom line trumps all sensibilities.
$550 Million Slated for Purchase (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124960404730212955.html) of Eight More Planes as Lawmakers' Travel Soars....
Yeah, that's it Nancy....we got ALL sorts of money to spend... :yes:...CONGRESS SUCKS!!! :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant:
From your article:
This month, for example, 11 separate congressional delegations will swing through Germany. House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio is leading five other lawmakers on a trip around the world. Sen. Richard Shelby (R., Ala.) is taking a group of senators and their spouses to Europe for three weeks.
So why are you blaming Pelosi? As speaker, she doesn't even vote except to break ties.
Quote from: LOsborne on August 07, 2009, 10:04:36 PM
From your article:
This month, for example, 11 separate congressional delegations will swing through Germany. House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio is leading five other lawmakers on a trip around the world. Sen. Richard Shelby (R., Ala.) is taking a group of senators and their spouses to Europe for three weeks.
So why are you blaming Pelosi? As speaker, she doesn't even vote except to break ties.
She is the one who is suppose to set the tempo.....she was the one who was going to clean up washington........and btw, they ALL suck...CONGRESS!!....$550 Million for this.......they SHOULD be flying coach...the SUCK!!!.. :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant:
i'm in PISSY mood tonight!!! :no:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 07, 2009, 10:09:42 PM
She is the one who is suppose to set the tempo.....she was the one who was going to clean up washington......
I'm no fan of Pelosi, but I don't see any reports of her taking a bunch of people around the world, or throwing a house party in Europe for a few dozen of her closest friends on the taxpayer dime. If you're going to sling sh*t, spread it evenly.
Quotethey SHOULD be flying coach...
They should be staying home! And talking to their constituents!
Quote from: LOsborne on August 07, 2009, 10:15:44 PM
I'm no fan of Pelosi, but I don't see any reports of her taking a bunch of people around the world, or throwing a house party in Europe for a few dozen of her closest friends on the taxpayer dime. If you're going to sling sh*t, spread it evenly.
They should be staying home! And talking to their constituents!
I am more than happy to sling sh!t evenly....but the balance is so far off right now......THEY ALL SUCK! I have said that a zillion times....but, and I agree, it should be mandatory that THESE dickweeds STAY home this recess, and start listening to their constituents!....THEY SUCK!....and I am seriously f'ng fed up!!.. :rant:
:rant:10 members of Congress went diving and snorkeling at the Great Barrier Reef (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124967502810515267.html) :rant:
The 11-day trip -- with six spouses traveling along as well -- took place over New Year's 2008. Details are only now coming to light as part of a Wall Street Journal analysis piecing together the specifics of the excursion.
It's tough to calculate the travel bills racked up by members of Congress, but one thing's for sure: They use a lot of airplanes. In recent days, House of Representatives members allocated $550 million to upgrade the fleet of luxury Air Force jets used for trips like these -- even though the Defense Department says it doesn't need all the planes.
The South Pole trip, led by Rep. Brian Baird (D., Wash.), ranks among the priciest. The lawmakers reported a cost to taxpayers of $103,000.
Charlie Rangle HIDES income and assets... (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203706604574376720192072820.html)..he is a crook.. :yes:
And these are the people we want in charge of health care?????? :rolleyes:
Quote from: me on August 28, 2009, 09:05:05 PM
And these are the people we want in charge of health care?????? :rolleyes:
well of course we can trust these guys...they only want what is best for us...and they know better than we do, what is best for us.... :yes: :rolleyes:
Quote from: me on August 28, 2009, 09:05:05 PM
And these are the people we want in charge of health care?????? :rolleyes:
You idiot. Congress has gov't sponsored health care. They don't need yours, too. It would be nice to have gov't health care insurance for all, so insurance companies and their financial sectors aren't driving cost up in order to pay some fucking CEO a bonus of 10's of $M. You guys really are the dumbest lot, ever.
And you actually think we would get the same good care they are getting? :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Quote from: me on August 28, 2009, 09:15:17 PM
And you actually think we would get the same good care they are getting? :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
You would get the same care you have now, dummie. I have gov't health care INSURANCE. I see the same doctors you do, if you have insurance. I see anyone I want. Are you really that dense?
Me, it doesn't do any good to argue with these guys.....IF, Obama gets his way...they WILL soon understand what we have been TRYING to tell them.... :yes:
I know but then it will be too late. They have paid no attention at all to who the czar's are and what they stand for and believe nor do they even realize who drafted the health care bill, it wasn't anyone in congress or Obama, and they just plain won't listen or read. Don't give up though Hank that's the easy way out and the way we get beat down. They won't ask the questions so we have to.
How can you argue the points of a bill that you haven't read? Henry claims that he has but hasn't been able to argue a single point except one or two taken out of context.
I find your attempts at disinformation and back-patting quite humorous. :biggrin:
How much of it have you read? How much of it have you questioned? Do you know who drafted it? How did a bill that large get drafted so quickly after the election? Why aren't the people who are voting on it not reading it? Why is there such a rush all of a sudden? Didn't seem that important when Bush was President, or at least congress didn't think so.
Quote from: me on August 28, 2009, 10:50:45 PM
How much of it have you read? How much of it have you questioned? Do you know who drafted it? How did a bill that large get drafted so quickly after the election? Why aren't the people who are voting on it not reading it? Why is there such a rush all of a sudden? Didn't seem that important when Bush was President, or at least congress didn't think so.
All; I'm a contrarian so I question everything, the difference is that I read further and/or do some research to satisfy my curiosity rather than depend on a talking head or a like-minded forum individual to do the thinking for me; and this is important because....; again, the importance of this is....; and I'm sure you have proof that they are not reading this; where have you been, universal health care has been a major topic of discussion since the early to mid-2000's that I recall and technically earlier than that, so the rush is in your head; The only thing Bush and Co cared about was propagating fear and bastardizing the tragedy of 9/11 to convince the American public the war in Iraq was justified. They didn't spend a lot of time working on other important issues which would actually be good for the American citizens. Had this been introduced by Bush then I imagine that you and your sidekick would be lapping it up like gravy. Although there was little chance of that happening since it appears that 1)Bush couldn't care less about the American people 2)There wasn't any future profit potential for Bush and Co in health care and 3) he probably can't read.
That's what you've been told. Bush tried to fix Social Security and they said it wasn't broke, he tried to do something about Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac and Barney Franks and that bunch said there was nothing wrong. They passed his no child left behind and then wouldn't fund it. They filibustered, and did all sorts of things to keep things Bush tried to do from getting done.
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on August 28, 2009, 10:15:48 PM
How can you argue the points of a bill that you haven't read? Henry claims that he has but hasn't been able to argue a single point except one or two taken out of context.
I find your attempts at disinformation and back-patting quite humorous. :biggrin:
Name ONE that I, HENRY, has taken out of context........Please, if you do, I will back up my claim.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 29, 2009, 11:52:51 AM
Name ONE that I, HENRY, has taken out of context........Please, if you do, I will back up my claim.
You don't read so you don't think anyone else does.
http://theunknownzone.us/smf/index.php?topic=15404.195
Quote from: me on August 29, 2009, 07:14:26 AM
That's what you've been told. Bush tried to fix Social Security and they said it wasn't broke, he tried to do something about Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac and Barney Franks and that bunch said there was nothing wrong. They passed his no child left behind and then wouldn't fund it. They filibustered, and did all sorts of things to keep things Bush tried to do from getting done.
No, it's not what I've been told. My comment is based on the fact that I've been living here in the United States and paying attention.
So then you're just being stubborn when you disagree with Henry and me.
Quote from: me on August 29, 2009, 02:11:16 PM
So then you're just being stubborn when you disagree with Henry and me.
No
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on August 29, 2009, 01:31:35 PM
You don't read so you don't think anyone else does.
http://theunknownzone.us/smf/index.php?topic=15404.195
what are you talking about?....I asked you to show me where, I, took one out of context....you are being a typical pompus liberal ass, when YOU think that YOU guys are the only ones that read or educated....Just because EX, is so full of shit and insists that HE know's what he is talking about, and those who disagree with him are douche' bags....PLEASE don't lower yourself to his level....I have WAY more respect for you than that Sandy...
just show me where I took one of the proposed laws and took it out of context....and I will show you proof of my remarks....and I, too am living here in the United States, and I am witnessing first hand of the people getting pissed off at this POTUS, because of his actions....along with the spend, spend, spend congress....all you have to do is turn on the news....something OTHER than MSNBC.....the people are getting tired of what is going on....it is NOT a bunch of "bused in" actors....theses are REAL, everyday hard working Americans....they don't want this proposed healthcare bill............look at the plummeting support that the POTUS has on this.....
Like I have said before, time is going to tell the truth.... ;) :yes:
I admire Ex's patience.
LOL.... I'm sorry, that struck me as funny.
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on August 29, 2009, 10:35:40 PM
I admire Ex's patience.
Me too. And his calm and understated manner of banging his head against the brick wall when trying get a point across.
I hadn't noticed that Ex even had a point except the one on his head.... :biggrin:
Quote from: me on August 30, 2009, 12:40:18 PM
I hadn't noticed that Ex even had a point except the one on his head.... :biggrin:
Does he also have a dog named Arrow?
Don't know, might want to ask about that..... :biggrin:
:eek: I wouldn't be asking him about having dogs right now.
Guess that wouldn't be such a good idea. Wasn't meaning to be thoughtless there.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 29, 2009, 08:37:34 PM
Just because EX, is so full of shit and insists that HE know's what he is talking about...
I don't know how I got brought into this conversation but now that you mention it, at least I know how to read (and the rules of basic, 2nd grade punctuation).
I know how you were brought into this conversation. It made me giggle. LOL
Actually, Henry dragged him into it and because of Henry's comment, I simply commented on Ex's patience. Honestly, I was serious. The inanity of it all keeps me from commenting in political threads very often anymore because it's actually kinda disturbing. I think I lost my patience a long time ago. ;)
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on August 31, 2009, 05:31:39 PM
Actually, Henry dragged him into it and because of Henry's comment, I simply commented on Ex's patience. Honestly, I was serious. The inanity of it all keeps me from commenting in political threads very often anymore because it's actually kinda disturbing. I think I lost my patience a long time ago. ;)
Sandy, it was YOU who made a comment that I "don't read"...that started this....as long as you have known me, I always have supported my beliefs with a link...it was you that taught me to do this...just because YOU don't agree with my link should mean that I should just stop interacting....it seems to me, that the liberals on here, don't want discussion, they want 'YES' people to agree with EVERYTHING they want.....just like congress is doing....they think they can put a bill out there and just expect the people to agree with it, without any recourse....and they REALLY got it wrong this time....the people, plain and simple do NOT agree with this POTUS on healthcare.....
and EX is the one who has to get nasty and make it personal EVERYTIME....I have simply allowed myself to go to his level and call names....and for that, I apologize and I am trying MY best to NOT go down that road anymore....I don't like it...I thought it was a mutual 'fun - ribbing' between him and I, but then he attacked my family...and not one person on here seemed to think that HE was going to far (he was just being patient)....but it is Henry, that is making that poor soul bust his head on the wall because I will NOT agree with his misinformed ideology.
Quote from: followsthewolf on August 31, 2009, 09:43:00 AM
What's The Point? ;)
WTF, you and I seem to be the only ones who get the inside jokes.
Thank Coyote someone does!
Quote from: LOsborne on August 31, 2009, 06:48:50 PM
WTF, you and I seem to be the only ones who get the inside jokes. Thank Coyote someone does!
okay.....duh!...I had to google this.......and NOW............................I GET IT!!!... :yes:
a boy named Oblio, the only round-headed person in the Pointed Village, where by law everyone and everything had to have a point.
Quote from: LOsborne on August 31, 2009, 06:48:50 PM
WTF, you and I seem to be the only ones who get the inside jokes. Thank Coyote someone does!
Ayuh, always was known as the guardian of all things pointless (bad pun) and useless.
And I never did know whether Coyote was the messenger or the creator. I'm so confused!
Like I said -- woulda probably been fun! :trustme: :blues: :clap:
It's a piece of trivial knowledge that apparently my brain felt no need to attempt to retain. <shrug>
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 31, 2009, 06:09:52 PM
Sandy, it was YOU who made a comment that I "don't read"...that started this....as long as you have known me, I always have supported my beliefs with a link...it was you that taught me to do this...just because YOU don't agree with my link should mean that I should just stop interacting
You only provide links which support your opinion, nevermind if they're opinion or fact. You seem to make the assumption that those which support your personal beliefs, must be factual and everything else is liberal media.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 31, 2009, 06:09:52 PM
....it seems to me, that the liberals on here, don't want discussion, they want 'YES' people to agree with EVERYTHING they want
By no means do I represent the "liberals on here", but I'd love a good discussion. I don't care if anyone agrees with me, but it would be nice if they at least tried to keep it honest. Twisting the facts or attempting to pass off opinion as fact is dishonest. I see a lot of that, but I'm not going to point an fingers.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 31, 2009, 06:09:52 PM
.....just like congress is doing....they think they can put a bill out there and just expect the people to agree with it, without any recourse
I assume you have a link to support this belief?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 31, 2009, 06:09:52 PM
....and they REALLY got it wrong this time....the people, plain and simple do NOT agree with this POTUS on healthcare.....
O'rly? You speak for "the people" collectively or just your fellow teabaggers?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 31, 2009, 06:09:52 PM
and EX is the one who has to get nasty and make it personal EVERYTIME
It's starting to seem like you have a lil' man crush on Ex.
You insert him, in one way or another, regardless of who you're addressing. That was my previous point. You inserted something about Ex in a comment to me. He wasn't even involved in that discussion. Yes, I said that you don't read. What's that got to do w/Ex? The difference is that I think you can read but refuse to acknowledge reality in direct conflict of your beliefs. Which makes you appear obtuse. I can't speak for Ex, but I get the impression he thinks you simply can't read. :biggrin:
At any rate, my comments are my own, borne from years of participation and observation in discussion forums and I can't answer for others.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 31, 2009, 06:09:52 PM
....I have simply allowed myself to go to his level and call names....and for that, I apologize and I am trying MY best to NOT go down that road anymore....I don't like it...I thought it was a mutual 'fun - ribbing' between him and I, but then he attacked my family...and not one person on here seemed to think that HE was going to far (he was just being patient)....but it is Henry, that is making that poor soul bust his head on the wall because I will NOT agree with his misinformed ideology.
Henry, you'll always be my favorite right wing conservative, but it seems like you're projecting your own traits on others. The predictability is maddening. You say someone else has misinformed ideology because they don't agree with you. For you, it doesn't need to go any further than that. Again, it seems to be about what you want to believe regardless of the evidence.
I just find myself wondering what an honest and open-minded discussion about the pros and cons of an issue would be like.
QuoteI just find myself wondering what an honest and open-minded discussion about the pros and cons of an issue would be like.
I wish I could help you out. I'm just no good at debate. I know just enough to question, and never enough to form a solid opinion.
THE CONGRESS NOT ONLY SUCKS. IT HAS SURVIVED ITS OWN CREMATION!
HOW? *i* HAVE NO IDEA. A STUPID ELECTORATE *i* guess!
an electorate that thinks more about self than country!
an electorate that will only be awakened by their own loss of what most of AMERICA has already lost!
an electorate that is more about ideology than THIS REPUBLIC!
an electorate that is more about self than THESE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ITS FUTURE!
YES! the congress sucks!
BUT, those who elect them repeatedly and REDUNDANTLY suck even MORE!
FUCK THE CONGRESS AND THE ELECTORATE who think more about self than THESE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!
FUCK THE WHOLE BUNCH OF STUPID SONS OF BITCHES!
don carter
ANDERSON INDIANA USA
Well said Don
Quotefrom Henry: ...but then he attacked my family...and not one person on here seemed to think that HE was going to far (he was just being patient)
I must have missed that one. I agree that going after the opponent's family is over the top. However, I don't think generic comments like "Your kids must be as dumb as you" count as going after family. That kind of remark is just a place holder, while the poster thinks up something of substance. And I guess I didn't have my tongue far enough in my cheek on that "beating his head against a brick wall" thing. You didn't notice it. Either that, or you thought I had the mumps! But thanks for looking up Oblio and Arrow. Now you need to give yourself a real treat and listen to the album. It's Nilsson's
The Point for the rest of you Philistines.
Quotefrom FTW (see, I got it right this time): And I never did know whether Coyote was the messenger or the creator.
I never figgered it mattered much whether Coyote was the Mouthpiece or the Enforcer ... it was still a bad idea to cross Him.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 31, 2009, 06:09:52 PM
...his misinformed ideology.
LMMFAO! My, but you are delusional...can't quite figure out when to use 'were' instead of 'was' but think you've got something as complicated as national policy all figured out. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Exterminator on September 01, 2009, 08:02:03 AM
LMMFAO! My, but you are delusional...can't quite figure out when to use 'were' instead of 'was' but think you've got something as complicated as national policy all figured out. :rolleyes:
Must be nice to be perfect and never make mistakes or have to go back and edit your post's because you misspelled a word or used the wrong one.....Too bad you'll never know how that is Ex. :biggrin:
Quote from: me on September 01, 2009, 11:10:49 AM
Must be nice to be perfect and never make mistakes or have to go back and edit your post's because you misspelled a word or used the wrong one.....Too bad you'll never know how that is Ex. :biggrin:
Misspelling a word or making a typo is a completely different circumstance from not knowing the right word in the first place but it's no surprise that the distinction eludes you. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Exterminator on September 01, 2009, 11:32:11 AM
Misspelling a word or making a typo is a completely different circumstance from not knowing the right word in the first place but it's no surprise that the distinction eludes you. :rolleyes:
You're so funny Ex. Use of words is not a mark of a persons intelligence. Also constantly correcting someone is a mark of needing to feel superior because of a lack of self confidence in yourself and needing to deflect since you don't have anything useful to contribute to a conversation.
Quote from: me on September 01, 2009, 11:53:08 AM
You're so funny Ex. Use of words is not a mark of a persons intelligence. Also constantly correcting someone is a mark of needing to feel superior because of a lack of self confidence in yourself and needing to deflect since you don't have anything useful to contribute to a conversation.
Those were my very thoughts.....and have been for very long time....that along with all the personal attacks.....but, I'm not saying nothing.... :lipsrsealed2:
Quote from: me on September 01, 2009, 11:53:08 AM
You're so funny Ex. Use of words is not a mark of a persons intelligence. Also constantly correcting someone is a mark of needing to feel superior because of a lack of self confidence in yourself and needing to deflect since you don't have anything useful to contribute to a conversation.
Hey now...that would be ME!! :wink:
I'm sorry, but it's not so much about knowing which word to use as it is about elementary level grammar. To me the concept seems similar to hygiene, both are very basic and tell you a lot about a person.
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on September 01, 2009, 01:10:41 PM
I'm sorry, but it's not so much about knowing which word to use as it is about elementary level grammar. To me the concept seems similar to hygiene, both are very basic and tell you a lot about a person.
well for me, this is not a grammer test, it is a forum, where I ...throw down some thoughts and move on....I am not here to impress anyone with my grammer. I have no problem using proper english when I HAVE to. I construct daily emails and letters to clients and customers, and have done so for several years.....This is a typical liberal snob's response...if you ask me. Btw, I shower daily, brush and floss, and ALWAYS wash behind my ears... ;) :razz:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on September 01, 2009, 12:00:30 PM
Those were my very thoughts.....and have been for very long time....that along with all the personal attacks.....but, I'm not saying nothing.... :lipsrsealed2:
Correct, not saying nothing would mean that you are saying something and you did.
Quote from: me on September 01, 2009, 11:53:08 AM
You're so funny Ex. Use of words is not a mark of a persons intelligence.
I'm sure that belief has served you well in job interviews. :rolleyes:
QuoteAlso constantly correcting someone is a mark of needing to feel superior because of a lack of self confidence in yourself and needing to deflect since you don't have anything useful to contribute to a conversation.
No, and I have explained this a thousand times...once more for the cheap seats...literacy affects how you interpret the written word. Someone who is less literate is more likely to misconstrue the original intent of an article or book than someone who reads well. You prove this all of the time with your misguided interpretation of the world around you. :razz:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on September 01, 2009, 01:19:04 PM
I am not here to impress anyone with my grammer.
* grammar
Give him a break....he might have been referring to his grandmother. :wink:
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on September 01, 2009, 01:10:41 PM
I'm sorry, but it's not so much about knowing which word to use as it is about elementary level grammar. To me the concept seems similar to hygiene, both are very basic and tell you a lot about a person.
Guess you would have pegged Einstein to be an idiot then huh?
Quote from: pariann on September 01, 2009, 01:41:42 PM
Give him a break....he might have been referring to his grandmother. :wink:
That is exactly RIGHT Pari... :yes:..as awsome as she is.....I will NOT use her to impress ANYONE!!..
Quote from: me on September 01, 2009, 01:50:03 PM
Guess you would have pegged Einstein to be an idiot then huh?
And you are implying what about Einstein, exactly? That you knew him and he used bad grammar? How long have you been fluent in his native German tongue?
Quote from: Exterminator on September 01, 2009, 02:01:44 PM
And you are implying what about Einstein, exactly? That you knew him and he used bad grammar? How long have you been fluent in his native German tongue?
He appeared to be rather disheveled and unkempt.
Kind of like a drunken homeless man, huh? LOL
Quote from: pariann on September 01, 2009, 02:28:24 PM
Kind of like a drunken homeless man, huh? LOL
Something to that effect.
That's just appearance though. I try to follow the saying, "you can't judge a book by its cover".
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on September 01, 2009, 01:10:41 PM
I'm sorry, but it's not so much about knowing which word to use as it is about elementary level grammar. To me the concept seems similar to hygiene, both are very basic and tell you a lot about a person.
Quote from: pariann on September 01, 2009, 04:48:51 PM
That's just appearance though. I try to follow the saying, "you can't judge a book by its cover".
Bingo!!!!!!!
Okay, if I didn't know anything about him, then I might have made a false assunption about his intellect, but then he would have opened his mouth to speak with grammatical correctness and I would've revised my opinion. :biggrin:
'Sides I was speaking more to odor/cleanliness more so than appearance. I judge books by their smell.
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on September 01, 2009, 06:37:13 PM
Okay, if I didn't know anything about him, then I might have made a false assunption about his intellect, but then he would have opened his mouth to speak with grammatical correctness and I would've revised my opinion. :biggrin:
'Sides I was speaking more to odor/cleanliness more so than appearance. I judge books by their smell.
Nuf said then huh?
That applied pages ago and you missed my point. When someone judges you because of what you put out there for the world to see in writing, then you can't claim someone is judging you by your cover.
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on September 01, 2009, 07:43:53 PM
That applied pages ago.
There ya go twistin' things again.
Quote from: me on September 01, 2009, 07:48:33 PM
There ya go twistin' things again.
No twist at all; you just don't get it. That is precisely my point as it relates to literacy.
No it's called read the fine print which I did.
WTF?
Reading and understanding the fine print. Not twisting things into what you think they are or want them to be but paying close attention to the fine print. Comprehension of what is actually being said or written. Knowing what the people who wrote it are all about and how they think and what they stand for. Congress did not write the bill they only put some of the amendments in. Only the health czar will have control over how it is handled not congress once it has passed. The health czar is not accountable to congress nor is he accountable to the people. He can do things however he wants. They are talking about making it mandatory to take the swine flu shot. I will have a problem with that because I was told I shouldn't take them because of an allergy to an ingredient used yet I will have to if it is made mandatory. Will I get treatment when I have a reaction to the shot? What will the reaction be? Yep the government knows best alright. :rolleyes:
Quote from: me on September 02, 2009, 11:05:43 AM
Reading and understanding the fine print. Not twisting things into what you think they are or want them to be but paying close attention to the fine print. Comprehension of what is actually being said or written. Knowing what the people who wrote it are all about and how they think and what they stand for. Congress did not write the bill they only put some of the amendments in. Only the health czar will have control over how it is handled not congress once it has passed. The health czar is not accountable to congress nor is he accountable to the people. He can do things however he wants. They are talking about making it mandatory to take the swine flu shot. I will have a problem with that because I was told I shouldn't take them because of an allergy to an ingredient used yet I will have to if it is made mandatory. Will I get treatment when I have a reaction to the shot? What will the reaction be? Yep the government knows best alright. :rolleyes:
You're lying; you didn't read a damn thing and it's obvious by the way you keep spouting the same old rhetoric over and over even after it's been proven to be false.
"Fine print" :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:
There is no fine print in the bill. It's all the same size.
Charlie Rangel..the chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, who forgot to disclose more than $600,000 in assets and thousands of dollars in income...has been given the thumbs up by Nancy Pelosi, to keep his post.............. :rolleyes:
Sweet; we need someone who knows how to save money in that post! :biggrin:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on September 02, 2009, 12:07:47 PM
Charlie Rangel..the chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, who forgot to disclose more than $600,000 in assets and thousands of dollars in income...has been given the thumbs up by Nancy Pelosi, to keep his post.............. :rolleyes:
Hum, too bad they didn't forgive Willy Nelson and some others like that. Ain't it strange how dems can just "forget" to pay their taxes and nothing happens?
After Attacking Bush During Periods Of Job Growth, And Pledging Their Stimulus Would Create Millions Of Jobs, Where's The Dems' Outrage?RNC CHAIRMAN MICHAEL STEELE: "For close to a full year the American people have been forced to watch and in many cases bear the burden of our ever increasing national unemployment rate which unfortunately remained in the double digits throughout the month of December. More than 85,000 Americans lost their jobs in the month of December, meaning more than 2.8 million Americans have lost their jobs since the stimulus passed, and the national unemployment rate remains at 10 percent. The American economy is a powerful and amazingly resilient system that will always naturally return to balance because of the determination and unique ingenuity of the American worker. But President Obama's singular focus on enacting his government-run liberal policies are single handily preventing this return. It's time for President Obama to heed the recent words of Democrat Senator Ben Nelson and finally do what he should have been doing over the past year – put his full and undivided attention on fixing our economy."
LEADING DEMS ATTACKED BUSH WHEN MILLIONS OF JOBS WERE BEING CREATED ...
