Lucky...

I realize this is a set-up question, but I didn't say they never get attacked. I try not to use absolute languge as I'm not conservative. The best way to not get attacked is to not throw your hat in the ring. Or, don't give people a reason to attack you and spend less. Different approaches, I like mine best.

I didn't make a judgment on you, just assessed that you embrace social cuts and dread military cuts. I think that's fair. In the context that you would axe all of the social programs you could, but are reluctant to axe military programs. I don't care if you want to be theatric about this and take things out of context, it's kida moot that you would axe social programs and that you embrace military spending.

If class disparity were shrinking I would agree, but since it's rapidly growing I disagree. http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm I would agree with the taxes, I've read top 1% pays 33-40%. As for the total national wealth, all of the numbers I see the top 1% hold near 40%. This chart shows 34%. This graph from Univ Calif Santa Cruz states in 2004 top 1% owns 42% of financial wealth and 34% as a net worth. The bottom 80% own 7.5% of finacial wealth and 15% total net worth. Show me your data. Look here http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_4.gif look at the Reagan era, Clnton era and then GWB era and you'll see who is for the little guy. Then look at the disparity bewteen our top 10% and other countries. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html So let's see your citation.

You've living in a fucking dream world - MOVE to one of those countries and see how it really works. I kind of do, the wealth distribution here is about like Communism. There are plenty of Socialist nations that are leagues better than us.

I would say 'closet socialist'. Well sure, we're all just 1 disaster away from being a Socialist or wishing we were. I know plenty of hardcore Capitalists who denouce Socialism until they have a need, because, of course, they deserve it unlike all the other leaches. BTW, my dad is the worst as a closet Socialist. He's 74 and sucking it all down with a different tune.

That's logical, but it's also a logical fallacy IMO. If you look at the last 4 presidents, maybe more, there is a direct inverse relationship between outlays and taxes. So to think if everyone was self-sufficient then outlays would fall and taxes would follow hasn't happened since at least Reagan, perhaps back to Eisenhower. But I get what you're saying and you're right in regard to the perception of the rich, but it just hasn't panned out that as outlays fall, taxes fall as well, at least not for teh last 28 years.

That's possible, but I willtry to make the US more Socialist while I'm here. And there's 1 type of Socialism. Yes I know, that's why the purveyors of mass Capitalism have run the country 12T in debt, that individual liberty thing, not to mention mass executions as part of that liberty. Or should we say anti-Socialist; I like how you tap danced around that. Hey, liberty; don't I have teh right to to that if I wish? As for set up and liberty, you mean set up under slavery and oppression to women set up for liberty? That's what I thought. And that's a possibility. Yea, and look what they got. I love how you speak for all immigrants. Many move here just for the money to send home, period. Again, speaking for all immigrants. And again, many move here for the money, nothing else. Maybe, but what is that, 8 times you've said that? How is it this liberty if I am chided for trying to shape my country? And it's a good thing America isn't ethnocentrist. The USSR was probably laughing at senile Ronnie for thinking they were building their military when they were just trying to not implode. Then Fascist Ronnie was building teh Military Industrial COmplex to make his buddies rich and get a fuzzy feeling that he's actually doing good thing for the US. It was so sick and he took the debt from 900B to 5.5T before the following presidents could curb his mess. Countries morph, the US is about to undergo a change and I will do what I can to promote that change.

That's the understatement of the year, the top 20% hold 93% of the cash.

I lived under Communism, and my personal experience is that it is not at all. It only looks like everyone is equally miserable there - but still, someone has a (crappy) car, and someone does not; someone is a janitor and someone is an office manager. And so on. It depends how you define "fair". If you're contributing to the pot more than you take out, it's definitely not fair to you. But if you live off others, it's definitely considered very "fair" to you. I don't like the use of the word, "fair" which is why I put it in quotation marks. I guess we could say it's universally equitable but for the millionaires. It appears you're advocating the US system which is much like COmmunism in distribution of wealth, they are a lot alike. Again, fair is subjective, American rich whine that any taxes aren't fair, if they had it their way we would look like Tijuana with people on the brink of death living on the sidewalk begging.

In Communism everyone is - it's not like anyone gonna ask your permission. Remember, the government there decides everything for you. It's more user friendly for the average Joe - because it gives them everything taken from anyone who is above average. I'm not advocating Communism, altho I am under the impression and do believe that the comradery is much higher there. I think Socialism is the best, most universally "fair" system in the world.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2009-09-22-faces-uninsured_N.htm Self-employed History of heart disease puts coverage out of reach Patrick Bruce had a top job in corporate marketing and a big house in Windermere, Fla. His kids went to the finest schools. In 1992, he says, his family was "living the great American dream." Today, Bruce rents a 500-square-foot cottage near Charleston, S.C. He shops at garage sales and second-hand stores. And his health care comes from a free clinic for the poor. Bruce's fall began nearly 25 years ago, in 1985. After 15 years working for Disney, McDonald's and Red Lobster, Bruce decided to go into business for himself. He was covered through his wife's health insurance until 1993, when they divorced. Then he started paying for his own policy at $187 per month. By 2002 he says he was paying $400 a month. That's when he decided to drop his insurance coverage with plans to reinstate it in a few months' time when a friend said she'd be able to help him get a cheaper policy. Bruce was fit, had no health problems. What could happen? A massive heart attack in July. The fees for his triple bypass a bill he has never paid came to $71,000. Bruce, now 61, has been uninsured ever since. As a self-employed worker, he can't afford the $1,800 or so a month insurance companies have quoted him for someone with a history of heart disease. Instead, he pays $34 a month for a cholesterol-lowering drug and gets his blood pressure checked at the clinic. He watches his weight. But he gets no cancer screenings, no colonoscopies or prostate tests. If Congress doesn't pass a bill that helps make insurance affordable, he can enroll in Medicare at 65. "I'm not necessarily a big Obama fan," says Bruce, a self-described lifelong Republican until his heart attack. "But when he was talking (on Sept. 9 to Congress), it was like he was talking to me." _________________________________________________ Healthcare, if passed, could mean the end of the Republican Party. Once people get it, the 40 some million helped immediately, plus the others allowd to retire due to it, etc will be in such love with the new HC that anyone who runs under a platform of HC retraction will go the way of Ron Paul, and the distrust that people will have in any Republican promising not to retract / contract HC will make them unlikely to be elected. It would be interesting to be alive during a period of major political shift.

