Taxes, are we ready for these new ones?

[rigney]

If you refuse to explain the whys and wherefores of your position, you risk others having to guess. Then when they do, you get upset. No, shame on you. How about actually answering some questions, instead of tap-dancing? What, exactly, is your beef in all of this? Thus far, hints you've made have turned out to be based on falsehoods.

With all honesty, in the latest post of mine, the video of the unemployed, was that Tap Dancing? A falsehood or Hint? No! The video was done by Nancy Pelosi's own daughter. You seem to have also forgotten the video of Obama mumbling and fumbling through the great things that government, especially this latest one has done for us. Government is supposed to be an extention of the people, not a dictatorship as in my opinion this one seemed to be headed. If November elections prove me wrong, so be it. I may not agree with the outcome, but I'll be able to stand my dissapointment. Will you?

 

I specifically said public education and public transportation - i.e. roads and bridges provided by the government. Are you saying you support public transportation or not?

 

It sounds like you are saying you do support public K-12 education. Right?

=Uncool-

I absolutely support public education K-12. Our taxes is what makes that system go, not government. This also holds true for roads and bridges. But these things are made not through government, but also taxation. Universities and colleges is another thing. If a person wants to further their education, it should be on their nickel, not as a public contribution.

 

Facts matter HERE.

 

You've never driven on a road or highway?

Oh yes! But never one paid for by government, just the ones built by tax payers. Edited July 22, 2012 by rigney

[Moontanman]

With all honesty, in the latest post of mine, the video of the unemployed, was that Tap Dancing? A falsehood or Hint? No! The video was done by Nancy Pelosi's own daughter. You seem to have also forgotten the video of Obama mumbling and fumbling through the great things that government, especially this latest one has done for us. Government is supposed to be an extention of the people, not a dictatorship as in my opinion this one seemed to be headed. If November elections prove me wrong, so be it. I may not agree with the outcome, but I'll be able to stand my dissapointment. Will you?

 

Rigney, do you understand the concept of Cherry Picked data?

 

I absolutely support public education K-12. Our taxes is what makes that system go, not government. This also holds true for roads and bridges. But these things are made not through government, but also taxation. Universities and colleges is another thing. If a person wants to further their education, it should be on their nickel, not as a public contribution.

 

 

50 years ago rigney you would have had a good point but in this day and age if you don't have 4 years of college you are as screwed as someone 50 years ago who didn't get out of primary school. I think college should be free for those who can make the grade, vocational schools for those who cannot. If you want to pursue a higher education than that then it should be on your own dime but the bare necessities should not be limited to those who can pay for it only....

 

 

Oh yes! But never one paid for by government, just the ones built by tax payers.

 

So tax payers reach into their pockets and pay the men working on roads and the government is not connected to it in any way???? I wondered why people stop and give the workers money.... no wait those are panhandlers....

Edited July 22, 2012 by Moontanman

[rigney]

I think it's pretty clear who's being the "fuggin idjit" here, and who is doing the pissing.

Might I assume you are speaking of me, or is that just an assertion, as to my way of thinking?

 

Rigney, do you understand the concept of Cherry Picked data?

Nothing but a guess, but I'd say, selective?

 

 

 

 

50 years ago rigney you would have had a good point but in this day and age if you don't have 4 years of college you are as screwed as someone 50 years ago who didn't get out of primary school. I think college should be free for those who can make the grade, vocational schools for those who cannot. If you want to pursue a higher education than that then it should be on your own dime but the bare necessities should not be limited to those who can pay for it only....

I don't know Moon? As I stated earlier, a 24 year old grand son of mine is hearing impaired. With the new hearing aids, he's a ball of fire. I have no ideas of what his prospects are except that right now he works two jobs (60 to 70 hrs. a week) and is enrolled with Phoenix. Maybe in a year or so when the new wears off, I can give you a better update.

 

Oh yes! But never one paid for by government, just the ones built by tax payers.

 

So tax payers reach into their pockets and pay the men working on roads and the government is not connected to it in any way???? I wondered why people stop and give the workers money.... no wait those are panhandlers....

