Gawain 0 #51 October 25, 2006 QuoteQuoteDefense takes up less than 4% of the GDP. I'd like to see that data. I think we spend 20% of our tax revenue on military. I was off by .06%, https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#Military And I said, GDP, not tax revenue. Still, defense is quite distant from being the largest expenditure. QuoteQuoteThe wealth is already redistributed in this country. The richest 10% of wage earners in the US pay well more than half the income revenue. The richest 1%, nearly 40% alone. They are in teh 50% braket, but most find a way to get out of that by deferal or investment. Even with loopholes, they pay the largest chunk of revenue. That highest tax bracket isn't 50%. QuoteSo if the rich are paying too much, then how is that as an industrialized nation we create far, far more filthy rich and 1 in 6 don't have medical coverage, many of those who technically have it pay for most of it by themselves? It sounds good on papaer, but the application stinks. I didn't say they were paying too much, I am saying that no one should get a free ride, especially if they have the ability to contribute to society. QuoteSo who doesn't want this? Could it be the rich? Yep, the rich don't want this due to losing their tax wroteoffs and gov tax breaks. Therich are the ones who benefit under current tax laws, don't fool yourself. That's not exclusive though. Steve Forbes has been advocating this for years. The "rich" can still benefit from it by not having to endure the expense of finding, and exploiting the loopholes in the first place. I don't think it's as cut and dry and you may perceive.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #52 October 25, 2006 Rush the Pig shows that he CAN be a bigger pig. After a bullshit apology that he obviously did not mean, he slams Fox as a shill. Rush Limbaugh On the Offensive Against Ad With Michael J. Fox By David Montgomery Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, October 25, 2006; Page C01 Possibly worse than making fun of someone's disability is saying that it's imaginary. That is not to mock someone's body, but to challenge a person's guts, integrity, sanity. To Rush Limbaugh on Monday, Michael J. Fox looked like a faker. The actor, who suffers from Parkinson's disease, has done a series of political ads supporting candidates who favor stem cell research, including Maryland Democrat Ben Cardin, who is running against Republican Michael Steele for the Senate seat being vacated by Paul Sarbanes. "He is exaggerating the effects of the disease," Limbaugh told listeners. "He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an act. . . . This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting." Limbaugh, whose syndicated radio program has a weekly audience of about 10 million, was reacting to Fox's appearance in another one of the spots, for Missouri Democrat Claire McCaskill, running against Republican Sen. James M. Talent. But the Cardin ad is similar. It is hard to watch, unless, for some reason, you don't believe it. As he speaks, Fox's restless torso weaves and writhes in a private dance. His head bobs from side to side, almost leaving the video frame. "This is the only time I've ever seen Michael J. Fox portray any of the symptoms of the disease he has," Limbaugh said. "He can barely control himself." Later Monday, still on the air, Limbaugh would apologize, but reaction to his statements from Parkinson's experts and Fox's supporters was swift and angry. "It's a shameless statement," John Rogers said yesterday. Rogers, Fox's political adviser, who also serves on the board of the Parkinson's Action Network, added: "It's insulting. It's appallingly sad, at best." "Anyone who knows the disease well would regard his movement as classic severe Parkinson's disease," said Elaine Richman, a neuroscientist in Baltimore who co-wrote "Parkinson's Disease and the Family." "Any other interpretation is misinformed." Fox was campaigning yesterday for Tammy Duckworth, a congressional candidate, outside Chicago, when he alluded to Limbaugh's remarks. "It's ironic, given some of the things that have been said in the last couple of days, that my pills are working really well right now," he said, according to a report on the CBS2 Web site. After his apology, Limbaugh shifted his ground and renewed his attack on Fox. "Now people are telling me they have seen Michael J. Fox in interviews and he does appear the same way in the interviews as he does in this commercial," Limbaugh said, according to a transcript on his Web site. "All right then, I stand corrected. . . . So I will bigly, hugely admit that I was wrong, and I will apologize to Michael J. Fox, if I am wrong in characterizing his behavior on this commercial as an act." Then Limbaugh pivoted to a different critique: "Michael J. Fox is allowing his illness to be exploited and in the process is shilling for a Democratic politician." Limbaugh's shock at Fox's appearance is a measure of the disease's devastation, advocates say. Contrary to the charge that Fox might not take his medicine to enhance his symptoms, the medicine produces some of the uncontrolled body movements. "Stem cell research offers hope to millions of Americans with diseases like diabetes, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's," Fox says in the Cardin ad. "But George Bush and Michael Steele would put limits on the most promising stem cell research." Fox has appeared in ABC's "Boston Legal" this season. In his scenes, taped over the summer, Fox does not shake or loll his head as he does in the Cardin commercial, but does appear to be restraining himself, appearing almost rigid at times. A source with direct knowledge of Fox's illness who viewed the Cardin ad said Fox is not acting to exaggerate the effects of the disease. The source said Fox's scenes in "Boston Legal" had to be taped around his illness, as he worked to control the tremors associated with Parkinson's for limited periods of time. Staff writer Frank Ahrens contributed to this report."