In 2003, Over 87,000 Jobs Were Created. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov (http://www.bls.gov/), Accessed 1/6/10)
- But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) Criticized 2003 Job Creation As "Far From Enough." "The slight increase in jobs last month is wonderful news for 57,000 Americans. But the 2.1 million Americans who have been actively looking for work for more than two years ... know that it is far from enough ..." (Rep. Nancy Pelosi, "Pelosi: 'Slight Jobs Increase Far From Enough -- We Must Do More to Create Jobs and Growth,'" Press Release (http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/Oct03/MustDoMoreToCreateJobs100303.html), 10/3/03)
In 2004, Over 2 Million Jobs Were Created. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov (http://www.bls.gov/), Accessed 1/6/10)
- But In 2004, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) Claimed Bush "Created A Climate ... Where The Number of Jobs Is Not Growing." "This President has created a climate in this country where the number of jobs is not growing. It did not have to be that way." (Sen. Dick Durbin, Congressional Record, 10/08/04, p. S10764)
In 2005, Over 2.5 Million Jobs Were Created. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov (http://www.bls.gov/), Accessed 1/6/10)
- But Pelosi Called 2005 Job Creation Numbers "Anemic.""Today's anemic jobs numbers confirm that President Bush has still failed to create a single new private-sector job since he became President." (Rep. Nancy Pelosi, "Pelosi: 'Today's Anemic Jobs Numbers Confirm the Administration Has Failed to Create a Single New Private-Sector Job,'" Press Release (http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/June05/jobs.html), 6/3/05)
In 2006, Over 2.1 Million Jobs Were Created. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov (http://www.bls.gov/), Accessed 1/6/10)
- But Pelosi Claimed Bush Policies "Favored The Privileged Few At The Expense Of America's Working Families." (Rep. Nancy Pelosi, "Democrats Will Restore the Economic Security of America's Working Families," Press Release, 9/22/06)
By 2007, 5.7 Million Jobs Had Been Created Under Bush. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov (http://www.bls.gov/), Accessed 1/6/10)
- But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) Claimed Bush Had "Shameful History Of Losing American Jobs." (Sen. Harry Reid, "Reid: As Unemployment Reaches Two-year High, American Jobs Are The Latest Casualty Of Bush's Failed Economic Policies," Press Release, 1/4/08)
THEN PROMISED THEIR $787 BILLION STIMULUS WOULD CREATE MILLIONS OF JOBS
In February, Obama Signed $787 Billion Stimulus Bill, Claiming It Would "Fix The Economy." "President Obama on Tuesday signed the $787 billion stimulus package ... 'We have begun the essential work of keeping the American dream alive in our time,' Obama said, calling the legislation 'the beginning of the end' of what needed to be done to fix the economy." (Michael A. Fletcher, "Obama Leaves D.C. To Sign Stimulus Bill," The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/17/AR2009021700221.html), 2/18/09)
And Obama Pledged That Stimulus Would Create 3.5 Million Jobs By End Of 2010. "[W]hat makes this recovery plan so important is not just that it will create or save 3.5 million jobs over the next two years ..." (President Barack Obama, Remarks At The Signing Of The American Recovery And Reinvestment Act (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-and-Vice-President-at-Signing-of-the-American-Recovery-an/), Denver, CO, 2/17/09)
SO DEMS NEED TO CREATE 6.3 MILLION JOBS IN 2010 TO MEET THEIR OWN STANDARD, A LEVEL OF JOB GROWTH THAT HAS NEVER BEEN ACHIEVED
2.8 MILLION Jobs Lost Since Obama's Signed His $787 Billion Stimulus In February 2009. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov (http://www.bls.gov/), Accessed 12/10/09)
- Including 85,000 More Jobs Lost Last Month. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov (http://www.bls.gov/), Accessed 1/8/09)
In Addition To 3.5 MILLION Jobs Obama Promised Would Be Created By His $787 Billion Stimulus By December 2010. (President Barack Obama, Remarks At The Signing Of The American Recovery And Reinvestment Act (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-and-Vice-President-at-Signing-of-the-American-Recovery-an/), Denver, CO, 2/17/09)
That Equals 6.3 MILLION Jobs Dems Need To Create This Year Alone To Declare Economic Success, A Level Of Job Growth That Has Never Been Achieved in American History. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov (http://www.bls.gov/), Accessed 1/6/10)
- Because In 1946, 4.3 MILLION Jobs Were Created, Largest Job In A Single Calendar Year In American History. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov (http://www.bls.gov/), Accessed 1/6/10)
KNOWING AMERICANS WILL JUDGE THEM ON JOB CREATION, AT LEAST ONE DEM IS OUTRAGED OVER SQUANDERED 2009
Obama Says "The Yardstick Should Be ... Am I Creating These Jobs?" (Sam Stein, "Obama: Judge Me On The Jobs I Create," The Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/15/obama-judge-me-on-the-job_n_151245.html), 12/15/08)
- Pelosi: "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs ... We Will Measure Our Success In That Way; And Hopefully The American People Will, Too, In The Next Election." (Greg Sargent, "Pelosi: Judge Dems' Success On Whether We Create 'Jobs, Jobs, Jobs,'" "The Plum Line" Blog (http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/economy/pelosi-judge-dems-success-on-whether-we-create-jobs-jobs-jobs), 12/3/09)
DGA Chairman, Gov. Jack Markell (D-DE), Says "Burden Of Proof" On Dems To Show That They're Creating Jobs. "When you've got as many people unemployed in the country as you do, it's understandable that folks will be looking to their leaders to do everything possible to create jobs. As Democrats, there's a burden of proof here." (Peter Wallsten and Naftali Bendavid, "Departures Shake Democrats,"
The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126279417891718047.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond), 1/7/09)
- But Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) Says Obama Made A Mistake In Pushing Health Care, And Should Have Focused On Jobs. "I think it was a mistake to take health care on as opposed to continuing to spend the time on the economy... I would have preferred not to be dealing with health care in the midst of everything else, and I think working on the economy would have been a wiser move ..." (Chris Zavadil, "Nelson: We Should Have Waited On Health Care," The Fremont Tribune (http://www.fremonttribune.com/articles/2010/01/06/news/local/doc4b44af1b90306516425283.txt), 1/6/10)
- And Obama's Liberal Agenda Preventing Small Businesses From Creating Jobs, "Could Impede An Economic Recovery." "But a health-care overhaul grinding through Congress could bring unknown new obligations to insure employees. Bush-era tax cuts are set to end next year, and their fate is unclear. Legislation aimed at tackling climate change might raise businesses' energy costs. ... Many companies say they have responded by freezing hiring, cutting benefits and delaying expansion plans. With at least 60% of job growth historically coming out of the small-business sector, according to the government's Small Business Administration, that kind of inertia could impede an economic recovery." (Gary Fields, "Political Uncertainty Puts Freeze on Small Businesses," The Wall Street Journal, (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125659324579108943.html) 10/28/09)
Give them liberals hell Henry Hawk :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:
tsk,..tsk...tsk....Harry Reid..the racist...... :no: ...what is this world coming too... :no:
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Harry Reid..the racist. comment [ a "light-skinned" African American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,"]
Trent Lott said even less and HAD to resign from his leadership....
Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 10, 2010, 07:25:49 PM
Trent Lott said even less and HAD to resign from his leadership....
Your double standard at work. :yes:
Reid,has said such as:
* His summertime comparison of a lack of health insurance coverage to slavery;
* His April 2007 conclusion that the war in Iraq was lost;
* His description of tea partiers as "evil-mongers"; and
* His pleasure that the Capitol Visitors Center meant he wouldn't have to "smell the tourists" filling up the Capitol in the summertime.
Get a room :rolleyes:
That is the best you can come up with......and just ignore the double standard Sandy....you know darn well if ANY republican referred to Obama as a negro, you would be SCREAMING for justice.... :rolleyes:
No one said that Republicans have the market cornered on racism. . . they just have a majority! :razz:
Quote from: Palehorse on January 11, 2010, 11:36:32 AM
No one said that Republicans have the market cornered on racism. . . they just have a majority! :razz:
RIGHT!!.. :rolleyes: :razz:
This is really funny, how the media and even my liberal buddies on here are staying away from this one.....it was/is a blatantly racist remark and the dems give him a pass....what a bunch of hypocrits...
Oh, wait, .... they must be Christian democrats if they are hypocrits.....RIGHT?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 11, 2010, 12:20:46 PM
RIGHT!!.. :rolleyes: :razz:
This is really funny, how the media and even my liberal buddies on here are staying away from this one.....it was/is a blatantly racist remark and the dems give him a pass....what a bunch of hypocrits...
Oh, wait, .... they must be Christian democrats if they are hypocrits.....RIGHT?
Hey no one is giving the guy a pass; if he said it he must pay for it. There are enough folks screaming for his head without a bunch of "me too's" jumping onto the pile. Action will be taken and that is enough is it not? Or do we demand blood?
Quote from: Palehorse on January 11, 2010, 12:51:14 PM
Hey no one is giving the guy a pass; if he said it he must pay for it. There are enough folks screaming for his head without a bunch of "me too's" jumping onto the pile. Action will be taken and that is enough is it not? Or do we demand blood?
I can careless, one way or the other....he is doomed in washington one way or the other.....I just find it SO amusing of watching, the NAACP, and Al Sharpton and several democrats ALL try to make excuses for this buttcrust.....
I'm betting NOTHING will happen to him....the media will ignore it and he will move on.
you think this good happen. :biggrin:
(http://i50.tinypic.com/25rcynk.jpg)
:biggrin:
Quote from: mr. willy on January 11, 2010, 03:04:12 PM
you think this good happen. :biggrin:
(http://i50.tinypic.com/25rcynk.jpg)
:biggrin:
". . . 'good' happen. . . ."?
The Obama administration is destroying the economy on purpose. On purpose. If more people depend on the government, the more control the government has over the people and it's institutions, and this plan is a way for Democrats to stay in power.....always. If the majority of people depend on the government for their security and livelihood, and the Democrats are the ones promising more goodies from the government (not to mention ACORN type voter registration including illegal aliens voting), then the people will keep voting them in. It isn't Democracy and liberty, but in the end it's all about power.
:rolleyes:
I can't believe I just read that poppycock.
Yep.
We used to use the word "willy" to mean a dick.
Hasn't changed.
Quotefollowsthewolf
The Great Ones
Posts: 5782
Re: Congress sucks...
« Reply #283 on: Today at 05:10:27 PM »QuoteYep.
We used to use the word "willy" to mean a dick.
Hasn't changed.
I can see what your mind is on are you a queer or a mad left liberal.
How to spot Liberals:
Liberals can be spotted by their sandals and their hatred of socks.
They smell, because they don't bathe, and they call names and lie.
They want the USA to be France.
They worship the devil and are against war unless it is for their benefit.
They are hypocrites and scum. They have no soul and no religion.
They care only for what feels good to them.
They believe sin is acceptable if it brings happiness.
They value laziness and a reduction of standards.
Liberals hate this anti-liberalism center.
Liberals hate you and everything you stand for.
Seriously Willy, do you actually believe the shit you post?
Gregory House, M.D., is a fictional character and protagonist of the American medical drama House.
QuoteSeriously Willy, do you actually believe the shit you post?
Seriously, do you actually believe the shit you post using a fictional character. :biggrin: :biggrin:
Quote from: Locutus on January 11, 2010, 09:27:50 PM
Seriously Willy, do you actually believe the shit you post?
a simple troll, methinks.
That's certainly a possibility.
Certainly a very simple troll -- clothed in fancy verbiage.
Smacks of a limited intellect compounded by an inferior education.
(http://www.gadgetmadness.com/archives/squawkers-mccaw-robot-parrot.jpg)
All of the put downs and name calling still doesn't distract from the fact that some legit questions have been raised by the very people you're dissing and no answers have been given by those you're praising. They, like you, only put down the people asking the questions and attempt to discredit the person instead of answering the question which in itself is cause for concern. Why can't they answer the questions? What are they trying to hide. Why are so many things being done behind closed doors? How exactly is this government health care going to be paid for. Where are the extra doctors going to come from to take care of all the extra people who will be covered? Do you have any of those answers? Has MSNBC, CNN, or any of the other "news" networks given you the answers or even raised the question? Of course not you're only getting rosy everything will work news brought to by brown nosers. They don't want to make waves for fear that they will find themselves being dissed like Fox.
Do the best you can, me.
Quote from: me on January 12, 2010, 06:29:45 PM
All of the put downs and name calling still doesn't distract from the fact that some legit questions have been raised by the very people you're dissing and no answers have been given by those you're praising. They, like you, only put down the people asking the questions and attempt to discredit the person instead of answering the question which in itself is cause for concern. Why can't they answer the questions? What are they trying to hide. Why are so many things being done behind closed doors? How exactly is this government health care going to be paid for. Where are the extra doctors going to come from to take care of all the extra people who will be covered? Do you have any of those answers? Has MSNBC, CNN, or any of the other "news" networks given you the answers or even raised the question? Of course not you're only getting rosy everything will work news brought to by brown nosers. They don't want to make waves for fear that they will find themselves being dissed like Fox.
The only answers you guys have are to "cut n run"; that doesn't work as George proved!
Quote from: Palehorse on January 12, 2010, 07:27:31 PM
The only answers you guys have are to "cut n run"; that doesn't work as George proved!
See, that's what you've been told by your elite media and you keep falling for it. Like I stated before, you're being spoon fed and swallowing every bit of it.
QuoteSee, that's what you've been told by your elite media and you keep falling for it. Like I stated before, you're being spoon fed and swallowing every bit of it.
They are being fed a shovel full and drowning in it.
Unlike "me", Henry and willy here, quite a few people are able to get news from a variety of sources and form an opinion. I haven't be "told" to believe anything. I apply critical thinking to what I watch and read. Try it sometime, guys.
