Are all democrats retarded?

[never_fast_enuf]

Watching the Bill OÂ’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh fake flaps unfold via another Soros lie machine begs the question.
Are all democrats retarded? Based on the actions of their party, I have to say there is no other conclusion but YES. Clearly they are playing to their new far left base.
First the Soros funded group makes up something about Rush and O'Reilly, then the democrats willing accomplices called the main stream media "report" it as fact and they are off to the races. They are retarded I tell ya...
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/democrats-go-after-limbaugh-2007-10-01.html

[never_fast_enuf]

If it wasn't so scary what these people are doing, this would be hilarious. Odd thing is, this scrappleface article actually nails the insanity of the democrats and this contrived situation. For those who don't know it, scrappleface.com is a satirical website that pokes fun at current events with their stories. They absolutely nailed this one though...
Phony Vets for TruthÂ’ Join Reid Attack on Rush Limbaugh
Scrappleface.com
October 1, 2007 | Scott Ott
Just hours after Sen. Harry Reid, D-NV, took the senate floor to call on radio talkshow host Rush Limbaugh to apologize for using the term “phony soldiers” during his Friday broadcast, a newly-formed, grassroots veterans organization endorsed the senate majority leader’s efforts.
Phony Vets for Truth, an non-profit group comprised of ex-military personnel who have publicly and deceptively disparaged the United States, the president or fellow U.S. troops in time of war, applauded “Sen. Reid’s bravery, and his appropriate use of senate debate time to discuss Mr. Limbaugh’s scurrilous remarks.”
In a statement completely independent of the Democrat National Committee, Phony Vets for Truth, a non-partisan think tank, also said: “When private citizens start to believe that they can say whatever they want without being subject to the normal democratic process of selective sound-bite editing, and selective outrage, then it’s time for Congress to take action.”

[Sleeper CP]

Are all democrats retarded?
That would be a Big Fat "Roger Red Rider"
Sleeper CP
Big Inch Ford Lover

[SB]

Either they are retarded or they think we are.:D

[donzi5150]

Just a simple yes will sufice!

[never_fast_enuf]

Either they are retarded or they think we are.:D
Now that was funny.:D

[hkunz]

I've had several talks with my ultra liberal University professor uncle, and sure enough, they are completely clueless.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

The first backfire from this one is that it has set off O'Riley to nail EVERY smear-merchant out there, and he has one he11 of a huge TV and radio audience. I doubt Rush will take the same tack, but it is going be frankly be fun watching Bill smoke these morons who think they can get away with lying to people, ABOUT other people, who, due to fame, have no ability to sue.
'Tards? Must be. No other reasonable explanation for such stupid behavior.
Big story tonight on The Factor on just exactly WHO RUNS MediaMatters (Soros' "reporting" arm), but, I won't be catching it. Was out running and The Admiral is watching Fantastic 4 Silver Surfer, and I am headed to bed.

[bigq]

I've had several talks with my ultra liberal University professor uncle, and sure enough, they are completely clueless.
You only need to say it once we arn't that retarted:D :hammer2:

[asch]

Most of the Dems I know lack the required moxie.

[Old Texan]

Hillary has taken credit for organizing Media Matters. Soros provides the financial backing. :idea:

[never_fast_enuf]

Talk about the REAL truth...
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d133/davidlachnicht/ec0e0d56.jpg

[donzi5150]

You know, it makes me absolutely sick that anyone would consider those people as patriots and putting phony and patriots together pisses me off even more........I wish Treason was still prosecuted and punishment was executed! :mad:

[Boatcop]

Add Sen. Tom Harkin to the list of "Phony Soldiers"
Phony Patriot Attacks Rush Limbaugh Over Phony Soldiers
No wonder Senator Harkin was so angry at Rush Limbaugh's attacks on "phony soldiers"...
Rush was talking about him!
Senator Harkin lashed out at Rush Limbaugh today on the floor of the Senate:
Well, I donÂ’t know. Maybe he was just high on his drugs again. I donÂ’t know whether he was or not. If so, he ought to let us know. But that shouldnÂ’t be an excuse.
Nice. But, considering Harkin's phony soldier duty claims it only makes sense that he would be angry at Rush:
In Mr. Harkin's case, the questions that have lingered longest concern his Navy record. Mr. Harkin did serve in the Navy during the Vietnam era, but exactly what he did, and for how long, remain a matter of some dispute.
"After I got out of college," he says in his standard stump speech, "I spent eight years, eight months and eight days as a Navy pilot." His military record, though, shows he served five years on active duty, from Nov. 21, 1962, until Nov. 30, 1967. The senator arrives at the eight-year figure by adding on three years in the ready reserve. Mr. Harkin's military record, acquired by The Wall Street Journal through a Freedom of Information request, shows he remained active in the reserves, ready or not, until Oct. 1, 1989, retiring with the rank of commander.
"I'm right," Mr. Harkin says. "I was a Navy flyer for eight years, eight months and eight days. I have a certificate to prove it."
What he did while on active duty is even more confusing. In 1979, Mr. Harkin, then a congressman, participated in a round-table discussion arranged by the Congressional Vietnam Veterans' Caucus. "I spent five years as a Navy pilot, starting in November of 1962," Mr. Harkin said at that meeting, in words that were later quoted in a book, Changing of the Guard, by Washington Post political writer David Broder. "One year was in Vietnam. I was flying F-4s and F-8s on combat air patrols and photo-reconnaissance support missions. I did no bombing."
It also appears that Tom Harkin's staff do not want you to know that Tom Harkin made up phony stories about his military service:
While running for his Senate seat in 1984, and again while running for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1992, Harkin has faced criticism for claiming that he had flown combat missions over North Vietnam. In a 1979 round table discussion with other Congressional Veterans, Harkin said of his service as a Navy pilot: “One year was in Vietnam. I was flying F-4s and F-8s on combat air patrols and photo-reconnaissance support missions”. These comments were later published in a 1981 book by David Broder. After subsequent inquiries by Barry Goldwater and The Wall Street Journal, Harkin clarified that that he had been stationed in Japan and sometimes flew recently repaired aircraft on test missions over Vietnam. His service flying F-4s and F-8s was later, while he was stationed in Cuba.
References to this controversy were deleted from Wikipedia by staffers from Harkin's senate office.

[Schiada76]

Democrats are scum, pure and simple.
They are traitors and liars to the core.:mad:

[Old Texan]

This whole fiasco is being built aoround liars. Reid, Harkin, and the others are using so many out of context statements it's pitful. The "Phony Soldier" Rush was taliking about was exposed on national news yet these buffoons are trying to make his lies into "real facts" in order to use his subversion of the the military. They don't care what he did, only that he bad mouths the military in Iraq.
The fools hadn't learned the lesson taught Kerry the last time around by the SwiftBoat Vets.
Next thing we know Hillary is gonna be talking about her WWII stint with the WACs....:devil:

[Old Texan]

Went over to the Media matters site to dig a little more on the Phony Soldier fiasco and got caught up on their bashing of Ann Coulter.
Here's a couple excerpts they had from Ann claiming she was making hate talk about Muslims and Arabs by calling hem Camel Jockeys:
If you don't want to get shot by the police, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, then don't point a toy gun at them. Or, as I believe our motto should be after 9/11: Jihad monkey talks tough; jihad monkey takes the consequences. Sorry, I realize that's offensive. How about "camel jockey"? What? Now what'd I say? Boy, you tent merchants sure are touchy. Grow up, would you?
One curious thing about the ensuing outrage is that Hollywood Liberals denounced me faster than the Arabs did. Maybe I'm winning the camel jockeys over! After all, they get Christmas presents under my plan.
Both comments from back in '06 columns. Gotta love Ann's style.....:devil:

[SmokinLowriderSS]

to the list of democrat embarassments.
John Murtha.
He, a year ago, did the exact same thing clown472 did, blanketly convictin g the accused Marines in the Haditha "masacre" of "cold-blooded murder and war crimes''.
Clown did it here.
Murtha did it in front of cameras on the floor of congress, spouting from his brown-eye.
Murtha has also been unapologetic, not about to retract a word, even as the same said Marines are being cleared in the investigations.
Frank Wuterich, a Marine sergeant involved in the incident, has sued Murtha for libel and invasion of privacy.
A judge has ORDERED Murtha to not only testify, but to provide any documentation he has as well.
This one bears watching IMO.

[Boatcop]

It's about time someone put those blowhards in their place. But I'll bet it get's thrown out due to some little known Congressional safeguard those turds tacked on some soybean bill to protect them from being sued.

[hkunz]

You only need to say it once we arn't that retarted:D :hammer2:
But then my post count won't climb:D
I've rethought this issue over the past day or so, and realized that they don't think WE are retarded - WE just aren't thier target market. I realize I am making some huge assumptions here, but this list is Hot Boat. Hot boats aren't cheap. How do you make money, enough money to afford a hot boat? Again, these are generalizations, but you can complete your higher education with a degree or degrees, build/own a business, work hard, inherit wealth, or a combination of the above.
The Dem's target market is people who, for whatever reason, do not fit into those categories - undeucated, wage earners, lazy, etc. Not all categories fit, (they certainly don't in my case) and this isn't a slam on anyone here, just an observation that if you are a motorhead/***boater/offroader/someone who works hard or smart enough to get enough "wealth" to buy toys, then they aren't talking to you, and don't want to hear from you. They want the classic welfare recipient who lives in apartment, drinks lite beer, watches every basketball ball game and sitcom on TV, and belives what CBS, NBC and ABC feed them as news.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

It's about time someone put those blowhards in their place. But I'll bet it get's thrown out due to some little known Congressional safeguard those turds tacked on some soybean bill to protect them from being sued.
Well, the suit has already survived one instancve of Murtha's lawyers tryiung to get it slammed by the law that already exists that prevents congressmen from being sued for what they say "while in the performance of their duties".
The judge specifically has concernes over (without the exact quote I could find in short order) just how much leeway you CAN give a lawmaker to make statements and accusations against comon persons without any risk of retribution. Where is the boundary?
Turns out I was a bit innacurate in my initial statements. He did not say it on the floor of congress, he did it in a press conference, and at several interviews shortly afterward. He also stated that the murders would be covered up.
Murtha's big problem is that the soldiers (most so far) have BEEN AQUITTED AND RELEASED. Thus, his accusation was false, and perhaps libelous.
If they were in the midst of being convicted and sentenced, the suit would be without merit, since his statements would be true.
Is that "while in the performance of their duties" as a lawmaker???????

[never_fast_enuf]

The democrats have NO shame and prove on a daily basis that they will do anything to gain more power...even trashing our armed forces and lying through their teeth.
It really makes we wonder what kind of person can sit there and continue to vote for these slugs after they do what they do.

[Old Texan]

The same group of idiots that sit in their houses refusing to move out of the path of an oncoming major storm because "Bush ain't sent no limo.....".
The same group of idiots that defend illegals in the country or oppose plans to deny them jobs without legitimate documnentation, 'cause they are just here to "Feed their families and give them health care....."
The same group of idiots that believe tax cuts for the higher income brackets, lower capital gains taxes, and lower corporate taxes are unfair and should be done away with in spite of the fact they stimulate the economy and produce job growth, "Because the rich should pay more to take care of the less fortunate......"
The same group of idiots that believe Hillary can provide a cost effective, efficient government run health care system because "She is looking out for the common folks...."
The same idiots that believe Social Security will even exist if the Dems contimue to fight any and all proposals to include privatization.
The same idiots belonging to Unions and voting Dem believing the government is obligated to bail out their underfunded and mismanaged pension plans.
And the same idiots that have blindly voted Dem for decades and generations (family tradition) because way back when the party actually had intelligent leaders and members unlike today's far left liberal nutbags, can anyone say "Howard Dean"?

[ULTRA26 # 1]

The same group of idiots that sit in their houses refusing to move out of the path of an oncoming major storm because "Bush ain't sent no limo.....".
The same group of idiots that defend illegals in the country or oppose plans to deny them jobs without legitimate documnentation, 'cause they are just here to "Feed their families and give them health care....."
The same group of idiots that believe tax cuts for the higher income brackets, lower capital gains taxes, and lower corporate taxes are unfair and should be done away with in spite of the fact they stimulate the economy and produce job growth, "Because the rich should pay more to take care of the less fortunate......"
The same group of idiots that believe Hillary can provide a cost effective, efficient government run health care system because "She is looking out for the common folks...."
The same idiots that believe Social Security will even exist if the Dems contimue to fight any and all proposals to include privatization.
The same idiots belonging to Unions and voting Dem believing the government is obligated to bail out their underfunded and mismanaged pension plans.
And the same idiots that have blindly voted Dem for decades and generations (family tradition) because way back when the party actually had intelligent leaders and members unlike today's far left liberal nutbags, can anyone say "Howard Dean"?
Unlike the group of spending maniacs and idiots that are running this country now. Lower taxes and more spending has done significant damage. Duh!
If Republicans lose in 08 it will be because the American people have lost faith in the honesty of conservative principles and Republican leaders and that they view the Dems as the lessor of two evils

[River Lynchmob]

Watching the Bill OÂ’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh fake flaps unfold via another Soros lie machine begs the question.
Are all democrats retarded? Based on the actions of their party, I have to say there is no other conclusion but YES. Clearly they are playing to their new far left base.
First the Soros funded group makes up something about Rush and O'Reilly, then the democrats willing accomplices called the main stream media "report" it as fact and they are off to the races. They are retarded I tell ya...
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/democrats-go-after-limbaugh-2007-10-01.html
That's a rhetorical question.

