Old Time Victrola Music Message Board
« Obama's "National Police Force" is on the way... »
Hey, MordEth, you have 4 messages, 0 are new. 7 Nov, 2008, 9:39pm
Welcome to The Old Time Victrola Music Message Board!
Due to recent issued involving spam on the board,
Guests may view the board without registering
but must register an account in order to
post new threads or respond to existing threads.
Unfortunately, this is the only way to stop the spam.
If this causes any inconvenience, or you have any questions,
guest posts will still be permitted in the "Technical Issues"
board on this forum.
Topic: Obama's "National Police Force" is on the way... (Read 498 times)
Dan Gilmore Administrator Pennypincher Gilmore member is offline
"Hell, there are no rules here; we're trying to accomplish something."------ Thomas Edison
Joined: Oct 2003 Posts: 12,809 Location: Sometime round 1920
Re: Obama's "National Police Force" is on the way. « Reply #20 on 5 Nov, 2008, 9:22pm »
Oh, and one more about both Democrats and Republicans (and I hate to use this quote because of who made it):
"We
find two great gangs of political speculators, who alternately take
possession of the state power and exploit it by the most corrupt ends
-- the nation is powerless against these two great cartels of
politicians who are ostensibly its servants, but in reality dominate
and plunder it."
I see Dan's point of view. And you can see who won are state.
And
add to that all those people who voted for Obama because he promised
them goodies stolen from the hard work of others (speading the wealth
aroung)...
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of
government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can
vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on,
the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits
from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship."
--------------------Alexander Fraser Tyler, "The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic"
Admin
Comment: Maybe I should apply the principles of censorship to your post
that the Democrats are pushing again with the "Fairness Doctrine"? How
Orwellian of the Democrats.
Funny, censorship is fine, but only when it applies to the political right, right?
Dan,
Thank
you for proving my point. It’s awfully ironic that you would threaten
to censor my post, rather than with a response to it, but by directly
altering it. I suppose that since you can’t defend your points (or
admit that you were wrong), it’s more effective to threaten to censor
my words. It’s sad you have so little respect for the right to freedom
of speech. Personally, I think that the content of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are part of what makes the United States of America the great nation that it is.
I
also find it impressive that you’re so quick to label me a Democrat
despite my previous post stating that I am not; in fact I am registered
Independent. McCain’s campaign was a large factor towards me voting in
favor of Obama, but I suppose you don’t wish to see that his actions
and choices alienated voters.
Do you not see the irony in
bemoaning all of the things you claim that Obama will do as President,
when you behave in a fascist manner on your board?
And
add to that all those people who voted for Obama because he promised
them goodies stolen from the hard work of others (speading [sic] the
wealth aroung [sic])...
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent
form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that
they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that
moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the
most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy
always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by
dictatorship."
--------------------Alexander Fraser Tyler, "The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic"
Hello Socialism!
I
see you’re keeping up the socialism argument. It’s impressive how some
people do not realize that the United States is not (and certainly has
not been, in your lifetime) a 100% Free Market capitalist economy, but
I’m sure that you are keen to take advantage of some of the programs
that the government provides to you, even though if you looked at them
critically, they smack of socialism. Yet were these abolished while the
Republicans were in power? Of course not.
As one of my friends
who lives in Kentucky was commenting, it’s amazing how many people in
his state that he sees on a regular basis live off the dole, yet echo
protestations about how Obama is a socialist. Do you plan on collecting
Social Security? Have you ever collected unemployment? Do you enjoy
Medicare benefits? If so, then you, sir, are a hypocrite.
On top of this, you also seem to fail to understand economics. Giving American citizens tax cuts
is not “redistributing the wealth”. McCain was promising tax ‘credits’
of his own, and by your argument this would make him just as socialist
as his campaign accused Obama of being. Perhaps you are a believer in Republican trickle-down economics, and still don’t want to admit that it doesn’t work.
