Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Can Romney/Ryan get elected? Options · View
1ball
Posted: Thursday, October 4, 2012 10:41:48 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:
I already told you I'm not drinking the "runaway democracy" koolaid, which your above questions assume to be the case.


How do you figure that? My questions only assume that we have debt, which we do, caused by spending above our means, which we have, with no plan in place to pay it off, which is the case. So please try again.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
LadyX
Posted: Thursday, October 4, 2012 11:03:05 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,771
And around and around we go.

This country's had debt for decades and, of course, it's worse than ever now. It does have to be dealt with, agreed. It's the whole mindset that welfare assistance and medicare are "goodies" and "freebies" that put you in a different mindset from me. Everything's gotta be managed, and the next term president, whether it's Obama or Romney, is going to be saddled with this issue. It's not been managed well lately by anybody, and It's how it's dealt with that forms the political differences. I'll even agree that Democrats are far from strong on this issue. They need Republican counter-weight, but the counter-weight isn't sensible. Not accepting 10 cuts for 1 revenue increase? Partisan politics are a separate issue really. My point, which you'll say is insane, or whatever, is that your dogma paints a picture of a runaway train approaching a cliff, against a backdrop of a couple hundred million parasites that are only concerned with robbing rich people, which is hyperbolic and only representative of your worldview, not objective reality.

I know your schtick well by now. Everyone's a moocher and a collectivist, anyone who disagrees is simply unwilling to face up to your "wisdom", followed by endless repetition of "what happens when we run out of other people's money", and our beliefs don't matter, etc. Got it. Really, I do. :)



Guest
Posted: Thursday, October 4, 2012 11:28:18 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 883,525



1ball
Posted: Thursday, October 4, 2012 11:38:16 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:
My point, which you'll say is insane, or whatever, is that your dogma paints a picture of a runaway train approaching a cliff, against a backdrop of a couple hundred million parasites that are only concerned with robbing rich people, which is hyperbolic and only representative of your worldview, not objective reality.


And you believe you have a grasp of objective reality? The wave of retiring boomers aren't going to add many more years to the two years of SS insolvency that we've just completed? You've just advocated and achieved the addition of how many more wagon riders and increased their weight by how much? What's the reverse of hyperbole? Hypobole? evil4


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
tazznjazz
Posted: Thursday, October 4, 2012 7:03:24 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/30/2012
Posts: 329
Location: under bright lights, United States
MrNudiePants
Posted: Thursday, October 4, 2012 9:41:26 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,227
Location: United States
1ball wrote:
Zero in federal income and payroll tax. The damage that the level of socialism we have is doing to my investments more than covers a two-person share of the non-socialism expenses.


So you're paying nothing toward the defense of our country, yet you're still bitching about having to pay more than you receive in return? That's more than a little hypocritical, isn't it? And if you're paying nothing toward all these entitlement programs that you keep on ranting about, they why are you even qualified to have an opinion? Put up or shut up. When you start paying your fair share, then you'll have a right to bitch about how it's being spent.

1ball wrote:
Every individual does that individually. And everyone has a list of things they don't want to see their tax dollars spent on.


But I asked how YOU establish it. And you haven't answered. I'm interested to see exactly how you establish value for those Federal services you do receive, despite the fact that you get them for free... Is that what national security is worth to you? Nothing?

1ball wrote:
Sooner or later every collectivist starts blurring the whole local, state, federal taxation issue. You're no exception. I do pay local and state taxes. I pay for police and fire protection. Defense and all the other non-charity parts of the federal budget are mixed in with all kinds of coerced charity. It's the coerced charity I object to. SS, Medicare, Obamacare, Welfare, pretty much all kinds of federal subsidies. They should be handled at the state level or not at all. You've probably ignored the whole competition for governance issue, so perhaps you'll answer my questions. Why do these subsidies have to be at the federal level? Can't the people of California cover the people of California? Can't the people of Montana cover the people of Montana? How do we avoid "bread and circuses" democracy? What will we do when we run out of Other People's Money?


You obviously have no clue how Federal money is spent. Much of it goes toward local civic organizations like police and fire departments. Much more goes toward building roads and infrastructure that only benefits local jurisdictions. How could a road benefit anyone but local residents? Sure, sure, interstate commerce, blah, blah, blah. The vast majority of people traveling on any road in the nation are locals. Recall hearing about "The Bridge To Nowhere", some years ago? Federal dollars being spent. Should these expenditures be paid for on a local level? Perhaps. Would it do any good? Can the people of California cover the people of California? Obviously not. Seen how well California has been managing their money lately? And when California goes broke, which will inevitably happen, who gets to take care of the refugees fleeing economic despondency? Ask anyone from Houston how well they bore the weight of the Katrina refugees.

1ball wrote:
The point you're ignoring is that every individual decides whether he's getting his money's worth. He can be wrong, but he'll still act on his belief and when the federal government is chock full of coerced charity that he's not receiving, acting on his belief means reducing the value of the US society. A person can easily think, "I don't mind paying for federal highways on the other side of the country, because highways enable commerce, but I'm getting no benefit from these welfare programs." It doesn't matter if he's actually right about that. He'll act as if he's right. He'll decide against "the common good" because he thinks "the common good" decided to be parasitical.


Then why wouldn't he work within the system to get politicians elected whose values represent his own? Why wouldn't he lobby those politicians to get laws passed that right the inequities he sees in the country around him? Most people will choose to work within the system. If you would choose to work "against the common good", then you're in the rarefied minority who believes that laws and statutes passed by duly elected officials for "the common good" don't apply to them.

1ball wrote:
Here's a basic thought exercise for you. How many lives do each of us have? Hopefully you guessed correctly. The answer is one. Why would we charge one person more for all the defense entities you listed above than another person? They each have the same number of lives. Are we saying one person's life is worth more than another's so we can justify charging him more? How would that be determined? They each have the same number of votes and we wouldn't give more votes to the person whose life was worth more by the same method of determination, so why would we charge more for defense? We have plenty of people who pay no federal income tax and yet their lives are being defended. That means that without even considering social programs, they're being subsidized by other people. Which basically means they're receiving coerced charity by getting free defense. Correct? A common defense is one thing the federal government was created for. Why shouldn't we charge a poll tax for defense? The answer to that is not a moral answer. It's a pragmatic answer. Because you can't get money from someone who has none. So you're faced with a dilemma. Either live without defense or cover their defense bill. You don't have to do that for food, shelter, medical care, etc. So why again shouldn't those charities be covered at the local or state level, where, if they get too greedy, you can move away from them without having to leave the country?


So you're saying that each person should pay the same amount for the defense of their country, because each person -- man, woman, or child -- benefits equally from that defense. By your logic, wouldn't anyone who couldn't pay have to be put to death? After all, if they can't afford to pay, why should they be allowed to reap the benefit? Oh... wait. You don't pay. Damn, 1-B. I'll be sorry to see you go. We'll be sure to preserve your posts here for posterity.
1ball
Posted: Thursday, October 4, 2012 11:54:21 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
1ball wrote: Zero in federal income and payroll tax. The damage that the level of socialism we have is doing to my investments more than covers a two-person share of the non-socialism expenses.

MrNudiePants wrote:
So you're paying nothing toward the defense of our country, yet you're still bitching about having to pay more than you receive in return?


I figure I'm paying to the defense of this country by staying invested in this economy despite the damage the socialism is doing to my
ROI. But, I'm not bitching about having to pay more. Where did you get that idea? I'm pointing out that individuals, through acts of non-compliance and abandonment, can control the level of cooperation according to their beliefs on whether they're getting a good deal.

Quote:
That's more than a little hypocritical, isn't it?