Yes, government is involved in it up to their eyeballs and that is the problem. The late senator Byrd of WV. was one of the biggest dippers in pork barrel history when it came to roads, bridges and tunnels. Here is just on such bridge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_C._Byrd_Bridge I specifically like the part about the building fund as coming a scant percentage from Ohio and WV. With the balance coming from the government. I wonder where the goverment ever got that money? This is another dealing with roads and bridges in WV. If you read closely you'll find that most of these "funds" come from the Fed. What does that mean? People from every state in the union is having their taxes used by WV. Is this wrong? No! But when the over run is 100%, something is wrong. Expenses for the Pike had an over expense of some $300,000,000.00 bucks.

The final cost for the entire modernization of the West Virginia Turnpike was $683 million, more than $300 million over original estimates.[5] It was also one of the few interstates that received 90% federal funding and permission to charge a toll, due to extremely high construction costs. A total of 18 interchanges now exist on the West Virginia Turnpike, up from the original six. Tell me, from where does the Federal Government get such money to allow this pork barrel funding?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_Turnpike#.22Turnpike_that_goes_to_nowhere..22

Edited July 22, 2012 by rigney

[Moontanman]

I don't know Moon? As I stated earlier, a 24 year old grand son of mine is hearing impaired. With the new hearing aids, he's a ball of fire. I have no ideas of what his prospects are except that right now he works two jobs (60 to 70 hrs. a week) and is enrolled with Phoenix. Maybe in a year or so when the new wears off, I can give you a better update.

 

 

You should be proud of your son, being able to work and make enough money to live and go to school while not unique it not something everyone can do and I ask why should they? In our society some sort of training beyond high school is no longer optional to succeed it is necessary to succeed.

 

Nothing but a guess, but I'd say, selective?

 

Exactly, real studies have shown that the type of people interviewed in that vid clip are rare, it's nothing but poisoning the well by cherry picking data.

 

Real Welfare Queens!

 

[rigney]

You should be proud of your son, being able to work and make enough money to live and go to school while not unique it not something everyone can do and I ask why should they? In our society some sort of training beyond high school is no longer optional to succeed it is necessary to succeed.

My grandson Moon

 

Exactly, real studies have shown that the type of people interviewed in that vid clip are rare, it's nothing but poisoning the well by cherry picking data.

 

Real Welfare Queens!

 

 

It's not much of an accusation if you apply the definition of the word used to yourself before the word is used.

You're right! I should have questioned what I thought was being referred to as an accusation of me, before running my mouth off and offerering an alternate suggestion.Thanks. Edited July 22, 2012 by rigney

[uncool]

Oh yes! But never one paid for by government, just the ones built by tax payers.

So tax payers reach into their pockets and pay the men working on roads and the government is not connected to it in any way???? I wondered why people stop and give the workers money.... no wait those are panhandlers....

 

Yes, government is involved in it up to their eyeballs and that is the problem.[/QUOTe]

Wait. Stop here.

 

So you agree that "built by tax payers" does mean government sponsored, no?

 

The rest of your objections are saying that there is pork. But that doesn't address the point - it shifts the goalposts. The point we are trying to address is whether the government did sponsor roads and bridges, which you denied when you said "never paid for by government, just the ones built by tax payers". So which is it? Did the government sponsor those roads and bridges or not?

=Uncool-

[Joatmon]

I think there is a sort of middle course here that few would argue with. If a person is capable of work and work is available then surely we would all agree they should earn their living? Anyone in that position who avoids work and finds a way to live off benefits needs a kick up the ass because they are living off the sweat of others.

However any person who for any reason cannot work, for instance too ill or too old, should be supported through a benefit system that allows them a decent standard of living. I had to retire with health problems at age 55 and the UK system of benefits was needed until my pensions kicked in.

A particular hobby horse of mine concerns education. I believe the future strength of a nation rests on the level of education provided for those being educated. I personally think that children from about age 5 right up to young adults studying for degrees should be given that education free of charge (OK paid for out of taxation). If the education is of value many with degrees will earn more than the average and therefore contribute more than the average through income tax.