If you can manage to apply logic to this, you’d realize how ridiculous your claims are. Let me give you a simple equation:
giving tax cuts ≠ stealing from the hard work of others
Both
sides offered either tax cuts or tax ‘credits’, which both amount to
the same thing, so I suppose that both parties “promised them goodies
stolen from the hard work of others”.
Keep sticking to the sound-bytes and not arguing the facts; it makes it ridiculously easy to debunk what you have to say.
It's
easy to talk when you're a prospective candidate and how you're going
to change this, that and the other for the better. It's another thing
altogether actually being able to deliver on that promise.
How many Presidents have succeeded in delivering exactly what they promised?
Funny you should say that.
Obama
will quickly find out that he cannot satisfy nor deliver everything he
promised to both ends of the Chicken in Every Pot spectrum. What did
Abe Lincoln say? "If you try to please everyone your will end up
pleasing no one?"
Or was it, "You can fool some of the people some of the time......"
The
irony is that Obamy Wan Knobi said that he isn't going to change a
thing from Bush's foreign policy. That must kill all the Hate America
First leftists out there.
Now, I'm going to let slip a little
bit of information I was told today by a little birdie - and remember,
you heard it here first...
Obama asked General David Petraeus to be his Secretary of State.
I suspect that David Petraeus will either accept that position or 'resign' when Obama becomes President.
I'll
chalk up your General Petraeus up with your other pearls of wisdom like
"the polls are never close" and McCain will hand Obama a McGovern-esque
landslide. Simple reason being Secretary of State is not a military
position. It's a mostly diplomatic position, something that someone
coming straight from the military would be woefully unqualified to
fill. There was a great deal of controvery about Powell filling the
role, and he had been out of the military for some time by the point he
filled the role, and had a stronger resume for the position (and this
is not remotely meant as a dig on Petraeus...he has a brilliant
military career, but we're talking about secretary of state, not joint
chiefs).
Petraeus was not, and will not be offered secretary of state. My one is on it being Bill Richardson.
And
add to that all those people who voted for Obama because he promised
them goodies stolen from the hard work of others (speading [sic] the
wealth aroung [sic])...
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent
form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that
they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that
moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the
most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy
always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by
dictatorship."
--------------------Alexander Fraser Tyler, "The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic"
Hello Socialism!
I
see you’re keeping up the socialism argument. It’s impressive how some
people do not realize that the United States is not (and certainly has
not been, in your lifetime) a 100% Free Market capitalist economy, but
I’m sure that you are keen to take advantage of some of the programs
that the government provides to you, even though if you looked at them
critically, they smack of socialism. Yet were these abolished while the
Republicans were in power? Of course not.
As one of my friends
who lives in Kentucky was commenting, it’s amazing how many people in
his state that he sees on a regular basis live off the dole, yet echo
protestations about how Obama is a socialist. Do you plan on collecting
Social Security? Have you ever collected unemployment? Do you enjoy
Medicare benefits? If so, then you, sir, are a hypocrite.
On top of this, you also seem to fail to understand economics. Giving American citizens tax cuts
is not “redistributing the wealth”. McCain was promising tax ‘credits’
of his own, and by your argument this would make him just as socialist
as his campaign accused Obama of being. Perhaps you are a believer in Republican trickle-down economics, and still don’t want to admit that it doesn’t work.
If you can manage to apply logic to this, you’d realize how ridiculous your claims are. Let me give you a simple equation:
giving tax cuts ≠ stealing from the hard work of others
Both
sides offered either tax cuts or tax ‘credits’, which both amount to
the same thing, so I suppose that both parties “promised them goodies
stolen from the hard work of others”.
Keep sticking to the sound-bytes and not arguing the facts; it makes it ridiculously easy to debunk what you have to say.
The
irony I find about most of the people that scream about redistribution
of wealth and how it's Marxist and Socialist, is they mostly come from
states that take in more Federal money than they pay in Federal taxes.
And of couse, with the recent election, that leaves only one red state that pays more in Federal taxes than it recieves, Texas.
