|
Post by iamjumbo on Apr 10, 2010 11:28:08 GMT
Jumbo said, "das don't thing anyone should get social security. he's said so many times that, if you aren't a millionaire, you should be relegated to the soup kitchen." Could you please provide a link to that quote Jumbo. I don't remember saying that and it is not my philosophy. Putting up a quote like that me saying that "Jumbo believes that the government should take over and operate all of the restaurants in America along with most other business enterprises." It's probably not exactly what you said but it is pretty close to your values isn't it? not even close. most resturants are not corporations, and i'm not aware of any that just try to gouge people, or not perform their responsibility to the people
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Apr 12, 2010 0:43:08 GMT
My point is still valid Jumbo. Your responses are not rational.
|
|
|
Post by jade on Apr 12, 2010 9:08:01 GMT
Helping the poor is a very admirable endeavor. I applaud all of those who choose to contribute to charities supporting the poor. However, i don't want my government to confiscate funds, mainly from their politcal opponents, with the hope of currying favor from disadvantaged voters in order to gain and sustain power. That is the modus operandi of our Democratic Party. That's what they do. That's all they do. That's all they've ever done. They are a disgrace to their country, their family, and their pet. Does this mean that every government taxes the voters of its opposition more highly than it does its followers? I think thats a bit impossible, no? Or maybe you mean that a Democrat regime taxes the rich and the rich are Republicans? (are there really no rich democrats?) or have I muddled it all up?
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Apr 12, 2010 9:34:12 GMT
My point is still valid Jumbo. Your responses are not rational. no lad. the definition of valid is: well grounded in logic or truth and the reality is the your toes aren't even close to the ground. you need to get at least a modicum of logic or truth into your statements because they're even close to valid. that's an exercise which you have been extremely unsuccessful thus far. keep trying though
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Apr 12, 2010 9:37:07 GMT
Helping the poor is a very admirable endeavor. I applaud all of those who choose to contribute to charities supporting the poor. However, i don't want my government to confiscate funds, mainly from their politcal opponents, with the hope of currying favor from disadvantaged voters in order to gain and sustain power. That is the modus operandi of our Democratic Party. That's what they do. That's all they do. That's all they've ever done. They are a disgrace to their country, their family, and their pet. Does this mean that every government taxes the voters of its opposition more highly than it does its followers? I think thats a bit impossible, no? Or maybe you mean that a Democrat regime taxes the rich and the rich are Republicans? (are there really no rich democrats?) or have I muddled it all up? no, you got it perfectly. das has it muddled all up his statement that democrats only tax republicans is moronic on its face, and he knows better, but, he keeps trying, thinking that he just might find someone stupid enough to believe it with him
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Apr 12, 2010 23:10:53 GMT
I never said that the Democrats tax only Republicans. That's ridiculous. What I did say is that the Democrats target Republicans with their taxes. The upper echelon earners in America are mostly Republicans. That's the group that the Democrats target.
True enough, there are some rich Democrats that get screwed over too. Just goes to show that you don't have to be smart to be rich.
|
|
|
Post by jade on Apr 13, 2010 7:37:55 GMT
Other than going after rich people, how do you target Republicans?
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Apr 13, 2010 16:39:13 GMT
I never said that the Democrats tax only Republicans. That's ridiculous. What I did say is that the Democrats target Republicans with their taxes. The upper echelon earners in America are mostly Republicans. That's the group that the Democrats target. True enough, there are some rich Democrats that get screwed over too. Just goes to show that you don't have to be smart to be rich. it certainly does. it's a good thing for republicans too, since, if one had to be smart to be rich, there would be NO rich republicans at all
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Apr 13, 2010 23:24:57 GMT
Jumbo - I will admit you do deserve an A+ on Bluster. However, your posts are D- on Substance. This last one is a perfect example.
|
|
|
Post by clemiethedog on Apr 14, 2010 13:15:14 GMT
If Lincoln were alive today I'm pretty sure he'd want to distance himself from the likes of Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the Democrats. He'd be a regular on the Glen Beck show. Do you have anything to back up these asinine claims? Is there any analysis, other than being "pretty sure"? Why Glenn Beck? Is it because he happens to the #1 asshole on television? My guess is yes. The fact is you've offered nothing in the form of reasoning or analysis, not even jack shit, just speculation without historical merit, just more of the same old right-wing nuttery we've grown to expect.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Apr 14, 2010 23:24:26 GMT
'The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.' A. Einstein
City, State, % of People Below the Poverty Level
1. Detroit, MI 32.5% 2 Buffalo, NY 29..9% 3. Cincinnati, OH 27.8% 4. Cleveland, OH 27.0% 5. Miami, FL 26.9% 6. St. Louis, MO 26.8% 7. El Paso, TX 26.4% 8. Milwaukee, WI 26.2% 9. Philadelphia, PA 25.1% 10. Newark, NJ 24.2%
U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 American Community Survey, August 2007 What do the top ten cities (over 250,000) with the highest poverty rate all have in common?
Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961. Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1954. Cincinnati, OH (3rd) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1984. Cleveland, OH (4th) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1989. Miami, FL (5th) has never had a Republican mayor. St. Louis, MO (6th) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1949. El Paso, TX (7th) has never had a Republican mayor. Milwaukee, WI (8th) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1908. Philadelphia, PA (9th) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1952. Newark, NJ (10th) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1907.
It is the poor who habitually elect Democrats yet they are still POOR! The reason they vote for the Democrats is that the Dem politicians promise to help the poor. Obama flies around on Air Force 1, has a private chef, lives in a taxpayer supported mansion, and gives lip service to the poor. That's how Democrat politicians have always operated so I'm not surprised.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Apr 14, 2010 23:28:28 GMT
Clemie - We can't interview Lincoln to get his personal opinion because he's dead. We can only observe how he lived his life and extrapolate from there. Lincoln was a president with a compass. He didn't need or want an overnight popularity poll to find out what to do. He was willing to make very tough but extremely unpopular decisions whenever his internal compass told him he was doing the right thing. That's also a very good characterization of George W. Bush.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Apr 15, 2010 1:19:41 GMT
The voters in those cities obviously know what is in their best interest. They no doubt realize a Republican administration would take what little they have and kick them to the curb. An aside - Cincinnati is quite red and pro conservative - as is N. Ky. We have some socially conservative loonies and some country club Republicans. But, interestingly enough, this doesn't cause feuds or hard feelings. We may disagree about politics, but get along very well socially. This makes me think Dems and Repubs probably do get along in real life much better than the media would like us to think.
|
|
|
Post by clemiethedog on Apr 15, 2010 11:23:53 GMT
It is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital; that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it induces him to labor. ... Now there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed, nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer. Both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them are groundless.
Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.
A. Lincoln
Not the type of outlook that plays well on Glenn Beck and the rest of those asshats on Fox News.
In the same spirit of Lincoln, we have President Obama:
"It comes down to values in America. Do we simply value wealth, or do we value the work that creates it?"
This is the man whom Beck alternatively states is either "doing nothing but punching the clock" or "systematically destroying the constitution". Beck has offered no proof of or in any way substantiated either claim.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Apr 15, 2010 22:49:18 GMT
Stop it with the nonsense Clemie. Glen Beck is a giant. So are Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, and Sean Hannity. By comparison, Obama is a midget as are the loonie left media figures such as Michael Moore(on), Keith Olbermann, Rachael Maddow, etc. You have the sensible people on the right and the morons on the left. That's just how it is.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Apr 16, 2010 4:14:50 GMT
Very amusing, das. The others are the usual ventriloquist's dummies, but Glenn Beck is a FOX 'ho' and a fool of the most common variety.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Apr 17, 2010 20:54:10 GMT
Stop it with the nonsense Clemie. Glen Beck is a giant. So are Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, and Sean Hannity. By comparison, Obama is a midget as are the loonie left media figures such as Michael Moore(on), Keith Olbermann, Rachael Maddow, etc. You have the sensible people on the right and the morons on the left. That's just how it is. i realize that getting things totally ass backwards is your favorite pastime, but, such lunacy simply does nothing but totally discredit you. you need to post some reality for a change, instead of just the lunatical idological bs
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Apr 18, 2010 18:47:58 GMT
Beth - there is no one I agree with on all issues all of the time. I don't agree with Hannity on abortion but I do think he has President Obama in clear focus. I don't agree with Ann Coulter on religion but she's got the Democrats figured out and in clear focus. She also has an accurate view of the GW Bush Presidency. I don't agree with O'Reilly on some issues as well but overall I find him to be a very good reporter who brings in both sides of the issues.
On the other hand, I don't believe I'd agree with Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow on the color of milk.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Apr 18, 2010 18:58:10 GMT
Clemie - Lincoln's first term election got the civil war started. His second term reelection was one of the most disputed elections in our history. He was a great President but he made some extremely unpopular decisions. For example, he refused to come out against slavery or to permit negroes in the military during the first part of the war. He was initially willing to end the war without ending slavery in the southern states. He only changed his mind and issued the Emancipation Proclamation after it became clear that the Confederacy was in no mood to compromise. Lincoln pushed his Generals into battles like Gettysburg which resulted in huge loss of life. He favored military conscription which was extremely unpopular in many states. As I said before, he was a lot like GW Bush. He had a compass and was willing to make tough and unpopular decisions which he believed were correct. The Democrats lividly hated him and so did the far-right wing Republicans. Read this article for a brief summary www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAlincoln.htm
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Apr 18, 2010 19:14:24 GMT
Beth - there is no one I agree with on all issues all of the time. I don't agree with Hannity on abortion but I do think he has President Obama in clear focus. I don't agree with Ann Coulter on religion but she's got the Democrats figured out and in clear focus. She also has an accurate view of the GW Bush Presidency. I don't agree with O'Reilly on some issues as well but overall I find him to be a very good reporter who brings in both sides of the issues. On the other hand, I don't believe I'd agree with Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow on the color of milk. Coulter - isn't she Rush Limbaugh in a miniskirt?!!!
|
|