Communism is only different in terms that you won't even get smiles; everything else would be the same. I thought you were saying you guys are often organ donors, etc? Fundamentally, I think Socialism and Communism are far more user friendly.

Could be a sitcom. I don't do as conservatives do and measure the superficial actions to try to infer the greater feelings. England has always loved us, other than that little Revolutionary War thing, I don't think an arm grab by an unknowing gracious first lady is going to create strife. Other than american conservatives, people don't get hung up on superficial irregularities. Most people understand that outsiders are not aware of customs or in teh case of GHWB puking on the PM I believe it was, they understand things happen. Most people look for general feelings from others, general intent and attempts to kind and cordial versus some semantic splitting hairs over speech or behavior. If you reflect upon this you might understand why American conservatives are so unpopular right now.

African women have testcles and run fast; I saw it on TV.

Nope, more like the world's babysitter. I think they are fine and able by themselves. Most have excellent training programs and great technology. But they got to spend to be fine by themselves first. We spend, we were attacked. Sweeden doesn't spend much, they don't get attacked. It seems the common denominator for not getting attacked is to not start shit. You think spending a lot of money, then statrting shit is the best way to not get attacked.

Don't they come in pairs? It would be cool to have 4, I wonder if they can do that?

You know, splitting you apart for organs and tissue could save up to ten lives. Isn't it also greater good for society - exchanging one life to ten, and how'd you feel about it? You won't get many Americans to understand the comradery that Socialism / Communism brings. Our society is based upon, Hi, nice to meet you (smile), let me stab you in the back as soon as you turn around (with a smile). Capitalism is the best monetary / market system around if kept in line, which it usually isn't, but it's the worst social system and is highly asocial to antisocial.

What you've done is denounced Utilitarianism, saying the good of teh individual outweighs that of the whole. Utilitarianism is found in Communism, wher ethe good of the whole is paramount. And of course you also support capital punnishment, which is Utilitarian, as there are errors and the good of those individuals don't outweigh the good of the whole. So that is where people are selectively Utilitarian. To be decided by a judge working for the government. You lose a lot of rights after you die.

I disagree, but I don't have any supporting data with that, I would love to see some. Maybe. Or stole it. Inherited, etc. So you're saying they USED to be wealthy until Uncle Lawrocket helped them off of it? (JK)

If you watched Pirates of the Silicon Valley they depicted Gates and Allen basically stealing the Op Sys from that guy and breaking IBM's balls to use the software while keeping the ownership of it. Remember, Gates' family was rich before he endeavored that deal, so he was already made. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates Not sure of that's sarcasm, but we do need a fairly large inheritance tax.

I think the troops are the tops; you keep trying to infer I have an issue with the people when I was a GI. I get their strife, I just don't get the overblowing of the military and the subsequent misuse. Most of all, there is no need. I say let attrition bring teh numbers down, don't try yo boot people out. Now you're talking my language on many levels with, "Fuck Boeing." But yes, cut military projects. Nope, you wrote: Again... I'm NOT saying that it shouldn't be cut. Just how and where. Those details are the the problems. It's easy to say "let's save money" - but you have to realize that there are intended and unintended consequences to that decision. I just see hesitancy here. As Billvon has said a few times, everyone wants cuts, not just in their favorite areas. If social spending were being proposed for a cut you would be an axe weilding maniac cutting everything. Now that it's teh military we need to take years and be very sparing with our cuts.

Definitely stage the reduction, as GHWB and CLintion did. Even GWB closed some bases and realligned. It's time to put Reagan's military model to bed.

Other counties could be ok w/o us on their soil. Who wouldn't be? I think you think the US is teh world's savior. I think European countries are just fine and able by themselves.

I don't see a lot of realistic vigor on your part to cut the military. Kinda like the people saying single payer is bad, but something has to be done, so let's just wait. I read you as saying you want to maintain the military. Cutting bases, cutting troops via attrition w/o replacement, cutting contracts for killing machines.

If you watched Pirates of the Silicon Valley they depicted Gates and Allen basically stealing the Op Sys from that guy and breaking IBM's balls to use the software while keeping the ownership of it. Remember, Gates' family was rich before he endeavored that deal, so he was already made. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates