quote:That doesn't bother you that we have to take special measures to ensure millionaires pay AT LEAST SOME income tax?
No. We don't tax wealth, we tax income. I am all in favor of the fair tax, provided that NO ONE is excluded. Paying a tax on things you buy would be the fairest tax of all.
quote:If Bush gets his way, Medicare *will* get hit, along with Education and highway and environmental infrasctructure.
Hey, that's my plan, except it should include social security, welfare, food stamps, and a lot of other handouts.
Posts: 1577 | From: Ohio | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I think we would need to pass a law like they have in those leftist (but very compassionate) California cities barring the homeless from the sidewalks. Can't have the Hollywood liberals stepping over the homeless, you know!
Posts: 1577 | From: Ohio | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now, listen to that line of unmitigated horse crap!
Exactly what law in California are you speaking of?
I think you like to make claims of things that don't exist so you can be derogatory to people that are not extreme and illogical far right-wing radicals, in order to grant yourself the opportunity to call them names, thus, in your twisted view, bolstering your cheapskate ego by comparing your lot to the lot you imagine for others.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So what? That does not justify your claim that they have laws disallowing homeless people on sidewalks.
And nothing justifies the trashy vulgarities you can't escape from and label everyone except the rich with.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That does not justify your claim that they have laws disallowing homeless people on sidewalks.
Try reading it again more slowly (or have someone read it to you). The point of the article is that they don't want the homeless on public streets so they have passed a variety of laws to get them off the streets.
Posts: 1577 | From: Ohio | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
You declared that California has laws not allowing homeless people on sidewalks. That is BS. It does not. Even a staunch right-winger with a limited respect for the law, restricted intellect, and disdain for people must know that.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
i lived in SoCali for 5 years. they lived in parking lots all over the place.
So Cali has tens if not hundreds of thousands of homeless people living right out in the open...
the grocery store parking lot had dozens. they eat out of the dumpsters.
the only place with anywhere close to as many homeless people is Fla... that's cuz of the weather.
in NE? no homeless to be SEEN. they are there, but they die if they try to live on the sidewalk.
here in the poorest part of the south? we have NO homeless. there's so many abandoned shotgun shacks that they can live in for free, that we just don't have homeless people. my dogs house is better than most of them tho...
as a Vet? i used the VA which i contracted with the US Govt to do when i enlisted. they try to deprive Vets of the basic rights they are entitled to all the time, but some of us know our rights and actually obtain them.
i stopped using the VA because i don't HAVE to use it, and when the war started i saw that there would be a considerable group of people that really need it and i didn't want to be an unnecessary drain on the resources. the VA has great surgeons, but not so great primary care providers.
here's the deal: there were hundreds of vets living within walking distance of the Loma Linda VA hospital. living wherever they could.
i saw them all the time. i spoke to them. they were getting better treatment as a result of the CLINTON admin than they had ever had under the "rightwing" admins...
ten times better than they ever had before.
i can honestly say that guys like me that were using the system (that we had earned) and pitching fits when the system was messed, up also had some influence on the improvement of care.
how it is under the current admin? i can't say. i haven't been to a VA hosp since the war started.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
I'd say that you should use an ostrich in your analogy. You guys are wrong on every argument and then you put your heads in the sand with your fingers in your ears so that you don't have to acknowledge the truth.
In this instance, I said that these compassionate leftist cities were trying to keep the homeless off the sidewalks and I was right. I posted a link to a study that explained what these cities have done and even that California has 3 of the top twenty "meanest" cities toward the homeless. Yet, instead of seeing the truth, you want to play word games (like Bill Clinton's famous "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is". I'm sure Bill is bdgee's hero when it comes to word games.
Posts: 1577 | From: Ohio | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
" said that these compassionate leftist cities were trying to keep the homeless off the sidewalks"
No you did not. You said California had laws forbidding homeless people access to the sidewalks, which is an absurd lie and would be a violation of both the Federal and State constitutions.
Yep, a goose, Tex......and a dumb goose too.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
C'mon bdgee, you're playing word games just like slick Willy. In the future, I will try to use very precise language for you since you like to twist everything. Obviously, they don't have a specific law that says "homeless found on the sidewalks will be arrested". As the article points out, since this is politically incorrect, the cities use a variety of other ordinances to target the homeless and keep them off the sidewalks. Of course, you already knew that if you read the article, but since you're wrong as usual, the only thing left are your silly word games.
Posts: 1577 | From: Ohio | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you think it is word games, the suit yourself. You'll continue to miss the point.
As you have so thoroughly proved, you are not skilled at precision in language. Thus, I recommend that you not make the foolish mistake of trying to play such a game. (It would be like the clean-up slugger of the sunday school slow pitch soft ball team thinking he could step up to the plate in a major league game.)
It isn't that it is politically correct, as you claim that California doesn't "have a specific law that says "homeless found on the sidewalks will be arrested", it is that it is unconstitutional.
I don't recall much that you have ever posted here that came close to being honest, except your incessant "honestly bigoted hatred" of all non-rich. Neither have I seen anything in any of your post that indicates much thought or attention to fact, just meanness, arrogance, and ignorance.
There isn't much that should be labeled "silly" about the games you want to play, they are too seriously dangerous and hateful.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you think it is word games, the suit yourself. You'll continue to miss the point.
As you have so thoroughly proved, you are not skilled at precision in language. Thus, I recommend that you not make the foolish mistake of trying to play such a game. (It would be like the clean-up slugger of the sunday school slow pitch soft ball team thinking he could step up to the plate in a major league game.)
Finally, something we agree on. You are 100% correct. You are interested in playing word games and I am not. I am interested in the real issues, with real ideas and solutions, not trying to determine what the definition of "is" is. I'll leave that to you and slick Willy.
Why is it that the left can't say what they actually believe and instead constantly resort to word games? Do you actually believe in anything? Do you have any solutions or ideas? Is your only contribution childish word games?
Posts: 1577 | From: Ohio | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
I keep trying to explain to you basakerds far right-wing political dinosaurs, Clinton was not a liberal any more than Hoyte Willham was Sandy Kofax. Just because Hoyte's curve ball was inadequate when compared to Bert Blyleven's doesn't mean his political bent is also the opposite Bert's.
The goose feels a need to be cooked?
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Are you talking about Bill or Hillary? I agree with you that Bill was more of a politician than a conservative or liberal. He would bend whichever way the wind was blowing. Hillary on the other hand is an "it takes a village" liberal. Barak is much farther left than even Hillary and is certainly a socialist. If he even gets a few of the programs through that he discussed last night in his speech, he will bankrupt the country.
Posts: 1577 | From: Ohio | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: bdgee,
Are you talking about Bill or Hillary? I agree with you that Bill was more of a politician than a conservative or liberal. He would bend whichever way the wind was blowing. Hillary on the other hand is an "it takes a village" liberal. Barak is much farther left than even Hillary and is certainly a socialist. If he even gets a few of the programs through that he discussed last night in his speech, he will bankrupt the country.
Your concept of the terms liberal, conservative, socialist, etc. are not even sophomoric (and I mean the high school sophomore, not the college). Where you go from that false base deserves no claim to validity or reality. In short, you don't know what the devil you are talking about.
Tex, this guy is not a goose. Geese are smarter. This is like a fence post. Other than weather rotting away, they never change.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
President Clinton was born William Jefferson Blythe III on August 19, 1946, in Hope, Arkansas, three months after his father died in a traffic accident. When he was four years old, his mother wed Roger Clinton, of Hot Springs, Arkansas. In high school, he took the family name. He excelled as a student and as a saxophone player and once considered becoming a professional musician. As a delegate to Boys Nation while in high school, he met President John Kennedy in the White House Rose Garden. The encounter led him to enter a life of public service.
Clinton was graduated from Georgetown University and in 1968 won a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford University. He received a law degree from Yale University in 1973, and entered politics in Arkansas.
Bill was a rhodes scholar, an was honed by the elitist with control and power from the get go, something that hillary was deeply attracted to 'his link to power'
the clintons link to power came through bills' path via the rhodes scholarship, bushs' path to power came by george srs' links to the military and u.s. intelligence
Posts: 1551 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: bdgee,
Are you talking about Bill or Hillary? I agree with you that Bill was more of a politician than a conservative or liberal. He would bend whichever way the wind was blowing. Hillary on the other hand is an "it takes a village" liberal. Barak is much farther left than even Hillary and is certainly a socialist. If he even gets a few of the programs through that he discussed last night in his speech, he will bankrupt the country.
Oh...please elaborate.
Why is Barack more liberal than Clinton and which programs in particular would bankrupt America??
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Better yet, provide a serious and usable definition of what is meant by the statements "he (or she) is a liberal" and "he (or she) is a conservative" you are willing stick to so that we might have a chance of agreeing or disagreeing.
Understand that if if the working definition of the statement that "he is republican" is that, "in the past, he voted for a republican" or "in the past he refused to vote for a democrat" , then Virginia's junior senator is not a democrat, which he certainly is.
(A similar and similarly deficient definition for the statement "he is a democrat" results in Ronald Reagan not being a republican.
In other words, I request an actual and viable working definition that isn't kneadable to a consistency that suits your fancy of the moment.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why is Barack more liberal than Clinton and which programs in particular would bankrupt America??
Barack has the most liberal voting record in the US Senate. The National Journal confirms this with it's annual rating of all senators.
However, I am basing my opinion on listening to Barak speak. Did you hear his speech on Super Tuesday night? Although I don't believe for a moment that his initiatives could be implemented, if they were, they would certainly push the US of a financial cliff.
For example, he declared that no person that works should be in poverty. As part of this initiative to get these people out of poverty, he talked about raising the minimum wage and having an annual cost of living increase for the minimum wage. THAT IS INSANE!
Many people are not worth the minimum wage they are paid now. Raising the minimum wage just raises prices on a lot of things and penalizes everyone else. In addition, I'm wondering if a person has the right to be out of poverty if they only work part time? If a person works 5 hours per week, will Barack subsidize them so they're not in poverty? RIDICULOUS!
First, the "poor" in this country are NOT poor. We have the richest poor people in the world! I have dozens of "poor" tenants at any given time and ALL of them have a warm, safe place to live; cable tv; plenty of food, etc. Many of them have big screen tv's. Is that living in poverty? Compared to what? I'd bet that the truly poor people in other countries would think our "poor" are living in luxury!
Then Barack made a comment that the drug companies were not going to give up their profits easily. When he starts taking the profit out of business, our businesses are going elsewhere (even faster than they already are). They will hire fewer workers in the US and move their organizations overseas. This is already happening due to over-regulation and over-taxation of our corporations and will get MUCH worse with a windfall profits tax.
Barak has also said that every Anerican will get the opportunity to have the same healthcare plan as senators. Of course, that's not true, but it will cost a FORTUNE to move toward socialized medicine.
That is just a few of the things he's promoting. Quite frankly, I think his ideas will destroy the country if implemented. However, I will vote for him if he is the nominee. I will NOT vote for a democrat dressed in conservative clothes (McCain).
Posts: 1577 | From: Ohio | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, the "poor" in this country are NOT poor. We have the richest poor people in the world! I have dozens of "poor" tenants at any given time and ALL of them have a warm, safe place to live; cable tv; plenty of food, etc. Many of them have big screen tv's. Is that living in poverty? Compared to what?
Then Barack made a comment that the drug companies were not going to give up their profits easily. When he starts taking the profit out of business, our businesses are going elsewhere. They will hire fewer workers in the US and move their organizations overseas. This is already happening due to over-regulation and over-taxation of our corporations and will get MUCH worse with a windfall profits tax.
Barak has also said that every Anerican will get the opportunity to have the same healthcare plan as senators. Of course, that's not true, but it will cost a FORTUNE to move toward socialized medicine.
you aren't talking about the same poor.
people living at min. wage are getting 15 thousand a year....
that's before FICA.....
the drug co's are charging Americans more than they charge any other country and they still do business there...
the "odd" fact about health care plans is that the MORE people enrolled in them? the more the cost is spread amongst the users and therefore as insurance is designed to work? works better...
on health care in general?
the fact is we are the last major industrialised nation NOT in socialised medicine. the corporations claim they can't afford to compete with co's NOT paying health care premiums.
you tell me which way to go...
most people can't afford to buy it on their own after they pay taxes and daily their cost of survival... as a matter of fact? the majority of households in this country already spend more than they earn each year.. what we pay for our insurance is pretty astounding.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand the minimum wage increase balk.
It's a large departure from the way we do business. But really....it's tied to inflation so in a sense that plan is just making sure that people are paid the same amount they were the year before.
The health care plan is less liberal than Clinton's as Barack want to make it voluntary. Clinton wants mandatory insurance. My own state is going even a step farther and considering a single payer system.
Health care profits are insane. They can stand a trim. And if they do move out of country then the FDA will no longer be able to block out of country drugs from other manufacturers that are just as good and cheaper. Have you ever researched the average markup on a generic drug?
As to working poor. Yeah, a lot of em are better off than in third world nations. Guess what? We aren't a third world nation.
Besides...we all know that consumer spending is the backbone of the American economy. Investing in people will only help our situation. (As long as we are able to realize savings by cutting out inefficiencies in the system.)
I believe this is possible but it means changing the way some groups do business.
I really like his idea of giving scholarships to college students in exchange for voluntary service.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really like his idea of giving scholarships to college students in exchange for voluntary service.
i would like to see a three year military term for every US citizen.
the training alone would be eqaul to one/two years of college (as we know college classes today).
every person would learn basics of lifesaving, firefighting, basic planned maintenance systems, weapons safety and proper use, and HOW TO WORK EFFECTIVELY WITH OTHER PEOPLE
people with serious mental problems would be IDed over period of time instead of some quickie evaluation.
the health system would be tied into it. and? best of all?
no more chicken hawks...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wouldn't a worked for me Glass. My leg kept me outta that side of life. Not disabled...but could become so if I don't take care of myself.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot: Wouldn't a worked for me Glass. My leg kept me outta that side of life. Not disabled...but could become so if I don't take care of myself.
the military has every job the civilian world has, and then a few more..
there's no need to require every person to have a "front-line" job..
it would humanise the world of warcraft, and force people who enter into it to recognise they are part of greater whole.
think of all the gang-bangers that would be "re-conditioned" if they were assimilated into the broader culture.
college credit should be awarded for training and cash can be saved to help pay for continuing college and other education after your service is up...
the Swiss do it and they don't even participate in war. Dubya and Cheney might have been a little more circumspect had their children faced possible deployment even if they weren't sent to the front lines? they might have had to experience a hardship situation.
think of all the people that don't have a clue what to do in a Katrina situation that would actually be trained to respond in some form, and know how to organise THEMSELVES quickly and efficiently.
IMO? the miltiary is a great organisation with a chitty job to do.
how many highly qualified and motivated people don't consider a military career because they don't really know what it is? but would consider one after being involved in it? my bet is that alot would, and our military would be better and more efficient because of it.
throw in strong health care benefits for active reservists and their families? and you begin to have a system that is not anti-capitalistic, but provides more to poorer people who are in fact giving back "in kind"...
the Military is where racial integration really began to be implemented... the military is not an "evil" in and of itself... IMO? it's the politicians that were never in the military that are the real problem....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:you aren't talking about the same poor. people living at min. wage are getting 15 thousand a year.... that's before FICA.....
Well then, I don't know what "poor" you're talking about. I'm talking about people who receive $600 or $700 per month on welfare and have their housing paid by the taxpayers in the form of section 8. I'm talking about the guy working at Walmart for $7 or $8 per hour. I've got dozens of these tenants and they ALL have a safe, warm place to live and they ALL have cable TV. Almost all of them have a cell phone. They all have food to eat. That is NOT my definition of poor.
Even the people who live under bridges are not poor. Most of them are getting their government check, however they are just choosing to buy crack or meth with it instead of spending that money on rent or food.
quote:Health care profits are insane. They can stand a trim.
So, how much are you socialists going to allow a company to make and who's going to decide?
quote:Besides...we all know that consumer spending is the backbone of the American economy. Investing in people will only help our situation.
Taking money from a productive citizen and giving it to a slacker is NOT investing in anyone. That is just theft!
Posts: 1577 | From: Ohio | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
