Nice straw man JPN.  You want to invent any more arguments to argue against?  Fool.

I am disturbed by ANYBODIES wealth being re-distributed.  I don't just happen to think it's ok to do to the top 5 just because they have more like you do.  Usually it's about punishing them for doing well.  What, are you just mad because they did well?  You think you deserve their money more than they do?

I wonder hw many things have been enacted in the past by the majority that were objectionable and later rescinded?

I prefer that everybody pays their fair share.  to expect the top 5% to pay 50% of the cost is abhorrent.  Punish them for their success.  Usually these sort of things are driven by jealousy over their success.  How many in that top 5% would favor it?  But how many outside?  Naturally everybody wants someone else to pay for for it.

So if 51% of the people vote to make something happen, does that make it right in your view?

Transfer of wealth for something somebody may have done to somebody at sometime in the past?

No, I think theft is much more accurate.

jpn of Seattle wrote:

These subsidies are permanent. Costs will go down. Here's how: http://www.newsweek.com/id/235246

I agree that costs are being transferred to tax payers--high income tax payers. It's a transfer of wealth from the top to the bottom. High income taxpayers will pay more FICA tax, while low and middle class taxpayers will have subsidized insurance premiums.
--Starting in 2013, an increase in the Medicare payroll tax by 0.9 percent on incomes over $200,000 ($250,000 for couples filing jointly). Also, people at this income level would pay a new 3.8 percent tax on investment income

That's a nice euphemism for theft.

What?!?  People not covered?  Say it isn't so!

Why, you must be some sort of evil Republican to point out something like this Chovy!

allpoints wrote:
Biker Dude wrote:

Moved


http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/8/80/SeriousCatDemot.jpg

+1 Karma for that.

lol

Moved

freethinker wrote:

One hundred and forty against ONE.
  What we saw here today was political history. We witnessed the beginning of the end of the republicon party. Without script, teleprompter or notes of any kind Barry shot down every talking point they could come up with and he did it with dignity respect and adult decorum. When they tried their time tested childish name calling, polarizing rhetoric and partisan whining Barry chastised them with calm wisdom and clear irrefutable facts. He gave them a lesson in politics, democracy, economics and government. It left them with their heads spinning and their arguments hollow and empty.
As all networks covered the event live, Fux Snooze was no exception. But when it became apparent that Barry was handing them their asses Fux Snooze ended coverage a half hour before the meeting concluded... So much for fair and balanced...This was some of the most compelling political TV I have ever seen. The cowards at Fux wouldn't even cover it.

GOBAMA!!!

Got any links about this?

cybert wrote:

--"It was poor judgment," Flanagan's lawyer, Garrison Jordan, said in a brief interview outside the courtroom. "I don't think there was any intent or motive to commit a crime."--

Being such an inept criminal that you get caught does indeed show poor judgment.

11

(143 replies, posted in Health and Education)

jackattacks wrote:

As a neighbor, I care about the health and well being of my Americans neighbors.

Then you should by all means purchase health insurance for any of your neighbors that don't have any.  With your own money.  My money?  Keep you hands off it!

12

(15 replies, posted in Health and Education)

jackattacks wrote:

When answering Gallop, how many remembered the 40,000,000 who could not afford insurance? Men, women and children who will die of conditions related to their inability to have insurance coverage. How many will die of heart attacks brought about their chronic anxiety due to their inability to insure their families or themselves? How many of these people had stones instead of hearts in their chests when they turned thumbs down on all the suffering their negative votes will visit on their unfortunate neighbors?

Nice.  So not only do they not have insurance, but because the don 't have insurance, they are extra stressed and have heart attacks?   lol  roll

jackattacks wrote:

The statistic that I rely on are published by the U.N. They can be check and verified. I am not engaging in anything other than relying on published data that I have checked. No body who has responded to my posts has relied on anything other than themselves. I feel my post are authoritative. I do not know where that leaves the rest of you.

If they can be quickly verified, why did you not post a link?  Your OP sure looks like purely speculative personal opinion, entirely bereft of proof.

14

(44 replies, posted in United States)

Your arguments are lacking and laughable.  When I get to work I will rebut this.

15

(44 replies, posted in United States)

cybert wrote:

Only China is fully recovered and growing like crazy.

And quite a few very smart finance people think China will financially collapse.  Good example you picked there.

cybert wrote:

You don't want more spending, that's Reaganite. Spending is the only way out. What got us out of the Depression was WWII, a massive government spending project. Our debt now is not anywhere close to that. We can afford it. We need to afford it. Throwing money at small businesses makes them dependent on the government. You have to prop up the Big guys in the short and long run for the little guys.

Care to comment on recent non-partisan reports that all the stimulus has done almost nothing to lower unemployment?

16

(25 replies, posted in Suggestions)

Couldn't help but notice you didn't answer his only question to you....

Cedar wrote:
Biker Dude wrote:

Never heard the term self-hating?

If you can't see the point about what you said there is no need to continue.

The first part of your post doesn't make any sense to me.

Of course it doesn't.

Cedar wrote:

As for the second part, please do go on. I would really like to see that famous point  smile

I think I was fairly plain in that I was done.

Never heard the term self-hating?

If you can't see the point about what you said there is no need to continue.

19

(25 replies, posted in Suggestions)

With one post it doesn't sound like a new forum is really needed at this time.

Cedar wrote:

...but leave it to a jew to rewrite history to suit them.

And here you have answered the original question of the thread.

hope09 wrote:

Outsourcing, in case you hadn't managed to pick up on the topic, Biker Dude, was not the topic of the thread, but it does create issues because of the lack of appropriate ability to inspect the facilities where the maintenance is accomplished, had you bothered to read the articles provided.

Thank you for your ever so condescending tone, but yes I did notice that.  No I did not read your articles.  I may.  Regardless of where they are done, and FAA inspection is REQUIRED.  Understand?

You may now return to your normally scheduled condescenation Cass.

Refurbished, maybe, but repaired?  If it's broken, it doesn't fly.  As I know quite a few people in the industry your point makes no sense.  So I was curious.

hope09 wrote:

Yep, Chovy.  The sheeple line up to get on those aircraft, because if one must travel any distance for business or pleasure it's the only way to go.

And when you have two major wars in progress what better method to bring home that same old Cheney/Bush mantra, it's all about al Qaeda? 

So some rich radical gets on an aircraft because State, HLS, and those they pay to harass the flying public screwed up once more. But be cautious as you might be on that "no fly" list that this passenger was on. But if he or she wants to blow up the aircraft your best hope is once more your fellow passengers will fight back.

Ya think, maybe there are some very valid points made in this short article from the Old Gray Lady today with a hyper-link included on the link from the blog that was the one that actually
made the points?

Outsourced where?

freethinker wrote:

Soldiers don't mirandize combatants on the battlefield.

Don't you think that, in  undeclared wars, it may be time they began to?
Or should justice, due process and human rights be after thoughts, because someone deemed that those taken into custody were  "combatants" and an area was deemed by someone as a"battlefield" and those taken were deemed by some one as guilty.
It's all this deeming by those who don't have to answer to why or what they deemed  that bothers me and others the most. If we are so sure they are guilty then due process and formal procedure should not get in the way of justice.

No.  Soldiers are soldiers, not law officers.  I certainly don't want to fund the training so they can all Mirandize prisoners well enough so the ACLU doesn't file lawsuits against them...

25

(3 replies, posted in The Lobbyist (Off Topic))

I'm gonna guess, you?