[Old Texan]

Unlike the group of spending maniacs and idiots that are running this country now. Lower taxes and more spending has done significant damage. Duh!
If Republicans lose in 08 it will be because the American people have lost faith in the honesty of conservative principles and Republican leaders and that they view the Dems as the lessor of two evils
Duh???? I made no mention of spending as it goes without saying that spending needs to be curtailed. Spending is a not a unilateral problem in Washington, both sides share the burden.
If Republicans lose in '08 to either of the current top 2 Dems it will be more stupidity than anything else. In case you haven't heard, there is no "Bush" to be on the ticket in '08. Judge the canditdates on their own merits not on the party predecessor.
The points of my post were directed at the voter ignorance and apathy that gets the bulk of inept idiots elected to public office. Both parties have their share idiots but I'm of the opinion the Dems have far more.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Duh???? I made no mention of spending as it goes without saying that spending needs to be curtailed. Spending is a not a unilateral problem in Washington, both sides share the burden.
If Republicans lose in '08 to either of the current top 2 Dems it will be more stupidity than anything else. In case you haven't heard, there is no "Bush" to be on the ticket in '08. Judge the canditdates on their own merits not on the party predecessor.
The points of my post were directed at the voter ignorance and apathy that gets the bulk of inept idiots elected to public office. Both parties have their share idiots but I'm of the opinion the Dems have far more.
I responded as I did due to the extremely overbroad statments you made relative to Democrats. While, as you know, I'm not a big fan of Hilary, she is a stong and very intelligent woman. Obama is not an idiot either. They both swing to far to the left for my taste but that in itself surely doesn't suggest that they aren't two very intelligent people.
The same group of idiots that sit in their houses refusing to move out of the path of an oncoming major storm because "Bush ain't sent no limo.....".
A ridiculas statement at best.
The same group of idiots that defend illegals in the country or oppose plans to deny them jobs without legitimate documnentation, 'cause they are just here to "Feed their families and give them health care....."
While I didn't support the immigration bill, I don't see Democrats or Republicans wanting to continue employing illegals without documentation.
The same group of idiots that believe Hillary can provide a cost effective, efficient government run health care system because "She is looking out for the common folks...."
Clinton's health care plan is very similar to that of Mitt Romney. Do you not see that there is a problem with health care in this Country. I see any plan that addresses health care as a move in the right direction. How did you like Bush's veto of children's health care bill that would have been funded by an additional $0.61 per pack of cigarettes. BTW, when I was a smoker, I voted to increase the cig tax here in CA.
The same idiots that believe Social Security will even exist if the Dems continue to fight any and all proposals to include privatization.
Individual retirement account are available to all. As I have previously commented, experts state that removing the SS cap will correct projected problems with SS. I for one am very happy that I will be able to enjoy the benefits of SS. Not everyone has the self discipline to manage their own retirement accounts. Is it better for this Country to have our elderly provide for themselves through SS or is it better to let everyone attempt to manage their own retirement income and and up with millions of homeless old folks or old folks on some govt funded social program? I wouldn't be in favor of the later.
The same idiots belonging to Unions and voting Dem believing the government is obligated to bail out their underfunded and mismanaged pension plans.
Anyone who believes like this is an idiot, I agree.
And the same idiots that have blindly voted Dem for decades and generations (family tradition) because way back when the party actually had intelligent leaders and members unlike today's far left liberal nutbags, can anyone say "Howard Dean"?
There are many Republicans and Democrats who vote based on tradition.
Tradition must be left at home when heading to the poles in favor of those who are the most qualified to lead this Country into a secure and prosperous future.
Not all Rebublicans or Democrats are brilliant and vise versa.
Quote: George W. Bush
"Because they want the government controlling Social Security like its some kind of Federal program"
Quote: George W. Bush
"Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction"
Sorry I couldn't help myself with all this talk about idiots. :D :D

[never_fast_enuf]

Unlike the group of spending maniacs and idiots that are running this country now.
Do you understand just how much MORE money the democrats want to spend? As pissed off as I am at the republicans for their lack of leadership in this area, I can't imagine how much more the dems would have spent during this same time period...
Not to mention that the dems wanted to raise taxes instead of cut them.
You have most leading democrats (including the dem presidential candidates) refusing to even acknowledge the extremism of bashing of an active duty career military man by a political group that feeds these same democrats money. These same democrats who now fake outrage over something that a private citizen didn't even do.
Now do you understand why I ask if the democrats are retarded?
I think it was said best by someone else earlier...they think WE are retarded.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Do you understand just how much MORE money the democrats want to spend? As pissed off as I am at the republicans for their lack of leadership in this area, I can't imagine how much more the dems would have spent during this same time period...
Not to mention that the dems wanted to raise taxes instead of cut them.
You have most leading democrats (including the dem presidential candidates) refusing to even acknowledge the extremism of bashing of an active duty career military man by a political group that feeds these same democrats money. These same democrats who now fake outrage over something that a private citizen didn't even do.
Now do you understand why I ask if the democrats are retarded?
I think it was said best by someone else earlier...they think WE are retarded.
nfe, of course I understand why you think what you do and no it isn't clear how much more the Dem candidates are planning to spend. There are ridiculous amounts of waste in social programs and govt spending in general. There is a great deal of available of cash if these matters are properly addressed.
Personally I think that the whole issue of the moveon.twit General Betrayus bullsh*t was over played by the GOP. While the comment lacked taste, Republicans did their absolute best to make it into a political circus. I think that it was totally improper to involve the Senate in deciding if comment was appropriate. Next this we know, we will have Congress and the senate voting on comments made by Rush Limbaugh or Bill Mayer about George Bush, our Commander and Chief. :)
IMO, the system is broken. It's not the fault of only Republicans or only Democrats. However, I believe that to fix what is wrong with this Country it's going take a joint effort of the best of both parties, as well as others. As you no doubt know, I believe that left bashing and/or right bashing is a waste of time. However, until the Congress and/or Senate passes a bill revoking freedom of speech, the bashing will thankfully continue. Better to bash than to sensor.

[Old Texan]

I responded as I did due to the extremely overbroad statments you made relative to Democrats. While, as you know, I'm not a big fan of Hilary, she is a stong and very intelligent woman. Obama is not an idiot either. They both swing to far to the left for my taste but that in itself surely doesn't suggest that they aren't two very intelligent people.
Hill and Obama may have inteligence but they are idiots if they believe anyone with common sense can't see through their "direction of the wind", "what group am I speaking to today" campaign dialogue.The same group of idiots that sit in their houses refusing to move out of the path of an oncoming major storm because "Bush ain't sent no limo.....".
A ridiculas statement at best.
Apparently you are completely unaware of Hurricane Katrina and Nawlins?????? Most of the entitlement set have still not recognized the need to help themselves. These people exist in every city across the nation and yes they do vote. And don't try to excuse the lazy by claiming there are poor that need help, there a big distinction between helpless and lazy.
The same group of idiots that defend illegals in the country or oppose plans to deny them jobs without legitimate documnentation, 'cause they are just here to "Feed their families and give them health care....."
While I didn't support the immigration bill, I don't see Democrats or Republicans wanting to continue employing illegals without documentation.
Had a fellow on the radio yesterday here in Houston defending the illegals right to work to feed their children. "If we don't let them earn, how can they take milk home to their babies?" was pretty much his thought. Check around on how many passive do gooders have no problem with the illegals staying here. How many passive do gooder Preachers will break the law to "help" any and all illegals 'cause to them it's the rightthingto do. And these do gooders vote.......Wonder which party they vote for, huh?
The same group of idiots that believe Hillary can provide a cost effective, efficient government run health care system because "She is looking out for the common folks...."
Clinton's health care plan is very similar to that of Mitt Romney. Do you not see that there is a problem with health care in this Country. I see any plan that addresses health care as a move in the right direction. How did you like Bush's veto of children's health care bill that would have been funded by an additional $0.61 per pack of cigarettes. BTW, when I was a smoker, I voted to increase the cig tax here in CA.
Clinton's plan and Romney's plan are far different in how they are funded. romney actually has the gaul to think the people and the carriers should work out the details for financial responsibility. Romney also wants to keep it in the private sector while Hill wants government to control all aspects.
The same idiots that believe Social Security will even exist if the Dems continue to fight any and all proposals to include privatization.
Individual retirement account are available to all. As I have previously commented, experts state that removing the SS cap will correct projected problems with SS. I for one am very happy that I will be able to enjoy the benefits of SS. Not everyone has the self discipline to manage their own retirement accounts. Is it better for this Country to have our elderly provide for themselves through SS or is it better to let everyone attempt to manage their own retirement income and and up with millions of homeless old folks or old folks on some govt funded social program? I wouldn't be in favor of the later.
We're talking the ability to use some of the money going directly to SS to be controlled by the individual. Sure there need to be some controls to keep people from pulling out early but that can be done. Raising taxes and depending on the system as it is now structured changes nothing and we do have a problem with the current sytem that needs fixing. Your reply implies that the fix is to just keep adding tax money to the coffers????? We need a major overhaul and the Dems won't allow that to happen unless it's stricly of their making. They showed that hand in W's attempt to open dialogue on the subject and Fat Teddy led the charge of "No Way, Jorge!!!!"
The same idiots belonging to Unions and voting Dem believing the government is obligated to bail out their underfunded and mismanaged pension plans.
Anyone who believes like this is an idiot, I agree.
Wow, you agree.............
And the same idiots that have blindly voted Dem for decades and generations (family tradition) because way back when the party actually had intelligent leaders and members unlike today's far left liberal nutbags, can anyone say "Howard Dean"?
There are many Republicans and Democrats who vote based on tradition.
Tradition must be left at home when heading to the poles in favor of those who are the most qualified to lead this Country into a secure and prosperous future.
But which party seems to have the most tradition to stay with "their family party" regardless of the platform??????? Ask around.
UJ- A ridiculas statement at best.
OT-Apparently you are completely unaware of Hurricane Katrina and Nawlins?????? Most of the entitlement set have still not recognized the need to help themselves. These people exist in every city across the nation and yes they do vote. And don't try to excuse the lazy by claiming there are poor that need help, there a big distinction between helpless and lazy.
UJ- While I didn't support the immigration bill, I don't see Democrats or Republicans wanting to continue employing illegals without documentation.
OT- Had a fellow on the radio yesterday here in Houston defending the illegals right to work to feed their children. "If we don't let them earn, how can they take milk home to their babies?" was pretty much his thought. Check around on how many passive do gooders have no problem with the illegals staying here. How many passive do gooder Preachers will break the law to "help" any and all illegals 'cause to them it's the rightthingto do. And these do gooders vote.......Wonder which party they vote for, huh?
UJ- Clinton's health care plan is very similar to that of Mitt Romney. Do you not see that there is a problem with health care in this Country. I see any plan that addresses health care as a move in the right direction. How did you like Bush's veto of children's health care bill that would have been funded by an additional $0.61 per pack of cigarettes. BTW, when I was a smoker, I voted to increase the cig tax here in CA.
OT- Clinton's plan and Romney's plan are far different in how they are funded. romney actually has the gaul to think the people and the carriers should work out the details for financial responsibility. Romney also wants to keep it in the private sector while Hill wants government to control all aspects.
UJ- Individual retirement account are available to all. As I have previously commented, experts state that removing the SS cap will correct projected problems with SS. I for one am very happy that I will be able to enjoy the benefits of SS. Not everyone has the self discipline to manage their own retirement accounts. Is it better for this Country to have our elderly provide for themselves through SS or is it better to let everyone attempt to manage their own retirement income and and up with millions of homeless old folks or old folks on some govt funded social program? I wouldn't be in favor of the later.
OT- We're talking the ability to use some of the money going directly to SS to be controlled by the individual. Sure there need to be some controls to keep people from pulling out early but that can be done. Raising taxes and depending on the system as it is now structured changes nothing and we do have a problem with the current sytem that needs fixing. Your reply implies that the fix is to just keep adding tax money to the coffers????? We need a major overhaul and the Dems won't allow that to happen unless it's stricly of their making. They showed that hand in W's attempt to open dialogue on the subject and Fat Teddy led the charge of "No Way, Jorge!!!!"
UJ- Anyone who believes like this is an idiot, I agree.
OT- Wow, you agree.............
UJ- There are many Republicans and Democrats who vote based on tradition.
Tradition must be left at home when heading to the poles in favor of those who are the most qualified to lead this Country into a secure and prosperous future.
OT- But which party seems to have the most tradition to stay with "their family party" regardless of the platform??????? Ask around.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Hill and Obama may have inteligence but they are idiots if they believe anyone with common sense can't see through their "direction of the wind", "what group am I speaking to today" campaign dialogue.
Tex, I guess we'll see come 08. The majority of the voting public isn't nearly as smart as you are, or at least that's the way you see it.
Had a fellow on the radio yesterday here in Houston defending the illegals right to work to feed their children. "If we don't let them earn, how can they take milk home to their babies?" was pretty much his thought.
Had a fellow of the radio here in Houston Representing the Democratic party. :) :)
But which party seems to have the most tradition to stay with "their family party" regardless of the platform??????? Ask around.
From talking to people in the past I don't believe that the scale is tilted one way or the other.
Your reply implies that the fix is to just keep adding tax money to the coffers????? We need a major overhaul and the Dems won't allow that to happen unless it's stricly of their making. They showed that hand in W's attempt to open dialogue on the subject and Fat Teddy led the charge of "No Way, Jorge!!!!"
It's the Dems fault again. WWWWWWWWHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAA :2purples:

[Old Texan]

Tex, I guess we'll see come 08. The majority of the voting public isn't nearly as smart as you are, or at least that's the way you see it.
http://www.smileyvillage.com/smilies/sick.gif
Had a fellow of the radio here in Houston Representing the Democratic party. :) :)
From talking to people in the past I don't believe that the scale is tilted one way or the other.
http://www.smileyvillage.com/smilies/banana001.gif
It's the Dems fault again. WWWWWWWWHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAA :2purples:
I guess I just wasn't "lucky" to be smart like you. Always good to get a condescending view on one's thoughts. Let's one know they are right.
Now go have fun with your head held high 'cause you once again "Took up for the little man".......Your Merry Men await.:devil:

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I guess I just wasn't "lucky" to be smart like you. Always good to get a condescending view on one's thoughts. Let's one know they are right.
Now go have fun with your head held high 'cause you once again "Took up for the little man".......Your Merry Men await.:devil:
Never once suggested that I was smarter then you or anyone else.
But it's OK for you to talk sh*t about Katrina victums? I don't see it that way, but that just my opinion.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Never once suggested that I was smarter then you or anyone else.
Of all the stupidity you posted on just THIS page of this thread, the above takes the cake.
I'm also noting the comment (since you apparently have no idea how SS works) of "elderly providing for themselves via Social Security".
They DO NOT.
The YOUNG pay for the elderly, over and over. It has been this way ever since Social Security was started. The young who are working pay for the old who no longer do.
The problem is, there are too many old drawing $$$, and not enough young paying in.
Too bad it's too trivial for you to "investigate" the number of workers to SS recipients in 1940, then compare it to 1980, and then 2000.
Then extrapolate that to 2020, or 2040.
It used to be about 20:1, now is about 3:1.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

But it's OK for you to talk sh*t about Katrina victums?
Which Katrina "Victims" do you want to discuss?
The ones who were too stupid to get out of the way of a Cat-5 Hurricane?
Or
The ones abandoned by their Mayor and Governor?
Your choice. :confused:

[Old Texan]

