Lucky...

Have they? I didn't hear. Yea, under the guise of "Nukular" arms. Of course we'd be there if Bush were still in office. OPEC has been threatening for a while, as the US Dollar has been so unstable. Thx Reagan for fucking up our dollar so you proliferate your Military Industrial COmplex - asshole. Eisenhower was right.

Well, if you're out of a reasonable reply, just go to homophobia.

No, they blame the poor for supposedly being the drag for all taxes.

I dunno, expound.

If you are the grammar police, we are in twouble! As for your point, I think you should definitely limit your attempts at thievery to your own country. - I'm not teh grammar police, just responding to Rush, who played grammar police on me. When Rush gets stuck, he turns to grammar, not me, I want people to adddress my data and other points. - Have you not figured out that I'm an AMerican here in America and that the Zimbabwe thing was for fun? No wonder you're conservative, you believe everything you read.

Why do you always seem so happy that taxes will be going up? You like sending your check to the Govt? You always seem to smile when more taxes get mentioned. Why is that? You forget - taxes are for those evil people that have the audacity to work for a living. Those selfish bastards! Yea, go act like your little 1700 you pay every year even matters. You're probably in the group that pays 4% of all taxes, if not, slightly above.

I don't think so, I will keep you informed if I ever make it. I can read your angry, data-dodging rhetoric and you can view my pictures of happiness.

Why do you always seem so happy that taxes will be going up? You like sending your check to the Govt? You always seem to smile when more taxes get mentioned. Why is that? Why do you never address my data, or none of your cohorts? 2 reasons: 1) You don't get taxed. If you think your little BS that gets sent in matters, you're delluded. The bottom 50% of all taxpayers pays

That's hillarious. HINT: countries that aren't opressive, imperialistic assholes don't have to defend themselves against anyone. http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi/results/rankings/2009/ New Zealand is #1 and Canda #8 most peaceful countries in teh world, that IS my point. Hmmmm,where;s teh US? Oh yea, 83 this year with Obama, up from 97 under Bush last year. Figure it out. Yea, think of it, don't fuck with people, don't need a massive military, what a savings. It all makes sense to me. Combine and go down the toilet. Just ask all teh foreign countries that have lost billions with this last mess. Oh, is AL Quaeda attacking Wall Street now? Right, we outsource it so our people starve so the few Americans can be filthy rich and then deny HC to those same working stiffs from whom they outsourced work. The reason we're agreat market is due to use being a nation based upon consuption. New Zealand doesn't give a shit about the US economy. Their main economy is tourism because it's such a paradise.

No shit. That's the objective of the rich; get enough poor Americans to vote for their platform. It's bizzare all the underclass running around blathering about how great the rich are. The top 20% hold 93% of all cash in the US and 85% of all assets and cash. That's like rooting for the foe to your favorite football (rugby) team. This is why I say that as soon as the HC plan passes and millions of formerly uninsured come out of the woodwoork to vote, this could be a MAJOR political shift in the US.

The Zimbabwe thing is just a joke. I'm an American considering leaving. Obama is a help, will it be enough? How long are u here for? Are you naturalizing or just doing a work visa?

In law and in many other areas not related to the love of Jebus and other silly conservative processes, we define our terms to measure them. So the definition is: a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering. So now we know what compassion is, let's measure it, as in quantify it in different situations. YOURS: What a person gives of their own free will MINE: I guess compassion doesn't measure where the money comes from, just where it goes. Compassion is the hope, the desire to help regardless of ability or origin, but just the destiny of the aid. With yours the compassion is voluntary, sporadic, could be exclusive, and could be discriminatory. With mine it is guaranteed, constant, available, and universal. My words go as far as not mattering where the money comes from, the rest is yours. As for take it from others, once again your words, there is no correlation between taxation and outlays, so it isn't taken from others, you just use that as rationale to deny people, what your motive really is. Your example is not as mine is, yours relies on donation, mine is gov mandated. It has to do with duty to your country and your fellow citizens versus the world. Once you get your affairs in order then you can help other nations. I just find a divide between nations when it comes to mandatory aid, I think it's great when global aid is voluntary. You would object to mandatory aid to foreign countries so I know you are being both hypothetical and abstract. Unless you subscribe to thievery of an entire different nation, but again, I don't think you subscribe to that so you are being hypothetical and abstract again. No dude. I has to do with you bastardize the definition of duty. And, YOUR dedinition of what is right. You are worse than those you condem sir A more intelligent and complete response would be for you to then explain how I allegedly bastardize, "duty." You need to describe what I define duty as, then explain how that is incorrect and what the correct version is. Hey, Mr Conspiracy, I dont have to define anythiing. YOU have already done it. And it does not fit in Websters "...I don't have to..." TRANSLATION: I just can't, I just wrote that w/o thinking. How does it feel to marginalized? And you did it to yourself How does that marginalize me? And check your grammar windows before you criticize me.

Agree all the way with ur whole post. This point here describes sociopathy, which, IMO is what the Republican Party and conservatism in general.

Which poor people? The one's in my family, my neighborhood, my nation, my continent, my world? You have drawn a line, as to the nation, but the truth is, you really don't have a heart of compassion, but one of vengence.... You want those people, who, somehow, have gained more than you, in life, to suffer, for being successful, and the only way that you can do it, is to have the govt. steal it, at the point of a gun. \ The ones we have a duty to. Funny how the conservatives wave their flag ferociously about god and country, then they include the world when it's convenient. No, I want to mandate evryone have a resonable baseline, you want American poor to beg for little. And when I say poor, I'm talling struggling young families and others that in your world wouldn't be despicable. You want a classist society.

In law and in many other areas not related to the love of Jebus and other silly conservative processes, we define our terms to measure them. So the definition is: a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering. So now we know what compassion is, let's measure it, as in quantify it in different situations. YOURS: What a person gives of their own free will MINE: I guess compassion doesn't measure where the money comes from, just where it goes. Compassion is the hope, the desire to help regardless of ability or origin, but just the destiny of the aid. With yours the compassion is voluntary, sporadic, could be exclusive, and could be discriminatory. With mine it is guaranteed, constant, available, and universal. My words go as far as not mattering where the money comes from, the rest is yours. As for take it from others, once again your words, there is no correlation between taxation and outlays, so it isn't taken from others, you just use that as rationale to deny people, what your motive really is. Your example is not as mine is, yours relies on donation, mine is gov mandated. It has to do with duty to your country and your fellow citizens versus the world. Once you get your affairs in order then you can help other nations. I just find a divide between nations when it comes to mandatory aid, I think it's great when global aid is voluntary. You would object to mandatory aid to foreign countries so I know you are being both hypothetical and abstract. Unless you subscribe to thievery of an entire different nation, but again, I don't think you subscribe to that so you are being hypothetical and abstract again. No dude. I has to do with you bastardize the definition of duty. And, YOUR dedinition of what is right. You are worse than those you condem sir A more intelligent and complete response would be for you to then explain how I allegedly bastardize, "duty." You need to describe what I define duty as, then explain how that is incorrect and what the correct version is. Hey, Mr Conspiracy, I dont have to define anythiing. YOU have already done it. And it does not fit in Websters "...I don't have to..." TRANSLATION: I just can't, I just wrote that w/o thinking.

It was set to move quickly or slowly but let's be real, it's been going since he came into office and not much has been done even with his prodding, so let's be real, it has moved along slowly. Here's an example of slow-moving major legislation: NAFTA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement In the U.S., Bush, who had worked to "fast track" the signing prior to the end of his term, ran out of time and had to pass the required ratification and signing into law to incoming president Bill Clinton. It took just under a year from the meeting with GHWB to the signing into law. That was a multinational law, so if this HC takes a year, good. And many of us did not it when Bush did it either. Same as when he pushed the bail out part 1. Difference is you would support Obama and his admin and agenda regardless. I for one, did not support any of the Bush admins spending or added programs here. He still was right going into Iraq however. >>>>>>>>>>And many of us did not it when Bush did it either. Same as when he pushed the bail out part 1. I think you're confusing Bush's. NAFTA was elder Bush - GHWB, and the Bailout was GWB. Like it or not, my point was that our legislative processes works in a very malliable way; sometimes fast, sometimes slowly - that was the point I was responding to. >>>>>>>>>>Difference is you would support Obama and his admin and agenda regardless. Why make foolish and erroneous assumptions? I diliked the cash 4 clunkers on many levels. I disliked a few things CLinton has done. All in all, the Dems RIGHT NOW are for the people and R's represent the rich - hard to argue. >>>>>>>>>>I for one, did not support any of the Bush admins spending or added programs here. Which programs did you dislike? List them. >>>>>>>>>He still was right going into Iraq however. Yea, flawed, cherry-picked evidence, spent 1 trillion to date and 4300+ heroes and 1300+ civilians. For what? You're in the stark minority there. Resistance is huge with no sign of winning. It will be another Viet Nam whenever we leave. Obama will get us HC, get us out of the ME, raise taxes on the rich who have had a field day for most of the last 28 years. Times, they are a gettin better. Oh, and check for your broken grammar windows before you start throwing rocks.

I'll believe it when I see it. I often find that when people "want" to do something they have the ability to do and still don't do it, the reason is because they like the idea more than the act itself. "Skydiving? I've always wanted to do that...." Nah, HC is a touchy issue, Clinton couldn't even get the then Democratic Congress to send him a bill, Obama is driving this issue and tending to the recession, then after HC gets passed you will see the righties cry like bitches when Bush's 2010 tax cut expires and more taxes get piled on. I think he will pull out of the ME fast, which is why I hope HC passes, so we can save lives of our heroes and save money, in that order.

This explains volumes. Paranoia transitioning into dellusion. Paranioa?? Where the hell did that come from You just have so much time to miss-spell everything here you must not have a job Paranioa YOU are funny It's paranoid to think the liberal conspiracy is outthere paying people post on forums. You are a conspiracy? But if you hear of a job where I can post on internet forums and get paid, LMK. Until then, go outside and wave off the helicopters.

In law and in many other areas not related to the love of Jebus and other silly conservative processes, we define our terms to measure them. So the definition is: a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering. So now we know what compassion is, let's measure it, as in quantify it in different situations. YOURS: What a person gives of their own free will MINE: I guess compassion doesn't measure where the money comes from, just where it goes. Compassion is the hope, the desire to help regardless of ability or origin, but just the destiny of the aid. With yours the compassion is voluntary, sporadic, could be exclusive, and could be discriminatory. With mine it is guaranteed, constant, available, and universal. My words go as far as not mattering where the money comes from, the rest is yours. As for take it from others, once again your words, there is no correlation between taxation and outlays, so it isn't taken from others, you just use that as rationale to deny people, what your motive really is. Your example is not as mine is, yours relies on donation, mine is gov mandated. It has to do with duty to your country and your fellow citizens versus the world. Once you get your affairs in order then you can help other nations. I just find a divide between nations when it comes to mandatory aid, I think it's great when global aid is voluntary. You would object to mandatory aid to foreign countries so I know you are being both hypothetical and abstract. Unless you subscribe to thievery of an entire different nation, but again, I don't think you subscribe to that so you are being hypothetical and abstract again. No dude. I has to do with you bastardize the definition of duty. And, YOUR dedinition of what is right. You are worse than those you condem sir A more intelligent and complete response would be for you to then explain how I allegedly bastardize, "duty." You need to describe what I define duty as, then explain how that is incorrect and what the correct version is.

This explains volumes. Paranoia transitioning into dellusion. Paranioa?? Where the hell did that come from You just have so much time to miss-spell everything here you must not have a job Paranioa YOU are funny It's paranoid to think the liberal conspiracy is out there paying people post on forums. Not to mention your stark desperation to make a point, but cannot substantively, so you defer to grammar.

No, I was thinking more of data like this that you ran from and didn't address: JUSTIN: Given that we're 12,000,000,000,000 in the hole, I'd say it's a fair assumption. LUCKY: Reagan and GWB are responsible for that in the way of tax cuts and military spending. GWHB and Clinton raised taxes and sharply cut the military which is how we got into the 12T debt we are. Under Clinton that mess was terminated, which was setup by GHWB's tax increases and spending cuts. Can you really argue that? It was conservatives who ran that up, now that Dems are fixing it AGAIN we're the devil for wanting to provide HC. ____________________________________ LUCKY...: Explain how Canada is beating our dollar, has been since GWB, yet they afford uni-care. JUSTIN: Well, the fed is printing money like it's going out of style, and they have politicians that can think of something other than spending more money - it appears that all of out politicians try to spend their way out of everything. LUCKY...: As Clinton took office it took $1.28 Canadian to buy $1 US. As he left it was $1.55 Canadian to buy $1 US. Under GWB the US Dollar fell below the Candian dollar a year before he left, then when the market crashed people pulled out and stuck it in bonds which gave him a little bump to $1.20ish. Still, even with the bump, under Clinton with tax increases the US Dollar gained considerable value, so once again your point is your personal rhetoric rather than fact. So, that is data, I can provide a link if you think it's flawed. How is HC the real killer if nations with uni-care are able to beat our dollar? Just answer it and quit misdirecting. Oh, they don't pipe off billions to Halliburton? I see. ________________________________ LUCKY...: You don't say, which explains why you skirted the question of how Republicans/Conservatives are compassionate to needy people. JUSTIN: Tell me, how is giving someone other peoples' money compassionate? How is enabling welfare dependency compassionate? LUCKY...: THERE IS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN TAX OUTLAYS AND TAX REVENUE OTHER THAN AN INDIRECT JUNCTION AT THE DEBT / DEFICIT, and that is very indirect. How is it compassion overboosting a military that is not needed at its level and spends 8 times that of the #2 spender while there are homeless and other issues? See, you just can't bring yourself to say, 'FUCK THE POOR' BUT WE KNOW THAT'S WHAT YOU MEAN. So how is there a connection. draw the map from your pocket to the welfare office. Establish how taxation rates and outlays arre mutually considered in fact. In rhetoric they are, but they are not factored simultaneously other than with bond measures. The caviat to that might be the HCV Bill maight have a provision for CEO's to tax their massive HC as a luxury, but for you and me...naddda. _________________________________________ Unwilling to work vs unable.... make that more clear.

You're posturing to make a point you don't agree with. You wouldn't have 1 dime MANDATORILY allocated to another country for welfare, but you;re arguing that you would as an attempt to debunk my point. I feel a MUCH greater loyalty to my country before others, as do you, you just feel no compassion to poor people anywhere. And this refutes any notion that you're not posturing. We get it; fuck poor people.

I recognize the fact that it would cost hundreds, if not thousands, to process my little .60 worth of taxes, so, being the generous conservative, that I am, I simply redistributed it, as I saw fit.... The govt. owes me a commission, due to saving them all of that money, on bureaucratic processing. And if you don't feel like it then the poor families go without. That defines conservative compassion.

In law and in many other areas not related to the love of Jebus and other silly conservative processes, we define our terms to measure them. So the definition is: a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering. So now we know what compassion is, let's measure it, as in quantify it in different situations. YOURS: What a person gives of their own free will MINE: I guess compassion doesn't measure where the money comes from, just where it goes. Compassion is the hope, the desire to help regardless of ability or origin, but just the destiny of the aid. With yours the compassion is voluntary, sporadic, could be exclusive, and could be discriminatory. With mine it is guaranteed, constant, available, and universal. My words go as far as not mattering where the money comes from, the rest is yours. As for take it from others, once again your words, there is no correlation between taxation and outlays, so it isn't taken from others, you just use that as rationale to deny people, what your motive really is. Your example is not as mine is, yours relies on donation, mine is gov mandated. It has to do with duty to your country and your fellow citizens versus the world. Once you get your affairs in order then you can help other nations. I just find a divide between nations when it comes to mandatory aid, I think it's great when global aid is voluntary. You would object to mandatory aid to foreign countries so I know you are being both hypothetical and abstract. Unless you subscribe to thievery of an entire different nation, but again, I don't think you subscribe to that so you are being hypothetical and abstract again.

The left sure jumped onto Nobel prize winning, Al Gore's data, as the end all, to the global warming hoax. Show me what you're talking about that most of the reputable science community is against the notion of global warming. Then show me where they feel that burning of so-called fossil fuels isn't destroying the ecology.