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on January 13, 2010, 07:05:25 AM
Unlike "me", Henry and willy here, quite a few people are able to get news from a variety of sources and form an opinion. I haven't be "told" to believe anything. I apply critical thinking to what I watch and read. Try it sometime, guys.
Listen, If I didn't already know you, I would think you are pompous snob......I am SO sick and tired of the elitist attitude that those on the left have. You have a lot of nerve to 'assume' that YOU and others like you are such "critical" thinkers and anyone on the right are simply 'spoon' fed.....Girl, I read a TON of sources from an extreme variety......the old saying is "keep your friends close but your enemies closer"....is something I have practiced for a long time now.....I watch Chris Matthews on MSNBC and Olberman, the Today Show...I switch around the evening news as often as I can.....I listen to all sorts of radio stations on my way home from work.....I read tons of sources on the internet, daily.....I listen to what YOU guys are saying....
It just Happens to be, that I am a Conservative, through and through.....I 100% disagree with most policies that the democrats stand for... I Have Not Been "Told"..HOW, to believe....I believe what I believe, because I am passionate for "MY" beliefs.....I have been following politics since Jimmy Carter took office....."MY" opinions has been formed, by watching History unfold, before my eyes...
I hear this self-rightous, pompous attitude ONLY from those on the left, you honestly believe they are much more intellect than everyone else and they are "free" thinkers.....BULLSHIT!!
YOU guys have been spoonfed by the mainstream media ever since the 60's, when the media started becoming liberal......
Okay, got that off my chest.... :yes:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 13, 2010, 08:32:53 AM
...you honestly believe they are much more intellect than everyone else...
Actually, yes. :rolleyes:
Quote from: me on January 12, 2010, 07:36:24 PM
See, that's what you've been told by your elite media and you keep falling for it. Like I stated before, you're being spoon fed and swallowing every bit of it.
No, that's what was demonstrated and
proven, via empirical evidence that the conservative faction wants to pretend doesn't even exist.
When a sector of people refuse to consider what science and history have proven to be factual, what else are reasonable individuals left to believe but that the conservative sector consists of nothing more than a flock of parrots?
Quote from: Palehorse on January 13, 2010, 10:37:48 AM
When a sector of people refuse to consider what science and history have proven to be factual, what else are reasonable individuals left to believe but that the conservative sector consists of nothing more than a flock of parrots?
give me examples of FACTUAL evidences....that proves conservatives wrong...
Let me get this straight.
....we're going to pass a health care plan written by a committee whose
chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that
hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it, to be signed by a
president that also hasn't read it and who smokes,
with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his
taxes, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and
financed by a country that's nearly broke. What could possibly go
wrong?
Quote from: me on January 12, 2010, 06:29:45 PM
All of the put downs and name calling still doesn't distract from the fact that some legit questions have been raised by the very people you're dissing and no answers have been given by those you're praising. They, like you, only put down the people asking the questions and attempt to discredit the person instead of answering the question which in itself is cause for concern. Why can't they answer the questions? What are they trying to hide. Why are so many things being done behind closed doors? How exactly is this government health care going to be paid for. Where are the extra doctors going to come from to take care of all the extra people who will be covered? Do you have any of those answers? Has MSNBC, CNN, or any of the other "news" networks given you the answers or even raised the question? Of course not you're only getting rosy everything will work news brought to by brown nosers. They don't want to make waves for fear that they will find themselves being dissed like Fox.
Well the ignorance in your questions shows that you wouldn't understand an answer, if given one. For instance; "How exactly is this government health care going to be paid for." Your legislators, in the pockets of the insurance companies, have ensured there isn't any additional "gov't ran health care. You probably would do away with Medicare, and even Social Security (those evil gov't run programs), and it is your right to have that opinion. But, what part of the health care legislation is "gov't run health care"? When you answer that, you might deserve answers to any of your other questions, or are you just a fucking ignorant teabagger, soccer mom, that only knows what beck (or redneck hubby) told you?
Quote from: mr. willy on January 13, 2010, 11:08:39 AM
Let me get this straight.
....we're going to pass a health care plan written by a committee whose
chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that
hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it, to be signed by a
president that also hasn't read it and who smokes,
with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his
taxes, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and
financed by a country that's nearly broke. What could possibly go
wrong?
Is this a parrot, or plagiarist? You make the call. :wink:
http://www.google.com/search?q=we%27re+going+to+pass+a+health+care+plan+written+by+a+committee+whose+chairman+says+he+doesn%27t+understand+it&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Quote from: dan foster on January 13, 2010, 11:59:06 AM
Well the ignorance in your questions shows that you wouldn't understand an answer, if given one. For instance; "How exactly is this government health care going to be paid for." Your legislators, in the pockets of the insurance companies, have ensured there isn't any additional "gov't ran health care. You probably would do away with Medicare, and even Social Security (those evil gov't run programs), and it is your right to have that opinion. But, what part of the health care legislation is "gov't run health care"? When you answer that, you might deserve answers to any of your other questions, or are you just a fucking ignorant teabagger, soccer mom, that only knows what beck (or redneck hubby) told you?
The legislators and insurance are going to pay for health care? What?????? Sounds to me like you have no clue and are trying to dodge the question.
Quote from: Locutus on January 13, 2010, 12:09:19 PM
Is this a parrot, or plagiarist? You make the call. :wink:
http://www.google.com/search?q=we%27re+going+to+pass+a+health+care+plan+written+by+a+committee+whose+chairman+says+he+doesn%27t+understand+it&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
But it's the truth. :razz:
Quote from: me on January 13, 2010, 12:15:35 PM
But it's the truth. :razz:
It's intellectual dishonesty. It's also part and parcel of what's continually pointed out about you "conservatives" all day long around here. If all you can contribute is a copy and paste of the words of others, it casts doubt on your ability to rub a couple of brain cells together and think anything through on your own. Kinda' suggests you're being led around by the nose.
Quote from: dan foster on January 13, 2010, 11:59:06 AM
Well the ignorance in your questions shows that you wouldn't understand an answer, if given one.
Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding!
Classic troll dullard plagiarism -- trying to demonstrate acerbic wit, with, like I said before, defective intellect and deficient education. Hopes no one ever verifies his posts, so that he can be thought of as one who has the ability to play with the big boys. Finds his followers among those who love Beck, Rush, and O'Reilly. Will find sympathy and dishonest justification among those who will spin in an inane way, with comments like, "But it's the truth."
If those who provide silly support for these stunted thinkers stop giving aid and comfort like slobbering lackeys, they will go back to being what they were before: nothing people.
Quote from: Locutus on January 13, 2010, 12:23:35 PM
It's intellectual dishonesty.
Dishonesty?
Yes.
Intellectual?
Considering the source, I seriously doubt it.
:biggrin:
Quote from: Olias on January 13, 2010, 01:24:25 PM
Dishonesty?
Yes.
Intellectual?
Considering the source, I seriously doubt it.
:biggrin:
Indeed, my friend! Indeed!
:biggrin:
I can see the Obama libtard on this forum has no clue what he is doing and how dishonest they are. :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:
Quote from: Locutus on January 13, 2010, 12:23:35 PM
It's intellectual dishonesty. It's also part and parcel of what's continually pointed out about you "conservatives" all day long around here. If all you can contribute is a copy and paste of the words of others, it casts doubt on your ability to rub a couple of brain cells together and think anything through on your own. Kinda' suggests you're being led around by the nose.
Is it factual? What part of it isn't true?
Quote from: Anne on January 13, 2010, 04:22:46 PM
Is it factual? What part of it isn't true?
Completely missed the point. :wink:
It seems to me that so much time and thought is wasted on thinking who is more intellectual and honest, than actually looking at the point made....and that seems to get dismissed and the issue ALWAYS turns into a "look who is smarter" pissing match...who really give a flip if somebody cut and pasted a point...this is a forum, to discuss issues....does it really change anything?
He copied it from someone else and did not identify the source. Only those who have no intellectual repertoire assume others' work as their own. It is the WORST kind of intellectual dishonesty and implies that very little, if anything the false author asserts in the future is very nearly fatally flawed. Matters not what the quote was/is; all that matters is that it was plagiarized, and the guilty party has an indelible stain on his/her reputation.
Quote from: followsthewolf on January 13, 2010, 04:33:07 PM
He copied it from someone else and did not identify the source. Only those who have no intellectual repertoire assume others' work as their own. It is the WORST kind of intellectual dishonesty and implies that very little, if anything the false author asserts in the future is very nearly fatally flawed. Matters not what the quote was/is; all that matters is that it was plagiarized, and the guilty party has an indelible stain on his/her reputation.
I don't think willy is here to engulf a loving and honest relationship here..(I may be wrong)..and I'm not defending him/her.....I'm simply pointing out, that there was larger point being made and it got knocked aside......and the poster became the point of the issue.
The poster's reputation for accurate and incisive posting is ABSOLUTELY at issue.
If you and willy disagreed, whose post would you think I would be more apt to believe?
The difference between a poster who wants to debate and discuss a subject, and one who just wants to "score points" and flame, is the utilization of original thoughts derived via critical thinking. When one wants to discuss something using the work or words of another, one provides citations indicating the source for the posting. When you don't your cover is blown along with any credibility you once possessed. . . and the gloves are off. . .
And willy's done nothing but try to engage in flame wars since he got there.
Quote from: followsthewolf on January 13, 2010, 05:17:45 PM
And willy's done nothing but try to engage in flame wars since he got there.
By pointing out the obvious or by having a different opinion?
Quote from: followsthewolf on January 13, 2010, 05:17:45 PM
And willy's done nothing but try to engage in flame wars since he got there.
The poster in question certainly has made it clear he/she did not come here to make friends, engage in lively conversation, nor adhere to standard etiquette; moreover reading through this person's historic posts it is unquestionably clear that the above quoted statement is spot on.
One much wiser than I once said to me, . . . "It's not worth it". :wink:
Truer words were never posted! :yes:
Classic, horse guy.
Flamer and loyal subject.
:kissit: :kissit: :kissit: :kissit:
Quote from: followsthewolf on January 13, 2010, 05:25:27 PM
Classic, horse guy.
Flamer and loyal subject.
:kissit: :kissit: :kissit: :kissit:
:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:
Truer words were never posted that I can see the Obama libtard on this forum has no clue what he is doing and how dishonest they are.
:devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil4: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29: :devil29:
:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:
Quote from: me on January 13, 2010, 12:14:50 PM
The legislators and insurance are going to pay for health care? What?????? Sounds to me like you have no clue and are trying to dodge the question.
That isn't what he said. He said,
"Your legislators, in the pockets of the insurance companies, have ensured there isn't any additional gov't ran health care." That is because the version of the bill passed by the Senate eliminates the public option. No matter how the bill turns out, all insurance must be purchased from insurance companies, either individually or in company-sponsored group plans.
Now, I want to know: did you really misunderstand what Dan said? Have you not followed the news closely enough (despite your proclaimed constant monitoring of many sources) to realize the public option is off the table? Or do you not have a clue what is in the bill, and are simply parroting the party line as you have been accused -- up till now I thought unfairly accused -- of doing?
Damn good question.
That didn't answer my question about who is going to pay for this "free" health care now did it? Read veeeerrrrryyyy slowly....where is all this money going to come from to pay for this health insurance for everyone?
Quote from: LOsborne on January 13, 2010, 07:33:28 PM
That isn't what he said. He said, "Your legislators, in the pockets of the insurance companies, have ensured there isn't any additional gov't ran health care." That is because the version of the bill passed by the Senate eliminates the public option. No matter how the bill turns out, all insurance must be purchased from insurance companies, either individually or in company-sponsored group plans.
Now, I want to know: did you really misunderstand what Dan said? Have you not followed the news closely enough (despite your proclaimed constant monitoring of many sources) to realize the public option is off the table? Or do you not have a clue what is in the bill, and are simply parroting the party line as you have been accused -- up till now I thought unfairly accused -- of doing?
Quote from: Locutus on January 13, 2010, 04:29:19 PM
Completely missed the point. :wink:
No I did not miss the point. I know what you were saying, I just want to know what part of the post is not true.
Quote from: me on January 13, 2010, 08:04:28 PM
That didn't answer my question about who is going to pay for this "free" health care now did it? Read veeeerrrrryyyy slowly....where is all this money going to come from to pay for this health insurance for everyone?
You didn't ask
who is going to pay for this "free" health care. You asked
The legislators and insurance are going to pay for health care? But I'll answer you. There isn't any NEW free health care. Everything in the bill has to be paid for. You know that if you have read it. (Have you?) The only FREE health care is the stuff that has been around for years: Medicaid and Medicare. Oh yeah, and SSDI. Right now,
I pay for that, and all the other people drawing wages, or unemployment insurance (which is taxable, ya know.) The wealthy don't pay because all their money is sheltered.
Are you on Medicare,
me? Because if you are, you have lost all credibility. Not that you had much left after that last attempt to pretend you asked something you didn't.
Keep in mind, we can all page back to check the words you actually typed. And most of us know how to check sources.
Medicare isn't free, cheaper but not free, and you have to be able to find a doctor who take medicare patients.
Quote from: Anne on January 13, 2010, 08:33:16 PM
Medicare isn't free, cheaper but not free, and you have to be able to find a doctor who take medicare patients.
"Cheaper" means that part of it is subsidized, and therefor free.
By the way, I wanted to address you earlier question about whether the plagiarized post is true. Yup, it's true. But it is also facile and non-relevant. All the players are crooks, liars, and con-men. Every damned one of them. The fact that clever synopses like this one are found all over the net about both parties should be evidence enough that the system doesn't work. Let's stop trying to fix it, and just start over. Shakespeare pointed the way. "First, we kill all the lawyers." I think we need to add bankers to the hit list, and then start drafting our public servants. If they do a good job, we won't kill them.
I'm kind of kidding, but only as a matter of degree.
Quote from: Anne on January 13, 2010, 08:33:16 PM
Medicare isn't free, cheaper but not free, and you have to be able to find a doctor who take medicare patients.
You also have to pay for extra insurance to cover what medicare doesn't and they don't cover much. If you can't afford the extra insurance you're pretty much screwed and may as well not have any insurance at all. They now only pay $8pr doctor visit so even less doctors than before will accept patients who are on medicare.
Quote from: me on January 13, 2010, 09:07:06 PM
so even less doctors than before will accept patients who are on medicare.
fewer
Quote from: me on January 13, 2010, 12:14:50 PM
The legislators and insurance are going to pay for health care? What?????? Sounds to me like you have no clue and are trying to dodge the question.
er, ah, youuuu do understand the use of commas in a sentence, don't you?
Quote from: me on January 13, 2010, 08:04:28 PM
That didn't answer my question about who is going to pay for this "free" health care now did it? Read veeeerrrrryyyy slowly....where is all this money going to come from to pay for this health insurance for everyone?
That isn't what you asked. You asked "who is going to pay for this gov't run health care". To answer your, NOW, different question; you are.
QuoteThe only FREE health care is the stuff that has been around for years: Medicaid and Medicare.
Medicare is FREE :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
QuoteMedicare is partially financed by payroll taxes imposed by the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) and the Self-Employment Contributions Act of 1954. In the case of employees, the tax is equal to 2.9% (1.45% withheld from the worker and a matching 1.45% paid by the employer) of the wages, salaries and other compensation in connection with employment. Until December 31, 1993, the law provided a maximum amount of wages, etc., on which the Medicare tax could be imposed each year.[6] Beginning January 1, 1994, the compensation limit was removed. In the case of self-employed individuals, the entire 2.9% tax of self employed net earnings must be paid by the self-employed individual, however half of the tax can be deducted from the income calculated for income tax purposes
Quote from: dan foster on January 13, 2010, 09:20:56 PM
That isn't what you asked. You asked "who is going to pay for this gov't run health care". To answer your, NOW, different question; you are.
And who is going to pay for those who still can't afford it?
Quote from: mr. willy on January 13, 2010, 09:27:53 PM
Medicare is FREE :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
and is gov't fucking run health care, dickwad, paid by a payroll tax. So, just what the fuck is free about it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6_xgKWzhRw&feature=player_embedded
Cafferty on Pelosi
Quote from: dan foster on January 13, 2010, 09:30:38 PM
and is gov't fucking run health care, dickwad, paid by a payroll tax. So, just what the fuck is free about it?
I believe the quote being referred to by mr. Willy was this one and you're right, medicare is anything but free.
Quote from: LOsborne on January 13, 2010, 08:26:06 PM
You didn't ask who is going to pay for this "free" health care. You asked The legislators and insurance are going to pay for health care? But I'll answer you. There isn't any NEW free health care. Everything in the bill has to be paid for. You know that if you have read it. (Have you?) The only FREE health care is the stuff that has been around for years: Medicaid and Medicare. Oh yeah, and SSDI. Right now, I pay for that, and all the other people drawing wages, or unemployment insurance (which is taxable, ya know.) The wealthy don't pay because all their money is sheltered.
Are you on Medicare, me? Because if you are, you have lost all credibility. Not that you had much left after that last attempt to pretend you asked something you didn't.
Keep in mind, we can all page back to check the words you actually typed. And most of us know how to check sources.
QuoteLOsborne
Sr. Member
Posts: 693
Re: Congress sucks...
« Reply #335 on: Today at 08:26:06 PM »QuoteQuote from: me on Today at 08:04:28 PM
That didn't answer my question about who is going to pay for this "free" health care now did it? Read veeeerrrrryyyy slowly....where is all this money going to come from to pay for this health insurance for everyone?
You didn't ask who is going to pay for this "free" health care. You asked The legislators and insurance are going to pay for health care? But I'll answer you. There isn't any NEW free health care. Everything in the bill has to be paid for. You know that if you have read it. (Have you?) The only FREE health care is the stuff that has been around for years: Medicaid and Medicare. Oh yeah, and SSDI. Right now, I pay for that, and all the other people drawing wages, or unemployment insurance (which is taxable, ya know.) The wealthy don't pay because all their money is sheltered.
Are you on Medicare, me? Because if you are, you have lost all credibility. Not that you had much left after that last attempt to pretend you asked something you didn't.
Keep in mind, we can all page back to check the words you actually typed. And most of us know how to check sources.
Posted by: dan foster Posted on: Today at 09:30:38 PM Insert Quote
Quote from: mr. willy on Today at 09:27:53 PM
Medicare is FREE
and is gov't fucking run health care, dickwad, paid by a payroll tax. So, just what the fuck is free about it?
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Reading this topic is like watching a rerun of the Stooges in "Disorder in the Court"!
Quote from: me on January 13, 2010, 09:30:27 PM
And who is going to pay for those who still can't afford it?
The same people who do now. Taxpayers. The only thing I'm seeing
new in this bill is the strictures on insurance companies to stop denying coverage and raising rates if you use the insurance. The invoice still comes to me. It always has.
And as for whether or not Medicare is free ... I believe one of the horrors all you Chicken Littles are hollering about is the idea that Medicare will be taken away. If it isn't a gimme, why do you care?
I don't read Willy,
me. Sorry. He's a waste of time. But just for you, I read this whole page. I don't see a question.
Quote from: LOsborne on January 14, 2010, 07:37:09 AM
The same people who do now. Taxpayers. The only thing I'm seeing new in this bill is the strictures on insurance companies to stop denying coverage and raising rates if you use the insurance. The invoice still comes to me. It always has.
And as for whether or not Medicare is free ... I believe one of the horrors all you Chicken Littles are hollering about is the idea that Medicare will be taken away. If it isn't a gimme, why do you care?
I don't read Willy, me. Sorry. He's a waste of time. But just for you, I read this whole page. I don't see a question.
I have asked the question several times in different threads and it is always avoided. Taxes are going to be raised on the middle class as well as the upper class because they will have to. We will also be paying for this for 3 or 4yrs before it even takes effect so we will be paying for something we're not getting making it even more difficult for us now because our income will be even less.
Quote from: me on January 14, 2010, 08:05:28 AM
I have asked the question several times in different threads and it is always avoided. Taxes are going to be raised on the middle class as well as the upper class because they will have to. We will also be paying for this for 3 or 4yrs before it even takes effect so we will be paying for something we're not getting making it even more difficult for us now because our income will be even less.
What's with all of this 'we' and 'us' and 'our' bullshit; you don't work. And the claim you made a couple of weeks ago about how everyone would be complaining when they see their new paychecks this year is also false. I just looked at my remittance advice for tomorrow's pay and it hasn't changed at all. You're clueless.
Quote from: me on January 14, 2010, 08:05:28 AM
Taxes are going to be raised on the middle class as well as the upper class because they will have to...
The sky is falling, the sky is falling! I hope you will understand when I do not take the opinion you express about something that is
going to happen as gospel. After all, the Iraqi War was
going to paid for with all the oil we would get. Al-Qaeda was
going to launch an attack on the mainland US on (choose one) New Year's Eve 2002--election day 2004--super Bowl Sunday every year--your own favorite day for the apocalypse. Perhaps we should start calling all these dire events the apocryphalypse.
Show me an increased tax bill -- or a bill on the floor of the house or senate raising taxes on the middle class... excuse me, the
vanishing middle class, and I'll pay you some mind.
Quote from: Exterminator on January 14, 2010, 08:18:41 AM
What's with all of this 'we' and 'us' and 'our' bullshit; you don't work. And the claim you made a couple of weeks ago about how everyone would be complaining when they see their new paychecks this year is also false. I just looked at my remittance advice for tomorrow's pay and it hasn't changed at all. You're clueless.
I may not be working now but I did and for a lot of years and two jobs plus raising three kids at times so come down off of that holier than thou attitude like you're paying my way or something.
Quote from: me on January 14, 2010, 08:29:05 AM
I may not be working now but I did and for a lot of years and two jobs plus raising three kids at times so come down off of that holier than thou attitude like you're paying my way or something.
I'm only pointing out how disingenuous it is for you to keep rattling on about how much this hurts "us" when you aren't paying for any of it. In truth, yes, those of us who are working are paying your way.
And don't expect any sympathy from me for raising
your kids that you
chose to have.
Quote from: Exterminator on January 14, 2010, 08:38:16 AM
I'm only pointing out how disingenuous it is for you to keep rattling on about how much this hurts "us" when you aren't paying for any of it. In truth, yes, those of us who are working are paying your way.
And don't expect any sympathy from me for raising your kids that you chose to have.
I don't expect any sympathy from you for anything and I enjoyed raising my kids. The way you keep pointing out that I am not working comes across to me as though you are making a put down which is not appreciated. I have done my time and earned my right to retirement and, yes, I am helping pay my own way because, with the exception of the last couple of years, I too pay taxes. I am figuring that I will again be paying taxes this year since the Bush tax cut expired.
Quote from: me on January 14, 2010, 09:47:31 AM
I don't expect any sympathy from you for anything and I enjoyed raising my kids. The way you keep pointing out that I am not working comes across to me as though you are making a put down which is not appreciated. I have done my time and earned my right to retirement and, yes, I am helping pay my own way because, with the exception of the last couple of years, I too pay taxes. I am figuring that I will again be paying taxes this year since the Bush tax cut expired.
so if you were covered under the bush tax cuts; you are retired, AND VERY WEALTHY?
QuoteIn truth, yes, those of us who are working are paying your way.
As if the ones that is on retirement now didn't pay for the ones that retired before.
Someone is got a lot of crap on this forum !!!!!!
Quote from: mr. willy on January 14, 2010, 11:32:56 AM
As if the ones that is on retirement now didn't pay for the ones that retired before.
But they had shorter life expectancies; you old farts refuse to die!
QuoteSomeone is got a lot of crap on this forum !!!!!!
Is English your first language?
[/quote]
Someone is got no clue.
QuoteBut they had shorter life expectancies; you old farts refuse to die!
Then why do you want better health care then ?? :biggrin: :biggrin:
Quote from: mr. willy on January 14, 2010, 12:04:05 PM
Then why do you want better health care then ?? :biggrin: :biggrin:
Then because we is want be healthier while us live then?
:biggrin:
Reading that was painful
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on January 14, 2010, 12:16:05 PM
:biggrin:
Reading that was painful
Writing it was death itself.
Quote from: Olias on January 14, 2010, 12:07:35 PM
Then because we is want be healthier while us live then?
My brain hurts now! :mad:
Hey, I need that IQ chart on this thread. :rotfl:
Quote from: Locutus on January 14, 2010, 12:48:32 PM
Hey, I need that IQ chart on this thread. :rotfl:
:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:
Quote from: dan foster on January 14, 2010, 09:50:49 AM
so if you were covered under the bush tax cuts; you are retired, AND VERY WEALTHY?
Only in your world dude only in your world. :rolleyes:
:razz:
Quote from: me on January 14, 2010, 01:00:08 PM
Only in your world dude only in your world. :rolleyes:
The bush tax cuts helped only the wealthiest americans. So, you are one?
Quote from: dan foster on January 14, 2010, 03:30:11 PM
The bush tax cuts helped only the wealthiest americans. So, you are one?
Yep, another classic case of tell someone something long enough and they believe it. :rolleyes:
QuoteTax Cuts and Government Revenue
The income tax cuts enacted during the administrations of Calvin Coolidge in the 1920s, Kennedy-Johnson in the 1960s, Ronald Reagan in the 1980's and the current administration of George Bush have all resulted in total tax revenues increasing as there is not only more income available to tax in the top brackets, but the fact that additional jobs created are created for people in the lower tax brackets means that the number of new workers in the lower brackets have increased the pool of income subject to taxation in these brackets as well .
However, politicians are addicted to spending and, in each of the recent tax cuts, Congress has gone on a spending binge every time the revenues from tax cuts increased. This is where we are getting the warnings about growing deficits as the opponents of tax cuts first project spending increasing at the current rate and then project how much more income could be raised by reversing the tax cuts and restoring rates to the old levels while assuming, incorrectly, that the amount of taxable income will remain the same. Of course, income will go down as people, when faced with higher taxes on the extra income, will cut back on working and investing.
Don't know where you copied that from Mr. Willy but it's a bullshit lie according to the government's own data.
QuoteDon't know where you copied that from Mr. Willy but it's a bullshit lie according to the government's own data.
THEN PROVE IT BEFORE YOU CALL IT A BULLSHIT LIE !!!! WHERE IS YOUR GOVERNMENT DATA TO DISPROVE IT !!!!!
POST IT OR SHUT THE HELL UP !!!!!!!!
Quote from: mr. willy on January 14, 2010, 04:33:47 PM
Another example of inability to attribute reference information. Defective intellect (inability to learn) and deficient education.
Tsk, tsk. Screaming, too.
Subject doesn't know that one cannot disprove a negative.