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #53 October 25, 2006 QuoteI find it ironic that not 1 conservative has stepped forward to sincerely denounce Rush, period. It's been a rash of, "He's a POS, but the Dems do it too." Just like, "Foley's a POS, but the Dems are too." I think calling someone a POS is a denouncement. It isn't a compliment, is it? Callign someone on this board a POS would be a personal attack, wouldn't it? Rush Limbaugh is a piece of shit. I've thought so since about 1991, then confirmed in my mind in about 1993, when I concluded that he's an arrogant asshole after overhearing an attack on the physical appearance of a teenage Chelsea Clinton. He's a bigger SOB for picking on a victim of Parkinson's. As payback, I would suggest that all persons who quote Limbaugh should slur their speech in mockery of a strung out and deaf Limbaugh (he brought his deafness on himself due to absue of drugs). There. Sincere enough? Then I would like to add, he's not alone. It comes from all sides. And when I say that Bill Clinton was a piece of shit for stating that the only reason that Limbaugh defended Janet Reno in the WACO hearings was because Reno "was attacked by a black guy (John Conyers)" it is because what was said could only have come from a piece of shit. As a final point, I think that it should be realized that libertarians are not "evil" or "uncaring" or "heartless." It's the same concept as saying "George W Bush is stupid." He was smart enough to beat Gore and Kerry. Or like me saying, "The Denver Broncos SUCK!" while proclaiming that my beloved Oakland "Raiders RULE!" As much as I'd like to think that, as a reasonable person I need to admit that a 5-1 team that has allowed 2 touchdowns in 6 games does not "suck" while my stating that my beloved Oakland Raiders "suck" would probably be giving them too much credit. As a whole, libertarians are not cold and heartless. Instead, libertarians actually believe that people can do things. My drill sergeant was a libertarian ideal - you can do it, you'll do just fine. I've shown you how, and I won't let you fail. It's why I describe SFC Nichols as the cruelest and kindest man I ever knew. He was tough BECAUSE he cared. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #54 October 25, 2006 QuoteI find it ironic that not 1 conservative has stepped forward to sincerely denounce Rush, period. It's been a rash of, "He's a POS, but the Dems do it too." Just like, "Foley's a POS, but the Dems are too." Desperation unfolding.... Oooppps...sorry, I haven't been reading this thread because I thought it was just another whiney, liberal, "Rush is Fat" bash-fest. If this is in the proper context of what Rush said then he is off base on this. M.J. Fox is doing the right thing in trying to bring more public awareness to the devestating effects of Parkinsons disease and I applaud him for that. - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #55 October 25, 2006 Quote"Rush is Fat" bash-fest Rush is a fatfuck. Not only is he a fatfuck but he is also an oxy eating fatfuck. Not only that he is also a limpdick moron who has to shovel truckloads of viagra up his fatfuck ass to get an erection so that he can masturbate to his own picture. If there is a bashfest on Rush the OxyViagra Pig, I'm there!!!"...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #56 October 25, 2006 Quote When the disparity between rich and poor becomes great enough, the pitchforks, shovels, and torches will come out. It's happened before. Yeah, it worked so well in Cambodia that everyone's clamoring to follow suit.My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #57 October 25, 2006 QuoteQuoteI do bust my hump, and I don;t want to directly give my money to the poor, but I want my government to distrivute money from the rich and redirect it away from militaty contractors. If I become rich, I might have your attitude, but I don;t think so, but as an objective person I want the prro to have a chance, have basic medical, etc... The largest government expenditures are in the areas of Health and Human Services, and Social Security is going to begin heating up really quickly as the baby boomers begin to retire. Defense takes up less than 4% of the GDP. The wealth is already redistributed in this country. The richest 10% of wage earners in the US pay well more than half the income revenue. The richest 1%, nearly 40% alone. The US tax code is already progressive. Those that use the social services the most, pay little to nothing into it. A flat system would yield far more revenue, and everybody pays, that is one way to ensure greater social responsibility. Under Bush, federal spending has increased at an average rate of 7.6% per year. Under Clinton it was 4% per year. And I needn't mention the debt, need I?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #58 October 25, 2006 QuoteQuote"Rush is Fat" bash-fest Rush is a fatfuck. Not only is he a fatfuck but he is also an oxy eating fatfuck. Not only that he is also a limpdick moron who has to shovel truckloads of viagra up his fatfuck ass to get an erection so that he can masturbate to his own picture. If there is a bashfest on Rush the OxyViagra Pig, I'm there!!! Okay, political debates and other issues aside, this shows how little people that claim to be against Rush, yet don't listen to his program, also don't know anything about him at all. He has lost the weight that made him oh-so pleasantly plump in the early years.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #59 October 25, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote"Rush is Fat" bash-fest Rush is a fatfuck. Not only is he a fatfuck but he is also an oxy eating fatfuck. Not only that he is also a limpdick moron who has to shovel truckloads of viagra up his fatfuck ass to get an erection so that he can masturbate to his own picture. If there is a bashfest on Rush the OxyViagra Pig, I'm there!!! Okay, political debates and other issues aside, this shows how little people that claim to be against Rush, yet don't listen to his program, also don't know anything about him at all. He has lost the weight that made him oh-so pleasantly plump in the early years. Oh, I am well aware of his weight lose. He is, however, still a fatfuck no matter how much weight he loses."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #60 October 25, 2006 QuoteQuote When the disparity between rich and poor becomes great enough, the pitchforks, shovels, and torches will come out. It's happened before. Yeah, it worked so well in Cambodia that everyone's clamoring to follow suit. I was thinking more along the lines of the French Revolution. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #61 October 25, 2006 QuoteQuote The wealth is already redistributed in this country. The richest 10% of wage earners in the US pay well more than half the income revenue. The richest 1%, nearly 40% alone. As it should be. If you have $5 million, and take away 40%, you still have $3 million. You can get by on that, right? I'm sick of all the goddamn whiny millionaires. When the disparity between rich and poor becomes great enough, the pitchforks, shovels, and torches will come out. It's happened before. QuoteWhen the disparity between rich and poor becomes great enough, the pitchforks, shovels, and torches will come out. It's happened before. Right, and the rich will declare the poor a bunch of hoodlums. When the rules are stacked so on the side of the rich, it isn't a matter of the character ot the people, it's a broken system just as Russian Communism was. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #62 October 25, 2006 Quote[ I was thinking more along the lines of the French Revolution. Well, Barbara Bush did essentially give us the "let them eat cake" quote......what are we waiting for? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites BIGUN 1,483 #63 October 25, 2006 QuoteI'm all for freedom of speech, but that doesn't give a person the right to be a complete fuckwit. Well, actually it does. Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #64 October 25, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteDefense takes up less than 4% of the GDP. I'd like to see that data. I think we spend 20% of our tax revenue on military. I was off by .06%, https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#Military And I said, GDP, not tax revenue. Still, defense is quite distant from being the largest expenditure. QuoteQuoteThe wealth is already redistributed in this country. The richest 10% of wage earners in the US pay well more than half the income revenue. The richest 1%, nearly 40% alone. They are in teh 50% braket, but most find a way to get out of that by deferal or investment. Even with loopholes, they pay the largest chunk of revenue. That highest tax bracket isn't 50%. QuoteSo if the rich are paying too much, then how is that as an industrialized nation we create far, far more filthy rich and 1 in 6 don't have medical coverage, many of those who technically have it pay for most of it by themselves? It sounds good on papaer, but the application stinks. I didn't say they were paying too much, I am saying that no one should get a free ride, especially if they have the ability to contribute to society. QuoteSo who doesn't want this? Could it be the rich? Yep, the rich don't want this due to losing their tax wroteoffs and gov tax breaks. Therich are the ones who benefit under current tax laws, don't fool yourself. That's not exclusive though. Steve Forbes has been advocating this for years. The "rich" can still benefit from it by not having to endure the expense of finding, and exploiting the loopholes in the first place. I don't think it's as cut and dry and you may perceive. In the GDP respect, it appears that that is the case. I recall reading an IRS booklet in a pie graph where 20% of the total collected tax revenue goes to the military. So if only 4% of the GDP is going to the military, where's it all going? Oh, I see, here it is: Public debt: 64.7% of GDP (2005 est.) Hmmmm, where oh where did all that debt come from? Hmmmm, could it be that we had 1 trillion debt as Reagan took office and now it's 8.5T and soaring? I think so. GDP is an abstract way of looking at military expeditures since we are going so far into the red as far as debt goes. Our military spends as much as the rest of teh world combined per your page: Quotehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures And that may not include the recent so-called war. I guess we get B-2's, they get silly health coverage. What a bunch of idiots over there. Here's a passage from your citation that pretty much sums up the fascist US: US firms are at or near the forefront in technological advances, especially in computers and in medical, aerospace, and military equipment; their advantage has narrowed since the end of World War II. The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a "two-tier labor market" in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households. Long-term problems include inadequate investment in economic infrastructure, rapidly rising medical and pension costs of an aging population, sizable trade and budget deficits, and stagnation of family income in the lower economic groups. QuoteThat's not exclusive though. Steve Forbes has been advocating this for years. The "rich" can still benefit from it by not having to endure the expense of finding, and exploiting the loopholes in the first place. I don't think it's as cut and dry and you may perceive. That's one guy, most rich folks want nothing to do with a flat tax. I like it. QuoteI didn't say they were paying too much, I am saying that no one should get a free ride, especially if they have the ability to contribute to society. I didn't say that either, but if we compare abuse, where is more harm done? The homeless guy getting $100 free assistance and an occassional free room, OR, the corporation giving multimillion/billion $ no-bid contracts to their buddies? We are taught to hate people in lower classes, praise those in higher classes, I refuse to adhere to that, how about you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #65 October 25, 2006 The discussion reminds of the song "Change the World" by Ten Years After. It had a lyric: "Tax the rich. Feed the poor Till there are no Rich no more." He didn't say, "Till there are no poor no more." Nope, just get rid of the rich! That's the ticket. QuoteIf you have $5 million, and take away 40%, you still have $3 million. If you have two cars and I steal one, you've still got a car. I'm sick of all the whiny goddamned car owners out there. If you've got another car, hell, why do you care if your car got stolen? If you have $5000 and I take $2000 of it, you still have $3000. If you've got that kind of cash on you, you didn't need it. You were left with $3k, which should be more than enough. Be glad you have $3k to spend, not upset that the $2k was stolen from you. My guess is people like Skilling needed it more than you, otherwise they wouldn't have taken it. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnnyD 0 #66 October 25, 2006 Quote Okay, political debates and other issues aside, this shows how little people that claim to be against Rush, yet don't listen to his program, also don't know anything about him at all. He has lost the weight that made him oh-so pleasantly plump in the early years. Are you saying he has even one shred of credibility? He is an entertainer. Nothing more. Unfortunately, he is a bigot, a junkie and a fraud who has made millions by passing himself off as credible to people who don't want to recognize he is an utter shill. Most of the time, he is pretty funny. Occasionally, he crosses the line (IMO). I wish people would turn the dial when he does, but they don't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #67 October 25, 2006 QuoteQuoteI find it ironic that not 1 conservative has stepped forward to sincerely denounce Rush, period. It's been a rash of, "He's a POS, but the Dems do it too." Just like, "Foley's a POS, but the Dems are too." . QuoteI think calling someone a POS is a denouncement. It isn't a compliment, is it? Callign someone on this board a POS would be a personal attack, wouldn't it? OK, but I thought you weren't a conservative. BTW, you're not inferring I called anyone here a POS, are you? QuoteRush Limbaugh is a piece of shit. I've thought so since about 1991, then confirmed in my mind in about 1993, when I concluded that he's an arrogant asshole after overhearing an attack on the physical appearance of a teenage Chelsea Clinton. I was actually a ditto head in teh early days, hated Clinton, what a fool. QuoteHe's a bigger SOB for picking on a victim of Parkinson's. As payback, I would suggest that all persons who quote Limbaugh should slur their speech in mockery of a strung out and deaf Limbaugh (he brought his deafness on himself due to absue of drugs). Sure, or those who listen, stop. That's the best way to get rid of trash like that, ignire them and their sponsors, they will both go away. QuoteThere. Sincere enough? Then I would like to add, he's not alone. It comes from all sides. And when I say that Bill Clinton was a piece of shit for stating that the only reason that Limbaugh defended Janet Reno in the WACO hearings was because Reno "was attacked by a black guy (John Conyers)" it is because what was said could only have come from a piece of shit. What? Is that teh best you can do as for a comparison to Limbaugh's idiocy? I don't understand the slam in Clinton there. Clinton's inference that Rush is a racist, hence defended his AG.... very weak, certainly not to the proportions of several direct attacks against people like a child and a terminally ill guy. I dispute your comparison that that kind of shit comes from all sides. The Dems are guilty of being compassionate to a fault, the Repubs guilty of not knowing how to spell compassion or thinking, "Money" comes before, "Humanity" in the dictionary. I don't see how that can be refuted with a straight face. QuoteAs a final point, I think that it should be realized that libertarians are not "evil" or "uncaring" or "heartless." It's the same concept as saying "George W Bush is stupid." He was smart enough to beat Gore and Kerry. - The libertarians inherit teh Repubs social expenditure plan and reduce it, their concerns are with the rich, not the poor. The are unfeeling. - Intelligence has zero to do with a popularity contest, especially in a contest that was arguable fixed. But even if not, it's a friken popularity contest. Lookat any social circle, many times the leader is a schiester, not an intellect. QuoteOr like me saying, "The Denver Broncos SUCK!" while proclaiming that my beloved Oakland "Raiders RULE!" As much as I'd like to think that, as a reasonable person I need to admit that a 5-1 team that has allowed 2 touchdowns in 6 games does not "suck" while my stating that my beloved Oakland Raiders "suck" would probably be giving them too much credit. We can agree the Raiders suck . The Cardinals suck worse. QuoteAs a whole, libertarians are not cold and heartless. Instead, libertarians actually believe that people can do things. My drill sergeant was a libertarian ideal - you can do it, you'll do just fine. I've shown you how, and I won't let you fail. It's why I describe SFC Nichols as the cruelest and kindest man I ever knew. He was tough BECAUSE he cared Libertarians ARE cold as far as the poor go. This is why they will never win much. Their platform is utopian. All that would have to happen is all of teh worlds ills to be cured and it would make perfect sense, until then, the rich will have to continue paying for the poor. Libertarians feel that all people are born equally, which is not the case. Different parents give different guidance to their kids, have different resource, etc.... I wish they would tweek their stance in social services, I like many of their concepts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zipp0 1 #68 October 25, 2006 QuoteThe discussion reminds of the song "Change the World" by Ten Years After. It had a lyric: "Tax the rich. Feed the poor Till there are no Rich no more." He didn't say, "Till there are no poor no more." Nope, just get rid of the rich! That's the ticket. QuoteIf you have $5 million, and take away 40%, you still have $3 million. If you have two cars and I steal one, you've still got a car. I'm sick of all the whiny goddamned car owners out there. If you've got another car, hell, why do you care if your car got stolen? If you have $5000 and I take $2000 of it, you still have $3000. If you've got that kind of cash on you, you didn't need it. You were left with $3k, which should be more than enough. Be glad you have $3k to spend, not upset that the $2k was stolen from you. My guess is people like Skilling needed it more than you, otherwise they wouldn't have taken it. You are still rich with $3million, but not with $3,000. I agree on the tax the rich idea you put forth though. Thanks. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #69 October 25, 2006 QuoteIn the GDP respect, it appears that that is the case. I recall reading an IRS booklet in a pie graph where 20% of the total collected tax revenue goes to the military. So if only 4% of the GDP is going to the military, where's it all going? Oh, I see, here it is: Public debt: 64.7% of GDP (2005 est.) Apples and oranges. Public debt is 64.7% of the GDP. Payment of interest on the debt is 8% of fed spending. 20% of fed spending is defense. 39% of fed spending is Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/07msr.pdf - see chart on page 8. (page 16 of 54). Considering a 2.77 trillion dollar federal budget, this amounts to 1.08 trillion dollars spent for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. This will drop the budget for these to a measley $972.31 billion smackeroos. The military, with current spending of $554 billion, will have to get by on $498.6 billion. If that means no more Iraq, well, tough. Obviously, plenty of people would pitch a fit if ten percent of the budget for socialism was taken out. It would cause pain, but we'd be able to afford it. So, I've got a proposal. Using the O'Rourke Circumcision Principle - "You can cut ten percent off of anything" - I would propose rolling back spending in all categories other than debt repayment of 10 percent. This will result in a balanced budget immediately by cutting $277 billion off of the budget. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites idrankwhat 0 #70 October 25, 2006 Quote So, I've got a proposal. Using the O'Rourke Circumcision Principle - "You can cut ten percent off of anything" - I would propose rolling back spending in all categories other than debt repayment of 10 percent. This will result in a balanced budget immediately by cutting $277 billion off of the budget. How about letting someone like Ross Perot analyze the budget and cut the waste caused by excessive overhead? Then go from there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #71 October 25, 2006 There will be no more difficult task that laying off government employees. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 78RATS 0 #72 October 25, 2006 Quote How is it, my dear friends, that when he decided to do this commercial that he stayed off of his meds in order to magnify the effects of the disease, yet when he's got an acting job, he's as steady as he can possibly be. Sounds pretty phony to me. That is a douche bag statement. (not that you are a douche bag or anything). Rat for Life - Fly till I die When them stupid ass bitches ask why Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites idrankwhat 0 #73 October 25, 2006 QuoteThere will be no more difficult task that laying off government employees. I certainly will agree with that. It also points to the problem that we've created with our health care system. I believe that nearly 1/3 of our health care dollar goes to administration. Canada, on the other hand, spends about 2% for administration. Until we get a handle on the top heavy waste we're not going to fix anything. But how do you get administrators to cut back on administration? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #74 October 25, 2006 Well at least Limbaugh didn't call Fox a "pig" that would have been a poor way to conduct himself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #75 October 25, 2006 I love this. The only way you can go after someone like Limbaugh is to quote him out of context!! I will sit back and enjoy the show!!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 3 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
BIGUN 1,483 #63 October 25, 2006 QuoteI'm all for freedom of speech, but that doesn't give a person the right to be a complete fuckwit. Well, actually it does. Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #64 October 25, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteDefense takes up less than 4% of the GDP. I'd like to see that data. I think we spend 20% of our tax revenue on military. I was off by .06%, https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#Military And I said, GDP, not tax revenue. Still, defense is quite distant from being the largest expenditure. QuoteQuoteThe wealth is already redistributed in this country. The richest 10% of wage earners in the US pay well more than half the income revenue. The richest 1%, nearly 40% alone. They are in teh 50% braket, but most find a way to get out of that by deferal or investment. Even with loopholes, they pay the largest chunk of revenue. That highest tax bracket isn't 50%. QuoteSo if the rich are paying too much, then how is that as an industrialized nation we create far, far more filthy rich and 1 in 6 don't have medical coverage, many of those who technically have it pay for most of it by themselves? It sounds good on papaer, but the application stinks. I didn't say they were paying too much, I am saying that no one should get a free ride, especially if they have the ability to contribute to society. QuoteSo who doesn't want this? Could it be the rich? Yep, the rich don't want this due to losing their tax wroteoffs and gov tax breaks. Therich are the ones who benefit under current tax laws, don't fool yourself. That's not exclusive though. Steve Forbes has been advocating this for years. The "rich" can still benefit from it by not having to endure the expense of finding, and exploiting the loopholes in the first place. I don't think it's as cut and dry and you may perceive. In the GDP respect, it appears that that is the case. I recall reading an IRS booklet in a pie graph where 20% of the total collected tax revenue goes to the military. So if only 4% of the GDP is going to the military, where's it all going? Oh, I see, here it is: Public debt: 64.7% of GDP (2005 est.) Hmmmm, where oh where did all that debt come from? Hmmmm, could it be that we had 1 trillion debt as Reagan took office and now it's 8.5T and soaring? I think so. GDP is an abstract way of looking at military expeditures since we are going so far into the red as far as debt goes. Our military spends as much as the rest of teh world combined per your page: Quotehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures And that may not include the recent so-called war. I guess we get B-2's, they get silly health coverage. What a bunch of idiots over there. Here's a passage from your citation that pretty much sums up the fascist US: US firms are at or near the forefront in technological advances, especially in computers and in medical, aerospace, and military equipment; their advantage has narrowed since the end of World War II. The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a "two-tier labor market" in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households. Long-term problems include inadequate investment in economic infrastructure, rapidly rising medical and pension costs of an aging population, sizable trade and budget deficits, and stagnation of family income in the lower economic groups. QuoteThat's not exclusive though. Steve Forbes has been advocating this for years. The "rich" can still benefit from it by not having to endure the expense of finding, and exploiting the loopholes in the first place. I don't think it's as cut and dry and you may perceive. That's one guy, most rich folks want nothing to do with a flat tax. I like it. QuoteI didn't say they were paying too much, I am saying that no one should get a free ride, especially if they have the ability to contribute to society. I didn't say that either, but if we compare abuse, where is more harm done? The homeless guy getting $100 free assistance and an occassional free room, OR, the corporation giving multimillion/billion $ no-bid contracts to their buddies? We are taught to hate people in lower classes, praise those in higher classes, I refuse to adhere to that, how about you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #65 October 25, 2006 The discussion reminds of the song "Change the World" by Ten Years After. It had a lyric: "Tax the rich. Feed the poor Till there are no Rich no more." He didn't say, "Till there are no poor no more." Nope, just get rid of the rich! That's the ticket. QuoteIf you have $5 million, and take away 40%, you still have $3 million. If you have two cars and I steal one, you've still got a car. I'm sick of all the whiny goddamned car owners out there. If you've got another car, hell, why do you care if your car got stolen? If you have $5000 and I take $2000 of it, you still have $3000. If you've got that kind of cash on you, you didn't need it. You were left with $3k, which should be more than enough. Be glad you have $3k to spend, not upset that the $2k was stolen from you. My guess is people like Skilling needed it more than you, otherwise they wouldn't have taken it. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #66 October 25, 2006 Quote Okay, political debates and other issues aside, this shows how little people that claim to be against Rush, yet don't listen to his program, also don't know anything about him at all. He has lost the weight that made him oh-so pleasantly plump in the early years. Are you saying he has even one shred of credibility? He is an entertainer. Nothing more. Unfortunately, he is a bigot, a junkie and a fraud who has made millions by passing himself off as credible to people who don't want to recognize he is an utter shill. Most of the time, he is pretty funny. Occasionally, he crosses the line (IMO). I wish people would turn the dial when he does, but they don't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #67 October 25, 2006 QuoteQuoteI find it ironic that not 1 conservative has stepped forward to sincerely denounce Rush, period. It's been a rash of, "He's a POS, but the Dems do it too." Just like, "Foley's a POS, but the Dems are too." . QuoteI think calling someone a POS is a denouncement. It isn't a compliment, is it? Callign someone on this board a POS would be a personal attack, wouldn't it? OK, but I thought you weren't a conservative. BTW, you're not inferring I called anyone here a POS, are you? QuoteRush Limbaugh is a piece of shit. I've thought so since about 1991, then confirmed in my mind in about 1993, when I concluded that he's an arrogant asshole after overhearing an attack on the physical appearance of a teenage Chelsea Clinton. I was actually a ditto head in teh early days, hated Clinton, what a fool. QuoteHe's a bigger SOB for picking on a victim of Parkinson's. As payback, I would suggest that all persons who quote Limbaugh should slur their speech in mockery of a strung out and deaf Limbaugh (he brought his deafness on himself due to absue of drugs). Sure, or those who listen, stop. That's the best way to get rid of trash like that, ignire them and their sponsors, they will both go away. QuoteThere. Sincere enough? Then I would like to add, he's not alone. It comes from all sides. And when I say that Bill Clinton was a piece of shit for stating that the only reason that Limbaugh defended Janet Reno in the WACO hearings was because Reno "was attacked by a black guy (John Conyers)" it is because what was said could only have come from a piece of shit. What? Is that teh best you can do as for a comparison to Limbaugh's idiocy? I don't understand the slam in Clinton there. Clinton's inference that Rush is a racist, hence defended his AG.... very weak, certainly not to the proportions of several direct attacks against people like a child and a terminally ill guy. I dispute your comparison that that kind of shit comes from all sides. The Dems are guilty of being compassionate to a fault, the Repubs guilty of not knowing how to spell compassion or thinking, "Money" comes before, "Humanity" in the dictionary. I don't see how that can be refuted with a straight face. QuoteAs a final point, I think that it should be realized that libertarians are not "evil" or "uncaring" or "heartless." It's the same concept as saying "George W Bush is stupid." He was smart enough to beat Gore and Kerry. - The libertarians inherit teh Repubs social expenditure plan and reduce it, their concerns are with the rich, not the poor. The are unfeeling. - Intelligence has zero to do with a popularity contest, especially in a contest that was arguable fixed. But even if not, it's a friken popularity contest. Lookat any social circle, many times the leader is a schiester, not an intellect. QuoteOr like me saying, "The Denver Broncos SUCK!" while proclaiming that my beloved Oakland "Raiders RULE!" As much as I'd like to think that, as a reasonable person I need to admit that a 5-1 team that has allowed 2 touchdowns in 6 games does not "suck" while my stating that my beloved Oakland Raiders "suck" would probably be giving them too much credit. We can agree the Raiders suck . The Cardinals suck worse. QuoteAs a whole, libertarians are not cold and heartless. Instead, libertarians