I'm not working, therefore I have no income or payroll tax liability. I didn't make the system, I just play within the rules. If you want to kick me in the ass for not working, I'm at the back of the line. Both of your legs will be non-functional by the time you get to me.

Quote:
And if you're paying nothing toward all these entitlement programs that you keep on ranting about, they why are you even qualified to have an opinion?


Because I have a functioning brain. I made a conscious decision to quit working for a lot of reasons. Among them was the declining value of pulling a gravy train that had so many riders.

Quote:
Put up or shut up. When you start paying your fair share, then you'll have a right to bitch about how it's being spent.


Who gets to decide what my fair share is? Will the decision be applied equally to all non-employed people or only those who have assets to live on.

1ball wrote: Every individual does that individually. And everyone has a list of things they don't want to see their tax dollars spent on.

Quote:
But I asked how YOU establish it. And you haven't answered. I'm interested to see exactly how you establish value for those Federal services you do receive, despite the fact that you get them for free... Is that what national security is worth to you? Nothing?


I don't have to decide the value. I just have to not break the law. That's the system. There's no law that says a person has to keep working until he reaches a certain age. Correct?

1ball wrote: Sooner or later every collectivist starts blurring the whole local, state, federal taxation issue. You're no exception. I do pay local and state taxes. I pay for police and fire protection. Defense and all the other non-charity parts of the federal budget are mixed in with all kinds of coerced charity. It's the coerced charity I object to. SS, Medicare, Obamacare, Welfare, pretty much all kinds of federal subsidies. They should be handled at the state level or not at all. You've probably ignored the whole competition for governance issue, so perhaps you'll answer my questions. Why do these subsidies have to be at the federal level? Can't the people of California cover the people of California? Can't the people of Montana cover the people of Montana? How do we avoid "bread and circuses" democracy? What will we do when we run out of Other People's Money?

Quote:
You obviously have no clue how Federal money is spent. Much of it goes toward local civic organizations like police and fire departments.


That wouldn't have to happen if the federal government wouldn't grab so much power. Agreed?

Quote:
Much more goes toward building roads and infrastructure that only benefits local jurisdictions. How could a road benefit anyone but local residents? Sure, sure, interstate commerce, blah, blah, blah. The vast majority of people traveling on any road in the nation are locals.


You don't have to travel on a road to get a benefit from it. The price of goods and services is lower because the road exists so you get a benefit from it. Agreed?

Quote:
Recall hearing about "The Bridge To Nowhere", some years ago? Federal dollars being spent. Should these expenditures be paid for on a local level? Perhaps. Would it do any good?


As I recall, that was pork for the sake of pork, a very expensive bridge with no reasonable expectation of economic benefit worthy of the expense.

Quote:
Can the people of California cover the people of California? Obviously not.


Perhaps without the federal burden they could. And if not, then they would adjust, especially if they knew a federal bailout was not coming.

Quote:
Seen how well California has been managing their money lately?


Nothing a good bankruptcy judge couldn't rationalize.

Quote:
And when California goes broke, which will inevitably happen, who gets to take care of the refugees fleeing economic despondency? Ask anyone from Houston how well they bore the weight of the Katrina refugees.


The rest of the country has been absorbing economic refugees from blue states as their economies have become increasingly irrational. The failure of one state produces the skilled labor for the state that has a need for them.

1ball wrote:
The point you're ignoring is that every individual decides whether he's getting his money's worth. He can be wrong, but he'll still act on his belief and when the federal government is chock full of coerced charity that he's not receiving, acting on his belief means reducing the value of the US society. A person can easily think, "I don't mind paying for federal highways on the other side of the country, because highways enable commerce, but I'm getting no benefit from these welfare programs." It doesn't matter if he's actually right about that. He'll act as if he's right. He'll decide against "the common good" because he thinks "the common good" decided to be parasitical.

Quote:
Then why wouldn't he work within the system to get politicians elected whose values represent his own?


Is there some law that says he can't make economically rational decisions based on the conditions the government creates?