So
while all you wonderful conservatives scream about the evils of
redistribution of wealth, just admit to yourself that you're really
just a bunch welfare queen sucking money off of us hard working
liberals that actually contribute to the system. If you're going to
take our money, at least say thank you and show some gratitude.
We're just #2??? Dang - it must be my fault... That check for $7,000 this welfare Queen sent to the IRS caused us to come in second place.
It's
a bad habit of mine getting up going to work every morning and never
collecting unemployment, food stamps, SS, Medicare/aid my whole life.
I need to see where to get in line for my handout of all that Hard Working blue state Liberal money.
And
for every dollar of that $7,000 check you sent the IRS, two came back
to your state, which benefits you, even if indirectly. $500 million in
pork spending in your state for 2008 - third highest in dollars, fifth
highest for dollars per capita. Money that supports your local economy.
Blue states are proping up your state. Redistribution of wealth happens
on many levels.
Re: Obama's "National Police Force" is on the way. « Reply #30 Yesterday at 2:56pm »
Quote:
And
for every dollar of that $7,000 check you sent the IRS, two came back
to your state, which benefits you, even if indirectly. $500 million in
pork spending in your state for 2008 - third highest in dollars, fifth
highest for dollars per capita. Money that supports your local economy.
Blue states are proping up your state. Redistribution of wealth happens
on many levels.
Zeppy,
the way you make it sound I can double my money! I'm sending all my
future paychecks straight to the Treasury. I'll be rich!!
And
for every dollar of that $7,000 check you sent the IRS, two came back
to your state, which benefits you, even if indirectly. $500 million in
pork spending in your state for 2008 - third highest in dollars, fifth
highest for dollars per capita. Money that supports your local economy.
Blue states are proping up your state. Redistribution of wealth happens
on many levels.
Zeppy,
the way you make it sound I can double my money! I'm sending all my
future paychecks straight to the Treasury. I'll be rich!!
My
advice to move to Alaska...the true home of Socialism in the US. The
oil companies pay so that every state resident gets a refund just for
living there, and they get the most pork spending per captita in the US
(over $500 per person)
Joined: Dec 2005 Gender: Male Posts: 1,145 Location: Rutherfordton, NC
Re: Obama's "National Police Force" is on the way. « Reply #32 Yesterday at 5:08pm »
There seems to be a lot of visciousness
going on around here with an enormous amount od ill will. When you
comdemn others about what state "gets" more or less money, have you
ever considered what the money is going for??? What if there is a
military base in which armed forces members are paid from the U. S.
treasury? Or if there is a lot of joblessness and there are quite a few
on jobless benefits? Or what if there are extra teachers having to be
hired to teach children in other languages for children who do not
speak English? It is not a black and white issue and as far as Alaska,
I do not condemn the people who live there; I know that prices to live
are enormous simply due to the distances and weather which makes
supplies very hard and expensive to get there. BTW, is not jobless
benefits insurance? The last time I checked, it was. I once was on
jobless benefits years ago and if a job of any kind came up for any
amount of pay, you were required to take it even though it would ruin
your career. Schooling in order to find employment in another field was
forbidden; go to school, do not receive unemployment benefits. Now a
days, you can go to school while on unemployment and you do not have to
accept a low paying job completely out of your field. I never got to
enjoy anything like that; I had to start again from the very bottom in
another totally different field but at least the law was changed at
some point to better benefit people. At least it was changed so that
now, people can better benefit. It is definitely better to happen like
this now, or in the more recent past than to have never happened at
all.
Joined: Oct 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 16 Location: Boston, MA
Re: Obama's "National Police Force" is on the way. « Reply #33 Yesterday at 7:10pm »
orthophonic: Hopefully Zeppy’s comments weren’t intended as an
attack on people for getting more money than others; but rather to
point out the hypocritical rhetoric echoed by certain members of this
board, with regards to politics. Of course, I can only speak for
myself, but that’s how I interpreted his posts.