Quote from: Exterminator on January 14, 2010, 04:47:43 PM
Don't know where you copied that from Mr. Willy but it's a bullshit lie according to the government's own data.
He got from here:
Link (http://hubpages.com/hub/The-Pros-and-Cons-of-the-Bush-Tax-Cuts--Do-they-really-favor-the-wealthy-or-is-that-a-myth--What-will-help-the)
Quote
Don't know where you copied that from Mr. Willy but it's a bullshit lie according to the government's own data.
THEN PROVE IT BEFORE YOU CALL IT A BULLSHIT LIE !!!! WHERE IS YOUR GOVERNMENT DATA TO DISPROVE IT !!!!!
POST IT OR SHUT THE HELL UP !!!!!!!!
Again where is the prove it's a lie ??????????????????????
Simmer down there Willy. Ex hasn't been back around since you made your original post along these lines. He hasn't seen it yet.
"where is the prove"?
Was prove where link be was zelda clearly.
THEN PROVE IT BEFORE ANYONE CAN CALL IT A BULLSHIT LIE !!!!
Was prove to proof?
QuoteUsage Note: Prove has two past participles: proved and proven. Proved is the older form. Proven is a variant. The Middle English spellings of prove included preven, a form that died out in England but survived in Scotland, and the past participle proven, a form that probably rose by analogy with verbs like weave, woven and cleave, cloven. Proven was originally used in Scottish legal contexts, such as The jury ruled that the charges were not proven. In the 20th century, proven has made inroads into the territory once dominated by proved, so that now the two forms compete on equal footing as participles. However, when used as an adjective before a noun, proven is now the more common word: a proven talent.
:smile: :smile: :smile:
SO NO ONE HAS PROVED IT TO BE IT AS A BULLSHIT LIE ;D
Quote from: mr. willy on January 14, 2010, 06:37:46 PM
Quote
Don't know where you copied that from Mr. Willy but it's a bullshit lie according to the government's own data.
THEN PROVE IT BEFORE YOU CALL IT A BULLSHIT LIE !!!! WHERE IS YOUR GOVERNMENT DATA TO DISPROVE IT !!!!!
POST IT OR SHUT THE HELL UP !!!!!!!!
Again where is the prove it's a lie ??????????????????????
Hey mr Willy, calm down and don't let these guy's get to you so bad yer gonna pop a vein or sumpthin'.
Hey mr Willy, calm down and don't let these guy's get to you so bad yer gonna pop a vein or sumpthin'.
;D ;D ;D ;D
The prove is in the pudding. "I want more pudding!!!!" Said the wall people.
The proofs in the galleys are with the slaves on the oars derves.
And the mome raths outgrabe.
QuoteAnd the mome raths outgrabe."
I remember my old Poetry 101 professor reading us "Jabberwocky" in class one day and pronouncing the last word with a long "e" at the end: "out-grah-bee."
I felt violated. I was sure, just so sure, that the poem I first read in my aunt's old college English Lit textbook (found old and moldy in my granny's basement when I was but 14) had as its last word "out-grabe" -- rhyming with ... . Huh?
And that was the point. Other than Lewis Carroll's "portmanteau" rhyme in the poem ("wabe"), there isn't much that rhymes with "outgrabe," no matter how you pronounce it.
Carroll once explained, humorously, his concept of the famous "portmanteau" words used in his poem. But, like the piece of furniture they're named for, they can serve a variety of uses.
Last year, when I started this blog, I wrote about how George Boole discovered a flaw in classic Aristotelian logic -- called (I think) the "existential fallacy." In short, the terms of a syllogism do not need to exist for the syllogism to function. They can be abstract symbols, hence the name "symbolic logic."
Carroll (as math professor Charles Lutwidge Dodgson) was a researcher in Boolean algebra, nonlinear geometry and similar topics. He made significant contributions to the academic literature on symbolic logic. And "Jabberwocky" is his (I think, successful) attempt to put some of those basic concepts into language.
The "portmanteau" words in "Jabberwocky" don't mean anything. (I believe Carroll's own definitions of the words are knowingly tongue-in-cheek.) They are true "nonsense" words, in the sense that they have no sense at all. Nor do they need to have any for the poem to make sense. In a sense.
If we are to examine those "interstices" of language I spoke of back then in the post on Boole, I think we need to more fully understand Carroll's accomplishment in "Jabberwocky."
BTW, the poem is satire. Just what it ridicules is what's important.
Quote from: white rabbit on January 14, 2010, 07:26:50 PM
We need a lazard with a liddle... a lad... can you help us?
http://amazon.imdb.com/character/ch0012252/quotes
Quote
And the mome raths outgrabe."
I remember my old Poetry 101 professor reading us "Jabberwocky" in class one day and pronouncing the last word with a long "e" at the end: "out-grah-bee."
I felt violated. I was sure, just so sure, that the poem I first read in my aunt's old college English Lit textbook (found old and moldy in my granny's basement when I was but 14) had as its last word "out-grabe" -- rhyming with ... . Huh?
And that was the point. Other than Lewis Carroll's "portmanteau" rhyme in the poem ("wabe"), there isn't much that rhymes with "outgrabe," no matter how you pronounce it.
Carroll once explained, humorously, his concept of the famous "portmanteau" words used in his poem. But, like the piece of furniture they're named for, they can serve a variety of uses.
Last year, when I started this blog, I wrote about how George Boole discovered a flaw in classic Aristotelian logic -- called (I think) the "existential fallacy." In short, the terms of a syllogism do not need to exist for the syllogism to function. They can be abstract symbols, hence the name "symbolic logic."
Carroll (as math professor Charles Lutwidge Dodgson) was a researcher in Boolean algebra, nonlinear geometry and similar topics. He made significant contributions to the academic literature on symbolic logic. And "Jabberwocky" is his (I think, successful) attempt to put some of those basic concepts into language.
The "portmanteau" words in "Jabberwocky" don't mean anything. (I believe Carroll's own definitions of the words are knowingly tongue-in-cheek.) They are true "nonsense" words, in the sense that they have no sense at all. Nor do they need to have any for the poem to make sense. In a sense.
If we are to examine those "interstices" of language I spoke of back then in the post on Boole, I think we need to more fully understand Carroll's accomplishment in "Jabberwocky."
BTW, the poem is satire. Just what it ridicules is what's important.
So, did you write the above, willy?
QuoteSo, did you write the above, willy?
Jai Arjun Singh
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Occupation: Journalist
Location: New Delhi : India
:biggrin:
And what does the poem ridicule?
Quote from: mr. willy on January 14, 2010, 06:37:46 PM
THEN PROVE IT BEFORE YOU CALL IT A BULLSHIT LIE !!!! WHERE IS YOUR GOVERNMENT DATA TO DISPROVE IT !!!!!
POST IT OR SHUT THE HELL UP !!!!!!!!
Supply side economics are a myth propagated by the wealthy to make the ignorant believe that they will somehow benefit if the wealthy pay fewer taxes. They intentionally skew the data by conveniently omitting things like CPI indexes and revenue as a percentage of GDP to make it appear as though tax cuts result in increased revenue when in real dollars they do not. This is well documented and accessible to anyone who cares to do a little research.
Not that I believe you'll actually read any of it or that you are open minded enough to allow that you've been fed a line of crap, but here are just a few sources of information...
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=165
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=692
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=1018
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=5976&type=0
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/69xx/doc6908/12-01-10PercentTaxCut.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEdXrfIMdiU
Income Tax Cut, JFK Hopes To Spur Economy 1962/8/13
QuoteThis distinction, taught in Economics 101, seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars. A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity. Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it. A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans. Back in the early 1960s, tax cutting was as contentious as it is today, but it was liberal demand-siders who were calling for the cuts and generating the controversy.
http://www.slate.com/id/2093947/
Tax cuts didn't work to increase revenues then either.
Ex, I have read and researched your sources...and they are...a liberal policy analysis group...so, naturally, they will spin tax cuts to benefit the liberal agenda, to increase the tax burden on hard working Americans....
http://hubpages.com/hub/How_Tax_Cuts_Work (http://hubpages.com/hub/How_Tax_Cuts_Work)
http://www.businessandmedia.org/commentary/2006/com20060111.asp (http://www.businessandmedia.org/commentary/2006/com20060111.asp)
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/stimulus_spending_doesnt_work_-_tax_cuts_do/ (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/stimulus_spending_doesnt_work_-_tax_cuts_do/)
here are some reasons that support a Conservatives train of thought regarding tax cuts vs. stimulus spending...and why tax cuts DO work....
again, to me it seems so very simple and realistic, for our economy to become strong again....we need to stimulate by spurring business' by cutting their taxes....at the least temporary...
Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 15, 2010, 12:37:45 PM
Ex, I have read and researched your sources...and they are...a liberal policy analysis group...so, naturally, they will spin tax cuts to benefit the liberal agenda, to increase the tax burden on hard working Americans....
http://hubpages.com/hub/How_Tax_Cuts_Work (http://hubpages.com/hub/How_Tax_Cuts_Work)
http://www.businessandmedia.org/commentary/2006/com20060111.asp (http://www.businessandmedia.org/commentary/2006/com20060111.asp)
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/stimulus_spending_doesnt_work_-_tax_cuts_do/ (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/stimulus_spending_doesnt_work_-_tax_cuts_do/)
here are some reasons that support a Conservatives train of thought regarding tax cuts vs. stimulus spending...and why tax cuts DO work....
again, to me it seems so very simple and realistic, for our economy to become strong again....we need to stimulate by spurring business' by cutting their taxes....at the least temporary...
Did you read these sources that he also provided?
Quote from: Exterminator on January 15, 2010, 08:49:07 AM
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=5976&type=0
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/69xx/doc6908/12-01-10PercentTaxCut.pdf
(Note the dates of the reports, just in case you try to say that they were prepared to support Obama.)
Excerpts ....
"the tax reduction would
lower revenues by $466 billion over the first five years and $775 billion over the second five years. Including additional debt service adds about 25 percent to the total budgetary impact over the first 10 years" see Table 1 at the top of page 3.
"through 1990, corporate revenues are estimated to rise by $118.4 billion (24.4 percent), while individual revenues would fall by $131.8 billion (6 percent).1 Because of this apparent shift in taxation from individuals to corporations, apprehension has arisen that
the new tax system would hurt capital formation and reduce the growth in the economy. "
I was just getting ready to say that Olias. I didn't know the Congressional Budget Office was a "liberal policy analysis group."
Quote from: Locutus on January 15, 2010, 01:52:13 PM
I was just getting ready to say that Olias. I didn't know the Congressional Budget Office was a "liberal policy analysis group."
Henry knows that and he has been provided this information more than once and continues to propagate this lie. If as they suggest, lowering taxes increases revenue and raising them lowers it, how do they explain tax revenues increasing dramatically after taxes were increased in the 90's? They won't because they can't...all they can do is continue to parrot the same smoke that got blown up their collective asses that has them all smiling blissfully while they're being bent over.
http://www.scientificblogging.com/gerhard_adam/blog/economic_theory_lower_taxes_raise_revenue
A blog entry does not supplant empirical data.
Quote from: Exterminator on January 15, 2010, 03:41:35 PM
A blog entry does not supplant empirical data.
You may have to define the word supplant for him. :wink: :biggrin:
:biggrin:
http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/wm182.cfm (http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/wm182.cfm)
http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg2001.cfm (http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg2001.cfm)
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110010798 (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110010798)
http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/04/tax-cut-stimulus-opinions-contributors_0204_peter_ferrara.html (http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/04/tax-cut-stimulus-opinions-contributors_0204_peter_ferrara.html)
I am not propagating any lies....there is a lot of facts and proof that tax cuts, stimulate the economy and generates MORE revenue to the federal government....
it is common logic....not trying to be a smart arse....there is several links that support this idea...
Quote from: mr. willy on January 15, 2010, 03:38:15 PM
http://www.scientificblogging.com/gerhard_adam/blog/economic_theory_lower_taxes_raise_revenue
Do these people ever read what they post?
From the cited blog ....
"Bear in mind that my point is not to justify government taxation nor the rate at which it is levied, but rather to examine whether the Laffer Curve tells us anything useful about this phenomenon at all. At this point, we can see that
it is highly suspect in terms of what it suggests."
"any supposed benefits from tax cuts is suspect""Whatever the reasons, the Laffer Curve did not provide us any insight into why this happened or why it should happen. So basically what we have is a graph that creates the illusion of being mathematical, despite having no equation from which it is derived. It is endlessly quoted as a means of peddling a political agenda, and in the end,
has no ability to predict events at all."
Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 15, 2010, 04:03:28 PM
http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/wm182.cfm (http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/wm182.cfm)
http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg2001.cfm (http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg2001.cfm)
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110010798 (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110010798)
http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/04/tax-cut-stimulus-opinions-contributors_0204_peter_ferrara.html (http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/04/tax-cut-stimulus-opinions-contributors_0204_peter_ferrara.html)
I am not propagating any lies....there is a lot of facts and proof that tax cuts, stimulate the economy and generates MORE revenue to the federal government....
it is common logic....not trying to be a smart arse....there is several links that support this idea...
I just don't get you, Henry.
First you castigate Ex for referencing "a liberal policy analysis group" (while ignoring his very good references to an excellent CBO report) ....
Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 15, 2010, 12:37:45 PM
Ex, I have read and researched your sources...and they are...a liberal policy analysis group...so, naturally, they will spin tax cuts to benefit the liberal agenda, to increase the tax burden on hard working Americans....