This is sounding rather like "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Oh well, my father who died in 1949,was an unashamed Communist.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_need

[Phi for All]

I think there is a sort of middle course here that few would argue with. If a person is capable of work and work is available then surely we would all agree they should earn their living? Anyone in that position who avoids work and finds a way to live off benefits needs a kick up the ass because they are living off the sweat of others.

However any person who for any reason cannot work, for instance too ill or too old, should be supported through a benefit system that allows them a decent standard of living. I had to retire with health problems at age 55 and the UK system of benefits was needed until my pensions kicked in.

A particular hobby horse of mine concerns education. I believe the future strength of a nation rests on the level of education provided for those being educated. I personally think that children from about age 5 right up to young adults studying for degrees should be given that education free of charge (OK paid for out of taxation). If the education is of value many with degrees will earn more than the average and therefore contribute more than the average through income tax.

This is sounding rather like "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Oh well, my father who died in 1949,was an unashamed Communist.

 

http://en.wikipedia....ing_to_his_need

This is an issue that most people are on the same page with, but they let the rhetoric thrown around by politicians obfuscate matters. No one I know, no one I've ever asked thinks a widowed mother of three should be tossed out on the streets with no welfare, and those same people don't want to pay for a work-capable opportunist to sit around drinking beer and watching soaps on the TV we all paid for with that welfare. My conclusion is that people are willing to fund welfare that reaches the right people. There's some common ground the vast majority have.

 

We just need to identify those areas where it makes sense for us to spend federal dollars, remove any profit incentive since that's what's been attracting the sharks, and then be vigilant to make sure it's well regulated and uncorrupted. It's insane to think that privatizing formerly publicly-funded programs like prisons and schools could do anything but increase the problems created by the greed inherent when profit is the motive. Leave profit for business, and leave the business out of our public programs. They are not compatible.

[rigney]

I think there is a sort of middle course here that few would argue with. If a person is capable of work and work is available then surely we would all agree they should earn their living? Anyone in that position who avoids work and finds a way to live off benefits needs a kick up the ass because they are living off the sweat of others.

However any person who for any reason cannot work, for instance too ill or too old, should be supported through a benefit system that allows them a decent standard of living. I had to retire with health problems at age 55 and the UK system of benefits was needed until my pensions kicked in.

A particular hobby horse of mine concerns education. I believe the future strength of a nation rests on the level of education provided for those being educated. I personally think that children from about age 5 right up to young adults studying for degrees should be given that education free of charge (OK paid for out of taxation). If the education is of value many with degrees will earn more than the average and therefore contribute more than the average through income tax.

This is sounding rather like "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Oh well, my father who died in 1949,was an unashamed Communist.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_need

To disagree with a philosophy just for the sake of arguements sake is like taking an ambiguous stand concerning the weather as it appears on a beautiful sun shiny way. Isms are as such, for tommorow; both may change. i suppose what i'm trying to say is that the weather is a very unpredictable phenomenon, as is human nature, both being inexplicable. Each ism I can think of has been tested over and over somewhere. Our democratic system, developed some years back; seems to have outlasted the rest. Will it last? Me, I'll just hang with it until it fails completely.

[swansont]

With all honesty, in the latest post of mine, the video of the unemployed, was that Tap Dancing? A falsehood or Hint? No! The video was done by Nancy Pelosi's own daughter.

What, precisely, are you objecting to? There was no mention of welfare in the thread up until that post, and unless you are contending that there were no undeserving welfare recipients under other presidents, I'd say this is more tap-dancing. People are going to game the system, no matter what the system is. Wealthy people use loopholes to lower their taxes. Same concept. (edit: and not always legally http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jul/21/global-elite-tax-offshore-economy )

 

What does this have to do with new taxes?

 

You seem to have also forgotten the video of Obama mumbling and fumbling through the great things that government, especially this latest one has done for us. Government is supposed to be an extention of the people, not a dictatorship as in my opinion this one seemed to be headed. If November elections prove me wrong, so be it. I may not agree with the outcome, but I'll be able to stand my dissapointment. Will you?

Dictatorship? Seriously? Dictators don't stand for fair elections and have no checks and balances, like legislative bodies or courts with the power to strike down laws. No actual evidence that we're headed in this direction. Just more empty rhetoric.

 

Oh yes! But never one paid for by government, just the ones built by tax payers.

How do the tax payers build the roads? Praying to the turnpike fairy?

[rigney]

I think there is a sort of middle course here that few would argue with. If a person is capable of work and work is available then surely we would all agree they should earn their living? Anyone in that position who avoids work and finds a way to live off benefits needs a kick up the ass because they are living off the sweat of others.

However any person who for any reason cannot work, for instance too ill or too old, should be supported through a benefit system that allows them a decent standard of living. I had to retire with health problems at age 55 and the UK system of benefits was needed until my pensions kicked in.

A particular hobby horse of mine concerns education. I believe the future strength of a nation rests on the level of education provided for those being educated. I personally think that children from about age 5 right up to young adults studying for degrees should be given that education free of charge (OK paid for out of taxation). If the education is of value many with degrees will earn more than the average and therefore contribute more than the average through income tax.

This is sounding rather like "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Oh well, my father who died in 1949,was an unashamed Communist.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_need

 

What, precisely, are you objecting to? There was no mention of welfare in the thread up until that post, and unless you are contending that there were no undeserving welfare recipients under other presidents, I'd say this is more tap-dancing. People are going to game the system, no matter what the system is. Wealthy people use loopholes to lower their taxes. Same concept. (edit: and not always legally http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jul/21/global-elite-tax-offshore-economy )

 

What does this have to do with new taxes?

 

 

Dictatorship? Seriously? Dictators don't stand for fair elections and have no checks and balances, like legislative bodies or courts with the power to strike down laws. No actual evidence that we're headed in this direction. Just more empty rhetoric.

Is that why voter fraud is beginning to be scrutenized as it is?

 

How do the tax payers build the roads? Praying to the turnpike fairy?

No pal! they are paid for by the pork doled out to eventually get them built. Even you should be aware of that, or are you? Edited July 23, 2012 by rigney

[JohnB]

If the education is of value many with degrees will earn more than the average and therefore contribute more than the average through income tax.

 

Joatmon I think the difficulty is right there. How to define "of value". I'll possibly ruffle some feathers here but the "hard" sciences are called that for a reason, they deal with physical reality and they are hard. You have to think, you have to be smart or you are screwed. You can't just waffle on in engineering like you can in a "Social" science. And how many social workers do we really need or want? Are there University graduates working in Mc donalds? Sure, but jobs based on a degree in Medieval German folkmusic of the 14th Century are a bit thin on the ground.

 

The idea of fully funded University is great, but people are people and a number will go for the course that they can pass with as little effort as possible, in the most obscure subjects possible, and then demand a government funded at the end. Let's face it, they are voters and the governments will tend to listen. (At least a bit) You'll finish up with the important and hard subjects going without to fund "Fad of the day" circle jerks for morons. You also fall into a "planned economy" trap, how many places for electrical engineers do you fund as opposed to civil construction engineers? How do you know how many you will need in the future? Very messy.

 

I did hear some time ago and don't know if it is correct (and I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong here) that Bush II when Governor of Texas had a scheme where the top 10% of High School students got a scholarship. I think that this is a great idea and makes a sensible compromise. If the top 10% of each school get the scholarship then it doesn't matter if they are from a silver spoon top range school or just a local public school, every kid gets a fair chance. It means the brightest, regardless of socio-economic grouping gets a break.

 

Concerning unemployment and people sponging off the system, we call them "dole bludgers" down here. Yes, they do exist and can be quite numerous and the condition is possibly genetic. I say that because we have families on welfare that haven't had a job in generations, let alone years. So they are out there, but the simple fact is that if you have 800,000 unemployed and 100,000 job openings, then 700,000 don't get a job. This is basic maths.