Quote:
Why wouldn't he lobby those politicians to get laws passed that right the inequities he sees in the country around him?


Are you under the impression that our checks on the system are limited to political activism? We're legally allowed to lower our economic output until we're comfortable with the level of burden we're bearing.

Quote:
Most people will choose to work within the system. If you would choose to work "against the common good", then you're in the rarefied minority who believes that laws and statutes passed by duly elected officials for "the common good" don't apply to them.


As long as you can work against the common good while staying within the law, isn't that working within the system? Is there a law that says every individual has to maximize economic output so they can maximize their tax liability?

1ball wrote:
Here's a basic thought exercise for you. How many lives do each of us have? Hopefully you guessed correctly. The answer is one. Why would we charge one person more for all the defense entities you listed above than another person? They each have the same number of lives. Are we saying one person's life is worth more than another's so we can justify charging him more? How would that be determined? They each have the same number of votes and we wouldn't give more votes to the person whose life was worth more by the same method of determination, so why would we charge more for defense? We have plenty of people who pay no federal income tax and yet their lives are being defended. That means that without even considering social programs, they're being subsidized by other people. Which basically means they're receiving coerced charity by getting free defense. Correct? A common defense is one thing the federal government was created for. Why shouldn't we charge a poll tax for defense? The answer to that is not a moral answer. It's a pragmatic answer. Because you can't get money from someone who has none. So you're faced with a dilemma. Either live without defense or cover their defense bill. You don't have to do that for food, shelter, medical care, etc. So why again shouldn't those charities be covered at the local or state level, where, if they get too greedy, you can move away from them without having to leave the country?

Quote:
So you're saying that each person should pay the same amount for the defense of their country, because each person -- man, woman, or child -- benefits equally from that defense.


I'm not the one who's taking the moral approach of "for the common good". That's your position. You're the one who thinks there's a "fair share" to consider. Can you justify charging a defense bill to children who are given no choice of where they live and can't be considered capable of informed consent? For adults, how can you justify anything other than an exactly equal price for equal benefit?

Quote:
By your logic, wouldn't anyone who couldn't pay have to be put to death?


It isn't my logic. It's your "for the common good" morality applied to everyone instead of just the unpopular minority known as rich people.

Quote:
After all, if they can't afford to pay, why should they be allowed to reap the benefit? Oh... wait. You don't pay. Damn, 1-B. I'll be sorry to see you go. We'll be sure to preserve your posts here for posterity.


It would not surprise me at all for a society that has decreasing respect for individual rights to adopt your might makes right approach to dealing with those who don't conform to your "common good" dogma, but as the saying goes, "Molon labe".



My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
LadyX
Posted: Friday, October 5, 2012 9:36:24 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,771
1ball wrote:
Zero in federal income and payroll tax.


Think

So you're one of Mitt's 47-percenters, how unexpected. And ironic, to me at least, that I'm not in that 47-percent, yet I'm also not the one railing about millions of parasites sucking up my hard-earned tax dollars. Nor am I the drain on the system that you've repeatedly implied I am, but good try. It clearly makes you feel better about your arguments to label others and try to justify it with the Jr.High-level "shoe fits" rationale. Unless the shoe doesn't fit, but nevertheless, go ahead. As Sheryl Crow once sang, "if it makes you happy, it can't be that bad."

So you quit work because The Man just wouldn't stay out of your pocket, huh? Did Uncle Sam take every additional dollar you made and give it to a welfare queen? If so, I'd quit work too. Or, was your tax rate, in actuality, at least 60% short of that?

It's clear that your doom-and-gloom opinion of this country leaves much to be desired, so why are you even here? You make it sound beyond hope, so why wait for it to get worse, since you're so certain it will? Surely with our Might-Makes-Right Republic in full effect, there are places that would suit you better.

Might I suggest Somalia? Over 300 days of sunshine per year, long stretches of deep blue coastline, and- best of all for you- absolutely no semblence of a powerful national government. I think it's really your dream scenario. You can set up camp wherever, and if the local warlord's martial law doesn't suit you, then you can just pull up stakes and move over to the next one. The nomads there have been doing it for centuries, so to your credit, that system seems to be working for them.

And wait, there's more:

You can join a group of pirates and hijack ships. I'm not exactly sure- you know, economic flexibility between tribes and all, but I'm willing to be that your tribute percentage to the local chieftain is less of a burden than Obama's asking for here. Plus, with any luck, you'll be stealing from collectivists in the first place. 1Ball is even a good pirate name! Not sure what it translates to in Somali, but it's an idea at least.

What's not to like, really? Just give it some thought; it's all I ask.


WellMadeMale
Posted: Friday, October 5, 2012 10:26:19 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 11,200
Location: Cakeland
LadyX wrote:
So you're one of Mitt's 47-percenters, how unexpected.


Yeah, Scooter already lifted this rock and exposed the worm feces, a few weeks ago.

On a side note, word is, there's a GOP mole close to him, in his administration. Vegas odds are on Geithner.



This is what happens when you don't have an idea about who to appoint in your new administration in 2009, so you just go with people from the same failed previous administration's team.

If there is one thing I'm steamed at Obama about...it is that he didn't alter course from the Bush/Cheney administration in several critical and different areas (finance/treasury/security) - and he squandered 2 years trying to play nice nice with the same fucking assholes who wasted those same two years, doing everything they could to ensure Obama would be...a one trick pony administration.


Obscenity is the last refuge of an inarticulate motherfucker.
1ball
Posted: Friday, October 5, 2012 12:50:27 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:
Think

So you're one of Mitt's 47-percenters, how unexpected.


The only way to morally be a moocher is to vote against the policies that permit mooching. I'm helping to drag the gravy train to a halt because I'm morally opposed to it, not because I'm immorally supporting it. evil4

Quote:
And ironic, to me at least, that I'm not in that 47-percent, yet I'm also not the one railing about millions of parasites sucking up my hard-earned tax dollars.


You're advocating systemic mooching and the raiding of wealth for that purpose.

Quote:
Nor am I the drain on the system that you've repeatedly implied I am, but good try.


Actually, if your income is less than about $125K (per single adult in household) you're getting more than $1 of (theoretical) benefit per $1 of taxation. That's because the system is rigged that way.

Quote:
So you quit work because The Man just wouldn't stay out of your pocket, huh?


No, I quit work because I was willing to live with little earned income. Just like any other retired person, only without the SS handout. Are you going to require all other retired people who live on already earned wealth to pay wealth taxes? If say an athlete made $5 million after tax and retired at age 38 and lived a low consumption lifestyle in a modest paid-for house, he could live reasonably well with low enough earned income to owe no federal tax. He might still be reasonably concerned that irrational government policy would reduce the value of his wealth to nothing. Agreed? Anything immoral about his choice?

Quote:
It's clear that your doom-and-gloom opinion of this country leaves much to be desired, so why are you even here?


I like it here. I'm able to take advantage of the total package at a price I can live with.

Quote:
You make it sound beyond hope, so why wait for it to get worse, since you're so certain it will?


Why leave while I can still make it work to my advantage?

Quote:
Surely with our Might-Makes-Right Republic in full effect, there are places that would suit you better.


If/when I think that's the case, I'll go there

Quote:
Might I suggest Somalia?


No amount of sanctimony makes your support for coercing charity morally justifiable.

Quote:
You can join a group of pirates and hijack ships.


Since you like to compare me to Randians, I could even call myself Ragnar Danneskjold. evil4

He was one of the least understood heroes of her apocalyptic story. He repatriated the wealth that was immorally taken for the sake of moochers. There's a little bit of Ragnar in everyone (even you).

Quote:
What's not to like, really? Just give it some thought; it's all I ask.