We’ve spent too
long being subjected to a Republican campaign filled with personal
attack after personal attack, each increasingly ridiculous to have any
need for ludicrous assertions as to how Obama is going to run the
United States into the ground from people who have a stellar track
record of incorrect predictions.
It’s pretty much a given that
with regards to social programs, some people end up paying more than
others. I don’t mind paying slightly higher taxes if I’m better off
financially than other people. Obviously, if I am making enough money
to fit into the higher tax brackets, I’m doing well for myself, and
enjoying the benefits of living in this country and economy. When 18%
of every tax dollar from my state isn’t spent here, if it makes the
rest of our nation a better place, I am all for it.
We should
help those in need of assistance, especially if they are trying to help
themselves. Being able to collect unemployment while hunting for a new
job is a great thing, as long as the people collecting unemployment are
actually trying to find work. I know a few of people who are suffering
through the current economic state, and are struggling to find work,
and I’m glad that thanks to unemployment, support from family and
friends, et cetera, they are still able to keep food on the table and a
roof over their heads.
I just wish more people seemed able to
apply logic to their statements and maintained a grasp on reality,
rather than attacking people based on stereotypes and delusional
beliefs. And I feel that the Republican party has shot its own branding
in the foot like this. But I suppose it’s easier to parrot sound-bytes
than to think for oneself.
Note: I am not accusing orthophonic of doing any of the things I mentioned in this post.
And
add to that all those people who voted for Obama because he promised
them goodies stolen from the hard work of others (speading [sic] the
wealth aroung [sic])...
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent
form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that
they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that
moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the
most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy
always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by
dictatorship."
--------------------Alexander Fraser Tyler, "The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic"
Hello Socialism!
I
see you’re keeping up the socialism argument. It’s impressive how some
people do not realize that the United States is not (and certainly has
not been, in your lifetime) a 100% Free Market capitalist economy, but
I’m sure that you are keen to take advantage of some of the programs
that the government provides to you, even though if you looked at them
critically, they smack of socialism. Yet were these abolished while the
Republicans were in power? Of course not.
As one of my friends
who lives in Kentucky was commenting, it’s amazing how many people in
his state that he sees on a regular basis live off the dole, yet echo
protestations about how Obama is a socialist. Do you plan on collecting
Social Security? Have you ever collected unemployment? Do you enjoy
Medicare benefits? If so, then you, sir, are a hypocrite.
On top of this, you also seem to fail to understand economics. Giving American citizens tax cuts
is not “redistributing the wealth”. McCain was promising tax ‘credits’
of his own, and by your argument this would make him just as socialist
as his campaign accused Obama of being. Perhaps you are a believer in Republican trickle-down economics, and still don’t want to admit that it doesn’t work.
If you can manage to apply logic to this, you’d realize how ridiculous your claims are. Let me give you a simple equation:
giving tax cuts ≠ stealing from the hard work of others
Both
sides offered either tax cuts or tax ‘credits’, which both amount to
the same thing, so I suppose that both parties “promised them goodies
stolen from the hard work of others”.
Keep sticking to the sound-bytes and not arguing the facts; it makes it ridiculously easy to debunk what you have to say.
giving tax cuts ≠ stealing from the hard work of others
Don't
take this personally because I never pass up the opportunity to
b*tch-slap someone for making an utterly moronic assertion. Nothing
personal here. It's all in good humor.
Pardon my French, but that is just so G*d Damned demented and illogical for anyone to conclude that it just boggles the mind.
First
of all I have lots of degrees in History and Economics. I would spell
them out for you but given the sophistication of your line of logic I
don't want to confuse you any more more than you already are. I
understand economics quite well thank you. I dare say my knowledge of
Economics and History outstrip whatever meager understanding of
economics or history you might have. That's tit for tat for your failed
ad hom dig.
Now back to the crux:
Quote:
giving tax cuts ≠ stealing from the hard work of others
How
in God's creation not taking someone's hard earned money stealing from
someone else?! What the hell are you smoking because I want some. Your
bizarre and totally illogical statement defies logic.