 

There is also the point that a lot of people miss, and that is that most job vacancies (around 90% IIRC) are filled by people changing jobs and not by people leaving the unemployed pool. So if you have 100,000 vacancies this month and 100,000 vacancies next month, there are only 10,000 new jobs as 90,000 of next months vacancies are because of people changing jobs this month. And of course the older you are and the longer you've been "out of circulaion", the harder it is to compete with those who are changing jobs because they have relevent and recent experience. Unless a society is suffering from a chronic labour shortage, the idea that there are "jobs for anyone that wants one" is absurd.

 

Rigney, your grandson has two jobs because he showed something to his employers that said that even with a hearing problem he is a cut above the average joe. Don't ask me for a description, it's indefinable, but as a person who has done hiring and firing I can tell you that when you see someone with it, you don't let them go if you can avoid it. It's the difference between the bloke laying stone for $10 per hour and the fellow beside him who is building a Cathedral.

 

Concerning unemployment in general, both sides of politics like it high, although the Left tends to like it more than the Right. High unemployment means that people bid for the jobs and can be exploited. This is pure cream for Unions as they can "defend the worker" and left leaning politicians can use it as a reason for more "Social Security" programs. (Which is why the left like it a bit more than the right, the right don't want to spend the money on social programs) In times of low unemployment (under 3%) businesses are bidding for the workers time and this means wages and conditions improve in real terms. This is bad news for Unions, nobody needs them and the boss "exploiting the workers" is hard to believe when he's just offered you a $10k pay rise. It's bad news for "Social" people because people with jobs and a future are generally happy and don't want or need a socail worker or their little schemes. The downside is that it does increase upward inflationary pressure.

 

The reason I say 3% is that this is a percentage of the job pool and not the total population. Once you get to that point, then all you have left are the deadheads. They have brains of purple mush and should not be given a break of longer than 15 minutes as it's too hard to retrain them afterwards. In earlier societies they would have served their nations in the Navy as Galley Slaves or sharkbait or as landfill in large construction projects. These people are the "Slinkys" of the human race, they serve no useful purpose but you still smile as you push them down the stairs.

 

P.S. Moon, did Cenk do a similar article on Democrats receiving welfare? Or did he keep the nickname "Cyclops"?

[swansont]

No pal! they are paid for by the pork doled out to eventually get them built. Even you should be aware of that, or are you?

 

I am. The question was whether someone who claimed "never [on] one paid for by government, just the ones built by tax payers" does. It seemed to imply that the government is not involved in the process of collecting taxes or building roads. And is another failure to elucidate what the issue under discussion is.

[rigney]

Swansont:

If you refuse to explain the whys and wherefores of your position, you risk others having to guess. Then when they do, you get upset. No, shame on you. How about actually answering some questions, instead of tap-dancing? What, exactly, is your beef in all of this? Thus far, hints you've made have turned out to be based on falsehoods.

I put this in post # 61

And I should worry about some slob sitting on their worthless ass doing nothing and waiting for government handouts? Forget it! Poverty is a situation, not a conditition. The physically and mentally impaired should be taken care of, irregardless. The rest of the sorry hanger on crowd, take a bath and go to McDonalds, either for a $1.oo burger or a job.

Post # 74 was very explcit since it was an unquestionable video.

 

Just this morning I received this link. Is this just some more coservative ranting, much as Cenk does with his liberal ranting? I can't confirm this either, but this kind of shit sounds great to a right wing nut?

http://www.staged.com/video?v=Klmb

And if you really want to look at some of the good stuff as to why I'm distrustful of government!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=G96TY5JsV-s

http://governmentgonewild.org/thelist

Tell me, have you ever seen these 3 links before?

 

I am. The question was whether someone who claimed "never [on] one paid for by government, just the ones built by tax payers" does. It seemed to imply that the government is not involved in the process of collecting taxes or building roads. And is another failure to elucidate what the issue under discussion is.

Edited July 23, 2012 by rigney

[ydoaPs]

If anyone ever complains about the moderation of this site again, I'll direct them to this thread.

[CaptainPanic]

And if you really want to look at some of the good stuff as to why I'm distrustful of government!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=G96TY5JsV-s

That video says that politicians get rich even in times of crisis.

 

Are you suggesting that the CEOs of large companies don't give themselves huge sums of money even in times of crisis? Look at the incomes of the management of the banks that were bailed out. They effectively let their companies go bankrupt, and they were saved by the government. Yet these CEOs get annual incomes of many millions of dollars (here's a link for more info).

 

In addition, the increase of the net worth of the politicians is for a huge part caused by the side-jobs that they do. They are invited by companies to sit on the board of directors, or the management board or something. That's just one of the extremes of lobbying, and I cannot hold individual politicians responsible for that. The entire system is rotten to the core - but it includes all the big business.

 

You state that you don't trust your government because of this. I would go even further. I don't trust companies that knowingly play this game of bribery either. But I disagree with your position to blame it all on the government. It's a whole system (of extreme capitalism) gone wild.

[rigney]

That video says that politicians get rich even in times of crisis.

 

Are you suggesting that the CEOs of large companies don't give themselves huge sums of money even in times of crisis? Look at the incomes of the management of the banks that were bailed out. They effectively let their companies go bankrupt, and they were saved by the government. Yet these CEOs get annual incomes of many millions of dollars (here's a link for more info).

 

In addition, the increase of the net worth of the politicians is for a huge part caused by the side-jobs that they do. They are invited by companies to sit on the board of directors, or the management board or something. That's just one of the extremes of lobbying, and I cannot hold individual politicians responsible for that. The entire system is rotten to the core - but it includes all the big business.

 

You state that you don't trust your government because of this. I would go even further. I don't trust companies that knowingly play this game of bribery either. But I disagree with your position to blame it all on the government. It's a whole system (of extreme capitalism) gone wild.

For lack of knowledge through ignorance of which I have shown throughout this post, there is no way to disagree with you. Yet you tell me politicians pimp themselves to sit on company boards as being the extremes of lobbying, WOW! That dang near breaks my heart. I'd almost have to call that double dipping at best, wouldn't you? What would our founding fathers think if they could see us today? Edited July 23, 2012 by rigney

[CaptainPanic]

For lack of knowledge through ignorance of which I have shown throughout this post, there is no way to disagree with you. Yet you tell me politicians pimp themselves to sit on company boards as being the extremes of lobbying, WOW! That dang near breaks my heart. I'd almost have to call that double dipping at best, wouldn't you? What would our founding fathers think if they could see us today?

I'd be very surprised if the politicians have to search for these jobs. I bet they're being invited by the companies all the time. It's the companies that seek to get more influence in the politics - not the politicians who want to get rich. This happens on local/state and federal scale (and also in other countries). For a large company, it's peanuts to pay a few thousands/millions to a congresman. And if you employ the congresman, this is not considered bribing. It's completely legal.

 

About the founding fathers... I had a quick look around, and I found that Thomas Jefferson had at least one side job too. While he was also the president of the USA, he was also the president of the American Philosophical Society. I'm not sure if that made him rich or not, but it shows that they probably didn't care too much about side jobs.

[swansont]

Here's what Romney had to say in 2002 to the Olympic athletes

 

"You Olympians, however, know you didn't get here solely on your own power,” said Romney, who on Friday will attend the Opening Ceremonies of this year’s Summer Olympics. “For most of you, loving parents, sisters or brothers, encouraged your hopes, coaches guided, communities built venues in order to organize competitions. All Olympians stand on the shoulders of those who lifted them. We’ve already cheered the Olympians, let’s also cheer the parents, coaches, and communities. All right! [pumps fist].”

 

Gee, imagine that.

 

———

 

rigney, telling someone to get a job is a pretty empty epithet with the unemployment levels we have today (though they are lower than they were when the economy was at its worst), and if you blame Obama for that, you haven't been paying attention to the inaction of congress.

[rigney]

Here's what Romney had to say in 2002 to the Olympic athletes

 

Gee, imagine that.

———

Other than the wording, I think the comparison is totally distasteful.

 

rigney, telling someone to get a job is a pretty empty epithet with the unemployment levels we have today (though they are lower than they were when the economy was at its worst), and if you blame Obama for that, you haven't been paying attention to the inaction of congress.

To blame Obama solely for the mess this country is in today would be totally inane and unfair! I didn't offer the three links to beat on just democrats, but the whole damned sorry mass of deplorable politicians who line their pockets while people go hungry and without clothes or shelter. Panic's post this morning sums it up.

 

Cap Panic:

I'd be very surprised if the politicians have to search for these jobs. I bet they're being invited by the companies all the time. It's the companies that seek to get more influence in the politics - not the politicians who want to get rich. This happens on local/state and federal scale (and also in other countries). For a large company, it's peanuts to pay a few thousands/millions to a congresman. And if you employ the congresman, this is not considered bribing. It's completely legal.

Legal or not! Isn't this collusive pandering from both parties involved?

Edited July 23, 2012 by rigney

[Moontanman]

To blame Obama solely for the mess this country is in today would be totally inane and unfair! I didn't offer the three links to beat on just democrats, but the whole damned sorry mass of deplorable politicians who line their pockets while people go hungry and without clothes or shelter. Panic's post this morning sums it up.

 

Cap Panic:

Legal or not! Isn't this collusive pandering from both parties involved?

 

 

Damn rigney, we agree on something else, better get out the score card.... It's not just the liberals vs conservatives when it comes to politicians it's who is paying them....

 

Unbridled Capitalism is what is running this country to ruin, the airplane that is our country is in a nose dive and both sides only worry about how fast it spins to the left or right ignoring completely the ground as it rushes up... but no matter who is in charge the direction of the plane remains the same....

[rigney]

Damn rigney, we agree on something else, better get out the score card.... It's not just the liberals vs conservatives when it comes to politicians it's who is paying them....

 

Unbridled Capitalism is what is running this country to ruin, the airplane that is our country is in a nose dive and both sides only worry about how fast it spins to the left or right ignoring completely the ground as it rushes up... but no matter who is in charge the direction of the plane remains the same....

No Moon! But it is the unbridled optimism of people in both parties to think their side is the only one to follow when, we have a congress controlled by a bunch of thieves. I'm not speaking of them all, there are good people on both sides of the aisle. Only those involved in this scam for a constant supposed power struggle, know these identities and how they control this country. And no! this isn't a quote or known fact, just an opinion. Edited July 23, 2012 by rigney

[Moontanman]

No Moon! But it is the unbridled optimism of people in both parties to think their side is the only one to follow when we have a congress controlled by a bunch of thieves. I'm not speaking of them all, there are good people on both sides of the aisle. But those doing the dirt in this constant power struggle, know who they are.

 

 

Yes but how do we know which ones are "doing the dirt" how can we objectively choose? it's a sure bet that left or right has nothing to do with it and the ground is still rushing up to school us on our lack of knowledge...

[swansont]

To blame Obama solely for the mess this country is in today would be totally inane and unfair! I didn't offer the three links to beat on just democrats, but the whole damned sorry mass of deplorable politicians who line their pockets while people go hungry and without clothes or shelter. Panic's post this morning sums it up.

I haven't had time to watch the links; the Romeny quote was a rebuttal to your link to Obama saying something very similar, only about business, to which you replied

 

When i hear our president reply to a small business owner who probably worked his ass of to get the business started; by castigating and saying to him: "You didn't build that business, the people who work for you did", I'd like to kick him straight to the gonads, and hard! What a fukkin' idiot.

 

It's very hard to have a discussion with someone who can't maintain a constant position on anything. Where is your ire at Romney for his position? Though, like Obama, isn't really his position, because the quote is pulled out of context, but that hasn't been acknowledged yet by you. You just moved on to other topics.

[ydoaPs]

I haven't had time to watch the links; the Romeny quote was a rebuttal to your link to Obama saying something very similar, only about business, to which you replied

 

 

 

It's very hard to have a discussion with someone who can't maintain a constant position on anything. Where is your ire at Romney for his position? Though, like Obama, isn't really his position, because the quote is pulled out of context, but that hasn't been acknowledged yet by you. You just moved on to other topics.

 

Not to mention that the Obama quote was entirely out of context and is entirely reasonable when in context.