Never once suggested that I was smarter then you or anyone else.
But it's OK for you to talk sh*t about Katrina victums? I don't see it that way, but that just my opinion.
Ya know what they say oh wise one, "Opinions are like A-holes, everybody's got one.....":devil:
If you ever just once read something and pulled the content out as it was intended rather than pull it through the old "high and mighty" complex you tote around in order to twist it to fit your self centered view, the world would come to an immediate stop in complete awe of the event.
You speak that the parties need to work together and how you are so above name calling and blah blah blah, but it's always ironic how it's you that has to always even the field in defense of far left factions that, as you love to claim, "the majority of Americans" dislike and disagree with.
You claim you'd vote for a "good" Republican that met your standards in lieu of Hillary or Obama but give the impression and the thinly veiled threat you'd vote for one of the 2 Socialist Idiots just to spite myself or Smokin or NFE. I guess that's a luxury you can afford in your Utopian world. :rolleyes:

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Ya know what they say oh wise one, "Opinions are like A-holes, everybody's got one.....":devil:
If you ever just once read something and pulled the content out as it was intended rather than pull it through the old "high and mighty" complex you tote around in order to twist it to fit your self centered view, the world would come to an immediate stop in complete awe of the event.
You speak that the parties need to work together and how you are so above name calling and blah blah blah, but it's always ironic how it's you that has to always even the field in defense of far left factions that, as you love to claim, "the majority of Americans" dislike and disagree with.
You claim you'd vote for a "good" Republican that met your standards in lieu of Hillary or Obama but give the impression and the thinly veiled threat you'd vote for one of the 2 Socialist Idiots just to spite myself or Smokin or NFE. I guess that's a luxury you can afford in your Utopian world. :rolleyes:
Originally Posted by Old Texan
The same group on idiots believe.............
Are you now saying that you meant something other than those who favor the content of your comments are idiots. ??? You need to more clear for us lesser folks Tex.
Seems that you were one of the first to critique me for getting caught up in the name called BS.
but it's always ironic how it's you that has to always even the field in defense of far left factions that, as you love to claim, "the majority of Americans" dislike and disagree with.
I'm a fiscal conservative, not a right wing, neo-con Republican. Less government and more intelligent and effective government, and a leader who can ad-lib a sentence using real words.
but give the impression and the thinly veiled threat you'd vote for one of the 2 Socialist Idiots just to spite myself or Smokin or NFE
That's it Tex, I will vote to spite guys in the PRF. :2purples:

[Old Texan]

Are you now saying that you meant something other than those who favor the content of your comments are idiots. ??? You need to more clear for us lesser folks Tex.
Seems that up were one of the first to critique me for getting caught up in the name called BS.
but it's always ironic how it's you that has to always even the field in defense of far left factions that, as you love to claim, "the majority of Americans" dislike and disagree with.
I'm a fiscal conservative, not a right wing, neo-con Republican. Less government and more intelligent and effective government, and a leader who can ad-lib a sentence using real words.
but give the impression and the thinly veiled threat you'd vote for one of the 2 Socialist Idiots just to spite myself or Smokin or NFE
That's is Tex, I will vote to spite guys in the PRF. :2purples:
Seems that up were one of the first to critique me for getting caught up in the name called BS. Huh????????????????????

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Seems that you were one of the first to critique me for getting caught up in the name called BS. Huh????????????????????
Sorry Tex, I didn't proof read. Wireless keyboards do strange things sometimes.

[Boatcop]

I think the most telling thing in today's politics, is that when the Democrats call for bi-partisanship in Government, they mean "Do it OUR way!" They don't see themselves working with the right side of aisle, but demand that Republicans acquiesce to THEIR wishes.
President George H.W. Bush fell for the "bi-partisanship" line in the early '90s when he signed off on a Democratic led tax bill, against his better judgment.
The Dems then crucified him for it, with the "Read My Lips" campaign, which led to his defeat in 1992, and 8 years of the morally corrupt Clinton White House.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I think the most telling thing in today's politics, is that when the Democrats call for bi-partisanship in Government, they mean "Do it OUR way!" They don't see themselves working with the right side of aisle, but demand that Republicans acquiesce to THEIR wishes.
President George H.W. Bush fell for the "bi-partisanship" line in the early '90s when he signed off on a Democratic led tax bill, against his better judgment.
The Dems then crucified him for it, with the "Read My Lips" campaign, which led to his defeat in 1992, and 8 years of the morally corrupt Clinton White House.
Interesting opinion Alan, and one that will keep partisan politics in place. I don't happen to agree.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Interesting opinion Alan, and one that will keep partisan politics in place. I don't happen to agree.
You apparently failed to notice Speaker Pelosi's speeches on bringing BI-partisanship and CO-OPERATION to the government, just weeks before pushing for procedural changes to DENY Republican due process rights. :idea:
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..................

[ULTRA26 # 1]

You apparently failed to notice Speaker Pelosi's speeches on bringing BI-partisanship and CO-OPERATION to the government, just weeks before pushing for procedural changes to DENY Republican due process rights. :idea:
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..................
What procedural changes would DENY only Republican due process rights? Must have a good batch of Kool Aid this morning

[Old Texan]

I think the most telling thing in today's politics, is that when the Democrats call for bi-partisanship in Government, they mean "Do it OUR way!" They don't see themselves working with the right side of aisle, but demand that Republicans acquiesce to THEIR wishes.
President George H.W. Bush fell for the "bi-partisanship" line in the early '90s when he signed off on a Democratic led tax bill, against his better judgment.
The Dems then crucified him for it, with the "Read My Lips" campaign, which led to his defeat in 1992, and 8 years of the morally corrupt Clinton White House.
Very good point and I completely agree.
Teddy K is one of the worse when it comes to this.

[Old Texan]

What procedural changes would DENY only Republican due process rights? Must have a good batch of Kool Aid this morning
Didn't pay much attention around January '07 didja' or is it just that selective memory deal you rely on so often.......:rolleyes:
Off topic- On the Kool Aid subject ESPN had an interesting segment about Jim Jones' Grandson who is quite a Basketball player currently. The story talked about his father's basketball experience back in Guiana(sp) when the elder Jones pulled the KoolAid suicide party and Leo Ryan was shot. Pretty interesting and quite graphic with a number of personal interviews with surviving members whose basketball playing had them safely out of town.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Didn't pay much attention around January '07 didja' or is it just that selective memory deal you rely on so often.......:rolleyes:
Off topic- On the Kool Aid subject ESPN had an interesting segment about Jim Jones' Grandson who is quite a Basketball player currently. The story talked about his father's basketball experience back in Guiana(sp) when the elder Jones pulled the KoolAid suicide party and Leo Ryan was shot. Pretty interesting and quite graphic with a number of personal interviews with surviving members whose basketball playing had them safely out of town.
Doesn't due process apply to all? It's amazing how you folks stick together even when you full it. Like I said, must be good Kool Aid

[Old Texan]

Doesn't due process apply to all? It's amazing how you folks stick together even when you full it. Like I said, must be good Kool Aid
Ya that's it, you versus the world......:rolleyes:
What's amazing is how in your mind's eye, everyone else is always wrong and you're always right.
It's your world John, we're just trying to live in it.......

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Ya that's it, you versus the world......:rolleyes:
What's amazing is how in your mind's eye, everyone else is always wrong and you're always right.
It's your world John, we're just trying to live in it.......
I guess my question about due process applying to all was to simple.
Tex it is OUR WORLD, and I am right about that one.

[never_fast_enuf]

Personally I think that the whole issue of the moveon.twit General Betrayus bullsh*t was over played by the GOP. While the comment lacked taste, Republicans did their absolute best to make it into a political circus. I think that it was totally improper to involve the Senate in deciding if comment was appropriate. Next this we know, we will have Congress and the senate voting on comments made by Rush Limbaugh or Bill Mayer about George Bush, our Commander and Chief.
There is a massive difference between a democrat political money machine placing a premeditated add in the NYT's that completely trashes a very decorated active military man because he MIGHT be saying something that the democrats do not agree with. This group is a democrat political fund raising machine and the democrats who line up to take their cash had NO problem with their own group trashing this man.
THEN they have the gall to make something up about a private citizen who has a record of troop support far longer than any of the troop trashing dems who lined up to "condemn" something this private citizen never did.
The fact is Ultra, the democrats are so aligned with anti American groups it is scary and until everyone stands up and demands more from them, we are screwed.
What moveon.org did was far greater than "bad taste"...the support the democrats show for them is sickening. There is zero correlation between the two issues and trying to make it so is only another weak diversionary tactic that flopped.

[never_fast_enuf]

Ultra...
House Republicans might have their doubts, but Minority Leader Pelosi says a Democratic majority next year would place a heavy emphasis on bipartisanship — and would offer the Republicans minority rights often denied Democrats now.
“[I would like] to come as close as you can in the political reality to a bipartisan management of the House,� Pelosi said in a Wednesday interview with CongressDaily. “I’m a big believer in bipartisanship on so many issues. You can’t address the entitlement issue, the healthcare issue, and do it in a partisan way. They are too big, they involve too many people, and they involve too much money, private and public money. You’ve got to do it in a way that has legitimacy.�
Pelosi, who is widely viewed to become speaker if Democrats pull off a net 15-seat gain on Election Day, intends to stand by a proposal she offered House Speaker Hastert two years ago to enact a Minority Bill of Rights.
It includes guaranteeing the minority at least one-third of committee resources, a revamped work schedule, a commitment to moving legislation through regular order, and allowing at least 24 hours before voting on conference reports.
That was before the lying sack of crap gained power...by lying to other democrat dupe voters.
The reality??? Facts are a pretty clear thing Ultra. No way to spin them.
PELOSI LOWERS THE BOOM
Wed May 16 2007 14:43:59 ET
After losing a string of embarrassing votes on the House floor because of procedural maneuvering, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has decided to change the current House Rules to completely shut down the floor to the minority.
The Democratic Leadership is threatening to change the current House Rules regarding the Republican right to the Motion to Recommit or the test of germaneness on the motion to recommit. This would be the first change to the germaneness rule since 1822.
Hear it for yourself on this podcast.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTRlYTVkYzdjY2ZjMGJlNDJiMjA0ZjhhNWIzNzJhNzc=

[Old Texan]

Ultra...
House Republicans might have their doubts, but Minority Leader Pelosi says a Democratic majority next year would place a heavy emphasis on bipartisanship — and would offer the Republicans minority rights often denied Democrats now.
“[I would like] to come as close as you can in the political reality to a bipartisan management of the House,” Pelosi said in a Wednesday interview with CongressDaily. “I’m a big believer in bipartisanship on so many issues. You can’t address the entitlement issue, the healthcare issue, and do it in a partisan way. They are too big, they involve too many people, and they involve too much money, private and public money. You’ve got to do it in a way that has legitimacy.”
Pelosi, who is widely viewed to become speaker if Democrats pull off a net 15-seat gain on Election Day, intends to stand by a proposal she offered House Speaker Hastert two years ago to enact a Minority Bill of Rights.
It includes guaranteeing the minority at least one-third of committee resources, a revamped work schedule, a commitment to moving legislation through regular order, and allowing at least 24 hours before voting on conference reports.
That was before the lying sack of crap gained power...by lying to other democrat dupe voters.
The reality??? Facts are a pretty clear thing Ultra. No way to spin them.
PELOSI LOWERS THE BOOM
Wed May 16 2007 14:43:59 ET
After losing a string of embarrassing votes on the House floor because of procedural maneuvering, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has decided to change the current House Rules to completely shut down the floor to the minority.
The Democratic Leadership is threatening to change the current House Rules regarding the Republican right to the Motion to Recommit or the test of germaneness on the motion to recommit. This would be the first change to the germaneness rule since 1822.
Hear it for yourself on this podcast.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTRlYTVkYzdjY2ZjMGJlNDJiMjA0ZjhhNWIzNzJhNzc=
Read what the man posted Ultra. This is what Smokin' referred to and what I implied with: Didn't pay much attention around January '07 didja' or is it just that selective memory deal you rely on so often.......
I believe NFE just got tired of waiting or better yet realized you would never admit your dear Dems making these blatant moves.
You cackle on about the parties working together but the plain and proven facts are the liberal Democratic leadership will not allow cohesiveness. For them it's their way or nothing. The whole past 10 months have been nothing but stonewalling and outright misuse of power by Pelosi and Reid in getting anything done for the country.
You cry about the Senate call for vote to denounce MoveOn's ad, but yet have no mention of the irrational unfounded attack in the Senate against a talk show host. I'd be ashamed to support a bunch of driveling ninnies who feel so threatened by the "mere words" of a man hosting a radio talkshow and internet website.
And don't come back with you don't like Pelosi or other liberal Dems either, because if you didn't support them you wouldn't be so quick and adamant in your defense of them.

[Old Texan]

I guess my question about due process applying to all was to simple.
Tex it is OUR WORLD, and I am right about that one.
Go tell Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi about "due process", they're the ones needing the lesson.
By the way, I didn't say OUR, I said YOUR. So figure it out.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

There is a massive difference between a democrat political money machine placing a premeditated add in the NYT's that completely trashes a very decorated active military man because he MIGHT be saying something that the democrats do not agree with. This group is a democrat political fund raising machine and the democrats who line up to take their cash had NO problem with their own group trashing this man.
THEN they have the gall to make something up about a private citizen who has a record of troop support far longer than any of the troop trashing dems who lined up to "condemn" something this private citizen never did.
The fact is Ultra, the democrats are so aligned with anti American groups it is scary and until everyone stands up and demands more from them, we are screwed.
What moveon.org did was far greater than "bad taste"...the support the democrats show for them is sickening. There is zero correlation between the two issues and trying to make it so is only another weak diversionary tactic that flopped.
Bush made the General into quite the public figure. What seems apparent is that any group that opposes the Right or favors the left shouldn't be allowed to post an ad or make a comment about anyone that they so choose, based on your way of thinking.
Anyone or any group thats views Democrats as being anti-American, has no idea what America stands for. Get over believing that the Country can legislate against bad taste.
The political grand standing attempt by the GOP, about the Betrayus ad, IMO made them appear desperate.
It's capitalist politics, no more no less. It's all about the money. Money talks and BS walks. I have little doubt that in 08, the candidate with the most money behind him or her will be the next President. Very sad but true, I'm afraid.
Go tell Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi about "due process", they're the ones needing the lesson.
By the way, I didn't say OUR, I said YOUR. So figure it out.
Why don't you answer the question about due process.
I said "OUR WORLD". and I know what you said. Imagine that.
nfe's link
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
NRO Podcast: Eric Cantor on Pelosi's End-Around [Stephen Spruiell]
As it happens, Chief Deputy Republican Whip Eric Cantor explains Pelosi's attempt to shut the minority out of the legislative process in an exclusive NRO podcast.
Cantor explained it this way on his blog earlier:
... bottom line — the Democrats are preventing their Members from having to vote on the tax increases that they are trying to impose on the American People.
The Republicans have been using a House procedure in an attempt to get Democrats on the record supporting the tax increases that, under their own pay-as-you-go rules, will be required to pay for their new spending. It's really slowed Nancy's roll, and so today she tried to take away the Republicans' ability to do it. This would have been the first change to the rule in 185 years.
In the podcast, he explains that Republicans essentially shut down the House this afternoon until Pelosi backed down, but warns that she plans to try again after Memorial Day — something to monitor closely.
From a Right Wing blog site so it must be true. Interesting that the May 16, 2007 article is not the same as nfe posted. I guess it's those accurate blog sites for you.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

From a Right Wing blog site so it must be true. Interesting that the May 16, 2007 article is not the same as nfe posted. I guess it's those accurate blog sites for you.
Do you want me to source Pelosi's attempted (failed) rule change from?
Just the ones that aren't blog sites?
news-hub.com,
There's a vid of her on you-tube, Nancy's successes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_zZKEtoPpM)
How about I source it to The office of Chief Deputy Republican Whip Eric Cantor? Is THAT one good enough, or is he lying?
gatewaypundit,
digg.com
You EXPECT me to source it to Drudgereport, is he LYING???
politico.com,
oxfordmedievilist.com
freerepublic.com
politico.com
From Representative Boehner's office:
DEMOCRATS TO CHANGE 185 YEAR-OLD HOUSE RULE TO ALLOW TAX HIKES WITHOUT HAVING TO VOTE
May 16, 2007
In a stunning move, House Democrats today revealed they will attempt to rewrite House rules that have gone unchanged since 1822 in order to make it possible to increase taxes and government spending without having to vote and be held accountable. House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) today vowed Republicans will use every available means to fight this unprecedented change.
So ultra, what is it?
A "Massive Right Wing Conspiracy"?
By the way, your theoretical VP Bill Clinton, states in his own words that he is not qualified, per the US Constitution, to be VP.
Clinton: “I don’t believe so. There are some people who believe it can, and they have contorted readings of the amendment, the 22nd Amendment. But I believe as a matter of general interpretation, you’re supposed to read all the Constitution including all the Amendments as if they were written almost on the same day at the same moment, so they’re consistent with one another. And the Constitution says the qualifications for Vice President are the same as those for President. Now you can read that to mean ‘to serve,’ not ‘to run for.’ But I just don’t believe it’s consistent with the spirit of the Constitution for someone who’s been President twice to be elected Vice President. I just don’t think it’s Constitutional. I don’t think it’s right and I wouldn’t want to do that.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Here it is in Investor's Business Daily. (http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=264294711189611)
Is "Investor's Business Daily" just a lying right-wing blog or not?

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Here it is in Investor's Business Daily. (http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=264294711189611)
Is "Investor's Business Daily" just a lying right-wing blog or not?
The article sure sounds like a right wing blog. Who was the author? Note the date is the same as nfe's blog. :confused:
There were no changes in the rules, were there?
BTW, the youtube vid is from unbiased the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC)
From Representative Boehner's office:
DEMOCRATS TO CHANGE 185 YEAR-OLD HOUSE RULE TO ALLOW TAX HIKES WITHOUT HAVING TO VOTE
From the drunken Town Crier (literally)
NOTHING CHANGED

[TonkaDriver]

Unlike the group of spending maniacs and idiots that are running this country now. Lower taxes and more spending has done significant damage. Duh!
If Republicans lose in 08 it will be because the American people have lost faith in the honesty of conservative principles and Republican leaders and that they view the Dems as the lessor of two evils
To answer an earlier question. They don't think we are retarded. They just believe that they are the elite and they know what is best for everyone else.
They are the do as I say, not as I do crowd. They heat and cool 10,000 square foot mansions, drive gas guzzlers, fly on private jets and tell us to buy Yugos to conserve energy and lessen our dependence on foreign oil. Yet we can't drill in the frozen wasteland in Alaska.
Ultra, if you happened to miss the 06 elections, the tax and spend libs are running the country now.
I like tax cuts for the rich myself. after all, aren't they the ones that are hiring. I can't remember ever being employed by a poor person.
By the way, I am a blue collar type. I work a mining job. Not rich, just know how to save.
Kurt

[Boatcop]

Another example is the oft cussed and discussed Child Health Care bill, that the President rightfully vetoed.
What hasn't been mentioned too much, is that it would be funded by a 61 cents a pack Tax.
And since smokers are from the ranks of poor folks in far greater numbers than other socio-economic classes, it essentially would be a tax on the poor to give free health care for the middle class.
And when people finally get fed up with cigarette taxes and quit (which would be a good thing, health-wise) the shrinking cig-tax revenue would have to be made up from higher taxes on everybody else.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

To answer an earlier question. They don't think we are retarded. They just believe that they are the elite and they know what is best for everyone else.
They are the do as I say, not as I do crowd. They heat and cool 10,000 square foot mansions, drive gas guzzlers, fly on private jets and tell us to buy Yugos to conserve energy and lessen our dependence on foreign oil. Yet we can't drill in the frozen wasteland in Alaska.
Ultra, if you happened to miss the 06 elections, the tax and spend libs are running the country now.
I like tax cuts for the rich myself. after all, aren't they the ones that are hiring. I can't remember ever being employed by a poor person.
By the way, I am a blue collar type. I work a mining job. Not rich, just know how to save.
Kurt
Kurt,
Either side viewing the other as "retarded" is counter productive, IMO.
Yes I am aware that the Dems now have the majority is both houses. However, in keeping with the Republican power, the President has now learned to use his veto pen. The Dems don't have enough of a mojority to get much done, so the congress as almost useless.
Tax cuts are great and I don't anyone who doesn't like them. However, for tax cuts to benefit the economy there must be spending cuts. What we've had for the last, almost, 7 years has been cut taxes and spend more, resulting is huge deficits and a 9 trillion debt. Total fiscal incompetence, IMO.
We need a change in 08, and a change that is much more acceptable to both the right and left.
I admire good savers as saving doesn't come easy to me, but I'm getting better. :)
John

[TonkaDriver]

Interesting opinion Alan, and one that will keep partisan politics in place. I don't happen to agree.
If you don't believe that the dems definition of bipartisanship means "do it our way", you are out of touch with what goes on in Washington. Ever heard of Chapaquidic Ted, Queen Hillary, Senate Leader Harry Ried, Carbon Credit Al Gore????
A fiscal conservative does not align themselves with people that believe our hard earned dollars belong to the federal government and they know better than we do what to do with it.
You can't take care of the lazy without robbing the hard working even if you think you are taxing the rich. You can't possibly believe that corporations pay taxes. They may pay permits and fees but not income taxes. Taxes are passed on to the consumer. The rich people are the employers. What you take from them is kept from their employees. Simple economics.
You cannot be a Democrat today and be a fiscal conservative. That is itself an oxymoron.
Kurt

[TonkaDriver]

Kurt,
Either side viewing the other as "retarded" is counter productive, IMO.
Yes I am aware that the Dems now have the majority is both houses. However, in keeping with the Republican power, the President has now learned to use his veto pen. The Dems don't have enough of a mojority to get much done, so the congress as almost useless.
Tax cuts are great and I don't anyone who doesn't like them. However, for tax cuts to benefit the economy there must be spending cuts. What we've had for the last, almost, 7 years has been cut taxes and spend more, resulting is huge deficits and a 9 trillion debt. Total fiscal incompetence, IMO.
We need a change in 08, and a change that is much more acceptable to both the right and left.
I admire good savers as saving doesn't come easy to me, but I'm getting better. :)
John
I completely agree with your entire statement here. One thing is that the Pres didn't have enough of a majority to do much either. Congress is corrupt. Senate and house members on both sides tack on all kinds of pet projects to any legislation that will pass and it costs us money. The cure is the Line Item Veto.
Tax cuts have led to record tax revenues because when you turn Americans loose with their own money good shit happens. We are the hardest working, most imaginative amd most important of all most independant people on earth and our success is proof positive of that.
Record revenues and morals in congress would equal even more success.
The telling fact about dems is that they lead the pack in spending. George H. W. Bush got screwed by congress because they didn't keep their word and went on a spending spree with the tax increase. If you remember the Dems had a veto proof majority back then. It wasn't till King Newt that the Dems were held to account. Remember the House Bank?
You sound like at worst you are a Reagan Democrat and that is a good thing.
Kurt
P.S. He should have been using the Veto from the start on both sides. Kind of like a recess monitor on the playground.

[Old Texan]

They are the do as I say, not as I do crowd. They heat and cool 10,000 square foot mansions, drive gas guzzlers, fly on private jets and tell us to buy Yugos to conserve energy and lessen our dependence on foreign oil. Yet we can't drill in the frozen wasteland in Alaska.
Which Party are you describing here?

[Old Texan]

Either side viewing the other as "retarded" is counter productive, IMO.
Tax cuts are great and I don't anyone who doesn't like them. However, for tax cuts to benefit the economy there must be spending cuts. What we've had for the last, almost, 7 years has been cut taxes and spend more, resulting is huge deficits and a 9 trillion debt. Total fiscal incompetence, IMO.
We need a change in 08, and a change that is much more acceptable to both the right and left.
Either side viewing the other as "retarded" is counter productive, IMO.
Really.......now haven't we come full circle.:rolleyes: You really should send a note to Reid and Pelosi on this topic, I don't think they get it.
there must be spending cuts.
We knowwwwwwwwwwwww. Everytime someone says tax cut, you have the reflex reply to talk about "spending". EVERYONE agrees already......
We need a change in 08, and a change that is much more acceptable to both the right and left.
And if you think one of the 3 Stooges running for the Democratic nomination is that person, you've lost your mind.......

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I completely agree with your entire statement here. One thing is that the Pres didn't have enough of a majority to do much either. Congress is corrupt. Senate and house members on both sides tack on all kinds of pet projects to any legislation that will pass and it costs us money. The cure is the Line Item Veto.
Tax cuts have led to record tax revenues because when you turn Americans loose with their own money good shit happens. We are the hardest working, most imaginative amd most important of all most independant people on earth and our success is proof positive of that.
Record revenues and morals in congress would equal even more success.
The telling fact about dems is that they lead the pack in spending. George H. W. Bush got screwed by congress because they didn't keep their word and went on a spending spree with the tax increase. If you remember the Dems had a veto proof majority back then. It wasn't till King Newt that the Dems were held to account. Remember the House Bank?
You sound like at worst you are a Reagan Democrat and that is a good thing.
Kurt
P.S. He should have been using the Veto from the start on both sides. Kind of like a recess monitor on the playground.
In many ways your description of me is accurate. 10/4 on the veto pen comment.
Which Party are you describing here?
Should be obvious Tex

[SmokinLowriderSS]

However, for tax cuts to benefit the economy there must be spending cuts. What we've had for the last, almost, 7 years has been cut taxes and spend more, resulting is huge deficits and a 9 trillion debt.
Again, ultra either IGNORES, or DENIES that the actual budget DEFECIT has been DROPPING (not increasing like he'd love to claim) and that, at the current rate of increasing revenues (If democrats don't wreck it like they want to) there will AGAIN be a BUDGET SURPLUS, about 2008 or 2009.
Are you going to DENY the above report from the Congressional Budget Office ultra?
I first told you of it back in May or June.
Too bad you are the ONLY one on here who ignores these annoying liuttle factoids ultra.:idea:
Found any "arguable points" in AlGore's "An Inconvenient Pack Of Propogandic Lies" yet ultra????
I'm looking fwd. to them. :idea:

[Old Texan]

Should be obvious Tex
So tell us.

[never_fast_enuf]

Kurt,
Either side viewing the other as "retarded" is counter productive, IMO.
Yes I am aware that the Dems now have the majority is both houses. However, in keeping with the Republican power, the President has now learned to use his veto pen. The Dems don't have enough of a mojority to get much done, so the congress as almost useless.
Tax cuts are great and I don't anyone who doesn't like them. However, for tax cuts to benefit the economy there must be spending cuts. What we've had for the last, almost, 7 years has been cut taxes and spend more, resulting is huge deficits and a 9 trillion debt. Total fiscal incompetence, IMO.
We need a change in 08, and a change that is much more acceptable to both the right and left.
I admire good savers as saving doesn't come easy to me, but I'm getting better. :)
John
Then why in the HELL do you align yourself with Democrats? Can you tell me the last time democrats wanted to cut spending in ANY program, other than the defense of this country?????????
Good lord Ultra, just look at the spending the dems, who I remind you are now in power, are proposing. Come on...

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Then why in the HELL do you align yourself with Democrats? Can you tell me the last time democrats wanted to cut spending in ANY program, other than the defense of this country?????????
Good lord Ultra, just look at the spending the dems, who I remind you are now in power, are proposing. Come on...
First of all if the Dems were really in power now, there would be a time table in place for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. The Dem majority isn't big enough to have a any real power. I'm not aligned with anyone at this time and I have made this clear in the past.
I don't have problems with the concept of social programs. I take issue with poorly structured and poorly managed social programs. I don't have problems with defense spending, I take issue in defense spending waste and mismanagement. We are approaching the 3/4 of a trillion dollars spent in Iraq, while spending chump change on security at home.
When the time comes, I will align myself with those who present policies that I perceive as the best overall plan for the well being and future prosperity of our Country. While many don't agree, the issue of health care, I view as very important. The recent Bush veto of the child heath care bill, to me was absurd. The notion that the additional $0.61 tax on cigarettes, that would have funded the program, will somehow dry up, is comical. Speaking from experience, people who smoke will continue to smoke, until they decide to quit for reasons other than cost. The notion that an additional tax on tobacco products will cause the stop people from buying is a joke. I was behind this program that the President vetoed. Again. little Dem control.
Republicans have been in power for almost 7 years, and 6 of those years, there were Republican majorities in the houses and I'm, far from pleased with this performance. So far I don't see a star from either party so I keep listening and hoping the a star will emerge.

[never_fast_enuf]

First of all if the Dems were really in power now, there would be a time table in place for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
That is pure BS that you bought hook line and sinker. They ARE in power and they flat out lied to their constituency when they said they would end the war. The can end it right now if they really wanted to but even they know how absolutely irresponsible that would be.
If, as they claim, the American people want to stop the war right now, they would make it so...period.
The recent Bush veto of the child heath care bill, to me was absurd.
I am willing to bet you have no idea, beyond what the left wing blogs say in a 30 second sound bite, what he vetoed. Do you consider a 35 year old to be a "child"? Do you know that he approves of a 5 BILLION increase in that program but vetoed the irresponsible 25 billion increase your financially inept left wing wanted?
You better do some research on this one...If you truly are for fiscal restraint, there is absolutely no way you make that last statement. This is just a taste of what is to come if a dem gets elected in 08.
Do you consider someone making $82,000 a year as poor? That is who this stupid assed libtard bill would let spend my damned hard earned money. Phuck that. Time to stand up and figure a few things out about the party you support Ultra.

[never_fast_enuf]

The notion that the additional $0.61 tax on cigarettes, that would have funded the program, will somehow dry up, is comical.
You forgot 10 bucks a cigar. The schip increases are obscene and as fiscally irresponsible as ANYTHING I have seen in a long while. I can't believe you are actually FOR this trash.

[never_fast_enuf]

Seems damn near everything in this boondoggle liberal bill goes against just about everything you claim to be against.
Have you even looked at anything the moron dems proposed in this EXPANSION or was it just a rubber stamp approval by you since the libs proposed it?
THIS is what you get when libs get to spend the money and this is what I have zero patience for..
The bill mandates that "in lieu of requiring the individual to present satisfactory documentary evidence of citizenship or nationality ... establish a program under which the State submits each month to the Commissioner of Social Security for verification the name and Social Security number of each individual enrolled in the State plan."
Republicans argue that because Social Security numbers do not denote citizenship - the cards can be issued to non-citizens, including immigrants in the United States temporarily - the new standard would open coverage to non-citizens and possibly illegal immigrants.

[never_fast_enuf]

And as for the 12 year old the democrats shamelessly exploited to rebut the presidents veto of this idiotic bill???
More lies from your party Ultra. When is enough enough for you?
Graeme Frost, who gave the democrat rebuttal to George BushÂ’s reasons for vetoing the SCHIP Bill, is a middle school student at the exclusive$20,000 per year Park School in Baltimore, MD.
Graeme was in a severe car accident three years ago, and received care paid for by the government program known as SCHIP-(State Children's Health Insurance Program)
"I was in a coma for a week and couldn't eat or stand up or even talk. My sister was even worse," Graeme wrote. "My parents work really hard and always make sure my sister and I have everything we need, but we can't afford private health insurance."
His sister Gemma, also severely injured in the accident, attended the same school prior to the accident meaning the family was able to come up with nearly $40,000 per year for tuition for these 2 grade schoolers. Confirmation both attended Park found here (http://64.233.169.104/u/ParkSchool?q=cache:vQqK-KkfHf8J:academics.parkschool.net/upper/postscript/jan05.pdf+gemma&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&ie=UTF-8) using edit-"find on this page"-Gemma. It will take you to an article in the schools newspaper about a fundraiser for Gemma class of 16, and Graeme class of 13.
You need to wake up Utlra and stop blindly injesting the BS the libs are feeding you. Do you question ANYTHING they do?

[Old Texan]

The bill mandates that "in lieu of requiring the individual to present satisfactory documentary evidence of citizenship or nationality ... establish a program under which the State submits each month to the Commissioner of Social Security for verification the name and Social Security number of each individual enrolled in the State plan."
Republicans argue that because Social Security numbers do not denote citizenship - the cards can be issued to non-citizens, including immigrants in the United States temporarily - the new standard would open coverage to non-citizens and possibly illegal immigrants.
The highlighted along with the bill being overfunded are the 2 main points of Bush's veto. Rep. Nick Lampson D, TX, a big supporter of the bill from the beginning, denies the abuse by illegals is possible and glosses over completely the SSN ID portion of the program. He is busy arguing this point in spite of the facts. Lampson by the way is sitting in the former seat held by Tom Delay and guess who he gatehered large campaign support from during the Nov '06 election? Move On.org. I guess the Congressman is just repaying his obligations......
Why are these points not recognized by the Dems and all doing the sqawking? I thought the consensus was to prevent overspending and better enforcement of laws preventing healthcare fraud? Seems based on these 2 points alone the Veto was just.
Bash Bush first, gather the facts later seems to be the common precedent once again. What say Ye there Mr. Ultra?

[ULTRA26 # 1]

First of all if the Dems were really in power now, there would be a time table in place for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
That is pure BS that you bought hook line and sinker. They ARE in power and they flat out lied to their constituency when they said they would end the war. The can end it right now if they really wanted to but even they know how absolutely irresponsible that would be.
If, as they claim, the American people want to stop the war right now, they would make it so...period.
The recent Bush veto of the child heath care bill, to me was absurd.
I am willing to bet you have no idea, beyond what the left wing blogs say in a 30 second sound bite, what he vetoed. Do you consider a 35 year old to be a "child"? Do you know that he approves of a 5 BILLION increase in that program but vetoed the irresponsible 25 billion increase your financially inept left wing wanted?
You better do some research on this one...If you truly are for fiscal restraint, there is absolutely no way you make that last statement. This is just a taste of what is to come if a dem gets elected in 08.
Do you consider someone making $82,000 a year as poor? That is who this stupid assed libtard bill would let spend my damned hard earned money. Phuck that. Time to stand up and figure a few things out about the party you support Ultra.
The notion that the additional $0.61 tax on cigarettes, that would have funded the program, will somehow dry up, is comical.
You forgot 10 bucks a cigar. The schip increases are obscene and as fiscally irresponsible as ANYTHING I have seen in a long while. I can't believe you are actually FOR this trash.
Get real nfe. This is politics and both parties are somewhat full of shi*t. Get off the blogs and get a grip on reality.
1. Congress passed a bill regarding ending the war. Had it not been vetoed, the process in the bill would have commenced. The same holds true with the child health care bill.
,,,,,,,,,,If, as they claim, the American people want to stop the war right now, they would make it so...period.
The only way possible for congress to stop the war to is not to fund it. Probabally not the most sensable way to bring our troops home.
2. As I have said over and over, I don't read left wing blogs. I must imagine that they contain as much BS as any blog site. No I don't consider a 35 y/o to be a child. This comment suggests that you spend too much time hanging around right wing blogs.
Yes I am aware of Bush's 5 bil OK. I am for a plan that provides health care for all Americans and believe that it will save money. Here in CA last year there was $8 billion in unpaid medical treatment. Who do you think ends up paying for this, you and I do.
I pay a substantial about of income tax just like you do. A few things you can count are change, taxes and death, so get over it.
3. I have no problem sharply increasing taxes on tobacco products or alcohol, for that matter. More of the pay as you use mentality. If this would keep all children with health insurance, it would ultimately benefit us all.
__________________________________________________ _
I also believe that a fixed percentage of our taxes should be allocated to war. When we are not at war, this percentage would be lifted. Then see how many Americans want the war in Iraq over.
You like most Americans are all about money. I Guaranty that if ending the war put money in your pocket, you would be screaming END THE WAR
with 98% of the rest of the Country. If going to war cost Americans a 5% increase in their income tax, I assure you that you would have far fewer people in favor of BS frivolous wars. You play you pay

[Old Texan]

Get real nfe. This is politics and both parties are somewhat full of shi*t. Get off the blogs and get a grip on reality.
1. Congress passed a bill regarding ending the war. Had it not been vetoed, the process in the bill would have commenced. The same holds true with the child health care bill.
,,,,,,,,,,If, as they claim, the American people want to stop the war right now, they would make it so...period.
The only way possible for congress to stop the war to is not to fund it. Probabally not the most sensable way to bring our troops home.
2. As I have said over and over, I don't read left wing blogs. I must imagine that they contain as much BS as any blog site. No I don't consider a 35 y/o to be a child. This comment suggests that you spend too much time hanging around right wing blogs.
Yes I am aware of Bush's 5 bil OK. I am for a plan that provides health care for all Americans and believe that it will save money. Here in CA last year there was $8 billion in unpaid medical treatment. Who do you think ends up paying for this, you and I do.
I pay a substantial about of income tax just like you do. A few things you can count are change, taxes and death, so get over it.
3. I have no problem sharply increasing taxes on tobacco products or alcohol, for that matter. More of the pay as you use mentality. If this would keep all children with health insurance, it would ultimately benefit us all.
__________________________________________________ _
I also believe that a fixed percentage of our taxes should be allocated to war. When we are not at war, this percentage would be lifted. Then see how many Americans want the war in Iraq over.
You like most Americans are all about money. I Guaranty that if ending the war put money in your pocket, you would be screaming END THE WAR
with 98% of the rest of the Country. If going to war cost Americans a 5% increase in their income tax, I assure you that you would have far fewer people in favor of BS frivolous wars. You play you pay
Your arguement on the Healthcare Bill shows you haven't researched that which condemn and are quick to comment upon. And the fixed percentage of taxes going towards War makes little sense whatsoever.
The war it self could have been done far more prudently if we had let our military run things from the beginning and secondly kept the media out of the field. Bush's biggest mistake was allowing Rumsfeld to run the war rather than just overseeing the Pentagon. Like Viet Nam when Congress starts trying to control the war effort, it makes our miltary far too encumbered by politics. Left alone our military would have had the whole country under control in the first 6 months and would have spent the last 3 1/2 years doing peackeeping duties while the Iraqis worked out the details.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Your arguement on the Healthcare Bill shows you haven't researched that which condemn and are quick to comment upon. And the fixed percentage of taxes going towards War makes little sense whatsoever.
The war it self could have been done far more prudently if we had let our military run things from the beginning and secondly kept the media out of the field. Bush's biggest mistake was allowing Rumsfeld to run the war rather than just overseeing the Pentagon. Like Viet Nam when Congress starts trying to control the war effort, it makes our miltary far too encumbered by politics. Left alone our military would have had the whole country under control in the first 6 months and would have spent the last 3 1/2 years doing peackeeping duties while the Iraqis worked out the details.
I suggest that you read my post again, with regard to taxes and war. Then tell me I'm full of sh*t. I didn't say anything about additional taxes. The point is if Americans want to play war games than I believe they must pay. If the war is costing 10% then decrease taxes 10% when we are out of Iraq. With knowledge that going back to war means Americans will have to pay, I promise that the issue of war won't be taken so lightly. Reinstating the draft in war times should also be mandatory. Another war reality
I also believe that a fixed percentage of our taxes should be allocated to war. When we are not at war, this percentage would be lifted. Then see how many Americans want the war in Iraq over.
You like most Americans are all about money. I Guaranty that if ending the war put money in your pocket, you would be screaming END THE WAR
with 98% of the rest of the Country. If going to war cost Americans a 5% increase in their income tax, I assure you that you would have far fewer people in favor of BS frivolous wars. You play you pay
Am I wrong on this issue??
It's all about peoples pocket books

[Old Texan]

I suggest that you read my post again, with regard to taxes and war. Then tell me I'm full of sh*t. I didn't say anything about additional taxes. The point is if Americans want to play war games than I believe they must pay. If the war is costing 10% then decrease taxes 10% when we are out of Iraq. With knowledge that going back to war means Americans will have to pay, I promise that the issue of war won't be taken so lightly. Reinstating the draft in war times should also be mandatory. Another war reality
Am I wrong on this issue??
It's all about peoples pocket books
Read you point just fine. Didn't claim you were full of anything, that's your assumption and since it's your body, you know better than I. Didn't claim you were advocating additional taxes either.
It appears your point advocates Americans vote on going to war? At that time I assume your plan would be for all Americans to vote themselves a tax increase to sufficiently fund the War? These are the assumptions I make from your brief plan description. From that I stand by my original statement that your plan makes little sense from a realistic standpoint. As a rhetorical point against war and war funding I suppose it can be taken as something different.
If we were pressed to use war as a means to defend our nation, we'd be slower to react than the British defending the Falklands. This process would actually accentuate our current problem of too much Congressional intervention into the war effort. Congress wants too much control of actual field issues and thus completely hinders the Military running their mission. Oversight and not management is what Congress needs to understand. Let the Professionals do their jobs and we will be far more efficient, successful, finacially far more prudent , and the biggest issue is less American lives will be lost.
I totally disagree with the mandatory draft. Our Military enlistment works just fine and we have the most outstanding Military on the planet. The Millitary just needs to be allowed to function. All the draft would do is throw a bunch of misfits and miscontents into the Military who don't want to be there and would make the Military far less efficient.
The main point you never seem to admit or even consider, so it seems, is that we unfortunatly must use miltary force from time to time in order to secure our nation and our allies from those that would do us harm.

[never_fast_enuf]

The point is if Americans want to play war games than I believe they must pay.
Dude...Take a freaking look at your paystub. You already pay. THAT is our governments number one job...protecting the nation. It ISN'T...let me repeat this...It ISN'T ensuring 25 year olds of parents who make up to 82 grand a year have free health care.
What part of that do you not understand?
Again, clearly you have no idea what the democrats were proposing or you never would have supported the increase. This of course taking you at face value in your beliefs that you stated earlier in fiscal policy.
As for sin tax, you miss the point that these taxes will hit the very people the democrats pretend to want to help.

[never_fast_enuf]

In fact, based on the bullcrap entitlements liberals keep coming up with, I think they should be taxed at least 4 times as much as everyone else. That sure seems fair to me. I mean if they want these idiotic socialized programs, THEY should pay for it.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I totally disagree with the mandatory draft. Our Military enlistment works just fine and we have the most outstanding Military on the planet. The Millitary just needs to be allowed to function. All the draft would do is throw a bunch of misfits and miscontents into the Military who don't want to be there and would make the Military far less efficient.
The main point you never seem to admit or even consider, so it seems, is that we unfortunatly must use miltary force from time to time in order to secure our nation and our allies from those that would do us harm.
Do you disagree that our current military is being over worked and overly stretched to the limit? If Americans are serious about war as they were during WWII, or if faced with war like in WWII, an enlistment draft isn't going to cut it. You know this and so do I.
So that's what are milirary was during WWII a bunch of misfits and miscontents, mixed in with real soldiers. I've given you too much credit in the past my friend.
Dude...Take a freaking look at your paystub. You already pay. THAT is our governments number one job...protecting the nation. It ISN'T...let me repeat this...It ISN'T ensuring 25 year olds of parents who make up to 82 grand a year have free health care.
What part of that do you not understand?
Again, clearly you have no idea what the democrats were proposing or you never would have supported the increase. This of course taking you at face value in your beliefs that you stated earlier in fiscal policy.
As for sin tax, you miss the point that these taxes will hit the very people the democrats pretend to want to help.
If ending the war in Iraq relieved you of of 10% of your tax burdon, would you favor leaving Iraq?
FYI, while I was still a smoker I voted to increase CA cig tax. I don't view this as a "sin tax"
I have a very clear idea of what the Child Health Care bill was about. One of the points of the bill that you misquoted is that the bill would remove all adults that are currently getting benifits under the curent bill, and these exceptions were OK by President Bush.
You gotta watch those damn blogs.

[never_fast_enuf]

If ending the war in Iraq relieved you of of 10% of your tax burdon, would
you favor leaving Iraq?
When you were a smoker, were you smoking crack? :D
You do realize that as of April, the federal government had already collected about 1.5 TRILLION...RECORD revenues....
So again, we are already paying for the war. Did you think the money was coming from the tooth fairy?

[ULTRA26 # 1]

If ending the war in Iraq relieved you of of 10% of your tax burdon, would
you favor leaving Iraq?
When you were a smoker, were you smoking crack? :D
You do realize that as of April, the federal government had already collected about 1.5 TRILLION...RECORD revenues....
So again, we are already paying for the war. Did you think the money was coming from the tooth fairy?
Never tried crack, thank you.
The question remains:
If ending the war in Iraq relieved you of of 10% of your tax burdon, would you favor leaving Iraq?
It's not hard :)

[Old Texan]

Do you disagree that our current military is being over worked and overly stretched to the limit? If Americans are serious about war as they were during WWII, or if faced with war like in WWII, an enlistment draft isn't going to cut it. You know this and so do I.
So that's what are milirary was during WWII a bunch of misfits and miscontents, mixed in with real soldiers. I've given you too much credit in the past my friend.
You are taking points out of context again building an argument that isn't at all true. Refer to the number of miscontents drafted into the Viet Nam war. Talk to the veterans that served and saw the problems and inefficiencies these people brought forth. WWII was a whole different situation and I'm not up on the topic of WWII draft / enlistment numbers enough to speak other than I know full well from what my father and other friends and relatives said about the great number of volunteers that enlisted in order to proudly serve their nation.
Again my points were wholly directed at the military members we assembled for Viet Nam not WWII.
An all volunteer Military is far better and far more efficient.
The majority of our Military shortages and issues derive from 8 years of Democratic leadership cutting the Military budgetarily and in numbers.
You can place your credit wherever you'd like as it's entierly irrelevant to me.

[Boatcop]

Get real nfe. This is politics and both parties are somewhat full of shi*t. Get off the blogs and get a grip on reality.
Yes I am aware of Bush's 5 bil OK. I am for a plan that provides health care for all Americans and believe that it will save money. Here in CA last year there was $8 billion in unpaid medical treatment. Who do you think ends up paying for this, you and I do.
You can't be serious. You want the Government to provide health care for ALL Americans?
Why not support the Government providing food for all Americans? Or cars for all Americans? Or Government jobs for all Americans? Hell. Why have people work at all? Just have the Government give us everything we need.
Well, guess what. It's been done. It's called Socialism and Communism. And it's failed everywhere it's been tried.
Look at any Indian Tribe. It's the only true example of Socialism in the United States today. Free health care. Free (or subsidized) housing. Social programs up the wing-wang. Even with Gaming revenues, which was to wean them off the Government dole, they are taking more Federal Funds than ever before. And they have the highest level of drug and alcohol abuse of any demographic in the world.
I've seen first hand what happens with "free" health care. (State run "Medicaid", not Indian) They take their kids to the doctor for a runny nose. And when they can't get an appointment, due to a low priority "illness", they take them to the ER. Where it costs taxpayers thousands of dollars for them to be told to give the kid a tylenol. Which they don't do, because they won't buy any OTC medicine, demanding a prescription that they can get for free.
Just take a look at any Government run health facility/clinic. County, Veteran, Military, etc. Especially MLK/Harbor in LA County.
Is this what you want for your and your family's health care? I spent 13 years under the Military health care system, and wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy. It is a shame that we can't take care of our Military members better, but that's not the point.
The point is, when the Government gets involved it provides fewer and lower standards of service for higher costs. When the Government get's involved it eliminates competition and drives up prices. When the Government gets involved it leads to graft and corruption.
I'm all for assisting people who truly need it. But there has to be a path for these people to get out from under the nanny-state and stand on their own 2 feet. But the Democrats want to open up the Government coffers to more and more people, who have that ability right now. To them, the measure of success is how many people are on the dole. Where the Conservative measure is how many people can get off the taxpayer's back, and become contributing members of this Society.

[never_fast_enuf]

Never tried crack, thank you.
The question remains:
If ending the war in Iraq relieved you of of 10% of your tax burdon, would you favor leaving Iraq?
It's not hard :)
The question is irrelevant. Kind of like asking a frog if he would like wings so he wouldn't bump his ass when he moved from point a to point b.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

You can't be serious. You want the Government to provide health care for ALL Americans?
Why not support the Government providing food for all Americans? Or cars for all Americans? Or Government jobs for all Americans? Hell. Why have people work at all? Just have the Government give us everything we need.
Well, guess what. It's been done. It's called Socialism and Communism. And it's failed everywhere it's been tried.
Look at any Indian Tribe. It's the only true example of Socialism in the United States today. Free health care. Free (or subsidized) housing. Social programs up the wing-wang. Even with Gaming revenues, which was to wean them off the Government dole, they are taking more Federal Funds than ever before. And they have the highest level of drug and alcohol abuse of any demographic in the world.
I've seen first hand what happens with "free" health care. (State run "Medicaid", not Indian) They take their kids to the doctor for a runny nose. And when they can't get an appointment, due to a low priority "illness", they take them to the ER. Where it costs taxpayers thousands of dollars for them to be told to give the kid a tylenol. Which they don't do, because they won't buy any OTC medicine, demanding a prescription that they can get for free.
Just take a look at any Government run health facility/clinic. County, Veteran, Military, etc. Especially MLK/Harbor in LA County.
Is this what you want for your and your family's health care? I spent 13 years under the Military health care system, and wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy. It is a shame that we can't take care of our Military members better, but that's not the point.
The point is, when the Government gets involved it provides fewer and lower standards of service for higher costs. When the Government get's involved it eliminates competition and drives up prices. When the Government gets involved it leads to graft and corruption.
I'm all for assisting people who truly need it. But there has to be a path for these people to get out from under the nanny-state and stand on their own 2 feet. But the Democrats want to open up the Government coffers to more and more people, who have that ability right now. To them, the measure of success is how many people are on the dole. Where the Conservative measure is how many people can get off the taxpayer's back, and become contributing members of this Society.
Alan, what I believe I said is that I want all Americans to have health care and yes I am serious about this. The health care system is broken and needs to be repaired. Capitalist health care just doesn't seem working.
You are taking points out of context again building an argument that isn't at all true. Refer to the number of miscontents drafted into the Viet Nam war. Talk to the veterans that served and saw the problems and inefficiencies these people brought forth. WWII was a whole different situation and I'm not up on the topic of WWII draft / enlistment numbers enough to speak other than I know full well from what my father and other friends and relatives said about the great number of volunteers that enlisted in order to proudly serve their nation.
Again my points were wholly directed at the military members we assembled for Viet Nam not WWII.
An all volunteer Military is far better and far more efficient.
The majority of our Military shortages and issues derive from 8 years of Democratic leadership cutting the Military budgetarily and in numbers.
You can place your credit wherever you'd like as it's entierly irrelevant to me.
Tex, the number of those drafted during Vietnam was 1,728,344. That's 10 times the number of service men we have in Iraq. There was 648,500 US forces and 17,725, US combat deaths.
We don't agree that a volenteer is the answer during war times.
And of course, it's all the Democrats fault. :sqeyes:
The question is irrelevant. Kind of like asking a frog if he would like wings so he wouldn't bump his ass when he moved from point a to point b.
Since you won't answer the question, based on the way you talk about your hard earned money I am left to conclude that you would be on here talking about wanting the war stopped.

[never_fast_enuf]

Tex, the number of those drafted during Vietnam was 1,728,344. That's 10 times the number of service men we have in Iraq. There was 648,500 US forces and 17,725, US combat deaths.
We don't agree that a volenteer is the answer during war times.
And of course, it's all the Democrats fault. :sqeyes:
Since you won't answer the question, based on the way you talk about your hard earned money I am left to conclude that you would be on here talking about wanting the war stopped.
I would prefer to pay no taxes. I understand they are a necessity to fund things like the protection of this nation,roads and infrastructure.
I want to win the lottery. It does me no good to fantasize about it when I won't even buy a ticket.
Taxes were lowered and the government now receives record levels of funding yet you advocate raising taxes to pay for a war we are already paying for.
Excuse me if I can't follow that tortured logic.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I would prefer to pay no taxes. I understand they are a necessity to fund things like the protection of this nation,roads and infrastructure.
I want to win the lottery. It does me no good to fantasize about it when I won't even buy a ticket.
Taxes were lowered and the government now receives record levels of funding yet you advocate raising taxes to pay for a war we are already paying for.
Excuse me if I can't follow that tortured logic.
Originally Posted by ULTRA26 # 1
I suggest that you read my post again, with regard to taxes and war. Then tell me I'm full of sh*t. I didn't say anything about additional taxes. The point is if Americans want to play war games than I believe they must pay. If the war is costing 10% then decrease taxes 10% when we are out of Iraq. With knowledge that going back to war means Americans will have to pay, I promise that the issue of war won't be taken so lightly. Reinstating the draft in war times should also be mandatory. Another war reality
Originally Posted by ULTRA26 # 1
I also believe that a fixed percentage of our taxes should be allocated to war. When we are not at war, this percentage would be lifted. Then see how many Americans want the war in Iraq over.
You like most Americans are all about money. I Guaranty that if ending the war put money in your pocket, you would be screaming END THE WAR
with 98% of the rest of the Country. If going to war cost Americans a 5% increase in their income tax, I assure you that you would have far fewer people in favor of BS frivolous wars. You play you pay
Not new or more taxes but a portion of your tax alloted to war, during war time, and a tax that you don't have to pay when this country is not at war.
Again the question:
If ending the war in Iraq relieved you of of 10% of your tax burdon, would you favor leaving Iraq?

[Old Texan]

Tex, the number of those drafted during Vietnam was 1,728,344. That's 10 times the number of service men we have in Iraq. There was 648,500 US forces and 17,725, US combat deaths.
We don't agree that a volenteer is the answer during war times.
And of course, it's all the Democrats fault. :sqeyes:
I have no idea where you got your numbers from but they are completely out of whack.:confused:
Right now you seem to have way more plates spinning then you can handle properly and I choose to bow out as your "wobblers" begin to crash......Oh yeah you did get at least thing right, it is the Dem's fault.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I have no idea where you got your numbers from but they are completely out of whack.:confused:
Right now you seem to have way more plates spinning then you can handle properly and I choose to bow out as your "wobblers" begin to crash......Oh yeah you did get at least thing right, it is the Dem's fault.
The numbers are hyothetical, you know that. 5% 10% 25%. Does it matter with regard to the question.
But still no answer. I don't expect that any of you, who are in favor of the war in Iraq, will give an honest answer. Good idea you bow out before your forced to be honest with yourself.

[Old Texan]

The numbers are hyothetical, you know that. 5% 10% 25%. Does it matter with regard to the question.
But still no answer. I don't expect that any of you, who are in favor of the war in Iraq, will give an honest answer. Good idea you bow out before your forced to be honest with yourself.
hyothetical?????????
Perhaps "Hypothetical" would be a better word, kind of like the majority of your points here lately.:idea:
As far a your question, NFE answered it and I agree, it's irrelevant. Guess we just can't make it in "Hypotheticalville".....Watch it, there goes another plate.:devil:

[Boatcop]

Alan, what I believe I said is that I want all Americans to have health care and yes I am serious about this. The health care system is broken and needs to be repaired. Capitalist health care just doesn't seem working.
The thing is, all Americans DO have health care. It is already against Federal Law to turn away any person who needs medical attention. And nearly all areas have free (or low cost) screenings, flu shots, blood tests, mammograms, etc. Even in our little poor county, the Health Department provides those things free of charge or at a nominal (less than $10.00 fee, regardless of income.
The problem isn't about Health care, The problem is about Health INSURANCE. And, yes. Those costs are out of control, in most cases.
But why?
Health care litigation is the reason. If a person gets sick and is mis-diagnosed, the Doctors and hospitals get sued for millions. If a baby is born with a defect, genetic or otherwise, they get sued for millions. So what happens is the Doctor orders a multitude of often unnecessary tests and procedures to cover their ass. AND their own malpractice insurance costs have increased tremendously, which must be passed on.
In 1990, the West Virginia University School of Medicine paid $200,000 in malpractice insurance premiums. In 1992, the rate was 10 times that amount, at $2 million. Today, a decade later, the school is paying $7 million in malpractice premiums.
Just ask John Edwards about the problem. I'm sure he has an opinion.

[never_fast_enuf]

Not new or more taxes but a portion of your tax alloted to war, during war time, and a tax that you don't have to pay when this country is not at war.
OK...Lets try this again. Your plan is a new tax...period, end of story. See, what you refuse to acknowledge is that we already pay taxes to fund the war.
It's like insurance premiums...you pay them in the hopes that you never need to use it but when you do, the money is already there. You don't pay twice, as you are proposing.
Just where do you think the money comes from that is funding this war?
Also, would you be willing to fund every social program the way you propose to fund future wars?

[ULTRA26 # 1]

The thing is, all Americans DO have health care. It is already against Federal Law to turn away any person who needs medical attention. And nearly all areas have free (or low cost) screenings, flu shots, blood tests, mammograms, etc. Even in our little poor county, the Health Department provides those things free of charge or at a nominal (less than $10.00 fee, regardless of income.
The problem isn't about Health care, The problem is about Health INSURANCE. And, yes. Those costs are out of control, in most cases.
But why?
Health care litigation is the reason. If a person gets sick and is mis-diagnosed, the Doctors and hospitals get sued for millions. If a baby is born with a defect, genetic or otherwise, they get sued for millions. So what happens is the Doctor orders a multitude of often unnecessary tests and procedures to cover their ass. AND their own malpractice insurance costs have increased tremendously, which must be passed on.
Actually you are 100% correct. Medical malpractice is a huge issue as is the Health Insurance industry.
Not new or more taxes but a portion of your tax alloted to war, during war time, and a tax that you don't have to pay when this country is not at war.
OK...Lets try this again. Your plan is a new tax...period, end of story. See, what you refuse to acknowledge is that we already pay taxes to fund the war.
It's like insurance premiums...you pay them in the hopes that you never need to use it but when you do, the money is already there. You don't pay twice, as you are proposing.
Just where do you think the money comes from that is funding this war?
Also, would you be willing to fund every social program the way you propose to fund future wars?
WHEN THE WAR ENDS YOU GET A WAR TAX % BREAK. IF WE GO TO WAR AGAIN, YOU PAY THE WAR TAX %.
NOT A NEW TAX AT ALL.
It's not like you to run away from such a simple question. Again, what I'm talking about is not a new tax or more taxes. Think of it a allocation breakdown of your income tax.

[never_fast_enuf]

Actually you are 100% correct. Medical malpractice is a huge issue as is the Health Insurance industry.
WHEN THE WAR ENDS YOU GET A WAR TAX % BREAK. IF WE TO WAR AGAIN, YOU PAY THE WAR TAX %.
NOT A NEW TAX AT ALL.
It's not like you to run away from such a simple question. Again, what I'm talking about is not a new tax or more taxes. Think of it a allocation breakdown of your income tax.
Lets try this again...we already PAY for the war. I will keep reminding you until it sinks in.
Do the insurance companies refurnd you your premiums every year, even when you don'tcollect on them? Of course they don't. That is exactly what you are advocating.
Again, the first thing that blows up your plan is we already pay for the war in the taxes that are collected. Will I get a refund on all the social programs I don't partake in?
Come on Ultra, you need to get real.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Lets try this again...we already PAY for the war. I will keep reminding you until it sinks in.
Do the insurance companies refurnd you your premiums every year, even when you don'tcollect on them? Of course they don't. That is exactly what you are advocating.
Again, the first thing that blows up your plan is we already pay for the war in the taxes that are collected. Will I get a refund on all the social programs I don't partake in?
Come on Ultra, you need to get real.
And you talk about me deflecting. I'm not even as lame as your coming across. There is a difference in the cost of supporting a war a defense budget. Just think of the surplus we would have had, if we had putting away $150,000,000,000 a year for defense/war every year since Vietnam
Thanks for the spelling correction Tex. You're the man. :D

[never_fast_enuf]

Ultra, do you have ANY clue as to how vulnerable your "plan" would leave the US? How in the hell could we quickly react to any threat when we don't have the funding in place to do so? With all due respect, your plan is born out of a pie in the sky theory that has absolutely no grounding in reality. It would completely cripple this nations ability to defend itself against future attacks. Is that your desired effect?
Same with the draft. I tend to agree with the people running the military on this one. We have an all voluntary military for a reason. It takes very special circumstances to pluck an average Joe off the street and tell him he has to be a soldier. Again you come at this with the thoughts that it would keep us out of war. The simplest thing you forgot is it wouldn't stop those that want to see this country destroyed from doing just that.
Quite frankly, your ideas on this are frightening as it pertains to the safety of this nation. They are also born out of a crazy belief that people actually prefer war.

[Old Texan]

I'm not even as lame as your coming across.
As I read this you are saying: "that you are lame, just not as lame as NFE thinks"......:idea:
I'm gone, my work is done here. :devil:
Happy Trails

[never_fast_enuf]

And you talk about me deflecting. I'm not even as lame as your coming across. There is a difference in the cost of supporting a war a defense budget. Just think of the surplus we would have had, if we had putting away $150,000,000,000 a year for defense/war every year since Vietnam
Thanks for the spelling correction Tex. You're the man. :D
If you are going to break down and fund a war that way, we need to do it across all entitlement programs as well.
Schip...screw that, I am not paying in since it doesn't help me or my child.
Medicare? Nope, no money from me.
Social Security? Forget it...I can do much better on my own.
Gee wiz Ultra, that just leaves the poor people to fund all these programs...How are they going to do that?
Funding for federal highways? I will pay for my roads in Virginia but no where else. If I get on one somewhere else I will pay a toll. How we going to build new roads that way?
Come to think of it, I am starting to like your plan more and more since I would get to dictate exactly when I pay and where that money goes.

[never_fast_enuf]

BTW Ultra, your "idea" is called a sur-charge. Let me help you with that one.
sur·charge /n.
Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[n. sur-chahrj; v. sur-chahrj, sur-chahrj] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -charged, -charg·ing.
–noun 1. an additional charge, tax, or cost.
2. an excessive sum or price charged.
3. an additional or excessive load or burden.
4. Philately. a. an overprint that alters or restates the face value or denomination of a stamp to which it has been applied.
b. a stamp bearing such an overprint.
5. act of surcharging.
–verb (used with object) 6. to subject to an additional or extra charge, tax, cost, etc. (for payment).
7. to overcharge for goods.
8. to show an omission in (an account) of something that operates as a charge against the accounting party; to omit a credit toward (an account).
9. Philately. to print a surcharge on (a stamp).
10. to put an additional or excessive burden upon.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Ultra, do you have ANY clue as to how vulnerable your "plan" would leave the US? How in the hell could we quickly react to any threat when we don't have the funding in place to do so? With all due respect, your plan is born out of a pie in the sky theory that has absolutely no grounding in reality. It would completely cripple this nations ability to defend itself against future attacks. Is that your desired effect?
Same with the draft. I tend to agree with the people running the military on this one. We have an all voluntary military for a reason. It takes very special circumstances to pluck an average Joe off the street and tell him he has to be a soldier. Again you come at this with the thoughts that it would keep us out of war. The simplest thing you forgot is it wouldn't stop those that want to see this country destroyed from doing just that.
Quite frankly, your ideas on this are frightening as it pertains to the safety of this nation. They are also born out of a crazy belief that people actually prefer war.
nfe,
There is nothing dangerous/vulnerable about what I have suggested at all. You know it and anyone who can think at all knows it.
However, seems you believe that arguing the entire point relieves you of answering my question. An honest answer from you, and most that support the war, would expose some inconvenient truths.
We have an all volunteer military because the American people will not even consider a military draft during times of undeclared war. I was around during the Vietnam era and remember it well. Maybe you should start to understand that many terrorists are smart and very patient. I have no doubt we will be struck again sometime in the future. Our loss of 4000 troops and the 10's of thousands wounded isn't going to stop this. Of course you have the right to see and believe things as you will, just as I do.
If this Country ends up in WWIII you can rest assured that it will cause the draft to reinstated. Some food for thought. If the US could have sent a 1/2 million troops to Iraq, as it had during Vietnam, this mess would have ended quickly.
Again, I understand that suggesting that my idea in some way jeopardizes the safety of this nation excuses you from answering my question. It cool. I'll leave it be.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Tex, the number of those drafted during Vietnam was 1,728,344. That's 10 times the number of service men we have in Iraq. There was 648,500 US forces and 17,725, US combat deaths.
You REALLY should start doing "investigation" ultra.
I corrected it for you. :eek:
Nice "picking" of stats tho, kinda like Al.
Tex, the number of those drafted during Vietnam was 1,728,344.
8,744,000 personnel were on active duty during the war (5 August 1964-28 March 1973).
3,403,100 (including 514,300 offshore) personnel served in the SE Asia Theater (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, flight crews based in Thailand and sailors in adjacent South China Sea waters).
[B]Only 648,500 draftees served "in country" in Vietnam.
47,359 "hostile" US combat deaths, 58,156 total. 17,725 were draftees.
Only 25 percent of the US Military who served in Vietnam were draftees, yet you think their numbers would be a huge panacea.
And since you think 4,000 deaths is "unacceptable" over a 4 year span:
The Allied Forces lost 9,758 men killed just storming the Normandy Beaches, 6,603 were Americans. 1 DAY!!!!!
And for those who think that 15 months is too long to serve:
The 173rd Airborne Brigade served in Vietnam for a total of 2,301 days and holds the record for the longest continuous service under fire of any American unit ever.
During that 6 year, 3 month period the 173rd lost 1,601 (roughly 31%) of its men killed in action.
The US Military was not "driven" from Vietnam. The US Congress voted them out.
This same Congress then turned around and abandoned America's former ally, South Vietnam.
For your "half million troops", here's the more accurate "facts".
On the best day ever, there were 43,500 ground troops actually engaged in offensive combat operations, i.e., out in the boondocks, "Tiptoeing through the tulips" looking for, or actually in contact with, the enemy.
The most troops there EVER were, was 545,000, that left 501,500 that WERE NOT COMBAT TROOPS.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

The question remains:
If ending the war in Iraq relieved you of of 10% of your tax burdon, would you favor leaving Iraq?
It's not hard :)
No, it's not hard, it's STUPID. Head-in-the-sand stupid.
My answer, is NO.
To be in favor of giving in to international islamic extreemist terrorism DIRECTLY IMPACTS my personal safety and the safety of the following:
My wife.
My children, and step children.
My parents.
My sister, and her husband.
My neighbors.
My friends.
My co-workers.
Several million OTHER Americans, including YOU ultra (except you think they wil just leave us alone).
NO, even if it lowered my tax burden 50%.
Somehow, even after all the asanine shots I take from the likes of you, I don't want to see some monster treat you like one did a young man named BERG, Nicholas Berg, and UNLIKE you, I am willing to put MY life on the line, and have.
Want me to send you the Nick Berg video clips I have? :sqeyes:
The screams are NOT very "entertaining".:devil:

[never_fast_enuf]

nfe,
There is nothing dangerous/vulnerable about what I have suggested at all. You know it and anyone who can think at all knows it.
However, seems you believe that arguing the entire point relieves you of answering my question. An honest answer from you, and most that support the war, would expose some inconvenient truths.
.
You refuse to get past two simple facts. One, we already fund the war and two, your stupid idea is a surcharge. You claim it is not a net new tax...it is. Get past those facts and I might entertain answering your question.
Wait, I did answer it. I said I am not for a tax on top of a tax we already pay and I am damn sure against leaving our butts exposed.
You use the same convoluted twisted logic that brings people like you to the conlusion that when a republican proposes an smaller increase in a program than a democrat, it is a CUT in funding.
sur·charge /n. ˈsɜrˌtʃɑrdʒ; v. sɜrˈtʃɑrdʒ, ˈsɜrˌtʃɑrdʒ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[n. sur-chahrj; v. sur-chahrj, sur-chahrj] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -charged, -charg·ing.
–noun 1. an additional charge, tax, or cost.
2. an excessive sum or price charged.
3. an additional or excessive load or burden.
4. Philately. a. an overprint that alters or restates the face value or denomination of a stamp to which it has been applied.
b. a stamp bearing such an overprint.
5. act of surcharging.
–verb (used with object) 6. to subject to an additional or extra charge, tax, cost, etc. (for payment).
7. to overcharge for goods.
8. to show an omission in (an account) of something that operates as a charge against the accounting party; to omit a credit toward (an account).
9. Philately. to print a surcharge on (a stamp).
10. to put an additional or excessive burden upon.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

No, it's not hard, it's STUPID. Head-in-the-sand stupid.
My answer, is NO.
To be in favor of giving in to international islamic extreemist terrorism DIRECTLY IMPACTS my personal safety and the safety of the following:
My wife.
My children, and step children.
My parents.
My sister, and her husband.
My neighbors.
My friends.
My co-workers.
Several million OTHER Americans, including YOU ultra (except you think they wil just leave us alone).
NO, even if it lowered my tax burden 50%.
Somehow, even after all the asanine shots I take from the likes of you, I don't want to see some monster treat you like one did a young man named BERG, Nicholas Berg, and UNLIKE you, I am willing to put MY life on the line, and have.
Want me to send you the Nick Berg video clips I have? :sqeyes:
The screams are NOT very "entertaining".:devil:
Thank you for having the balls to answer the question honestly.
BTW, I don't think they are going to leave us alone. I don't believe the Iraqi conflict is doing anything to change this. There is a difference
You refuse to get past two simple facts. One, we already fund the war and two, your stupid idea is a surcharge. You claim it is not a net new tax...it is. Get past those facts and I might entertain answering your question.
Wait, I did answer it. I said I am not for a tax on top of a tax we already pay and I am damn sure against leaving our butts exposed.
You use the same convoluted twisted logic that brings people like you to the conlusion that when a republican proposes an smaller increase in a program than a democrat, it is a CUT in funding.
I guess the question was to difficult. I think we all know your answer.

[Old Texan]

Damn I'd hate to live in a politically correct world ruled by guilt and emotion.:idea:

[never_fast_enuf]

I guess the question was to difficult. I think we all know your answer.
Dude, I was just kidding when I asked if it was crack you were smoking when you were a smoker but now I am starting to wonder.
I answered the question at least 4 times in this thread. So lets make that 3 things you decided to ignore...
1. We already pay for the war via taxes.
2. Your idea IS a net new tax.
3. I answered your stupid question at least 4 times
4. I know, I said three but what the hell..do I need to post the definition of a surcharge again, just to make sure you understand what it is?

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Dude, I was just kidding when I asked if it was crack you were smoking when you were a smoker but now I am starting to wonder.
I answered the question at least 4 times in this thread. So lets make that 3 things you decided to ignore...
1. We already pay for the war via taxes.
2. Your idea IS a net new tax.
3. I answered your stupid question at least 4 times
4. I know, I said three but what the hell..do I need to post the definition of a surcharge again, just to make sure you understand what it is?
One more time
Consider the amount of the taxes you are paying right now.
Then consider the % of the amount that you current pay is tax alloted to fund the war, and call it a war tax that is paid only when we are at war. When the war ends, this % is no longer needed to fund a war, and your tax burden is adjusted by the amount of the %. It's not rocket science.
I am very aware that our taxes already pay to fund the war and just as aware of what a surcharge is. SmokinSS had no problem understanding the question and he honestly answered like the military man that he is.
If you are going to deflect, then at least do it with a little class. The double talk is lowering the price of your credibility stock.

[never_fast_enuf]

One more time
Consider the amount of the taxes you are paying right now.
Then consider the % of the amount that you current pay is tax alloted to fund the war, and call it a war tax that is paid only when we are at war. When the war ends, this % is no longer needed to fund a war, and your tax burden is adjusted by the amount of the %. It's not rocket science.
I am very aware that our taxes already pay to fund the war and just as aware of what a surcharge is. SmokinSS had no problem understanding the question and he honestly answered like the military man that he is.
If you are going to deflect, then at least do it with a little class. The double talk is lowering the price of your credibility stock.
I totally understood from the instant you said it. I also told you how I feel about it.
You on the other hand ignored several questions I asked.
How about we fund the rest of the government that same way. You only pay for what you use. Seems to me if we are going to fund wars that way, which by the way is the number one job of our federal government (protection of the nation), we should fund the rest of the government programs the same way.
Pay as you go...How does that sound to you Ultra?

[never_fast_enuf]

It's not rocket science.
Correct...it's a surcharge....no matter how you slice it.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I totally understood from the instant you said it. I also told you how I feel about it.
You on the other hand ignored several questions I asked.
How about we fund the rest of the government that same way. You only pay for what you use. Seems to me if we are going to fund wars that way, which by the way is the number one job of our federal government (protection of the nation), we should fund the rest of the government programs the same way.
Pay as you go...How does that sound to you Ultra?
How about an honest answer to the question you now admit you understand.
It's not rocket science.
Correct...it's a surcharge....no matter how you slice it.
Dance boy dance

[never_fast_enuf]

How about an honest answer to the question you now admit you understand.
Dance boy dance
How many more times do you want me to tell you I am against a war surcharge?
Do you support "pay as you go" for the rest of the federal government? If not, why?

[ULTRA26 # 1]

How many more times do you want me to tell you I am against a war surcharge?
Do you support "pay as you go" for the rest of the federal government? If not, why?
The master of debate, dances away again.
Later

[never_fast_enuf]

The master of debate, dances away again.
Later
I didn't think you would answer the question. Deep down, even you understand just how idiotic your idea is. I mean after all, if it is so good for the war, why not the rest of government as well.
I mean, after all...it isn't rocket science.;)

[Old Texan]

Let's play your little game Ultra, even though I already stated your question is hypothetical based on a plan I view as completely unrealistic. On top of that I agree with NFE that it's a surcharge not a tax, at least in the way you present it
My answer is "No".
Now you answer the question below that was posed originally to Tonka but one which you chose to answer by saying it was obvious which party the statement describes:
They are the do as I say, not as I do crowd. They heat and cool 10,000 square foot mansions, drive gas guzzlers, fly on private jets and tell us to buy Yugos to conserve energy and lessen our dependence on foreign oil. Yet we can't drill in the frozen wasteland in Alaska.
Which Party are you describing here?

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Let's play your little game Ultra, even though I already stated your question is hypothetical based on a plan I view as completely unrealistic. On top of that I agree with NFE that it's a surcharge not a tax, at least in the way you present it
My answer is "No".
Now you answer the question below that was posed originally to Tonka but one which you chose to answer by saying it was obvious which party the statement describes:
They are the do as I say, not as I do crowd. They heat and cool 10,000 square foot mansions, drive gas guzzlers, fly on private jets and tell us to buy Yugos to conserve energy and lessen our dependence on foreign oil. Yet we can't drill in the frozen wasteland in Alaska.
Which Party are you describing here?
Thanks for the answer Tex. My answer is no also.
I'm not sure who is telling us or forcing us to buy ecco cars. People generally refer to Gore's 10,000 sq ft mansion in this picture. Most people aren't aware of the fact that Gore pays his power company a huge fee to supply solar and wind power to his huge house.
I don't see any need to tap to heavily into US oil reserves when Canada can supply us with much of the oil we need.
The idea to to invest in alternative fuels. It's not a bad concept just way over politicized.
Obviously Tonka was describing Dems.
sur·charge Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[n. sur-chahrj; v. sur-chahrj, sur-chahrj] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -charged, -charg·ing.
–noun 1. an additional charge, tax, or cost.
What I described, it's not a surcharge but I would expect for you to play follow the leader here as well.

[Old Texan]

That I described, it's not a surcharge but I would expect for you to play follow the leader here as well.
Curious how I am following the leader? I'm just in aggreement with it being a surcharge more so than a tax. Maybe we both view your discription the same.
If 10% is added to cover war, and removed when there is no war, than it's a surcharge.
With fuel costs being at a temporary high, freight companies charge a surcharge to pay the difference rather than raise the rate. When fuel goes back down to the level when the rate was set, the surcharge is removed. This is how a view your plan.
You really need to work on that thing you have about everyone teaming up against you. This isn't the Congress.......:)

[eliminatedsprinter]

I have been away at Havasu for a while and this thread is far to long for me to read through all the insults etc... Has anyone on here suggested a little voluntary support for our troops with a government sponsored push for people to buy "War Bonds"? Wouldn't Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi burst a gasket if the Bush administration started such a thing????

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Curious how I am following the leader? I'm just in aggreement with it being a surcharge more so than a tax. Maybe we both view your discription the same.
If 10% is added to cover war, and removed when there is no war, than it's a surcharge.
With fuel costs being at a temporary high, freight companies charge a surcharge to pay the difference rather than raise the rate. When fuel goes back down to the level when the rate was set, the surcharge is removed. This is how a view your plan.
You really need to work on that thing you have about everyone teaming up against you. This isn't the Congress.......:)
Tex, I never said added. If it was added I would agree about it being a surcharge.
The issue was considering a % of the current tax, as a war tax that would be removed in non-war times and reinstated in times of war. Not a surcharge at all or additional tax at all. nfe understands this, but refuses to give an honest answer. But then he is more concerened about money than most.
Obviuosly this isn't congress. Your comment about everyone teaming up on me is very interesting, since I have made any reference to anything like that.
No worries here Tex.
I have been away at Havasu for a while and this thread is far to long for me to read through all the insults etc... Has anyone on here suggested a little voluntary support for our troops with a government sponsored push for people to buy "War Bonds"? Wouldn't Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi burst a gasket if the Bush administration started such a thing????
ES, welcome back.
War bonds are an interesting idea.

[eliminatedsprinter]

ES, welcome back.
War bonds are an interesting idea.
Thanks :D
Today's elected Dems would never stand for it, because they seem to oppose all means of bringing about social change or progress that are voluntary.

[Old Texan]

Tex, I never said added. If it was added I would agree about it being a surcharge.
The issue was considering a % of the current tax, as a war tax that would be removed in non-war times and reinstated in times of war. Not a surcharge at all or additional tax at all. nfe understands this, but refuses to give an honest answer. But then he is more concerened about money than most.
Obviuosly this isn't congress. Your comment about everyone teaming up on me is very interesting, since I have made any reference to anything like that.
No worries here Tex.
So we are designating a portion of our already collected federal tax? Where is this going to come from other than raising taxes? It surely isn't going into an unused fund just lying around. It must come from somewhere that it is being applied to therefore something else would have to receive reduced funding or else taxes would need to be increased at least in the beginning.
That money hungry NFE......:sqeyes:
And yes you have stated a number of times that most of the forum goes against you and no one will agree with you. And no I'm not going to waste time and go back and find specific instances. If you don't believe me take a vote......Very Congressional spirit to vote on it, I might say.:devil:

[ULTRA26 # 1]

So we are designating a portion of our already collected federal tax? Where is this going to come from other than raising taxes? It surely isn't going into an unused fund just lying around. It must come from somewhere that it is being applied to therefore something else would have to receive reduced funding or else taxes would need to be increased at least in the beginning.
That money hungry NFE......:sqeyes:
And yes you have stated a number of times that most of the forum goes against you and no one will agree with you. And no I'm not going to waste time and go back and find specific instances. If you don't believe me take a vote......Very Congressional spirit to vote on it, I might say.:devil:
Where is are funds for the war coming from now?
Come one Tex, be a Republican, waste a little time and prove up your comment. :D :D

[Old Texan]

Where is are funds for the war coming from now?
Come one Tex, be a Republican, waste a little time and prove up your comment. :D :D
Of course they are coming out of currently collected taxes ya Knucklehead. If not used for the war what would the funds be used for? If some other program, then that program must be defunded. Read slower if you must but try to comphrehend, rather than think up your next "Republican" cut.
For us slow MF's why don't you just explain your program again and maybe we can catch up with ya.....

[ULTRA26 # 1]

So we are designating a portion of our already collected federal tax? Where is this going to come from other than raising taxes?
Of course they are coming out of currently collected taxes ya Knucklehead. If not used for the war what would the funds be used for? If some other program, then that program must be defunded. Read slower if you must but try to comphrehend, rather than think up your next "Republican" cut.
Apparently I'm not the one having problems comprehending.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Apparently I'm not the one having problems comprehending.
No, you are just having problems EXPLAINING something WAY out in left field.
Try English this time ultra.

[never_fast_enuf]

Where is are funds for the war coming from now?
Come one Tex, be a Republican, waste a little time and prove up your comment. :D :D
duhhh...I don't know...da toof fairy?
Where do YOU think they are coming from Ultra?

[never_fast_enuf]

See Ultra, the fundamental problem you have here is a basic understanding of math. Perhaps it was the government school you attended, perhaps it just wasn't your subject but clearly you are having troubles understand a very basic concept.
The very minute you ask Americans to pay more than they already pay, that my friend is a tax hike...a surcharge...call it what you want but it is a hike.
Just as Bush lowered taxes, the democrats have promised to raise them again just as soon as they can get their grubby hands on them. Really...how difficult can this be to understand? After all, I posted the definition of surcharge for you several times already and would be happy to do so again if that will help.

[Old Texan]

No, you are just having problems EXPLAINING something WAY out in left field.
Try English this time ultra.
I'm glad I'm not alone here. Ultra gets so caught up in the emotion he doesn't realize what he's said sometimes. He keeps making the assumption everyone can read his mind.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

See Ultra, the fundamental problem you have here is a basic understanding of math. Perhaps it was the government school you attended, perhaps it just wasn't your subject but clearly you are having troubles understand a very basic concept.
The very minute you ask Americans to pay more than they already pay, that my friend is a tax hike...a surcharge...call it what you want but it is a hike.
Just as Bush lowered taxes, the democrats have promised to raise them again just as soon as they can get their grubby hands on them. Really...how difficult can this be to understand? After all, I posted the definition of surcharge for you several times already and would be happy to do so again if that will help.
Why am I not surprsed at this post.
I'm glad I'm not alone here. Ultra gets so caught up in the emotion he doesn't realize what he's said sometimes. He keeps making the assumption everyone can read his mind.
So we are designating a portion of our already collected federal tax? Where is this going to come from other than raising taxes?
Of course they are coming out of currently collected taxes ya Knucklehead..
You make me laugh. :D :D :D :D :D

[never_fast_enuf]

While you are laughing Ultra, could you please explain where you think the money is coming from to pay for the war?

[ULTRA26 # 1]

While you are laughing Ultra, could you please explain where you think the money is coming from to pay for the war?
Maybe when I stop laughing :D :D :D :D :D

[never_fast_enuf]

Maybe when I stop laughing :D :D :D :D :D
You seem to have no problem typing other answers while laughing.

[never_fast_enuf]

I guess Ultra's laughing only effects his ability to answer relevant questions in a thread. That sounds like it could be a much more serious condition. It's called Hillarycackleitis. A condition which causes uncontrollable, inappropriate cackling when confronted with a question you either don't like or refuse to answer due the fact that it backs you into a corner.
I would go have that checked out for sure...

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I guess Ultra's laughing only effects his ability to answer relevant questions in a thread. That sounds like it could be a much more serious condition. It's called Hillarycackleitis. A condition which causes uncontrollable, inappropriate cackling when confronted with a question you either don't like or refuse to answer due the fact that it backs you into a corner.
I would go have that checked out for sure...
You are funny guy .(guy I think maybe not)
And a great dancer too:D :D :D

[never_fast_enuf]

You are funny guy .(guy I think maybe not)
And a great dancer too:D :D :D
Speaking of dancing, where do you think the money comes from to fund the war?

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Speaking of dancing, where do you think the money comes from to fund the war?
Sorry young man, we both alerady know the answer to this question. This was answered by the original question you continue to refuse to answer.
I'm not playing baby games with you.

[never_fast_enuf]

Sorry young man, we both alerady know the answer to this question. This was answered by the original question you continue to refuse to answer.
I'm not playing baby games with you.
So you fully understand the money used to fund the war is coming out of our pockets already? Good...that is a great first start.
Now, to your point. In order to move forward with your plan, one would first need to understand BEFORE a war, exactly how much it would cost. That is the only way you could preemptively set aside that money, or in this case, reduce amount of money to get us to a "starting point".
Once at that "starting point" (money we pay now is not collected) ANY net new collection is called a surcharge, no matter how you dance around it or try and spin it. By definition, you can't change that fact.
Help me here...just what am I missing?
Also, how can you possibly get to the starting point if you don't have any idea how much a war is going to cost in advance?
THIS is the dilemma everyone here has with your "plan".

[ULTRA26 # 1]

So you fully understand the money used to fund the war is coming out of our pockets already? Good...that is a great first start.
Now, to your point. In order to move forward with your plan, one would first need to understand BEFORE a war, exactly how much it would cost. That is the only way you could preemptively set aside that money, or in this case, reduce amount of money to get us to a "starting point".
Once at that "starting point" (money we pay now is not collected) ANY net new collection is called a surcharge, no matter how you dance around it or try and spin it. By definition, you can't change that fact.
Help me here...just what am I missing?
Also, how can you possibly get to the starting point if you don't have any idea how much a war is going to cost in advance?
THIS is the dilemma everyone here has with your "plan".
Duh!!!!!
Again, I don't expext an honest answer from you. Bottom line is, if the Feds called a % of our current income tax a war tax, and that % was removed from individual tax burdens after this war was over, only to be added back at the time this country goes to war again, support from the American people for a next war, such as Iraq, would be more honest and accurate.
End of story.

[Wild Horses]

Duh!!!!!
Again, I don't expext an honest answer from you. Bottom line is, if the Feds called a % of our current income tax a war tax, and that % was removed from individual tax burdens after this war was over, only to be added back at the time this country goes to war again, support from the American people for a next war, such as Iraq, would be more honest and accurate.
End of story.
I think you have a logic malfunction in your brain filter, right now our (the American people) tax debt has risen and will continue to rise during the conflict. If you cut a percentage after the conflict is over how will we ever get out of debt. Maybe you have a money tree in your back yard we could harvest for the good of man kind!!! :D :D

[never_fast_enuf]

Duh!!!!!
Again, I don't expext an honest answer from you. Bottom line is, if the Feds called a % of our current income tax a war tax, and that % was removed from individual tax burdens after this war was over, only to be added back at the time this country goes to war again, support from the American people for a next war, such as Iraq, would be more honest and accurate.
End of story.
Total horse $hit. One reason your dem leaders killed the idea before it was even 4 hours old.

[Old Texan]

Ultra, you laugh. You claim NFE understands your formula to your plan. You claim I don't apparently comphrehend. And you laugh.
NFE, myself, and I wager everyone else has arrived at the same confused opinion, they don't understand your plan nor where this "War Funding" originates.
Laugh your asse off, but all that does is increases the opinion you have no earthly idea yourself.
Explain it conscisely or STFU.......:D :D :D :D :D Funny Ha Ha:rolleyes:

[SHOTKALLIN]

Watching the Bill OÂ’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh fake flaps unfold via another Soros lie machine begs the question.
Are all democrats retarded? Based on the actions of their party, I have to say there is no other conclusion but YES. Clearly they are playing to their new far left base.
First the Soros funded group makes up something about Rush and O'Reilly, then the democrats willing accomplices called the main stream media "report" it as fact and they are off to the races. They are retarded I tell ya...
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/democrats-go-after-limbaugh-2007-10-01.html
YOU ARE PREACHING TO THE CHIOR