I've clearly thought about it more than you. I'm sure you would love to deport all non-believers in collectivist dogma who turn your morality back against you. But y'all created this system and now you have to live with the consequences of non-compliance and abandonment.



My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Ruthie
Posted: Friday, October 5, 2012 12:55:30 PM

Rank: Empress of the Moon
Moderator

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 4,367
Location: The moon.
1ball wrote:


I've clearly thought about it more than you. I'm sure you would love to deport all non-believers in collectivist dogma who turn your morality back against you. But y'all created this system and now you have to live with the consequences of non-compliance and abandonment.



Where has LadyX ever said that she wanted to deport anyone? Also, what are you going to do when the gravy train stops running? Sleep under a bridge?

http://








1ball
Posted: Friday, October 5, 2012 8:38:53 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
CoopsRuthie wrote:


Where has LadyX ever said that she wanted to deport anyone?


She hasn't. We're friends. This is how we banter.

Quote:
Also, what are you going to do when the gravy train stops running? Sleep under a bridge?


Who knows? Maybe I'll hire starving liberals and pay them pennies per hour. evil4

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Ruthie
Posted: Friday, October 5, 2012 9:15:24 PM

Rank: Empress of the Moon
Moderator

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 4,367
Location: The moon.
1ball wrote:


Who knows? Maybe I'll hire starving liberals and pay them pennies per hour. evil4


Where do you plan to get the pennies? Odds are someone like me will be feeding you.

http://








1ball
Posted: Friday, October 5, 2012 9:40:16 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
CoopsRuthie wrote:


Where do you plan to get the pennies?


From the sale of assets to other starving liberals.

Quote:
Odds are someone like me will be feeding you.


That would be sweet irony, wouldn't it? evil4

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Ruthie
Posted: Saturday, October 6, 2012 3:37:36 PM

Rank: Empress of the Moon
Moderator

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 4,367
Location: The moon.
1ball wrote:


That would be sweet irony, wouldn't it? evil4


I'll come visit you under your bridge and bring cookies.

http://








1ball
Posted: Sunday, October 7, 2012 9:13:09 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
CoopsRuthie wrote:
I'll come visit you under your bridge and bring cookies.


I don't know why you think I'll be there. I own land and unless you plan on confiscating it, I won't lack for a a place to live. If y'all sink the economy, where will you get the money to buy cookies? If you don't sink the economy, I won't need any handouts.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Ruthie
Posted: Sunday, October 7, 2012 9:38:34 PM

Rank: Empress of the Moon
Moderator

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 4,367
Location: The moon.
1ball wrote:


I don't know why you think I'll be there. I own land and unless you plan on confiscating it, I won't lack for a a place to live. If y'all sink the economy, where will you get the money to buy cookies? If you don't sink the economy, I won't need any handouts.


Sorry, I assumed you lived under a bridge now.

http://








1ball
Posted: Monday, October 8, 2012 8:21:51 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
CoopsRuthie wrote:
Sorry, I assumed you lived under a bridge now.


We live quite well now on very little (taxable) income. We've been retired over 10 years and have quite a nest egg earning more than enough to pay annual expenses. I take it you've never heard of the Retire Early or Voluntary Simplicity lifestyles. Save up while you're young, don't have more kids than you can afford to provide for, live simply, invest wisely, let the Joneses win and become financially independent much younger than normal. If the economy is going to be tanked by insane government policy, the hardship will be most felt by those with no nest egg and those with all their eggs in one basket.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Ruthie
Posted: Monday, October 8, 2012 12:12:55 PM

Rank: Empress of the Moon
Moderator

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 4,367
Location: The moon.
1ball wrote:


We live quite well now on very little (taxable) income. We've been retired over 10 years and have quite a nest egg earning more than enough to pay annual expenses. I take it you've never heard of the Retire Early or Voluntary Simplicity lifestyles. Save up while you're young, don't have more kids than you can afford to provide for, live simply, invest wisely, let the Joneses win and become financially independent much younger than normal. If the economy is going to be tanked by insane government policy, the hardship will be most felt by those with no nest egg and those with all their eggs in one basket.


I take it you've never heard of Billy Goat Gruff.

http://








lafayettemister
Posted: Monday, October 8, 2012 12:18:49 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,697
Location: Alabama, United States
CoopsRuthie wrote:


I take it you've never heard of Billy Goat Gruff.


When I was a kid, I loved that story!





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Guest
Posted: Monday, October 8, 2012 1:52:12 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 883,525
nope
1ball
Posted: Monday, October 8, 2012 2:21:55 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
CoopsRuthie wrote:
I take it you've never heard of Billy Goat Gruff.


I take it you're financially illiterate on top of economically naive.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Guest
Posted: Monday, October 8, 2012 3:19:11 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 883,525

http://www.amazon.com/Republican-Brain-Science-Science-Reality/dp/1118094514

Even if Obama wins this time - and it's looking awfully tight right now - there is a rising tide of anger, hate, xenophobia and fear in North America and the rest of the world. There are over 7 billion of us and that number's doubling at an alarming rate. Global Warming's at the point where even if we were committed to saving the planet and our grandchildren, it will be too late. Who will run for President 4 years from now, and 4 years after that? It's not like Republicans are running out of money, and more and more in politics, money not only talks, it doesn't listen.
1ball
Posted: Monday, October 8, 2012 3:27:07 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Oberon wrote:

http://www.amazon.com/Republican-Brain-Science-Science-Reality/dp/1118094514

Even if Obama wins this time - and it's looking awfully tight right now - there is a rising tide of anger, hate, xenophobia and fear in North America and the rest of the world. There are over 7 billion of us and that number's doubling at an alarming rate. Global Warming's at the point where even if we were committed to saving the planet and our grandchildren, it will be too late. Who will run for President 4 years from now, and 4 years after that? It's not like Republicans are running out of money, and more and more in politics, money not only talks, it doesn't listen.


That's why I say that the only hope is for Democrats to kick the socialists out of the party and to embrace equal opportunity instead of equal outcome.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Guest
Posted: Monday, October 8, 2012 3:30:47 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 883,525
1ball wrote:


That's why I say that the only hope is for Democrats to kick the socialists out of the party and to embrace equal opportunity instead of equal outcome.


I'm Canadian.
Don't you watch Fox News?
We're all socialists up here.
Mazza
Posted: Monday, October 8, 2012 3:35:23 PM

Rank: Mazztastic

Joined: 9/20/2012
Posts: 3,360


May I suggest an alternative to the current Democrat vs Republican punch-up that is the US elections?

(lifted from FB - I make no apology)

Nothing to see here...
1ball
Posted: Monday, October 8, 2012 3:53:49 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Oberon wrote:
I'm Canadian.


Doesn't matter. If there's any hope of doing anything reasonable about the problems you mentioned, it starts with getting control of the growth of dependence on government. Canada doesn't have much clout, but it can help.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Guest
Posted: Monday, October 8, 2012 4:11:24 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 883,525
1ball wrote:


Doesn't matter. If there's any hope of doing anything reasonable about the problems you mentioned, it starts with getting control of the growth of dependence on government. Canada doesn't have much clout, but it can help.


I understand. You believe the things Mitt Romney says.
This book explains why:

http://www.amazon.com/Republican-Brain-Science-Science-Reality/dp/1118094514

If Romney wins, my fear is we can kiss the world economy goodbye.

I have to go now. Still a chapter left to read in Das Kapital, then Mao's Little Red Book.
After that a union meeting, then a march on city hall.
One thing about us socialists: we're BUSY.
Guest
Posted: Monday, October 8, 2012 4:17:24 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 883,525
As to what Mitt Romney says:'

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/the-real-romney/

Of course, Krugman is a pinko, just like me.
Guest
Posted: Monday, October 8, 2012 6:51:42 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 883,525
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.