actually believe that people can do things. My drill sergeant was a libertarian ideal - you can do it, you'll do just fine. I've shown you how, and I won't let you fail. It's why I describe SFC Nichols as the cruelest and kindest man I ever knew. He was tough BECAUSE he cared Libertarians ARE cold as far as the poor go. This is why they will never win much. Their platform is utopian. All that would have to happen is all of teh worlds ills to be cured and it would make perfect sense, until then, the rich will have to continue paying for the poor. Libertarians feel that all people are born equally, which is not the case. Different parents give different guidance to their kids, have different resource, etc.... I wish they would tweek their stance in social services, I like many of their concepts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #68 October 25, 2006 QuoteThe discussion reminds of the song "Change the World" by Ten Years After. It had a lyric: "Tax the rich. Feed the poor Till there are no Rich no more." He didn't say, "Till there are no poor no more." Nope, just get rid of the rich! That's the ticket. QuoteIf you have $5 million, and take away 40%, you still have $3 million. If you have two cars and I steal one, you've still got a car. I'm sick of all the whiny goddamned car owners out there. If you've got another car, hell, why do you care if your car got stolen? If you have $5000 and I take $2000 of it, you still have $3000. If you've got that kind of cash on you, you didn't need it. You were left with $3k, which should be more than enough. Be glad you have $3k to spend, not upset that the $2k was stolen from you. My guess is people like Skilling needed it more than you, otherwise they wouldn't have taken it. You are still rich with $3million, but not with $3,000. I agree on the tax the rich idea you put forth though. Thanks. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #69 October 25, 2006 QuoteIn the GDP respect, it appears that that is the case. I recall reading an IRS booklet in a pie graph where 20% of the total collected tax revenue goes to the military. So if only 4% of the GDP is going to the military, where's it all going? Oh, I see, here it is: Public debt: 64.7% of GDP (2005 est.) Apples and oranges. Public debt is 64.7% of the GDP. Payment of interest on the debt is 8% of fed spending. 20% of fed spending is defense. 39% of fed spending is Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/07msr.pdf - see chart on page 8. (page 16 of 54). Considering a 2.77 trillion dollar federal budget, this amounts to 1.08 trillion dollars spent for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. This will drop the budget for these to a measley $972.31 billion smackeroos. The military, with current spending of $554 billion, will have to get by on $498.6 billion. If that means no more Iraq, well, tough. Obviously, plenty of people would pitch a fit if ten percent of the budget for socialism was taken out. It would cause pain, but we'd be able to afford it. So, I've got a proposal. Using the O'Rourke Circumcision Principle - "You can cut ten percent off of anything" - I would propose rolling back spending in all categories other than debt repayment of 10 percent. This will result in a balanced budget immediately by cutting $277 billion off of the budget. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #70 October 25, 2006 Quote So, I've got a proposal. Using the O'Rourke Circumcision Principle - "You can cut ten percent off of anything" - I would propose rolling back spending in all categories other than debt repayment of 10 percent. This will result in a balanced budget immediately by cutting $277 billion off of the budget. How about letting someone like Ross Perot analyze the budget and cut the waste caused by excessive overhead? Then go from there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #71 October 25, 2006 There will be no more difficult task that laying off government employees. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
78RATS 0 #72 October 25, 2006 Quote How is it, my dear friends, that when he decided to do this commercial that he stayed off of his meds in order to magnify the effects of the disease, yet when he's got an acting job, he's as steady as he can possibly be. Sounds pretty phony to me. That is a douche bag statement. (not that you are a douche bag or anything). Rat for Life - Fly till I die When them stupid ass bitches ask why Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #73 October 25, 2006 QuoteThere will be no more difficult task that laying off government employees. I certainly will agree with that. It also points to the problem that we've created with our health care system. I believe that nearly 1/3 of our health care dollar goes to administration. Canada, on the other hand, spends about 2% for administration. Until we get a handle on the top heavy waste we're not going to fix anything. But how do you get administrators to cut back on administration? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #74 October 25, 2006 Well at least Limbaugh didn't call Fox a "pig" that would have been a poor way to conduct himself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #75 October 25, 2006 I love this. The only way you can go after someone like Limbaugh is to quote him out of context!! I will sit back and enjoy the show!!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