And then you try to foist upon us the most-right of right-wing organizations.
Shame on you, Henry. Shame.
first of all I am not castigating Ex.....I am ponting out there are some very strong opinons that dispute what he as reported...and I really don't thing the CBO, is any more non partisan than anyone else....they have an agenda to drive also....
I'm saying that tax cuts DO stimulate the economy, and thusly, it increases the federal revenue.....as opposed to raising taxes, where many expert has shown that it can stiffle the economy and decreasing the revenue....that is pretty simple.
http://www.gop.com/index.php/briefing/comments/the_democrats_job_standard/
Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 15, 2010, 04:25:17 PM
first of all I am not castigating Ex.....I am ponting out there are some very strong opinons that dispute what he as reported...and I really don't thing the CBO, is any more non partisan than anyone else....they have an agenda to drive also....
I'm saying that tax cuts DO stimulate the economy, and thusly, it increases the federal revenue.....as opposed to raising taxes, where many expert has shown that it can stiffle the economy and decreasing the revenue....that is pretty simple.
I don't think they get the deal on taxing HH.
Taxing businesses = higher prices to consumers = less spending = less need for production = businesses closing = fewer jobs = less income = less taxes being collected
Taxing people = less spendable cash = less product being purchased = lower production = businesses closing = fewer jobs = less income = less taxes being collected
Less tax on business = more incentive = more production = more jobs = more taxes being collected
Less tax on people = more spendable cash = products being purchased = more cash for the businesses = more need for production = more jobs = more taxes being collected
Now show me how the higher tax on businesses works in your world using the same method I just used all you tax hike enthusiasts. :razz:
congress spent $1 million for trips to Copenhagen... :rant:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 25, 2010, 10:23:47 PM
congress spent $1 million for trips to Copenhagen... :rant:
NASCAR fans spent $2B last year on hats, jackets and shit. What a fucking waste. The US sent israel over $10B last year, with an additional $1B in personal tax-deductible contributions from private citizens funding that oppressive state. What a fucking crime.
Quote from: dan foster on January 25, 2010, 10:49:35 PM
NASCAR fans spent $2B last year on hats, jackets and shit. What a fucking waste. The US sent israel over $10B last year, with an additional $1B in personal tax-deductible contributions from private citizens funding that oppressive state. What a fucking crime.
and your point is?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 25, 2010, 10:53:59 PM
and your point is?
the point is, frist and the other nazis in congress probably spent $10M saving terry and now you are worried about $1M on going to Copenhagen?
The difference is, imo, the Nascar people spent their own money, congress spends mine. You know, save a million here and a million there and it adds up. I forget which politician said that.
Quote from: Anne on January 26, 2010, 12:21:45 AM
The difference is, imo, the Nascar people spent their own money, congress spends mine.
I'm sure that most of the NASCAR crowd got economic incentive tax checks so actually, they're spending
my money.
Quote from: Exterminator on January 26, 2010, 09:08:06 AM
I'm sure that most of the NASCAR crowd got economic incentive tax checks so actually, they're spending my money.
Not from Obama they didn't....
Quote from: Exterminator on January 26, 2010, 09:08:06 AM
I'm sure that most of the NASCAR crowd got economic incentive tax checks so actually, they're spending my money.
I will change my analogy to the $2.5M being spent by Fukups on the Family to have little Timmy Teabow to denounce abortion in a super bowl add. As far as I am concerned, since the gov't at every level subsidizes these religious assholes, then the $2.5M IS YOUR MONEY.
Quote from: Exterminator on January 26, 2010, 09:08:06 AM
I'm sure that most of the NASCAR crowd got economic incentive tax checks so actually, they're spending my money.
So you don't mind the Copenhagen trips? Personally, I think the members of congress and the senate should become acquainted with "Go To Meeting" :)
It is really amazing how dicked up our congress REALLY is right now...by raising the federal debt limit by $1.9 T R I L L I O N ..... :rant:
Obama himself just recently "lectured' at a townhall..."When times are tough, you tighten your belts. You don't go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage. You don't blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you're trying to save for college."
Then he has the gall, to spend trillions of dollars we DO NOT HAVE....times ARE tough....we need to tighten our belts....and don't go buying....but, THAT is what he is going to do.
what disappoints me is, the folks on here who would be outraged had this been a republican doing this....as a mater of fact, many of you was pissin and moanin with the spending that was done with Bush..
and just to appease ALL of my liberal buddies.........here are some GREAT talking points that are going around.....
that this new debt is approximately 5,300 additional dollars of debt for every man, woman and child in the United States... and that's just for this year.
and this one is the really amazing....
his overall budget is $3.8 trillion .....
Let's put this in some sort of perspective....
George Clooney's telethon for Haiti raised $66 million.
Big number, right?
Well, George Clooney would have to have a $66 million telethon every day for the next 158 years to match Obama's spending in this budget.
A $66 million telethon every day for the next 158 years!
say what you want, but sooner or later, those of you who claim you are "intellectually Honest"...will very soon, figure out that this POTUS and congress is NOT a good thing for this nation....
so go ahead and be all uppity and have your good Ole laughs...Hank stood by his buddies, despite everything.... ;) :)
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 05, 2010, 03:38:18 PM
It is really amazing how dicked up our congress REALLY is right now...by raising the federal debt limit by $1.9 T R I L L I O N .....
QuoteThen he has the gall, to spend trillions of dollars we DO NOT HAVE....
A) do you understand that raising the debt ceiling is not actually spending money?; B) do you know how much of any money that will actually be spent will be spent to cover obligations made by previous presidents and congresses?
Hank, please show me you have some understanding of how our government actually works.
I'm not claiming to be an expert at Government ...but, raising the debt limit SHOULD not be happening...no mater WHO's fault it is...........it is time to STOP spending MORE than we are putting out...........and THIS can be done....frivolous spending is ridicules.....and cramming a Healthcare Bill that is going to cost TRILLION is wrong....PERIOD....
please show me that YOU also have some understanding and quit acting like EVERYTHING they are doing is okay, just because they are democrats.
Quote from: Y on February 06, 2010, 08:06:26 PM
A) do you understand that raising the debt ceiling is not actually spending money?; B) do you know how much of any money that will actually be spent will be spent to cover obligations made by previous presidents and congresses?
Hank, please show me you have some understanding of how our government actually works.
And do you understand that raising the debt ceiling is a way of being able to increase spending and say you are keeping the debt down since you have more room to work with? Its a game pure and simple. Its like saying we can spend this much more and still stay within the budget. If there is no money with the lower debt ceiling there is still no money with a higher one. Former administrations and what they spent have nothing to do with the debt ceiling being raised now.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 06, 2010, 08:16:35 PM
I'm not claiming to be an expert at Government ...but, raising the debt limit SHOULD not be happening...no mater WHO's fault it is
Apparently you don't understand finances. Part of the proper managing of finances is the management of debt. Sometimes it is proper management to increase your debt ceiling.
The position you take here means you must prove why this isn't a proper course of action by the government at this time.
Not only do I suspect you can't do it, I also suspect you won't try and will either have some lame excuse or ignore it altogether. We'll address why later.
Quote...........it is time to STOP spending MORE than we are putting out...........and THIS can be done....frivolous spending is ridicules
You can't simply paint all spending as frivolous. That's typical 'conservative' (read: reactionary) fringe spiel, and shows you neither have an understanding of government/society nor have put much thought into your position(s).
Quote.....and cramming a Healthcare Bill that is going to cost TRILLION is wrong....PERIOD....
1) since when are the actual costs of any bill known until it's actually law and in effect?
2) how is providing health care for our citizens wrong?
3) what
is the purpose of government, Hank?
Quoteplease show me that YOU also have some understanding and quit acting like EVERYTHING they are doing is okay, just because they are democrats.
You shouldn't assume, Hank, it paints you with foolishness when your shown to be wrong, and you've know me long enough to know better.
A recap:
Democraps, Repuglicans, I'm neither and find both major political parties more interested in being self-serving than not. If anything, progressive prolly describes my political leanings as much as anything. My politics are actually a political olio whose major lines of thought have to do with natural rights, the rule of law, and having a government and society that allows the maximum personal freedom within the constraints of a society that leaves no worthy member behind.
Quote from: me on February 06, 2010, 08:43:03 PM
And do you understand that raising the debt ceiling is a way of being able to increase spending and say you are keeping the debt down since you have more room to work with? Its a game pure and simple. Its like saying we can spend this much more and still stay within the budget. If there is no money with the lower debt ceiling there is still no money with a higher one. Former administrations and what they spent have nothing to do with the debt ceiling being raised now.
Can you actually substantiate
any of that with facts and evidence?
Quote from: Y on February 06, 2010, 09:07:57 PM
Can you actually substantiate any of that with facts and evidence?
Common sense my dear sir just plain common sense. If you have a household budget and are just barely living within it does it give you more money if you increase the budget? Answer: No it doesn't but it allows you to spend more money and still tell people you're staying within your budget even though you really are going over your original budget which you were just barely making in the first place.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 05, 2010, 03:38:18 PM
It is really amazing how dicked up our congress REALLY is right now...by raising the federal debt limit by $1.9 T R I L L I O N ..... :rant:
Obama himself just recently "lectured' at a townhall..."When times are tough, you tighten your belts. You don't go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage. You don't blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you're trying to save for college."
Then he has the gall, to spend trillions of dollars we DO NOT HAVE....times ARE tough....we need to tighten our belts....and don't go buying....but, THAT is what he is going to do.
what disappoints me is, the folks on here who would be outraged had this been a republican doing this....as a mater of fact, many of you was pissin and moanin with the spending that was done with Bush..
and just to appease ALL of my liberal buddies.........here are some GREAT talking points that are going around.....
that this new debt is approximately 5,300 additional dollars of debt for every man, woman and child in the United States... and that's just for this year.
and this one is the really amazing....
his overall budget is $3.8 trillion .....
Let's put this in some sort of perspective....
George Clooney's telethon for Haiti raised $66 million.
Big number, right?
Well, George Clooney would have to have a $66 million telethon every day for the next 158 years to match Obama's spending in this budget.
A $66 million telethon every day for the next 158 years!
say what you want, but sooner or later, those of you who claim you are "intellectually Honest"...will very soon, figure out that this POTUS and congress is NOT a good thing for this nation....
so go ahead and be all uppity and have your good Ole laughs...Hank stood by his buddies, despite everything.... ;) :)
So, where were you assholes when a republican congress, driven by a republican president spent us into this mess? Your selective, short-term memory is amazing. Bush inherited a sizable surplus from a democratic president. But, you do realize it is Congress that actually spends the money, do you not?
Quote from: dan foster on February 07, 2010, 11:41:43 AM
So, where were you assholes when a republican congress, driven by a republican president spent us into this mess? Your selective, short-term memory is amazing. Bush inherited a sizable surplus from a democratic president. But, you do realize it is Congress that actually spends the money, do you not?
With the help of Katrina and 9/11 and a couple of other bad hurricanes and some forest fires. So far there have been no sizable disasters for this administration to deal with. Ya'll keep forgetting to include those little disasters among the expenditures of the former administration.
QuoteSee for yourself" by going here:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
and here:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
The debt went up each year. There was no $236.2 billion surplus. NEVER HAPPENED.
willy, you remind me of someone :think:
Quote from: me on February 07, 2010, 12:26:13 PM
With the help of Katrina and 9/11 and a couple of other bad hurricanes and some forest fires. So far there have been no sizable disasters for this administration to deal with. Ya'll keep forgetting to include those little disasters among the expenditures of the former administration.
So, this economic downturn, mass unemployment, and tanking financial district are not disasters to you?
Humm. . . makes one wonder. . .
Quote from: Palehorse on February 07, 2010, 05:07:37 PM
So, this economic downturn, mass unemployment, and tanking financial district are not disasters to you?
Humm. . . makes one wonder. . .
It was not headed off properly the other was completely unexpected.
Quote from: me on February 06, 2010, 08:43:03 PM
And do you understand that raising the debt ceiling is a way of being able to increase spending and say you are keeping the debt down since you have more room to work with? Its a game pure and simple. Its like saying we can spend this much more and still stay within the budget. If there is no money with the lower debt ceiling there is still no money with a higher one. Former administrations and what they spent have nothing to do with the debt ceiling being raised now.
Anyone who could read this and come to the conclusion that anything could be gained by wasting his/her time trying to explain to this poster the difference between the debt ceiling and the budget needs to seriously reconsider. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Exterminator on February 08, 2010, 07:33:39 AM
Anyone who could read this and come to the conclusion that anything could be gained by wasting his/her time trying to explain to this poster the difference between the debt ceiling and the budget needs to seriously reconsider. :rolleyes:
Does not raising the debt ceiling increase the budget by allowing more room to increase the debt? Kind of like we have a debt ceiling of $50 and we're actually in debt $100 so we'll raise the ceiling to $150 and it won't look so bad and we can spend more and still appear to be staying within our ceiling amount. It still comes down to the money isn't there and increasing the ceiling or budget is not going to make it magically appear.