What you
are saying is that a burglar not invading your home and robbing you
blind is somehow stealing from someone else and giving it to you. You
really need to get back on your meds if that's what you believe.
Let me educate you on a couple of points:
If
you make $100 and the government takes $30 from you, the government is
taking $30 from you. If they decide to only take $15 dollars from you
how in the Hell is that stealing from someone else?
Your
argument contends that if a mugger sticks a gun in your face and
demands your wallet and and then hands $10 back to you that the mugger
is somehow giving you money and he's really stealing from someone else.
Again, you defy logic with your whacko contention that not taking
someone's money is somehow stealing from someone else.
Let me
tell you something, me bucko, What you are contending is that if you
own more antique phonographs than me you are somehow stealing
phonographs from me. Whacko contention on your part.
If you work
and earn more money than I do, you are somehow stealing that money from
me? Again, you are a total whacko if you believe that.
If I take
$20 from my own wallet and give it to your needy neighbor, it is a
moral act. If I take $20 from you and give it to your needy neighbor it
is immoral because it is theft.
I own horses and you don't and
never did. Did I somehow steal horses from you that you never had just
because I have horses? And should I give you half of my horses just so
you have the same number of horse that I never took from you?
Your
line of logic dictates that because I have to work to make money to
feed and provide care for my horses indicates that because you aren't
paying my expenses you are stealing from me? I'll tell you what, you
are absolutely welcome to reimburse me for your theft and pay all of my
bills. That would come to about $6,000 per year per horse multiplied by
25. You stole $120,000 from me you bastard and I want it back now.
You
are either a communist, and idiot or both. I suggest you just admit
that you are just a wealth-redistributing communist and no one will
hold it against you. Then we can exchange tax return information and a
list of phonographs and records so that we can redistribute everything
between us so that neither of us is stealing from the other.
Methinks it seems that you argue a bad cause, a bad conscience or both.
WARNING! SARCASM ALERT! YOU ARE ABOUT TO GET B*TCH SLAPPED RIGHT IN THE KISSER BY LOGIC AND REASON!
Yes,
thanks for the disclaimer, although the lack of logic and reason in the
rest of the post were quite apparent. Your harsh and bitter irony permeates the entire reply, it seems. Still, I applaud your attempts at sarcasm1 as a form of rebuttal.
Although, if that was intended as a rebuttal, you may want to work on covering all
the points that I brought up (or even more than one of them), rather
than a single, solitary point. Nevertheless, it’s a great Republican
tactic, which worked quite impressively during the election.
(Disclaimer: you may have detected sarcasm in the previous sentence.)
If you cannot compete in a debate, latch on to one point and make
increasingly ridiculous arguments against it, preferably incorporating
such buzzwords as ‘socialism’, ‘communism’, and ‘terrorism’.
If you are going to continue to rail about our “increasingly communist country”, why are you using HTML2? Surely you should be doing it offline, since W3C, or the World Wide Web Consortium is a communistic organization, founded in a “gay liberal state” (which, as we learned during the campaign, is not part of the “real America”), and if it were properly capitalist, it would require paying licenses. Perhaps you should be recording your tirades as MP3s and sending them via e-mail3?
Don't
take this personally because I never pass up the opportunity to
b*tch-slap someone for making an utterly moronic assertion. Nothing
personal here. It's all in good humor.
If
you say so, but your definition of humor must include ‘vindictively
unfunny’. Certainly, calling me a ‘communist’, an ‘idiot’, and
suggesting that I am on drugs seems to indicate that your statements
are personal attacks. I just wish your personal attacks weren’t so
feeble that they are completely lacking in humor. If (just once) you
were able to use your imaginary rapier wit to score an actual hit on my
person, I’d find your pitiable attempts to be far more entertaining.
Alas, it has yet to happen.
You did raise one interesting point,
however. I knew that I was more conversant with technology than some of
the people on this board in that I manage to link items to text4,
especially to provide evidence supporting my comments and claims, but I
wasn’t aware that my technological prowess included allowing my mother
to dress me funny from 1,379 miles away.
I must live in some spectacularly impossible and wondrous science fiction reality.
[She must also be an amazing woman to work as an educator (as did my grandmother), yet have raised such an addled, moronic anti-MENSA son. How she ever ended up with a reverse-carpetbagger like me is beyond my understanding.]
Or
am I interpreting your ‘humor’ incorrectly? Were you going for the
jester/fool style of humor, which entails making people laugh at you?
It’s hard to tell online, where I cannot see if you’ve sewn bells to
your cap.
First
of all I have lots of degrees in History and Economics. I would spell
them out for you but given the sophistication of your line of logic I
don't want to confuse you any more more than you already are. I
understand economics quite well thank you. I dare say my knowledge of
Economics and History outstrip whatever meager understanding of
economics or history you might have. That's tit for tat for your failed
ad hom dig. [sic]
This
must be where you were being sarcastic. If you were serious, I’d be
interested in seeing evidence of your numerous degrees. I just don’t
believe they exist. You seem to be overlooking the fact that the
majority of my posts are not as exclusively argumentum ad hominem
as some of yours have been, nor am I trying to use these arguments to
change the focus of the discussion. That you would resort to this to
defend your bitterness over a losing campaign based wholly on these
types of arguments is particularly ironic.
Seriously, the track
record of your economic commentary portrays you to be a liar and a
charlatan, and your electoral predictions were remarkably misinformed.
Are
you fundamentally incapable of making arguments with legitimate sources
cited to support your claims? I continue to back up my statements, to
the point that this post even has footnotes.
How in God's creation not taking someone's hard earned money stealing from someone else?! [sic] What the hell are you smoking because I want some. Your bizarre and totally illogical statement defies logic.
See,
I think it’s the other way around; I actually manage to complete
grammatically correct sentences. Perhaps you should try not smoking
whatever it is that you are smoking, or try using software that offers
spelling and grammar check to compose your attempts at rebuttal. I’d
suggest free software to you that would allow you to do this, but I’m
sure that free and open source software are too communistic for your
principles. You can buy Microsoft Office here, or perhaps one of Corel’s competing offerings.
How in God's creation not taking someone's hard earned money stealing from someone else?! [sic]
Perhaps you’re being sarcastic here? Or maybe you have a different definition of ‘steal’ than the rest of us, that actually means ‘progressive tax’?
Taxing someone based on their means has a long-standing history in both
this country and others, and is hardly theft. Perhaps with all your
vaunted knowledge of History and Economics, you may remember the Revenue Act of 1862?
Did they cover this while you were obtaining your myriad degrees?
That’s how long our great nation has had a history of progressive
taxation, and it is not theft.
What
you are saying is that a burglar not invading your home and robbing you
blind is somehow stealing from someone else and giving it to you. You
really need to get back on your meds if that's what you believe.
No,
what I am saying is that cutting taxes is one method of bolstering a
poor economy, and one that both sides in the last Presidential race
(including your beloved McCain) cited as part of their economic
platform. If you feel you are being unfairly taxed by the United States
government, you certainly have the freedom to move somewhere else, or
vote to elect representatives more favorable to your way of thinking.
The American people spoke and your candidate lost, despite your
guarantees that this was impossible. Get over it.
If you are set
on the burglary analogy, based on the amount of taxes paid by the state
in which I reside, versus federal spending in my state, I would be
arguing for robbing me blind to give to others.
If
you make $100 and the government takes $30 from you, the government is
taking $30 from you. If they decide to only take $15 dollars from you
how in the Hell is that stealing from someone else?
Your
argument contends that if a mugger sticks a gun in your face and
demands your wallet and and then hands $10 back to you that the mugger
is somehow giving you money and he's really stealing from someone else.
Again, you defy logic with your whacko contention that not taking
someone's money is somehow stealing from someone else.
Dan, you seem to have this backwards. You were the one with the ‘stealing’ argument. Are you projecting5 at this point?
Let
me tell you something, me bucko, What you are contending is that if you
own more antique phonographs than me you are somehow stealing
phonographs from me. Whacko contention on your part.
If you work
and earn more money than I do, you are somehow stealing that money from
me? Again, you are a total whacko if you believe that.
Here
you appear to be demonstrating that you have not read and comprehended
what I am saying. Please cite where I am supposedly contending this.
If
I take $20 from my own wallet and give it to your needy neighbor, it is
a moral act. If I take $20 from you and give it to your needy neighbor
it is immoral because it is theft.
Sure, if you
take it from me. You are trying to equivocate personal theft, which is
a crime, with government taxation supported by law. But taking and
taxation the way that you use them are not synonymous, and by living in
this country I agree to abide by its laws. Taxes support facilities and
services for the people of the nation; even if I am not currently
availing myself of these facilities and services, I am not being robbed.
I
own horses and you don't and never did. Did I somehow steal horses from
you that you never had just because I have horses? And should I give
you half of my horses just so you have the same number of horse that I
never took from you?
Are you even debating the same issue that I am, at this point? You’re the one arguing that you are being robbed.
Your
line of logic dictates that because I have to work to make money to
feed and provide care for my horses indicates that because you aren't
paying my expenses you are stealing from me? I'll tell you what, you
are absolutely welcome to reimburse me for your theft and pay all of my
bills. That would come to about $6,000 per year per horse multiplied by
25. You stole $120,000 from me you bastard and I want it back now.
You are either a communist, and [sic]
idiot or both. I suggest you just admit that you are just a
wealth-redistributing communist and no one will hold it against you.
Then we can exchange tax return information and a list of phonographs
and records so that we can redistribute everything between us so that
neither of us is stealing from the other.
You’re
right, let’s just abolish the income tax and government will magically
pay for itself. You might also read the comments above again.
Methinks it seems that you argue a bad cause, a bad conscience or both.
I
really wish that you would stop projecting, and come up with something
to support your claims. The American people have decided that Obama is more qualified than McCain to sort out the economic crisis
that your beloved Republican party has foisted upon us. It’s
understandable that you might be bitter about that, but sniveling about
how Obama will ruin the country is sad, childish, and pathetic. I hope
some day you will come to see this. McCain helped himself lose, thanks
to the same sort of rhetoric that you favor. The American people want a
President who pursues positive solutions to the problems we face, not bigotry, fear, and patently false accusations.
I
look forward to having my posts deleted (again), being censored,
IP-blocked, banned, or otherwise treated in a fascist manner when you
realize that you keep belaboring a discussion in which you only have
falsehoods and bigotry to champion your message. While writing this, I
was pleased to receive a PM from another member lauding the
entertainment value of my posts, and expressing surprise that I have
not already become an unperson.
If you’ve been entertained by what I have had to say, thank you for your support.
— MordEth
1 Read the parts about irony.
2 The most widely used web server software is Apache,
which is yet another example of communistic open-source free software.
Note: ProBoards uses Apache 1.3.41. If you’d like to check this for
yourself, install the ServerSpy add-on to Mozilla Firefox. Because of their licenses, using them may make you a communist.
By
Dan’s logic, since he uses and benefits from products of the labor of
others without paying for them, this must make him a supporter of
communism, just as his threats of censorship make him a fascist.
3 Make sure that you are using a non-free e-mail client such as Microsoft Outlook, and your internet service provider is using non-free mail server software such as Microsoft Exchange Server or Kerio MailServer. Widely used mail server such as Sendmail and Postfix are open source software, and if your ISP is using one of these, you are obviously supporting communism.
4 If anyone would like to do this in the future, it is done like so: [url=http://some.site/]link text[/url]
Joined: Dec 2005 Gender: Male Posts: 1,145 Location: Rutherfordton, NC
Re: Obama's "National Police Force" is on the way. « Reply #36 Today at 6:18am »
There was no real need to worry about which political party one might
have been seemed to be connected with; neither candidate was that much
different from the other in many issues other than abortion and
possibly a few individual rights.
There
seems to be a lot of visciousness going on around here with an enormous
amount od ill will. When you comdemn others about what state "gets"
more or less money, have you ever considered what the money is going
for??? What if there is a military base in which armed forces members
are paid from the U. S. treasury? Or if there is a lot of joblessness
and there are quite a few on jobless benefits? Or what if there are
extra teachers having to be hired to teach children in other languages
for children who do not speak English? It is not a black and white
issue and as far as Alaska, I do not condemn the people who live there;
I know that prices to live are enormous simply due to the distances and
weather which makes supplies very hard and expensive to get there. BTW,
is not jobless benefits insurance? The last time I checked, it was. I
once was on jobless benefits years ago and if a job of any kind came up
for any amount of pay, you were required to take it even though it
would ruin your career. Schooling in order to find employment in
another field was forbidden; go to school, do not receive unemployment
benefits. Now a days, you can go to school while on unemployment and
you do not have to accept a low paying job completely out of your
field. I never got to enjoy anything like that; I had to start again
from the very bottom in another totally different field but at least
the law was changed at some point to better benefit people. At least it
was changed so that now, people can better benefit. It is definitely
better to happen like this now, or in the more recent past than to have
never happened at all.
There's
actually no visciousness on my part. Mostly because I believe this
whole "redistribution of wealth" argument is total B.S. I personally
don't think it benefits the country to allow parts of the country
wallow in abject poverty, while others prosper. If that means creating
public works projects, or placing military bases in certain parts of
the country and not others, so be it. Likewise, having a large
population of people on the verge of starvation isn't good for anyone
(just ask Nicholas II). If the cost of keeping domestic tranquility is
a couple blocks of government cheese sent off to Appalatia, again, so
be it. Taxes are the price of having a civil society. The government
"redistributes wealth" all the time. It has done so for a very long
time. There is nothing inherently unAmerican about it, or inherenlty
Marxist, Communist or whatnot about it either. Just part of being a
large and diverse nation.
Joined: Dec 2005 Gender: Male Posts: 1,145 Location: Rutherfordton, NC
Re: Obama's "National Police Force" is on the way. « Reply #38 Today at 11:13am »
It would be good to have everyone to be
able to share and that should be done. If someone can work honestly to
make themselves a comfortable life; there is nothing wrong with it as
long as it is honest. However, if the poor are not taken care of, that
shows a lack of compassion on everyone's part. Time and chance have
some to do with how successful a person is and sometimes a lack of
success is due to the person him or herself, whether due to lack of,
or, misplaced ability, or due to lack of interest. There really has to
be a among the governmental ideas that people have a balance and a
hoping for the best in whatever system you lean to as it has been shown
impossible through years of trial and error that people can rule
themselves. It appears that power corrupts and it goes from there.....
![[Home]](files/home.gif)
![[Help]](files/help.gif)
![[Search]](files/search.gif)
![[Members]](files/members.gif)
![[Profile]](files/profile.gif)
![[Logout]](files/logout.gif)
![[Live Chat]](files/chat.gif)
![[Search This Thread]](files/search2.gif)
![[Add Bookmark]](files/bookmark.gif)
![[Reply]](files/reply.gif)
![[Send Topic To Friend]](files/sendtopic.gif)
![[Print]](files/print.gif)
Author
![[avatar]](files/edison.jpg)
![[yim]](files/yim.gif)
![[homepage]](files/www_sm.gif)
![[send pm]](files/message_sm.gif)
![[Quote]](files/quote.gif)
Logged
![[avatar]](files/rock.gif)
![[icq]](files/online.gif)
![[msn]](files/msn.gif)
![[aim]](files/aim.gif)
![[email]](files/email_sm.gif)
![[Modify]](files/modify.gif)
![[Delete]](files/delete.gif)
![[image]](files/2987025203_fc2c517522_o.jpg)
![[avatar]](files/nipperpee7ww.jpg)
![[image]](files/picture22sr7.png)