Like I said, you don't have a clue. :rolleyes:
Yes, I do. We have a debt ceiling which means there is a limit on the amount of debt, borrowed money, that can be spent. Now that is the same as you having a charge card with a debt limit and not being able to exceed it because it would give you more debt than you had the ability to pay back. Well, you decide you want to increase your spending even though it isn't within your budget and it's more than your debt ceiling, credit card limit, is too low. Well, nothing left to do but increase your debt limit, (ceiling), on your credit card which still doesn't give you more money it just increases your debt, makes your payments higher to the lender and increases your interest and therefore it makes your budget go completely out of whack. You cannot borrow yourself out of debt or spend your way out of it. Whats so hard to comprehend about that?
And your solution is????
About a 90% alcohol solution. Taken internally.
Quote from: followsthewolf on February 08, 2010, 02:35:28 PM
About a 90% alcohol solution. Taken internally.
Na, another cup of coffee and FB games. :razz:
Good, stick to something you're good at. If FB would let me grow weed in Farmville and sell it in Mafia Wars, I could handle my budget problem without raising my debt ceiling. :biggrin:
now that IS funny.... ;D
Quote from: Exterminator on February 08, 2010, 02:48:24 PM
Good, stick to something you're good at. If FB would let me grow weed in Farmville and sell it in Mafia Wars, I could handle my budget problem without raising my debt ceiling. :biggrin:
I'd settle for letting my NY operations fund my Moscow and Cuban operations right now! :biggrin:
Quote from: Exterminator on February 08, 2010, 02:48:24 PM
Good, stick to something you're good at. If FB would let me grow weed in Farmville and sell it in Mafia Wars, I could handle my budget problem without raising my debt ceiling. :biggrin:
Now that is an idea. :biggrin:
i just go to mafia to collect the daily cash, bank it and leave.
but yoville has this awesome weed you can eat and turn green.
if i could grow that on farmville...
Quote from: damfast on February 08, 2010, 10:14:23 PM
i just go to mafia to collect the daily cash, bank it and leave.
but yoville has this awesome weed you can eat and turn green.
if i could grow that on farmville...
Dang where'd you find that at? I'm gonna have to go 'splorin' at Yoville I guess instead of takin' pics and leavin'. LOL
Quote from: me on February 07, 2010, 12:26:13 PM
With the help of Katrina and 9/11 and a couple of other bad hurricanes and some forest fires. So far there have been no sizable disasters for this administration to deal with. Ya'll keep forgetting to include those little disasters among the expenditures of the former administration.
Yep, we needed all that money spent on the unlawful invasion of iraq and unconstitutional searches of US citizens. Sorry, I was so wrong.
Quote from: dan foster on February 09, 2010, 09:03:05 PM
Yep, we needed all that money spent on the unlawful invasion of iraq and unconstitutional searches of US citizens. Sorry, I was so wrong.
Yep, your eyes are definitely brown and I'll bet your hair is too. 8)
Quote from: me on February 07, 2010, 12:26:13 PM
With the help of Katrina and 9/11 and a couple of other bad hurricanes and some forest fires. So far there have been no sizable disasters for this administration to deal with. Ya'll keep forgetting to include those little disasters among the expenditures of the former administration.
You also left out Bush's proposed bank/insurance company bailout of $700B, which is more than triple the cost of Katrina.
Quote from: dan foster on February 09, 2010, 09:16:30 PM
You also left out Bush's proposed bank/insurance company bailout of $700B, which is more than triple the cost of Katrina.
You mean the democratic congress bank/insurance bailout.
Quote from: me on February 09, 2010, 09:17:39 PM
You mean the democratic congress bank/insurance bailout.
No, I mean the bush bailout.
Quote from: me on February 09, 2010, 09:17:39 PM
You mean the democratic congress bank/insurance bailout.
You fkkers tend to forget it was bush and his dubes that came up with the bailout.
Quote from: dan foster on February 09, 2010, 09:19:03 PM
No, I mean the bush bailout.
Quote from: dan foster on February 09, 2010, 09:19:43 PM
You fkkers tend to forget it was bush and his dubes that came up with the bailout.
The democratic congress was in the majority he couldn't do anything and besides he was a lame duck and had no power. You fkkers seem to forget that. :razz: He signed the bill against his better judgment at the urging of Obama after the election.
three years now....are we better off?
nope
Quote from: me on February 09, 2010, 09:23:28 PM
The democratic congress was in the majority he couldn't do anything and besides he was a lame duck and had no power. You fkkers seem to forget that. :razz: He signed the bill against his better judgment at the urging of Obama after the election.
Are you high? That happened before the election.
Quote from: Exterminator on February 10, 2010, 11:41:10 AM
Are you high? That happened before the election.
A month before and it was still signed at the urging of both Obama and McCain.
Quote from: me on February 10, 2010, 12:10:06 PM
A month before and it was still signed at the urging of both Obama and McCain.
absolutely clueless.
Only 10% of voters say Congress is doing a good or excellent job....
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance)
hope and change... :rolleyes:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 24, 2010, 09:40:07 AM
Only 10% of voters say Congress is doing a good or excellent job....
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance)
hope and change... :rolleyes:
Why do you utilize the poor performance of one branch of government, to beat another? :spooked:
Quote from: Palehorse on February 24, 2010, 02:49:32 PM
Why do you utilize the poor performance of one branch of government, to beat another? :spooked:
the title of the thread is "congress sucks"...i'm just shining light on it, as if it needed it... :rolleyes: :razz:
charlie rangel......... :no: ....nuff said.
Larry Craig! nuff said.
Tom Delay! nuff said.
Quote from: Locutus on March 02, 2010, 12:52:25 AM
Larry Craig! nuff said.
Tom Delay! nuff said.
what is your point?..........i'm not saying they wasn't crooks too....MY point is, Pelosi bragged about having "the most ethical congress EVER"....and this is as corrupt as any we have ever had....and she is defending Rangel.....
CONGRESS SUCKS!!! (title of thread)
Most of the members of Congress have forgotten that politics is the art of compromise.
Simply being hardheaded and obstructionist may appeal to the lowest common denominator of his/her constituency, but doesn't set a very good example of leadership.
And being hypocritical and/or corrupt doesn't help, either.
Quote from: followsthewolf on March 02, 2010, 09:24:59 AM
Most of the members of Congress have forgotten that politics is the art of compromise.
Simply being hardheaded and obstructionist may appeal to the lowest common denominator of his/her constituency, but doesn't set a very good example of leadership.
And being hypocritical and/or corrupt doesn't help, either.
You know the Republicans have been tagged as obstructionist over this health care bill not being passed but since the Dems have been in the majority since the first vote was taken how is it just the Republicans that are stopping it? Why did some of them, the Dems, have to be bribed to get their vote?
Ya I know, another picked out of thin air question but it's one of those things that makes no sense when the Dems start whining about it being the Republican's fault it isn't passed.
Jim Bunning - R Kentucky - nuff said. :rant:
You can also see it as the dems being obstructionist, when Americans, clearly do not want what is being proposed and the dems are trying their best to shove it through....it is the repubs that are reacting to what americans really want...and that is healthcare without bankrupting the nation.
Quote from: Palehorse on March 02, 2010, 10:19:54 AM
Jim Bunning - R Kentucky - nuff said. :rant:
I have no arguement for him, he needs to go!...
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 02, 2010, 11:01:34 AM
I have no arguement for him, he needs to go!...
The bastard is retiring after this term. . . They ought to run him out on a rail! :rant:
I know where he could wear that rail.
And, by the way, "me," note that I said that some members of Congress are obstructionists; I did not accuse republicans. I'm fully aware that there is enough stupidity to go around.
Quote from: followsthewolf on March 02, 2010, 01:09:12 PM
I know where he could wear that rail.
And, by the way, "me," note that I said that some members of Congress are obstructionists; I did not accuse republicans. I'm fully aware that there is enough stupidity to go around.
Some of the news media and others do though and I just fail to understand it. I mean there's disagreeing with policies and such and then there's just plain not paying attention to what's really going on and just playing the "blame game" and it just keeps getting worse. We need a huge vacuum cleaner to just wipe out the lot of them and really start from scratch. Where is Pat Paulson(sp) when ya need him? :biggrin: <tongue in cheek of course since I know where he really is>
The following is a letter, (verified by snopes)....THIS is the typical Teaparty attendee, right here.....and this is why the democrats are in big trouble...
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/guthrie.asp (http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/guthrie.asp)
Mini-Biography:
Born: August 21, 1944 in St. Louis, Missouri
Bar Admissions: North Carolina, 1969
U.S. District Court, Eastern, Middle and Western Districts of North Carolina, 1969
U.S. Tax Court
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
Education:
Wofford College, 1966 - A.B.
Mercer University, 1969 - J.D.
Phi Alpha Delta
Vice-Justice, District XIV, 1968 - 1969
Professional Associations and Memberships:
North Carolina and American Bar Associations (Member, Sections on: Administrative Law; General Practice; Litigation)
26th Judicial District and North Carolina State Bar
Mecklenburg County Bar Association
American Association of Justice
North Carolina Trial Lawyers Association
Captain, U.S. Army, 1969-1971, Vietnam
National Defense Medal, 1969
Republic of Vietnam Service Medal, 1970
Bronze Star Medals (2), 1971
Assistant District Attorney, Mecklenburg County , 1971 - 1974
Charlotte Chamber of Commerce
Chairman, Board of Trustees Providence United Methodist Church
Board of Directors, Alexander Children's Home
Board of Directors, Charlotte Culinary Institute
Wofford Alumni Executive Council
Scoutmaster, Boy Scouts of America
Board of Directors, Boy Scouts of America of Mecklenburg County
Board of Directors, Girl Scout Council
Life Member, National Eagle Scout Association
Life Member, Girl Scouts of America
(http://api.ning.com/files/-QgOo3T2OdItdY8iBHXlfRGj8zY268ekWMROlqksB4rx-UuM68j-P4WYwhfqDdo6B-w5sY-gusM4TmxORN5f9XJvZpTsndEb/OneReallyPeedOffGuyletter.jpg)
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ZLJ0xpaN0Sw/SypEyAu8kII/AAAAAAAABxo/O5xPLsHnNQE/s640/guthrieltr2.jpg)
No really questioning your source, Hank, but would you explain to me how someone can be both an Eagle Scout and a girl scout?
And why do you consider this person typical? At best you can say this is one example.
Quote from: LOsborne on March 15, 2010, 08:00:03 PM
No really questioning your source, Hank, but would you explain to me how someone can be both an Eagle Scout and a girl scout?
And why do you consider this person typical? At best you can say this is one example.
Because I have been to one before and I know several who has been
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 15, 2010, 08:34:42 PM
Because I have been to one before and I know several who has been
So your tranny example is a hero to you because he/she blasts some dolt in congress? Big deal.
Actually, I can answer the scout question. I (a non-teabagger) am a lifetime member of girl scouts. When I was a leader, we had a dad who had grown up in scouts and is an Eagle Scout. His son participated in scouts and so did his daughter. His wife wasn't interested so he'd bring his daughter to meetings and help me when I needed parent volunteers. To work w/the kids, you must be a member, so he had a lifetime membership to Girl Scouts as well. BTW, he's not a teabagger either. :biggrin:
Henry, (cricket, cricket) did you find out anything on how this country's standard of living and our stand of healthcare. By Goggle in "what the standard of living rating of the usa in the world" and what is the standard of healthcare rating of usa in the world." all most to much to read.
I haven't heard a word about that. You asked the question and I answered, how I like to hear some from you about it. Those were the facts and figures.
We're not well off as you thought, are we?
The Troll :confused: :confused:
Quote from: The Troll on March 17, 2010, 07:55:26 AM
We're not well off as you thought, are we?
The Troll :confused: :confused:
I would NOT trade my citizenship for the world....and we may not be doing so great right now, but in 2012, that will change for the good..... :razz:
In all seriousness, I don't care what stories there are on google, that try to make us out a bad guy...this is without a doubt the greatest country on earth.....we have our problems, but we are STILL leading the free world ... as a whole...we have fantastic freedoms, with some of the most generous people on earth...we do have a great healthcare ... we have the best Military, we have great innovative Americans working hard to improve our lives...I have NO complaints overall...I will even put up with the liberals here...because we have the freedoms to change things if they get too radical....
btw...here is one poll that rates the countries with the top standard of living....
6th place....NOW, who is it that the world turns too, when there is a problem....Norway?...I don't think so...so let's put this in perspective....for the last 200 plus years, we are the ones who set the standards...does those other five countries have militaries capable of handling world situations?.....maybe if we was a selfesh country and decided NOT to spend billion on a military, and NOT be the ones to help out earthquake riddled countries or countries with AIDS, or countries hit by tsnami's..or countries suffering hunger.....yeah, maybe we could move up a spot or two, but we ARE the ones who set the standards and I, for one, am PROUD to be an American Citizen... 1. Norway
2. Sweden
3. Canada
4. Belgium
5. Australia
6. United States
7. Iceland
8. Netherlands
9. Japan
10. Finland
URL: http://able2know.org/topic/55762-1 (http://able2know.org/topic/55762-1)
btw, I just called Nancy Pelosi's office and GOT THROUGH!!!...I about fell out of my chair....I was put into her voice mail of course...and I am sure she will call me back!! :rolleyes: :spooked: :razz: ...I was actually very cordial..( I don't want the men in black suits knocking on my door today)....I told her MY opinion of the HC Bill....
I'm pretty sure she will be sending a plane for me to catch to fly me to DC to discuss this further, so I may not be on here posting much for the next couple of days...
Nance called me and asked me to please ask the right wing looney toons not to call her office. It ties up the phone and prevents people with actual business and valid well-informed opinions from getting through.
:razz: